United States 

Department of 

Agriculture 

Forest 

Service 

April 2005 

Final Environmental 

Impact Statement 

Special Use Permits for Commercial 

Operations on the Lower Rogue and Lower 

Illinois Rivers 

Gold Beach Ranger District 

Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest 

Curry County, Oregon 
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its 

programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, 

age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all 

prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require 

alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, 

audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice 

and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil 

Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, 

Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an 

equal opportunity provider and employer. 
United States

Department of 

Agriculture

Forest Rogue RiverService Siskiyou 

 National Forest

 Chetco Ranger District

539 Chetco Avenue 

Brookings, OR 97415

Gold Beach Ranger District 

29279 Ellensburg 

Gold Beach, OR 97444

File Code: 1950-3 

Date: April 11, 2005 

Dear Participant 

 

Enclosed you will find your copy of the Special Use Permits for Outfitter and Guide Operations 

on the Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Rivers Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). This 

final EIS will also be published on the Rogue River and Siskiyou National Forests’ Web site. 

Comments received during public scoping and in response to the draft EIS were considered in 

identifying and addressing issues during the development of alternatives and analysis of the 

effects to the environmental setting this project encompasses. There were four alternatives 

proposed in the draft EIS, including the no action alternative. I have developed and analyzed 

two additional alternatives from comments received on the draft EIS. 

Typically, a Record of Decision (ROD) accompanies a final FEIS at the time of publishing. It is 

the ROD that is the legal decision document authorizing actions to be taken. At this time a 

decision has not been made. Consultations with other Federal agencies need to be completed 

before issuance of the ROD. A copy of the ROD will be mailed to you upon its issuance. 

Thank you for your participation in the Special Use Permits for Outfitter and Guide Operations 

on the Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Rivers Environmental Impact Statement. Your input on 

this proposal has been important to us. Your involvement and commitment to a better future for 

our forest and community is highly valued. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ John Borton 

 

JOHN T. BORTON 

District Ranger 

 

 Caring for the Land and Serving People Printed on Recycled Paper 
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

Special Use Permits for Outfitter and Guide Operations 

on the Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Rivers 

Gold Beach Ranger District 

Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest 

Curry County, Oregon 

April 2005

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service 

Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest 

Responsible Official: John Borton, District Ranger 

Gold Beach Ranger District 

For Information Contact: John Borton, District Ranger, or 

Jerry Darbyshire, Project Leader 

29279 Ellensburg 

Gold Beach, OR 97444 

(541) 247-3640 

Abstract:

The Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest has prepared a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) to: 

(a) disclose the environmental effects of commercial outfitter/guide services consisting of scenic boat tours, 

guided fishing, and other commercial activities on the lower Rogue and lower Illinois Rivers for the next five 

years; (b) disclose the environmental effects of private lodge boat docks in the Rogue Wild Section; and (c) 

analyze the environmental effects of periodic channel maintenance needed for motorboat navigation of the 

lower Rogue River during low water flows. 

There is a need to respond to existing outfitter/guide permit holders that want to continue their commercial 

operations by issuing new special use permits for those that expired December 31, 2004 and those that will 

expire April 30, 2006. There is also a need to respond to the owners of Paradise, Half Moon Bar, and Clay 

Hill Lodges in the lower Rogue River Wild Section who want to be issued special use permits for boat 

docks at their properties. 

The purpose of this action is to continue providing commercial recreational activities on the lower Rogue 

and lower Illinois Rivers through existing outfitter/guides as outlined by Forest Service policy. The purpose 

for docks is to safely load and unload lodge supplies as well as lodge clients and their belongings that 

arrive by commercial boat. 

The basis for the Proposed Action is contained in Federal Law, Forest Service Policy Directives, and the 

Siskiyou National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA Forest Service 1989a) as amended 

by the Northwest Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management 1994). 

The Curry County, Oregon project area includes the Rogue River from the western National Forest 

boundary at Lobster Creek upstream to the pool below Blossom Bar Rapids (River Miles 10.8 to 48.4, or 

37.6 miles) and the Illinois River from its confluence with the Rogue River upriver to Nancy Creek (River 

Miles 0 to 3.8, or 3.8 miles). The Rogue River was designated Wild and Scenic in 1968 and the Illinois 

River was designated Wild and Scenic in 1984. 
Motorized guided fishing and scenic trips began on the Rogue River in the late 1920s/early 1930s. The 

number of guides and trips increased after World War II. The invention of jet boats in 1958 allowed 

motorized river navigation during low summer flows. These activities have become established in the 

project area and thousands of people participate in them each year. 

Three significant issues have been identified: 

Wildlife and Fish Habitat - Commercial motorboats under special use permit can adversely 

affect animals and their habitat. 

User Conflicts - If the special use permits are issued, the recreational experience of some 

floaters will be degraded by commercial motorboats in the Wild Section. Motorboat wakes and 

noise and odor generated by motors adversely affect floaters. 

Economic Impacts - Any decision that reduces permitted use below current use may have 

economic impacts that should be considered in the decision. 

In response to these issues, six alternatives were developed, including No Action and the Proposed Action. 

Alternative 1 - No Action: No permits would be issued. 

Alternative 2 - Proposed Action: Issue 63 permits under the same terms and conditions as the 2000-2004 

permits. Authorize docks at three lodges in the lower Rogue Wild Section. 

Alternative 3 – From April 1 to October 31, limit commercial motorboat use in the lower Rogue Wild 

Section to Tuesday through Saturday. Authorize docks at three lodges in the lower Rogue 

Wild Section. 

Alternative 4 – Limit permitted commercial motorboat use in the lower Rogue Wild Section to the average 

of the highest two years from 2000-2004. Permittees may request up to 25% more Wild 

Section use on an annual basis, subject to approval on a case-by-case basis. Authorize 

the two existing docks at lodges in the lower Rogue Wild Section. 

Alternative 5 - Permitted tour boat and lodge boat use on all lower Rogue River sections would be limited 

to the average of the highest two years from 2000-2004. Additional use may be requested 

annually by the permit holder and granted by the District Ranger on a case-by-case basis, 

not exceeding 25% of the permitted use. All other use (fishing guides, livery service, boat 

training trips, scenic trips, raft trips and docks) would be the same as the Proposed Action. 

Alternative 6 - Same as Alternative 2, but permitted tour boat and lodge boat use would be limited to the 

average of the two lowest years from 2000-2004 and Illinois fishing guides would be 

limited to 30 trips per year for each permit. 

The Responsible Official for this project is the Gold Beach District Ranger. Based on the effects of the 

Proposed Action and its alternatives documented in the Final EIS, the Responsible Official will either decide 

to implement the Proposed Action, one alternative, parts of the alternatives, or combinations of the 

alternatives. 
READER’S GUIDE 

The Forest Service has prepared this Final Environmental Impact Statement in compliance with 

the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and State laws and 

regulations. This Final Environmental Impact Statement discloses the direct, indirect, and 

cumulative environmental impacts that would result from the Proposed Action and alternatives. 

The document is organized into six sections, including an appendix: 

• Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action: The chapter includes background information on 

project proposal history, the Purpose of and Need for the project, and the agency’s proposal 

for achieving that Purpose and Need. This section also details how the Forest Service 

informed the public of the proposal, and issues or concerns raised by the public. 

• Chapter 2. Alternatives, including the Proposed Action: This chapter gives a more detailed 

description of the agency’s Proposed Action and alternatives for achieving the stated 

purpose. These alternatives were developed based on issues identified by the public and the 

agency. This discussion also includes mitigation measures and a monitoring plan. Finally, 

this section has summary tables of environmental consequences and issues for each 

alternative. 

• Chapter 3. Affected Environment: This chapter describes the physical, biological, and 

socioeconomic characteristics of National Forest System lands as they exist in the project 

area. Resources that could be affected are emphasized.

• Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences: This chapter describes the environmental 

consequences (effects) of implementing the Proposed Action and other Alternatives 

described in Chapter 2. This chapter organized by affected resource area (similar to Chapter 

3) and effects are described by alternative. Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects are all 

considered to the extent identifiable in each analysis. 

• Chapter 5. Consultation and Coordination: This chapter has a list of preparers and 

agencies consulted during the development of the environmental impact statement. 

• Index: The index gives references to page numbers by topic. 

• Appendices: The appendices include a listing of references used for the analysis (Appendix 

A), further discussion of the Section 7 Analysis for the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act 

(Appendix B), and more detailed information to support the analyses in the environmental 

impact statement. Appendix C displays outfitter and guide use, Appendix D is the response 

to public comments received on the Draft EIS, Appendix E contains sample permits that 

include permit terms and conditions, Appendix F is the Fish Biological Evaluation, Appendix 

G is the wildlife Biological Evaluation, Appendix H is the botanical Biological Evaluation, 

and Appendix I is detailed information on air quality analysis.
Frequently Used Acronyms 

ACOE Army Corps of Engineers 

avg average 

BE Biological Evaluation 

BLM Bureau of Land Management 

BP before present 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

cfs cubic feet per second 

dbh diameter at breast height 

DEIS Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

DPS Distinct Population Segment 

DSL (Oregon) Department of State Lands 

EFH Essential Fish Habitat 

EIS Environmental Impact Statement 

ESA Endangered Species Act 

ESU Evolutionarily Significant Unit 

FAUNA National Wildlife Observations Database 

FEIS Final Environmental Impact Statement 

FOIA Freedom of Information Act 

FSEIS Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement 

FSH Forest Service Handbook 

FSM Forest Service Manual 

LAA Likely to Adversely Affect 

LMRP-Guides Lower Medford Recreation Permit Guides 

LRMP Siskiyou National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

MA Management Area 

MIIH May Impact Individuals or Habitat 

MIS Management Indicator Species 

n sample size 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NFS National Forest System 

NLAA Not Likely to Adversely Affect 

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service (now referred to as NOAA Fisheries) 

NOA Notice of Availability 

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

NOI Notice of Intent 

ODFW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 

ORV Outstandingly Remarkable Value 

OSMB Oregon State Marine Board 

PL Phytophthora lateralis

POC Port-Orford-cedar 

r range 

R-Guides (Lower) Rogue Guides 

RM River Mile 

RMP River Management Plan 

ROD Record of Decision 

sd standard deviation 

USDA United States Department of Agriculture 

USDI United States Department of Interior 

USFS United States Forest Service 

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

WILDOBS Siskiyou Wildlife Observation Database 

WPT Western Pond Turtle

WRD (Oregon) Water Resources Department 

WSRA Wild and Scenic Rivers Act 
i 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

Special Use Permits for Outfitter and Guide Operations 

on the Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Rivers 

Table of Contents 

CHAPTER 1. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION ............................................ 1

Project Area ...................................................................................................................... 1

Background ...................................................................................................................... 1

Management Direction .................................................................................................... 5

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA) .............................................................................. 5 

Rogue National Wild and Scenic River Oregon: Rogue RMP ............................................ 7 

Endangered American Wilderness Act .............................................................................. 8 

Illinois Wild and Scenic River Management Plan (Illinois RMP) ......................................... 8 

Siskiyou National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan ...................................... 8 

Other Management Direction ............................................................................................. 10 

Other Federal Statutes ....................................................................................................... 10 

Special Uses Management .............................................................................................. 10

Purpose and Need for Action ......................................................................................... 12

Proposed Action .............................................................................................................. 12

Public Involvement .......................................................................................................... 12

Decision Framework ........................................................................................................ 13

Issues ................................................................................................................................ 13

CHAPTER 2. ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION ........... 15

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated ........................................................................ 15

Re-Establish 1968 Use Levels in the Wild Section ............................................................ 15 

Alternatives Considered in Detail ................................................................................... 16

Alternative 1 - No Action .................................................................................................... 16 

Alternative 2 - Proposed Action ......................................................................................... 16 

Alternative 3 ....................................................................................................................... 17 

Alternative 4 ....................................................................................................................... 18 

Alternative 5 - Preferred Alternative ................................................................................... 20 

Alternative 6 ....................................................................................................................... 21 

Maximum Boat Trip Limits - All Action Alternatives ........................................................... 22 

Comparison of Alternatives ............................................................................................ 23

Mitigation Measures Common to All Action Alternatives ............................................ 24

Monitoring ........................................................................................................................ 24

CHAPTER 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT .............................................................. 27

Physical Setting ............................................................................................................... 27

Geology - Rogue River ...................................................................................................... 27 

Geology - Illinois River ....................................................................................................... 29 

River Outstandingly Remarkable Values (WSRA) ............................................................. 29 

Water Resources .............................................................................................................. 30

River Morphology ............................................................................................................... 30 

Water Quantity ................................................................................................................... 30 

Water Quality ..................................................................................................................... 32 

Channel Maintenance ........................................................................................................ 33 
ii 

Fisheries ........................................................................................................................... 36

Fish Habitat ........................................................................................................................ 37 

Coho Salmon ..................................................................................................................... 38 

Fall Chinook ....................................................................................................................... 38 

Winter Steelhead ............................................................................................................... 39 

Summer Steelhead ............................................................................................................ 39 

Trout and Sturgeon ............................................................................................................ 39 

Wildlife .............................................................................................................................. 40

Rogue River ....................................................................................................................... 40 

Illinois River ........................................................................................................................ 41 

Species of Concern ............................................................................................................ 41 

Proposed, Endangered, or Threatened Species ................................................................ 41 

Forest Service Region 6 Sensitive Species ....................................................................... 43 

Management Indicator Species ......................................................................................... 48 

Protection Buffer Species .................................................................................................. 48 

Neo-Tropical Migrant Birds ................................................................................................ 48 

Botanical Resources ....................................................................................................... 49

Disturbance-Related Habitats ............................................................................................ 49 

Plant Species of Concern .................................................................................................. 50 

Sensitive Species ............................................................................................................... 51 

Other Species of Concern .................................................................................................. 51 

Noxious Weeds .................................................................................................................. 52 

Port-Orford-Cedar ............................................................................................................ 53 

Fire .................................................................................................................................... 53

Air Quality ......................................................................................................................... 54

Cultural Resources .......................................................................................................... 55

Prehistory ........................................................................................................................... 55 

History ................................................................................................................................ 56 

Recreation ........................................................................................................................ 58

Rogue River Recreation ..................................................................................................... 59 

Illinois River Recreation ..................................................................................................... 63 

Campgrounds and Trails .................................................................................................... 63 

Current Permitted Use ....................................................................................................... 64 

Wilderness ........................................................................................................................ 66

Socio-Economic Conditions ............................................................................................... 67 

Commercial Tour Boats ..................................................................................................... 67 

Commercial Transport of Lodge Guests ............................................................................ 69 

Fishing Guides ................................................................................................................... 71 

Local Economic Activity ..................................................................................................... 73 

CHAPTER 4. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ............................................. 75

Effects on Water Resources ........................................................................................... 75 

Alternative 1 – No Action ................................................................................................... 75 

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action ......................................................................................... 76 

Alternatives 3, 4, 5, 6 ......................................................................................................... 77 

Docks ................................................................................................................................. 78 

Channel Maintenance ........................................................................................................ 78 

Effects on Fisheries ......................................................................................................... 79 

Alternative 1 ....................................................................................................................... 79 

Alternative 2 ....................................................................................................................... 80 

Alternatives 3, 4, and 6 ...................................................................................................... 82 

Alternative 5 ....................................................................................................................... 82 

Channel Maintenance ........................................................................................................ 83
iii 

Effects on Wildlife ............................................................................................................ 84

Alternative 1 ....................................................................................................................... 84 

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives - Habitat Effects .............................................. 84 

Effects on Species of Concern ........................................................................................... 85 

Endangered and Threatened Species ............................................................................... 85 

Forest Service Sensitive Species ...................................................................................... 88 

Protection Buffer Species ................................................................................................... 91 

Management Indicator Species ......................................................................................... 91 

Neo-Tropical Migrant Birds ................................................................................................ 93 

Channel Maintenance ........................................................................................................ 93 

Effects on Botanical Resources ..................................................................................... 94

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives ......................................................................... 94 

Sensitive Plants ................................................................................................................. 94 

Noxious Weeds .................................................................................................................. 94 

Channel Maintenance ........................................................................................................ 95 

Effects on Port-Orford-Cedar .......................................................................................... 95

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives ......................................................................... 96 

Channel Maintenance ........................................................................................................ 96 

Effects on Fire .................................................................................................................. 97

Effects on Air Quality ...................................................................................................... 98

Effects on Cultural Resources ........................................................................................ 99

Effects on Recreation ...................................................................................................... 100

Alternative 1 ....................................................................................................................... 100 

Alternative 2 ....................................................................................................................... 102 

Alternative 3 ....................................................................................................................... 103 

Alternative 4 ....................................................................................................................... 104 

Alternative 5 ....................................................................................................................... 105 

Alternative 6 ....................................................................................................................... 105 

Channel Maintenance ........................................................................................................ 106 

Effects on Wild and Scenic Rivers ................................................................................. 106

Effects on Outstandingly Remarkable Values - Rogue River ............................................ 107 

Effects From Channel Maintenance ................................................................................... 107 

Effects on Outstandingly Remarkable Values - Illinois River ............................................. 107 

Effects on Recreation Outstandingly Remarkable Values ................................................. 107 

Effects on Wilderness ..................................................................................................... 108

Alternative 1 ....................................................................................................................... 108 

Alternatives 2 and 6 ........................................................................................................... 109 

Alternative 3 ....................................................................................................................... 109 

Alternatives 4 and 5 ........................................................................................................... 109 

Channel Maintenance ........................................................................................................ 110 

Effects on Socio-Economic Conditions ......................................................................... 110

Methods and Assumptions ................................................................................................. 110 

Alternative 1 ....................................................................................................................... 111 

Alternative 2 ....................................................................................................................... 112 

Alternative 3 ....................................................................................................................... 112 

Alternative 4 ....................................................................................................................... 113 

Alternative 5 ....................................................................................................................... 113 

Channel Maintenance ........................................................................................................ 114 

Aquatic Conservation Strategy Effects ......................................................................... 114

Riparian Reserves ACS Component ................................................................................. 114 

Key Watersheds, Watershed Analysis, and Watershed Restoration ACS Components ... 115 

Summary of Cumulative Effects ..................................................................................... 115 

Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity ............................................................... 117 
iv 

Unavoidable Adverse Effects ......................................................................................... 118

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources .......................................... 119 

Environmental Justice ..................................................................................................... 119

Other Potential Effects .................................................................................................... 120

Effect on Prime Farmland, Rangeland, and Forestland ..................................................... 120 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum ...................................................................................... 120 

Wetlands and Floodplains .................................................................................................. 120 

Threatened and Endangered Species ............................................................................... 120 

Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................ 120 

APPENDICES 

Appendix A: References 

Appendix B: Wild and Scenic River Section 7 Report 

Appendix C: Outfitter Guide Use 

Appendix D: Response to Comments 

Appendix E: Sample Permits 

Appendix F: Fisheries Biological Evaluation 

Appendix G: Wildlife Biological Evaluation 

Appendix H: Botanical Biological Evaluation 

Appendix I: Air Quality Analysis 
v 

List of Tables 

Table 1: Daily Maximum Commercial Tour Boat Trip Limits - Action Alternatives............................. 22 

Table 2: Daily Maximum Commercial Lodge Boat Trip Limits - Action Alternatives .......................... 22 

Table 3: Average Annual Use (2000-2004) and Proposed Permitted Annual Use by Alternative ...... 23 

Table 4: Comparison of Alternatives by Key Indicators for Significant Issues................................... 23 

Table 5: Lower Rogue River Riffles where Prop Wash Channel Maintenance Occurs....................... 34 

Table 6: Non-salmonids in the Rogue and Illinois Rivers...................................................................... 37 

Table 7: Occupancy and Spawning Times of Salmonids - Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Rivers. 38 

Table 8: Wildlife Management Indicator Species and Habitat Represented in the Project Area ....... 48 

Table 9: Partners in Flight Focal Bird Species by Habitat within Project Area ................................... 49 

Table 10: Tour Boat Data, 1999 through 2004 ......................................................................................... 68 

Table 11: Lodge Boat Data, 1999 through 2004 ...................................................................................... 69 

Table 12: R-Guide Boat Data – 1999 through 2004................................................................................. 71 

Table 13: All Fishing Guide Averages...................................................................................................... 72 

Table 14: Client Types by Use Category.................................................................................................. 73 

Table 15: Current Jobs and Income by Use Category ........................................................................... 74 

Table 16: Effects on Threatened and Sensitive Fish Species for All Action Alternatives.................. 79 

Table 17: Permitted Tour Boat and Lodge Boat Use for Alternative 2 ................................................. 81 

Table 18: Permitted Tour Boat and Lodge Boat Use by Month for Alternatives 3, 4, and 6............... 82 

Table 19: Permitted Tour Boat and Lodge Boat Use by Month for Alternative 5 ................................ 82 

Table 20: Species Effects Determinations for All Alternatives.............................................................. 86 

Table 21: Estimated Daily Emissions....................................................................................................... 99 

Table 22: Ticket Prices for Tour Boats (1999-2003)................................................................................111 

Table 23: Projected Use and Economic Effects by Alternative.............................................................112 

Table 24: Past, Current and Future Projects in the Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Watersheds ...116 

List of Figures 

Figure 1: Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois National Wild and Scenic Rivers Classifications............ 2 

Figure 2: Rogue and Illinois Rivers in Southwestern Oregon............................................................... 3

Figure 3: Average Monthly Flow - Rogue River Before and After Lost Creek Dam Construction..... 31 

Figure 4: Water Diversions on the Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Rivers ........................................ 31 

Figure 5: Summer Water Temperatures on the Rogue River, July-September 2003 .......................... 33 

Figure 6: Lower Rogue River Riffles where Prop Wash Channel Maintenance Occurs ..................... 35 

Figure 7: One Type of Western Pond Turtle Habitat, the Willow-pedestal Sedge Shoreline ............. 46 

Figure 8: Second Western Pond Turtle Habitat Type, Shallow Shoreline, Slow Moving Water......... 47 

Figure 9: Pillar Sedge at Windy Creek (RM 58) in the Wild Section of the Rogue............................... 50 

Figures 10-13: Annual Outfitter/Guide Permitted Use 1999-2003 ......................................................... 64 

Figure 14: Tour Boat Total Trips and Wild Section Trips, 1999-2004 ................................................... 68 

Figure 15: Tour Boat Total Clients, 1999-2004 ........................................................................................ 68 

Figure 16: Tour Boat Annual Revenue, 1999-2004 ................................................................................. 69 

Figure 17: Lodge Boat Trips, 1999-2004 .................................................................................................. 70 

Figure 18: Lodge Boat Revenue, 1999-2004............................................................................................ 70 

Figure 19: Lodge Boat Commercial Clients, 1999-2004 ......................................................................... 70 

Figure 20: Total R-Guide Trips and R-Guide Wild Section Trips, 1999-2004 ....................................... 72 

Figure 21: R-Guide Clients and R-Guide Wild Section Clients, 1999-2004 .......................................... 72 

Figure 22: R-Guide Revenue, 1999-2004.................................................................................................. 73 

Figure 23: Port-Orford-cedar Risk Key for All Action Alternatives....................................................... 96 
FEIS SUMMARY Page S-1 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

SUMMARY 

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

Special Use Permits for Outfitter and Guide Operations 

on the Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Rivers 

Gold Beach Ranger District 

Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest 

Curry County, Oregon 

April 2005 

This Summary is intended as a brief overview1 of the site-specific analysis documented in a Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS), that discloses (a) the environmental effects of commercial 

outfitter/guide services consisting of scenic boat tours, guided fishing, and other commercial activities on the 

lower Rogue and lower Illinois Rivers for the next five years; (b) the environmental effects of private lodge boat 

docks in the Rogue Wild Section; and (c) analyzes the environmental effects of periodic channel maintenance 

needed for motorboat navigation of the lower Rogue River during low water flows. It does not present the depth 

of analysis contained within the complete text of the Final EIS; please consult the complete text for further 

detailed information. 

INTRODUCTION 

The Rogue River was designated a Wild and Scenic River by Congress in 1968 to protect and enhance unique 

natural river corridor features. The management plan for the Rogue National Wild and Scenic River was 

completed in 1972 (USDI Bureau of Land Management 1972). The Illinois River was designated a Wild and 

Scenic River in 1984 and its management plan was completed in 1985 (USDA Forest Service 1985). Motorized 

sightseeing tours and guided fishing have occurred since the late 1920s/early 1930s. Commercial boating 

permit systems were established and administered in the 1970s by the Oregon State Marine Board, with input 

from the Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management. 

In 2000, the Forest Service used a Categorical Exclusion to re-issue special use permits to outfitter/guides on 

the lower Rogue and Illinois Rivers. In 2001, a lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court (CV.01-3035-AA) alleging 

the Forest Service had violated the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, the National Forest Management Act 

(NFMA), and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The District Court ruled that the Forest Service is 

required to complete an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) analyzing the effects of commercial motor boat 

uses. Other claims within the lawsuit were denied. 

Pursuant to CEQ 1502.20, this EIS is tiered to the Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of 

Decision (ROD) for the Siskiyou National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA Forest Service 

1989), as amended by The Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land 

Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl, also known as the Northwest 

Forest Plan (NWFP). Other important management direction for Wild and Scenic Rivers predates the LRMP 

and/or were incorporated. 

 

1 The format for this Summary is adapted from “Eight NEPA Questions” (8 questions any EA or EIS should readily answer), developed by 

Owen L. Schmidt, Attorney USDA, OGC Portland OR. 
FEIS SUMMARY Page S-2 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

Applicable river management direction is summarized and incorporated by reference to the Final EIS and 

includes Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA), Rogue National Wild and Scenic River Oregon: Notice of Revised 

Development Management Plan (Rogue RMP), Endangered American Wilderness Act, and Illinois Wild and 

Scenic River Management Plan (Illinois RMP). 

Section 10(a) of the WSRA states that: 

Each component of the national wild and scenic rivers system shall be administered in such 

manner as to protect and enhance the [outstandingly remarkable] values which caused it to be 

included in said system... [P]rimary emphasis shall be given to protecting its aesthetic, scenic, 

historic, archaeological, and scientific features. 

The Outstandingly Remarkable Values (ORVs) for the Rogue, as identified by Congress (HR 1623 July 3, 1968 

and HR 1917 September 24, 1968) and as described in the Rogue RMP, include Natural Scenic Qualities, 

Fisheries, and Recreation. The ORVs for the Illinois River, as described in the Illinois RMP, are Water 

Quality, Fisheries, Scenery, Botanical Resources, and Recreation. 

The Final EIS analyzes a Proposed Action and its alternatives, including a No Action option. The Final EIS is 

prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and the regulations for 

implementing the procedural provisions of NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508). 

The project area is in Curry County, Oregon and includes the Rogue Wild and Scenic River corridor from the 

western Forest boundary at Lobster Creek upstream to the pool below Blossom Bar Rapids (River Miles 10.8 to 

48.4, or 37.6 miles) and the Illinois Wild and Scenic River corridor from its confluence with the Rogue River 

upriver to Nancy Creek (River Miles 0 to 3.8, or 3.8 miles). The river corridor includes the land within 1⁄4 mile on 

both sides of the river. The project area is approximately 10 miles inland from the Pacific Ocean and the City of 

Gold Beach. The center of the project area, at the confluence of the Rogue and Illinois Rivers (T.35S. R.11W. 

Sec. 18), is about 0.7 miles south of the town of Agness. 

The Rogue River sections where commercial outfitter/guides operate are classified under the Wild and Scenic 

Rivers Act as either Recreational or Scenic (approximately 24 river miles from Lobster Creek to Watson Creek) 

or Wild (approximately ten river miles from Watson Creek to the pool below Blossom Bar Rapids). The Illinois 

section where outfitter/guides operate is classified as Recreational. 

A Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement was published in the Federal Register 

on September 4, 2003. The NOI specified that comments concerning the proposal scope be received by 

October 3, 2003. The Forest Service sent NOI copies and a letter explaining the Proposed Action to 

approximately 1,250 interested individuals (which includes tribes, special interest groups, other agencies, 

landowners, and special use permit holders). 

A press release notifying the public of the Proposed Action and scheduled public meetings was published on 

September 8, 2003. Two evening public meetings were held in Grants Pass and Gold Beach on September 16 

and 17, 2003. Approximately 35 people attended these meetings. Thirty-nine comment letters and e-mails 

were received in response to this public outreach. 

A press release notifying the public of Draft EIS availability and scheduled public meetings was published in 

December 2004. Public meetings to answer questions about the Draft EIS and take comments were held on 

December 13th, 2004 in Medford, December 16th in Gold Beach, and January 3rd, 2005 in Medford. 

One hundred and four oral statements, comment letters, and emails were received in response to the Draft EIS. 

Substantive comments were responded to in three ways: (1) a Response to Comments Document was created 

where reference, response and/or clarification to the Draft EIS comment was provided, (2) changes were made 

to the content of the Draft EIS documentation, to be documented in the Final EIS, and in response to 

suggestions about the range of alternatives, (3) two new alternatives were developed.
FEIS SUMMARY Page S-3 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

WHY IS THE ACTION BEING PROPOSED? 

There is a need to respond to existing outfitter/guide permit holders that want to continue their commercial 

operations by issuing new special use permits for those that expired December 31, 2004 and those that will 

expire April 30, 2006. There is also a need to respond to the owners of Paradise, Half Moon Bar, and Clay Hill 

Lodges in the lower Rogue River Wild Section who want to be issued special use permits for boat docks at their 

properties. 

The purpose of this action is to continue providing commercial recreational activities on the lower Rogue and 

lower Illinois Rivers through existing outfitter/guides as outlined by Forest Service policy. The purpose for docks 

is to safely load and unload lodge supplies as well as lodge clients and their belongings that arrive by 

commercial boat. 

WHAT WOULD IT MEAN NOT TO MEET THE NEED? 

To not meet the need is defined by the No Action alternative (Alternative 1 in the Final EIS). Alternative 1 

identifies and describes the baseline conditions of the physical, biological, social and economic environments 

within the project area. As required by NEPA, a No Action Alternative is included and analyzed in the Final EIS 

as a benchmark against which the action alternatives can be compared. 

Under this scenario, no commercial outfitter/guide activities would take place, and the resulting environmental 

effects of no-action would be compared to the environmental effects of permitting the Proposed Action, or 

another alternative to go forward. Alternative 1 is not designed to address the stated Purpose and Need. With 

this alternative, it is assumed that current conditions regarding commercial operations would change and would 

not allow commercial operations of existing outfitter/guides. Since no special use permits would be authorized, 

no additional mitigation measures or management requirements and constraints would be necessary. 

Over 46,000 people currently use outfitter/guide services on the lower Rogue and lower Illinois Rivers annually. 

Under No Action, people who do not have the time, equipment, or experience to engage in these river activities 

without an outfitter/guide would not be able to have this recreation experience. 

The loss of commercial motorboat transportation would affect more than half of existing lodge clients. They 

would have to either forgo the experience or hire an outfitter/guide to float them down to the lodges from the 

upper Rogue River, and then float down to Foster Bar when they leave. These float trips would be more 

expensive, take multiple days and include more whitewater. People who want a short trip, are intimidated by 

whitewater, or cannot afford the float trip would not have the opportunity to vacation at the lodges. 

Some non-motorized boaters (rafts, kayaks, drift boats, etc.) do not like motorboats in the Rogue Wild Section 

for a variety of reasons, including safety, motorboat wakes, noise, exhaust smells, and sharing the river with 

another user group. Non-motorized users do not like tour boat passengers taking pictures of them or looking at 

their camps, as it adversely affects their recreational experience. 

For non-motorized boaters, Alternative 1 would have beneficial effects, but there would still be non-commercial 

motorboats on the river, so not all of these adverse effects would be eliminated. Inexperienced and/or 

unknowledgeable private motorboaters can cause conflicts with floaters by going too fast or too close to their 

boats. This can also occur accidentally if the people in the different boats do not see each other. Private 

motorboats and floaters would have less motorboat traffic to negotiate with commercial motorboats no longer on 

the river. Conflicts would be reduced accordingly. 
FEIS SUMMARY Page S-4 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

Safety for Paradise and Half Moon Bar Lodge guests and staff would be reduced due to dock removal. Guests 

would have to step in and out of boats on an uneven gravel or sand bar. Lodge staff would have to lift heavy 

supplies and equipment in and out of boats on uneven gravel bars. There would be no room to use hoists to lift 

the loads in and out of the boats. Safety conditions at Clay Hill Lodge would not be changed because they 

currently do not have a dock. 

Elimination of special use permits for commercial tour, lodge and guide boats means that this type of 

commercial recreational use on the lower Rogue and Illinois Rivers would cease. The current number of trips 

and clients would drop to zero. The outfitter and guide businesses that are dependent on these clients would 

cease business activity in the project area. The purchases by the outfitter and guides from other local business 

would decrease. Client purchases in other businesses such as lodging, food and services would also decrease. 

Alternative 1 reduces trips, clients, revenues to the outfitter and guides along with the associated business 

activity, employment, and income. The revenue that would be lost is estimated to be $2,392,800 per year and 

the approximate loss of 156 jobs (see Final EIS Socio-economic effects). 

Under the No Action alternative, effects from non-commercial recreation on wildlife would continue in the form of 

noise disturbance and presence disturbance by roads, powerboats, rafts, and people. This has been occurring 

in the project area for decades and would be expected to continue without commercial boating. 

Under the No Action alternative, there would be no measurable direct adverse or beneficial impacts on fisheries 

in the project area. Fish would be exposed to less motorboat activity, but drift boat, raft, kayak, and private 

motorboat traffic would remain the same. 

WHAT ACTION IS PROPOSED? 

Under the Proposed Action, the Forest Service would issue 63 special use permits to outfitter/guides on the 

lower Rogue River, from Lobster Creek upriver to the pool below Blossom Bar Rapids, and the lower Illinois 

River, from the confluence with the Rogue River to the mouth of Nancy Creek, with the same terms and 

conditions as the previous and current permits. 

The Forest Service also proposes to issue special use permits for a dock at each of three commercial lodges in 

the lower Rogue Wild Section: Paradise Lodge, Half Moon Bar Lodge, and Clay Hill Lodge. Docks currently 

exist at Paradise Lodge and Half Moon Bar Lodge, so permits for these two docks would be reissued. The Clay 

Hill Lodge dock no longer exists; a permit for a replacement dock would be issued. 

The Proposed Action is described as Alternative 2; a more detailed description of the Proposed Action can be 

found in Final EIS Chapter 2. 

Under the Proposed Action, if total commercial use levels exceed the average of the two highest years from 

2000-2004 more than two years in a row, user surveys, complaints, and on-river monitoring by Forest Service 

personnel would be used to determine if adverse impacts to the Recreation and other ORVs are occurring. 

Commercial outfitter/guide permits would be amended as needed to adjust permitted use to protect the 

recreation ORV. 

In addition, the Forest Service will use this environmental analysis to support the Regional Forester’s 

determination of whether or not channel maintenance in the lower Rogue River Scenic and Recreational 

Sections meets the requirements of Section 7 of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (see Final EIS 

Appendix B).
FEIS SUMMARY Page S-5 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

ARE THERE OTHER ALTERNATIVES THAT WOULD MEET THE 

NEED? 

There are a number of variations of the Proposed Action analyzed in the Final EIS. The Final EIS also 

discusses an alternative that was considered by the Responsible Official, but eliminated from detailed study. 

Chapter 2 in the Final EIS identifies and compares a range of alternatives that address, in varying degrees, the 

purpose and need, and the significant issues. A summary of their function and description is as follows: 

Alternative 3 – From April 1 to October 31, limit commercial motorboat use in the Rogue Wild Section to 

Tuesday through Saturday. Authorize docks at three lodges in the lower Rogue River Wild Section. 

Alternative 4 – Limit commercial permitted use in the Rogue Wild Section to the average of the highest two 

years from 2000-2004. Permittees may request up to 25% more Wild Section use on an annual basis, subject 

to approval on a case-by-case basis. Authorize the two existing docks at lodges in the Rogue Wild Section. 

Alternative 5 - All 63 permits would have permitted use for the entire project area based on the average of 

the 2 highest years use from 2000-2004. Additional use may be requested annually by the permit holder 

and granted by the District Ranger on a case-by-case basis each year. The additional use could be up to, 

but would not exceed 25% of the permitted use. 

Alternative 6 - Same as Alternative 2, but permitted tour boat and lodge boat use would be limited to the 

average of the two lowest years from 2000-2004 and Illinois fishing guides would be limited to 30 trips per year 

for each permit. 

WHAT ARE THE EFFECTS OF THE ALTERNATIVES? 

The effects (environmental consequences) of all alternatives considered in detail are analyzed in the context of 

the response to significant issues. NEPA requires Federal agencies to focus analysis and documentation on 

the significant issues related to a Proposed Action. The interdisciplinary team with Responsible Official 

involvement and approval has identified the following as significant issues associated with the Proposed Action 

presented in the analysis. 

Wildlife and Fish Habitat - Commercial motorboats under special use permit can adversely affect animals and 

their habitat. 

User Conflicts - If the special use permits are issued, the recreational experience of some floaters may be 

degraded by commercial motorboats in the Wild Section. Motorboat wakes and noise and odor generated by 

motors adversely affect floaters. 

Economic Impacts - Any decision that reduces permitted use below current use may have economic impacts 

that should be considered in the decision. 

The following table summarizes and compares the effects of all alternatives in terms of significant issues. 

Further discussion on each issue is also summarized in this section. 
FEIS SUMMARY Page S-6 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

Issue and Key Indicators Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt.3 Alt.4 Alt. 5 Alt.6 

WILDLIFE AND FISH HABITAT 

Key Indicator – Number of yearly 

permitted commercial motorboat trips 

0 26,733 25,814 25,470* 3,797* 19,405 

USER CONFLICTS 

Key Indicator – number of yearly 

permitted commercial trips in the Wild 

Section of the lower Rogue River 

0 2,128 1,417 1,073* 825* 930 

0 156 139 -153** 156 156 134 ECONOMIC IMPACTS 

Key Indicator –jobs and income 

generated by permitted activities 0 $2,392,800 $2,128,400 -

$2,341,700** $2,392,800 $2,392,800 $2,055,800 

*Includes 25% additional use 

**Depends on the degree to which Sunday-Monday trips shift to Tuesday-Saturday. Higher values are for maximum shift 

of Sunday-Monday trips to Tuesday-Saturday

Wildlife Habitat Effects

Habitat impacts from motorboats are limited to the water and the shoreline. Habitat impacts from associated 

human uses are generally limited to the riparian area (within about 300’ of the water). Therefore, analysis of 

potential effects focused on this vicinity. Noise disturbance to individuals could extend beyond 300’. 

Direct and indirect effects from motorboat use and associated human uses, in combination with other potential 

effects to riparian habitat from other activities, such as rafting, camping, and private powerboats, would not 

change the effects determination for riparian habitats or species of concern (threatened, endangered, sensitive, 

buffer species, management indictor or neo-tropical migrant focal species in any action alternative. Cumulative 

effects analysis was considered from activities listed in the Final EIS (Table 24). 

The Biological Evaluation process for animal species that may occur on the Gold Beach Ranger District is 

summarized for the Rogue and Illinois Rivers Special Use Permit Project Area. 

Risk Assessment 

Rogue & Illinois Rivers Analysis Area Determination of Effects 

Pre-Field 

Review 

Field 

Reconnaissance 

Conflict 

Determination 

Analysis of Significance 

Wildlife Species 

Existing 

Sighting 

/Habitat? 

Species/Habitat 

(Documented or 

Suspected) 

Present? 

Potential 

Conflict? 

Without 

Mitigation 

With FWS 

PDC/ 

Mitigation 

Federally Endangered, Threatened Or Proposed Species 

Bald Eagle Habitat Species D Yes NLAA NLAA 

Marbled Murrelet Habitat Species D Yes NLAA NLAA 

Marbled Murrelet Critical 

Habitat 

Habitat 

(20 ac.) Habitat No NE NE 

Northern Spotted Owl Habitat Species D Yes NLAA NLAA 

Northern Spotted Owl 

Critical Habitat 

Habitat 

(320 ac.) Habitat No NE NE 

Brown Pelican Habitat Species D No NE NE 

Steller Sea-lion Habitat Species D No NE NE 
FEIS SUMMARY Page S-7 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

Risk Assessment 

Rogue & Illinois Rivers Analysis Area Determination of Effects 

Pre-Field 

Review 

Field 

Reconnaissance 

Conflict 

Determination 

Analysis of Significance 

Wildlife Species 

Existing 

Sighting 

/Habitat? 

Species/Habitat 

(Documented or 

Suspected) 

Present? 

Potential 

Conflict? 

Without 

Mitigation 

With FWS 

PDC/ 

Mitigation 

Forest Service Region 6 Sensitive Species

Peregrine Falcon Habitat Species D Yes MIIH MIIH 

Pacific Shrew Habitat Habitat Yes MIIH MIH 

Pacific Pallid Bat Habitat Habitat Yes MIIH MIIH 

Pacific Fringe-tailed Bat Habitat Habitat Yes MIIH MIIH 

Wolverine Habitat Habitat Yes MIIH MIIH 

Fisher Habitat Habitat Yes MIIH MIIH 

Northwestern Pond Turtle No Species D Yes MIIH MIIH 

Common Kingsnake Habitat Species D Yes MIIH MIIH 

Black Salamander Outside Known 

Range No No NI NI 

California Slender 

Salamander 

Outside Known 

Range No No NI NI 

Del Norte Salamander Sighting Species D Yes MIIH MIIH 

Siskiyou Mountain 

Salamander 

 Outside Known 

Range No No NI NI 

Southern Torrent 

Salamander Sighting Species D Yes MIIH MIIH 

Foothill Yellow-legged 

Frog Habitat Species D Yes MIIH MIIH 

Threatened and Endangered Species : NE = No Effect, BE = Beneficial Effect, NLAA = May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely 

Affect, LAA = May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect, CHU = Critical Habitat Unit 

Sensitive Species: NI = No Impact, BI = Beneficial Impact, MIIH = May Impact Individuals or Habitat, but will not likely 

contribute to a trend towards Federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species, WIFV = Will Impact 

Individuals or Habitat with a consequence that the action may contribute to a trend towards Federal listing or cause a loss of 

viability to the population or species 

The alternatives differ in their potential for impacts primarily as a function of permitted use level; the greater the 

permitted use, the greater the potential for measurable effects. Most of the effects are in the form of noise 

disturbance from boats. Boat noise levels were measured in May and November 2001. The ambient noise 

level for the Rogue River was 50-80 decibels. Motorboat noise ranged from 60-92 decibels. This noise levels is 

not considered to be substantially different from ambient levels in the project area. Smaller boats consistently 

generated more noise than the larger tour boats, but smaller boats were audible for a shorter period of time than 

the tour boats (2.8 minutes versus 4.2 minutes). 

Formal consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has been completed: Biological Opinion 1-14-03-F-511 

20 October 2003 (USDA Forest Service 2003). None of the alternatives or channel maintenance necessitate reinitiation of consultation. 

Fish Habitat Effects

Under all alternatives, fisheries would be protected because commercial motorboat use is not likely to adversely 

affect southern Oregon/northern California coho salmon. For Forest Service Sensitive Species, motorboat use 

may impact individual fish but it not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or a loss of viability. 

The proposed commercial boating activities are May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect (NLAA) Southern 

Oregon/Northern California (SONC) coho, for the following reasons:
FEIS SUMMARY Page S-8 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

• Individuals may be harassed as motorboats pass directly over or within 5 meters, causing a startle or 

avoidance response. This effect is likely to be short in duration. 

• Juvenile coho migrate at night and rest in stream margins during the day, therefore interactions with jet 

boats would be minimal. 

• Motorboat activity occurs during months when juvenile and adult coho are using the lower Rogue River 

as a migration corridor. 

Species Status Management 

Indicator Species 

Present within 

Project Area 

Effect 

Determination 

Coho Salmon Threatened No Yes NLAA 

Fall Chinook 

Salmon Sensitive (USFS) Yes Yes MIIH 

Spring Chinook Sensitive (USFS) Yes Yes MIIH 

Winter 

Steelhead Trout Sensitive (USFS) Yes Yes MIIH 

Summer 

Steelhead Sensitive (USFS) Yes Yes MIIH 

Coastal 

Cutthroat Trout Sensitive (USFS) Yes -Resident forms 

only Yes MIIH 

NLAA = Likely to Adversely Affect 

MIIH = May Impact Individuals and/or Habitat but not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or a loss of viability

User Conflicts

Under Alternative 2, at the full permitted level, adverse recreation impacts are likely on the lower Rogue and 

lower Illinois Rivers. The overuse threshold in terms of commercial boat traffic is not clear. The recreation 

experience would be protected from this effect of overuse by required mitigation that would reduce the permitted 

number of commercial trips if adverse impacts to recreation were occurring. Outfitter/guide clients would have 

the most opportunities to book a trip on the lower Rogue and lower Illinois Rivers when compared to other 

alternatives. 

When compared to other alternatives, lodge guests would have the most opportunities to get to the lodges in the 

Rogue Wild Section under this alternative. The number of trips would more than double current actual use at 

the full permitted level and the number of lodge guests would increase in response to demand. 

Livery service, whitewater boat training, scenic trips, and raft trips (Foster Bar to Agness) would expand to the 

full permitted level in response to demand. 

Under Alternative 3, commercial recreational use would be able to expand with demand but would be limited to 

Tuesday through Saturday in the Rogue Wild Section, limiting the number of people with the opportunity to 

recreate in that section. Saturday demand for Rogue Wild Section trips would be higher since most commercial 

demand is on the weekend and there would be no Wild Section trips on Sunday/Monday. 

It is possible that at the fully permitted level the tour boat recreational experience would be diminished for some 

clients since they would see more boats and people on the river than at current levels. It is not clear where the 

threshold of overuse, in terms of too much commercial boat traffic, would occur. The recreation experience 

would be protected from this effect by the required mitigation that would reduce the permitted number of 

commercial trips if adverse impacts to recreation were occurring. 

Lodge boat use would expand with demand. At full permitted use there would be 54% more trips than the 

current use level.
FEIS SUMMARY Page S-9 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

Under Alternative 4, commercial motorboat use would be able to expand with demand until it reached the 

permit limit. Effects in the Recreational and Scenic sections of the lower Rogue and lower Illinois rivers would 

be the same as described for Alternative 2. 

It is unlikely that there would be an increase in motorized vs. non-motorized conflicts or adverse impacts to 

recreation in the lower Rogue Wild Section. The additional permitted increase in use by commercial boat traffic 

on the river would not exceed a 25% increase above the two highest years use from 2000-2004 and the District 

Ranger would have the ability to restrict the additional use to a lower level or deny it. It is not clear where the 

threshold of overuse, in terms of too much commercial boat traffic, would occur. If the threshold were below the 

25% additional use, the recreation experience would be protected from this effect of overuse by the required 

mitigation that would reduce the permitted number of commercial trips if adverse impacts to recreation were 

occurring. 

Tour boat and fishing guide clients would have the same opportunities to book a trip in the lower Rogue Wild 

Section in 2000 to 2004. If future demand is higher than the high 2 year average, those opportunities would 

increase as much as 25% if additional use were approved. Opportunities on the Recreational and Scenic 

Sections would be the same as those described in Alternative 2. 

Lodge boat use would expand with demand until it reached permit limits. At full permitted use there would be 

42% more trips than at the current use level. 

Under Alternative 5, commercial recreation use, whitewater boat training, and livery service would be similar to 

2000 through 2004 on the lower Rogue River because permitted use is based on the high 2 year average use 

for that period. If future demand for services is higher than the high 2 year average, the use would increase as 

much as 25% if additional use were approved. 

It is unlikely that there would be an increase in motorized vs. non-motorized conflicts or adverse impacts to 

recreation in the lower Rogue Wild, Scenic or Recreational Sections. The additional permitted increase in use 

by commercial boat traffic on the river would not exceed a 25% increase above the two highest years use from 

2000-2004 and the District Ranger would have the ability to restrict the additional use to a lower level or deny it. 

However, it is not clear where the threshold of overuse, in terms of too much commercial boat traffic, would 

occur. If the threshold were below the 25% additional use the recreation experience would be protected from 

this effect of overuse by the required mitigation that would reduce the permitted number of commercial trips if 

adverse impacts to recreation were occurring. 

Effects on safety for lodge guests and staff would be the same as Alternative 2. 

Under Alternative 6, if demand remains the same as from 2000-2004 levels there would be more demand than 

available trips on tour boats in three of the next five years. The recreation experience may be enhanced for 

some of the clients since they would see fewer boats and people on the river than at current use levels but 

fewer people would have the opportunity to take a tour boat trip. 

Opportunities to fish with a guide on the lower Rogue River would be the same as in Alternative 2. 

Opportunities to fish with a guide on the lower Illinois would expand with demand to the limit of 30 trips per 

guide per year. 

In three of the next five years there would be more demand than available lodge boat trips. Those guests would 

either have to forgo a stay in the lodges or find alternative transportation. 

Effects on livery service, whitewater boat training, raft trips, and safety for lodge guests and staff would be the 

same as Alternative 2. 
FEIS SUMMARY Page S-10 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

Economic Impacts

The economic methods and assumptions use trip and revenue data from the three types of operators. 

Commercial tour boat and lodge boat data covers the years 1999 to 2004. Fishing guide boat data is developed 

from the years 1999 to 2004, and 2000 to 2004. The revenue histories are not adjusted for inflation since the 

Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Consumer Price Index for the Recreation Expenditure Class averaged about one 

percent annually from 1999 through 2005. 

Fees paid to the Forest Service are either based on a flat rate or 3 percent of gross revenue, or vary by permit 

year to year. The difference in the fees paid does not vary substantially between the two fee schedules. The 

compiled historical data does not specify the fee plan by operator. All federal receipts are assumed to be 3 

percent of reported gross revenue. The following table summarizes results by the economic indicators. 

Economic 

Indicator

Current 

Actual Use

Alt 1 Alt 2 

Projected 

Use

Alt 3 

No 

Substitution

Alt 3 

With 

Substitution 

Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6

Clients

Tour Boat 

Totals 44,632 0 44,632 40,511 44,632 44,632 44,632 37,936 

Lodge Boats 414 0 414 296 414 414 414 328 

Guide Boat 

Total 2,573 0 2,573 2,369 2,573 2,573 2,573 2,573 

Revenue

Tour Boat 

Totals $2,152,000 0 $2,152,000 $1,953,300 $2,062,300 $2,152,000 $2,152,000 $1,829,100 

Lodge Boats $18,200 0 $18,200 $13,000 $13,000 $18,200 $18,200 $14,400 

Guide Boat 

Total $343,500 0 $343,500 $316,300 $343,500 $343,500 $343,500 $343,500 

Total Jobs 156 0 156 139 153 156 156 134 

Total Income $2,392,800 0 $2,392,800 $2,128,400 $2,341,700 $2,392,800 $2,392,800 $2,055,800 

CAN ADVERSE EFFECTS BE MITIGATED? 

Specific resource mitigation measures and terms and conditions are developed for all action alternatives. 

These include appropriate measures as defined by NEPA Regulations at 40 CFR 1502.14(f) and 1508.20. 

These mitigation measures would be carried out under all action alternatives to reduce, rectify, avoid, 

eliminate, and/or compensate the potential resource impacts as required by 40 CFR 1508.20. Specific 

mitigation measures are described in the Final EIS Chapter 2. 

WHAT FACTORS WILL BE USED IN MAKING THE DECISION 

BETWEEEN ALTERNATIVES? 

Factors that will be used to make the decision include answers to the following questions: 

How does the Proposed Action or alternatives address the purpose and need? How does the Proposed 

Action or alternatives address the significant issues? How does the Proposed Action or alternatives protect 

or enhance the river Outstandingly Remarkable Values without limiting other uses that would not 

substantially interfere with public use and enjoyment of these values? 

Important factors in consideration of this decision between alternatives will also be the attainment of the 

overall Purpose and Need. In addition to and concurrent with attainment of Purpose and Need, the 

response of alternatives in relation to the identified significant issues will be used as important decision 

factors. No one element of Purpose and Need or significant issue will be used to make the decision, rather, 

they will be reviewed together with an assessment of tradeoffs to make the final decision.
FEIS SUMMARY Page S-11 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

WHAT MONITORING IS NECESSARY? 

Monitoring of authorized actions is a requirement of all action alternatives and would be carried out 

according to the monitoring elements documented in Final EIS Chapter 2 and in the terms and conditions of 

the special use permits. Required monitoring elements will be incorporated into the Record of Decision, if 

an action alternative is selected. This will allow it to be developed specifically to the selected alternative. 

WHICH ALTERNATIVE IS THE PREFERRED? 

NEPA requires that the Final EIS identify the agency’s preferred alternative or alternatives, if more than one 

exists. The Responsible Official for this project is the Gold Beach District Ranger. Under the Final EIS, the 

District Ranger has identified the Preferred Alternative to be Alternative 5. Based on public comment, two 

additional alternatives were developed and analyzed in the Final EIS. The preferred alternative changed 

between Draft and Final EIS because of the environmental consequences associated with protection of the 

ORVs offered under (the new) Alternative 5, and the way it addresses the user conflict issue. 

The "agency's preferred alternative" is the alternative (or alternatives) which the agency believes would 

fulfill its statutory mission and responsibilities, giving consideration to economic, environmental, technical 

and other factors. The concept of the "agency's preferred alternative" is different from the "environmentally 

preferable alternative," (an element documented in a Record of Decision), although in some cases they 

may be both. A Preferred Alternative is identified so that agencies and the public can understand the lead 

agency's orientation. 
FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 1 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit

CHAPTER 1. PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION 

Commercial fishing guides and scenic trips in motorboats started on the Rogue River in the late 

1920s/early 1930s. The number of guides and trips increased after World War II. The invention 

of jet boats in 1958 allowed motorized river navigation during low summer flows. These 

activities have become established in the project area and thousands of people participate in them 

each year. Under Forest Service policy (36 CFR 251.50 and FSM 2700), these commercial 

operations are required to have special use permits. 

Changes Between Draft and Final: Details about individual outfitter/guide permits have been 

removed from the Proposed Action description and placed in Appendix E in the form of sample 

outfitter/guide permits. One DEIS issue (Development Pressure) was dropped since it is an issue 

with the Rogue River Management Plan and not an issue with the Proposed Action. Another 

issue (Recreation Experience) was dropped because it is not an issue with the Proposed Action. 

Project Area_____________________________________ 

The project area is in Curry County, Oregon and includes the Rogue Wild and Scenic River 

corridor from the western Forest boundary at Lobster Creek upstream to the pool below Blossom 

Bar Rapids (River Miles 10.8 to 48.4, or 37.6 miles) and the Illinois Wild and Scenic River 

corridor from its confluence with the Rogue River upriver to Nancy Creek (River Miles 0 to 3.8, 

or 3.8 miles). The river corridor includes the land within 1⁄4 mile on both sides of the river. The 

project area is approximately 10 miles inland from the Pacific Ocean and the City of Gold 

Beach. The center of the project area, at the confluence of the Rogue and Illinois Rivers (T.35S. 

R.11W. Sec. 18), is about 0.7 miles south of the town of Agness. 

The Rogue River sections where commercial outfitter/guides operate are classified under the 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act as either Recreational or Scenic (approximately 24 river miles from 

Lobster Creek to Watson Creek) or Wild (approximately ten river miles from Watson Creek to 

the pool below Blossom Bar Rapids). The Illinois section where outfitter/guides operate is 

classified as Recreational (see Figures 1 and 2). 

Background _____________________________________ 

In 1959, the Oregon State Marine Board (Marine Board or OSMB) was given the responsibility 

to establish and administer boating regulations in the State of Oregon, including the Rogue and 

Illinois Rivers. 

The Rogue River was designated as Wild and Scenic by Congress in 1968. This designation 

protected 84 miles of the Rogue from the mouth of the Applegate River downstream to Lobster 

Creek Bridge. 

In 1974, the Marine Board decided to eliminate motorboat use from the pool below Blossom Bar 

Rapids upstream to Grave Creek between May 15 and November 15. In 1976, after public 

comment, the Marine Board made a decision to limit commercial motorboats in the Wild Section 

from Watson Creek to the pool below Blossom Bar Rapids between May 15 and November 15 to 

current permit holders and at the use level that existed as of January 15, 1976 – six tour boat trips 

per day. Fishing guides were permitted an annual number of trips based on historical use. No 

limits were established for non-commercial motorboats in the Wild Section.
In 1979, due to increased boating in the lower Rogue Wild Section, the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) and the Forest Service introduced a permit system to limit use in the Wild 

Section. The Forest Service honored Marine Board commercial motorboat use levels and started 

requiring permits for lodge boats and for commercial and non-commercial float parties in the 

lower Rogue Wild Section. Non-commercial motorboats and livery services were exempt from 

permit requirements. A Forest Service permit was also required for commercial motorboat or 

float craft activity from Lobster Creek to Watson Creek. 

The Illinois River was designated Wild and Scenic in 1984, protecting 50 miles of the river from

the National Forest Boundary, near Selma, downstream to its confluence with the Rogue River. 

The Illinois River Recreational Section joins the “Agness Recreational Area” of the Rogue 

National Wild and Scenic River system. Management concepts in this Illinois section are similar 

to Rogue River Recreational Section management direction (USDA Forest Service 1985, p.14). 

In 1984, OSMB decided to re-evaluate its role in the motorboat permit system and began to 

solicit public comment. In 1986, the Gold Beach District Ranger wrote to the Marine Board that 

the Forest Service would continue to administer the motorboat limits and regulations in the Wild 

Section as the Marine Board had done, with minor variations. Later that year, the Marine Board 

decided to repeal their rules, transferring the motorboat permit system to the Forest Service. The 

Forest Service continued to issue permits for tour boats, fishing guides, livery services, and other 

uses for the same numbers of trips that had been issued previously by the Marine Board. 

Figure 1: Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois National Wild and Scenic River Classifications

FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 2 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit
FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 3 

101

5

33

23

2400

199

34-8-36 34-8-36

62

595

33

Powers

MEDFORD

Cave Jct.

Brookings

Gold Beach GRANTS PASS

GALICE AGNESS

MARIAL

Pacific

Ocean

Rogue

River

Qu

os

at

a

n

a

C

re

e

k

Snout Creek

Nancy Creek

Illinois River

Oregon

California

Siskiyou

National Forest

Mule Creek

Lobster Creek Watson Creek

Grave Creek

Applegate River

Rogue River Lost Creek Lake

Applegate

Lake

Blossom Bar

Figure 2: Rogue and Illinois Rivers in Southwestern Oregon 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit
FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 4 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit

In 1987 a permit system was established for private recreational motorboat use in the Wild 

Section, limiting use to six boats a day on weekends and holidays from June 1 through 

September 15. 

In 1995, the Forest Service issued new special use permits, limiting fishing guides in the Lobster 

Creek to Watson Creek section to those that were currently under permit. These permits allowed 

use any time of year. Only the permit holders could use them and there could be no employees 

operating under the permit. The Forest Service limited tour boat trips from Lobster Creek to 

Watson Creek based on the season of year: shoulder-season (May 1 to June 15 and the day after 

Labor Day to October 31), main-season (June 16 to Labor Day), and off-season (November 1 to 

April 30). The permits regulating private motorboat recreation in the Wild Section expanded the 

season from May 15 to November 15, with a maximum of six boats permitted each day, seven 

days a week. 

In 1999, the Forest Service and BLM agreed that permit holders operating entirely on National 

Forest must do so under permits issued by only the Forest Service. Permit holders that could 

prove historical use from1974 to 1988 were issued permits for the same types of use and for the 

same number of trips that had been previously made. Prior to this time, some guides who 

operated under permits jointly administered by BLM and the Forest Service would guide fishing 

trips entirely on the National Forest portion of the river. These BLM/FS permit holders were 

limited to the maximum number of trips they could make, but were allowed to hire employees. 

Also in 1999, Paradise Lodge was authorized to transport lodge guests by motorboat from Foster 

Bar to the lodge in the Wild Section. Permit terms and conditions were negotiated through 

informal resolution with parties that appealed the Forest Service decision to issue the Paradise 

Lodge permit. 

In 2000, the Forest Service used a Categorical Exclusion to issue the existing special use permits 

for outfitter/guides on the lower Rogue River, which included tour boats and guided fishing trips. 

Also, in 2000 the Forest Service issued permits to 6 outfitter/guides for Wild Section fishing, 

replacing BLM permits, with no change of authorized permit conditions. 

In 2001, a lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court alleging the Forest Service had violated the 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, the National Forest Management Act, and the National 

Environmental Policy Act by issuing special use permits and allowing motorboat use in the 

lower Rogue Wild Section. 

In 2004, the District Court ruled the Forest Service violated the procedural NEPA requirements 

when issuing the special use permits for outfitter/guides on the lower Rogue River; all other 

claims within the lawsuit were denied, including a request by the plaintiffs to set motorboat use 

in the Wild Section to 1968 levels because of potential adverse effects on the environment and 

other river users. The District Court ruled that the Forest Service is required to complete an 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) analyzing the effects of commercial motorboat uses. 

The Forest Service in cooperation with the BLM, plans to complete a Comprehensive River 

Management Plan for the Rogue River in the future. 
FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 5 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit

Management Direction ____________________________ 

This proposal is analyzed in accordance with management direction from the 1989 Siskiyou 

National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) as amended by The Record of 

Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning 

Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl, also known as the Northwest Forest 

Plan (NWFP). 

Pursuant to CEQ 1502.20, this EIS is tiered to the Final Environmental Impact Statement and 

Record of Decision (ROD) for the Siskiyou National Forest Land and Resource Management 

Plan (USDA Forest Service 1989). Other important management direction for Wild and Scenic 

Rivers predates the LRMP and/or were incorporated. Applicable river management direction is 

summarized and incorporated by reference herein. It is presented in this section in chronological 

order.

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA)

The Rogue and Illinois River sections that are part of this analysis are congressionally designated 

Wild and Scenic Rivers. The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (Public Law 90-542) 

designated 84 miles of the Rogue river as a Wild and Scenic river from the Applegate River 

downstream to the Lobster Creek Bridge to be administered by the Department of Interior or 

Agriculture. The WRSA established a method to provide federal protection for certain 

remaining free-flowing rivers and to preserve them and their immediate environments. Under 

Section 2 (b) (1) of the Act, wild rivers are defined as “...free of impoundments and generally 

inaccessible except by trail, with watersheds or shorelines essentially primitive and waters 

unpolluted.” 

Section 1(a) of the WSRA states that Wild and Scenic Rivers: 

...shall be preserved in free-flowing condition, and that they and their immediate 

environments shall be protected for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future 

generations. 

Section 2(b) of the WSRA states: 

Every wild, scenic or recreational river in its free-flowing condition, or upon restoration 

to this condition, shall be considered eligible for inclusion in the national wild and scenic 

rivers system and, if included, shall be classified, designated, and administered as one of 

the following: 

(1) Wild river areas -- Those rivers or sections of rivers that are free of impoundments 

and generally inaccessible except by trail, with watersheds or shorelines essentially 

primitive and waters unpolluted. These represent vestiges of primitive America. 

(2) Scenic river areas -- Those rivers or sections of rivers that are free of impoundments, 

with shorelines or watersheds still largely primitive and shorelines largely undeveloped, 

but accessible in places by roads. 

(3) Recreational river areas -- Those rivers or sections of rivers that are readily accessible 

by road or railroad, that may have some development along their shorelines, and that may 

have undergone some impoundment or diversion in the past. 
FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 6 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit

Section 7 of the WSRA states that: 

No department or agency of the United States shall recommend authorization of any 

water resources project that would have a direct and adverse effect on the [outstandingly 

remarkable] values for which such river was established.” 

Agencies designated as Wild and Scenic River managers must complete the Section 7 

determination when a water resources project may have potential to result in direct and 

adverse effects to the values of the Wild and Scenic River. 

Lower Rogue River Channel Maintenance Permit under Section 7 

The Forest Service is the administering agency for the lower Rogue and lower Illinois Rivers. 

The Regional Forester will make a determination, based on the effects analysis documented in 

this FEIS, about whether channel maintenance would have a direct and adverse effect on the free 

flowing nature of the river, and whether or not this activity would invade the area or 

unreasonably diminish the Rogue Wild and Scenic River Outstandingly Remarkable Values as 

defined under Section 7 of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968. 

Channel maintenance is needed in the lower Rogue River to maintain safe passage for 

commercial, private, and public boats (e.g. Sheriff's Office, BLM, and Forest Service boats). 

Channel maintenance consists of cutting willows for sight distance and re-positioning small 

boulders, cobbles, gravels, and lesser amounts of sands and silts within the channel to maintain 

safe boat passage. Channel maintenance requires permits from the Army Corps of Engineers 

(ACOE) and the Oregon Department of State Lands (DSL) because the materials are excavated 

from and discharged into portions of the channel that lie below the ordinary high water level. 

These permits are required under provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. 

A description of the channel maintenance activities is contained in FEIS Chapter 3, Water 

Resources, and the effects of channel maintenance are discussed in FEIS Chapter 4 for each 

affected resource area. FEIS Appendix B: Wild and Scenic River Section 7 Report (incorporated 

by reference) contains further discussion of Regional foresters’ determination under Section 7. 

Section 10(a) of the WSRA states that: 

Each component of the national wild and scenic rivers system shall be administered in 

such manner as to protect and enhance the [outstandingly remarkable] values which 

caused it to be included in said system... [P]rimary emphasis shall be given to protecting 

its aesthetic, scenic, historic, archaeological, and scientific features. 

The Outstandingly Remarkable Values (ORVs) for the Rogue, as identified by Congress (HR 

1623 July 3, 1968 and HR 1917 September 24, 1968) and as described in the Rogue RMP, 

include Natural Scenic Qualities, Fisheries, and Recreation. 

The ORVs for the Illinois River, as described in the Illinois RMP, are Water Quality, Fisheries, 

Scenery, Botanical Resources, and Recreation. 
FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 7 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit

Rogue National Wild and Scenic River Oregon: Notice of Revised Development

Management Plan (Rogue RMP)

The 1972 Rogue National Wild and Scenic River, Oregon, Notice of Revised Development and 

Management Plan; Federal Register Vol. 37, No. 131, 13408-13416 states (USDI Bureau of 

Land Management 1972, p. 13413): 

One of the key reasons for including the Rogue River in the National Wild and Scenic 

Rivers System was to protect and enhance the recreational values which the river 

possesses. These values are realized in a great variety of activities. They range from an 

individual pitting only his knowledge and skill against the sometimes-hostile forces of 

nature to recreation uses where the facilities and equipment are so sophisticated that the 

river can be enjoyed with no special knowledge and skill. Since boating, fishing and 

sightseeing are the main recreational uses on the river; top priority for recreation 

development will be given to improving the quality of those activities. 

Management Objectives by river classification include: (p. 13412): 

The wild area will be managed to (1) provide river-oriented recreation opportunities in a 

primitive setting, and (2) preserve the river and its immediate environment in a natural, 

wild, and primitive condition essentially unaltered by the effects of man. 

The scenic river area will be managed to (1) maintain or enhance the condition of the 

high-quality scenery and the largely undeveloped character of the shoreline, (2) provide 

opportunities for river-oriented recreation which is consistent with its largely 

undeveloped nature, and (3) utilize other resources and permit other activities which 

maintain or enhance the quality of the wildlife habitat, river fishery, scenic attraction or 

recreational values. 

The recreational river area will be managed to provide or restore a wide range of public 

outdoor recreation opportunities and water-oriented recreational facilities. 

Management Direction for Recreation (p. 13413) 

Care will be taken that use levels do not reach the point where the quality of the 

recreation experience or quality of the stream environment deteriorates. 

Since boating, fishing, and sightseeing are the main recreational uses on the river, top 

priority will be given to improving the quality of these activities. 

Although current levels of all types of boating activity create few problems, uncontrolled 

future use would probably result in safety hazards and a lowering of the quality of the 

recreation experience. When the need warrants, this will be prevented by the 

establishment of regulations limiting size, number, type, speed, etc. to provide optimum 

boat use. 

In the Wild Area, boating regulations to achieve the Wild River objectives will be 

encouraged. The regulations should: (1) Favor non-motorized use. Motorboat use from 

Watson Creek to Blossom Bar Rapids will be held to the use level consistent with that of 

1968, the year of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. 

Management Direction for Improvements (p. 13414): 

In the Wild Area, in order to keep the river and adjacent lands in an essentially primitive 

condition, no new structures except those needed for public recreation or for resource 

protection and no new lodges or expansion of existing lodges or commercial public 

service facilities will be permitted. Owners of existing structures will be encouraged to 

maintain them in a condition compatible with the primitive character of the area. New 

boat docks, moorings, or salmon boards will not be permitted. 
FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 8 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit

Management Direction for Channel Maintenance (p. 13410 and 13412): 

It is necessary to deepen a channel through some of the gravel bars annually to permit 

passage of the large commercial boats. This is all done in gravel areas, so no permanent 

alteration to the riverbed occurs. 

Alteration of the stream bed will be limited to that necessary to maintain current 

levels of navigability. Permission must be obtained from the agency having 

jurisdiction before alteration is allowed. Modification of bedrock will not be 

permitted. 

Endangered American Wilderness Act

The 1978 Endangered American Wilderness Act (Public Law 95-237) designated the Wild 

Rogue Wilderness, in part to protect the Rogue Wild Section. The 1978 Wilderness legislation 

states, in part: 

[C]ertain lands in the Siskiyou National Forest...shall be known as the Wild Rogue 

Wilderness: Provided that the portion of the segment of the Rogue River designated as a 

component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System...which lies within the Wild 

Rogue Wilderness shall be managed as a wild river notwithstanding section 10(b) of that 

Act or any provisions of the Wilderness Act to the contrary. 

This provision was included in recognition of certain established uses (including motorboats) 

along the Rogue River corridor which are not in conformance with the Wilderness concept, but 

which Congress did not wish to eliminate. The effect of this provision is that, within the 

Wilderness boundary, the areas on either side of the river are managed in accordance with the 

Wilderness Act of 1964, but the river corridor is managed as a separate entity. (LRMP, p. A-10). 

Illinois Wild and Scenic River Management Plan (Illinois RMP)

The Illinois Wild and Scenic River Management Plan (USDA Forest Service 1985) was 

incorporated into the Siskiyou Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) in its entirety. 

The following directions apply or, where in conflict, supercede the Rogue Management Plan:

If a conflict between water quality and resource uses and activities should occur, 

protection of water quality would take precedence. Modification of the stream bank 

would not be permitted except in cases where significant investments (i.e. Illinois River 

Bridge) need protection and where the natural river value would not be unreasonably 

diminished. Natural channels will not be modified to facilitate powerboat travel (p. 15). 

Siskiyou National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan

In March 1989, the Siskiyou National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) was 

released (USDA Forest Service 1989a), setting management direction and standards and 

guidelines for the Forest. 

The 1972 Rogue National Wild and Scenic River, Oregon: Notice of Revised Development and 

Management Plan (USDA Bureau of Land Management 1972) and the 1985 Illinois Wild and 

Scenic River Management Plan (USDA Forest Service 1985) were incorporated into the LRMP 

in their entirety (LRMP p. V-3). 

Recreation goals and objectives in the 1989 Siskiyou National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan (USDA Forest Service 1989a) as amended, include: 
FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 9 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit

Fully implement the National Recreation Strategy through the development of 

partnerships with other local and federal agencies (e.g., counties and states), and other 

groups and individuals. Support local economic development strategies that focus on 

increased recreation and tourism. (p. IV-1, 4) 

Protect and enhance identified outstandingly remarkable values and free flowing 

condition of Wild and Scenic Rivers. (p. IV-2, 11) 

Management of the designated Wild and Scenic Rivers will emphasize the maintenance 

of the natural/near natural character of the river corridors and the continued availability 

of a high quality recreation experience that is described in the goals and objectives 

identified in each of the river management plans. (p. IV-8) 

The LRMP also states: 

Increased emphasis has been placed on the Recreation program, the focus of which will be toward 

meeting the needs of the recreating public and toward working with four Southern Oregon 

Counties to assist them in developing their Economic development goals. These goals are based 

on the development of the Recreation/Tourism industry. (p. IV-7) 

Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines for Recreation Special Uses/Outfitters and 

Guides: 

All recreation special uses shall be compatible with the ROS classification of the area. 

Facilities shall be designed to meet the designated services to be provided. The number 

of permits for a specific use should be limited in order to create or maintain economical 

operations, reduce administrative costs, and provide high quality services. (p. IV-53, 9-5) 

Commercial rafting and guide permits on the Illinois and Rogue Rivers shall be issued in 

accordance with requirements of the management plans for these rivers. (p. IV-53, 9-5) 

When changed conditions occur, environmental analysis shall be conducted to determine 

the effects of the changed conditions on recreational opportunity, and to re-evaluate and 

consider modification of existing recreational management objectives. (p. IV-23, 1-12) 

The Wild and Scenic River corridor where the outfitter/guide special use permits would be 

authorized has a variety of land allocations (Management Areas). The definitions, management 

goals and objectives, and the standards and guidelines for individual land management 

allocations can be found in the LRMP and the Northwest Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service and 

USDI Bureau of Land Management 1994). 

While the primary goals and objectives in the river corridor are defined in MA-2 and MA-10, 

additional management direction may be found in the following overlapping management areas 

(MAs): Wilderness (MA-1), Supplemental Resource (MA-7), and Visual Retention (MA-12). 

Many standards and guidelines for the Rogue and Illinois Rivers are in the management plans for 

each river and are not repeated in the LRMP. (p. IV-78) 

Wild River (MA-2) 

The goal is to maintain the river environment in a natural state while providing for recreation 

opportunities. 

The Rogue Wild Section character within the Forest boundary will be maintained. Impacts due 

to river-related recreation will be monitored according to the Rogue RMP. (p. IV-77) 
FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 10 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit

Scenic/Recreation River (MA-10) 

For Scenic river segments, the goal is to maintain or enhance the high quality scenery and the 

largely undeveloped character of the shorelines. For Recreational river segments, the goal is to 

provide a wide range of river-oriented recreation activities. 

The Rogue River Scenic and Recreational Sections will appear to be in a natural condition as 

seen from the river. Changes in river use limits will be accomplished through cooperation with 

the inter-agency management group with full public involvement (p. IV-121). 

Other Management Direction 

This proposal is also analyzed and designed under the following management direction, which is 

incorporated by reference: 

• Final Supplemental EIS and Record of Decision for Management of Port-Orford-Cedar 

in Southwest Oregon, 2004 

• Final Supplement EIS and Record of Decision To Remove or Modify the Survey and 

Manage Measure Standards and Guidelines in Forest Service and Bureau of Land 

Management Planning Documents with the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl, 2004 

• Final Supplement EIS and Record of Decision on Amending Resource Management 

Plans for Seven Bureau of Land Management and Resource Management Plans for 

Nineteen National Forests within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl for the 

Clarification of Language in the 1994 Record of Decision for the Northwest Forest Plan 

amending wording about the aquatic conservation strategy, 2004 

• Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife – hunting and fishing regulations 

• Oregon State Marine Board – watercraft regulations 

• United States Coast Guard – commercial watercraft regulations 

Other Federal Statutes

This proposal is designed under other required federal statutes such as the Clean Water Act of 

1948 (P.L. 80-845) as amended in 1972 (P.L. 92-500) and 1987 (P.L.100-4), the Clean Air Act of 

1955 (P.L. 84-159) as amended in 1964 (P.L. 88-206) and 1977 (P.L. 95-95), the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (P.L. 91-190), the Wilderness Act of 1964 (P.L. 88-577), the 

National Trails System Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-543), the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (P.L. 93-

205), the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-588), the Archaeological Resources 

Protection Act of 1979 (P.L. 96-95), and Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-336). 

Special Uses Management _________________________ 

This section identifies other regulations and policies regarding management of special uses for 

river-related recreational activities. 

Outfitter/Guides 

Forest Service regulations related to special use permit management are in 36 CFR 251.50, 

Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2700, and Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 2709.11. 

Outfitter/guide activities are authorized by the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 

(Public Law 88-578). Outfitter/guide service includes all commercial outfitting operations 

involving services for accommodating guests, transporting persons, and providing equipment, 

supplies, and materials. It also includes commercial guiding activities wherein the guide 

furnishes personal services or serves as a leader or teacher (FSM 2721.53).
FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 11 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit

Specific guidance in administering outfitter/guide special uses is in Forest Service Handbook 

2709.11, sec. 41.53a-41.53l. In general, before the Forest Service approves the issuance of a 

new special use permit for an established use, an analysis of the conditions of the use shall be 

made to determine whether changes in permit conditions are needed (FSM 2716.12). When an 

authorization provides for renewal, the authorizing officer must consider renewal when requested 

by the holder. Direction for renewal is in 36 CFR 251.64. Special uses may be reauthorized as 

long as the use remains consistent with: 

• The Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

• Current laws, regulations, and policy 

• The purpose for which the use was initially authorized, and operated or maintained, in 

accordance with provisions of the original decision 

• When significant new information or circumstances have developed, appropriate 

environmental analysis must accompany the decision to reauthorize the use 

Docks 

Recreational boat docks include improvements that serve groups of boaters (FSM 2721.11). 

Boat docks are defined as improvements along rivers or shores for securing watercraft. These 

may range from a few pilings for log raft operations to larger pier facilities for servicing and 

storing boats or ships (FSM 2727.22). Specific recreational boat dock management direction is 

in FSM 2347.4. In general, the Forest Service should deny new docks that would interfere with 

public access to National Forest System land or water. 

Boat Licensing 

The Forest Service requires a commercial boat license to be obtained after granting authorization 

to operate as a commercial outfitter/guide under special use permit on the Rogue and Illinois 

Rivers. The U.S. Coast Guard is authorized to inspect and license all tour boats. The Oregon 

State Marine Board is authorized to issue annual licenses for outfitter/guides. 

Tour Boat Licensing 

U.S. Coast Guard Department of Marine Inspection annually inspects all tour boats. They 

inspect all lifejackets to ensure they meet safety requirements. They inspect all radios, 

electronics, mechanical parts, fuel lines and engine parts on the boats to ensure they are in 

working order. They also conduct tests on the river to ensure the boat’s sea-worthiness. 

Every five years, the U.S. Coast Guard inspects each tour boat in a dry dock for safety, structural 

integrity, and to determine that all parts are in working order. Passing boats receive a Certificate 

of Inspection and a Certificate of Documentation from the U.S. Coast Guard. 

The U.S. Coast Guard requires tour boat pilot re-licensing every five years. The license identifies 

the allowable boat tonnage and allows the pilot to transport more than six passengers. The pilot 

must have a complete physical and is subject to random, mandatory drug testing on an on-going 

basis. The pilot must also complete a First Aid and CPR class every two years. 

The U.S. Coast Guard also requires tour boat companies to have a safety plan and to ensure all 

pilots and personnel are knowledgeable of and can complete their responsibilities under the 

safety plan. Safety plan components include procedures for maritime accidents, emergency 

responses, and radios; a map with latitude and longitude, and a procedure to contact emergency 

personnel, including U.S. Coast Guard Helicopters. 
FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 12 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit

Fishing Guide Licensing 

The Oregon State Marine Board requires a yearly license to operate as an outfitter/guide. The 

permit is for a maximum of six people on the boat. Licensing requires first aid and CPR class 

completion. 

The U.S. Forest Service requires fishing guides to maintain a complete insurance policy at all 

times for their operations, requires that their boat be readily identifiable, and requires the permit 

holder to follow all federal and state laws and permit requirements. 

The permit holder shall comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, regulations and 

standards, and other relevant environmental laws, as well as public health and safety laws. The 

permit holder must manage hazardous material and fuel and oil spills in accordance with Oregon 

Administrative Rules, Department of Environmental Quality. 

Purpose and Need for Action_______________________ 

There is a need to respond to existing outfitter/guide permit holders that want to continue their 

commercial operations by issuing new special use permits for those that expired December 31, 

2004 and those that will expire April 30, 2006. There is also a need to respond to the owners of 

Paradise, Half Moon Bar, and Clay Hill Lodges in the lower Rogue Wild Section who want to be 

issued special use permits for boat docks at their properties. 

The purpose of this action is to continue providing commercial recreational activities on the 

lower Rogue and lower Illinois Rivers through existing outfitter/guides as outlined by Forest 

Service policy. The purpose for docks is to safely load and unload lodge supplies as well as 

lodge clients and their belongings that arrive by commercial boat. 

Proposed Action _________________________________ 

The Proposed Action would issue 63 special use permits to outfitter/guides on the lower Rogue 

River, from Lobster Creek upriver to the pool below Blossom Bar Rapids, and the lower Illinois 

River, from the confluence with the Rogue River to the mouth of Nancy Creek, with the same 

terms and conditions as the previous and current permits (see FEIS Appendix E.) 

The Forest Service also proposes to issue special use permits for a dock at each of three 

commercial lodges in the lower Rogue Wild Section: Paradise Lodge, Half Moon Bar Lodge, 

and Clay Hill Lodge. Docks currently exist at Paradise Lodge and Half Moon Bar Lodge, so 

permits for these two docks would be reissued. The Clay Hill Lodge dock no longer exists; a 

permit for a replacement dock would be issued. 

The Proposed Action is described as Alternative 2; a more detailed description of the Proposed 

Action can be found in Chapter 2. 

Public Involvement _______________________________ 

A Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement was published in the 

Federal Register on September 4, 2003. The NOI specified that comments concerning the 

proposal scope be received by October 3, 2003. The Forest Service sent NOI copies and a letter 

explaining the Proposed Action to approximately 1,250 interested individuals (which includes 

tribes, special interest groups, other agencies, landowners, and special use permit holders). 
FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 13 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit

A press release notifying the public of the Proposed Action and scheduled public meetings was 

published on September 8, 2003. Two evening public meetings were held in Grants Pass and 

Gold Beach on September 16 and 17, 2003. Approximately 35 people attended these meetings. 

Thirty-nine comment letters and e-mails were received in response to this public outreach. 

A press release notifying the public of DEIS availability and scheduled public meetings was 

published in December 2004. Public meetings to answer questions about the Draft EIS and take 

comments were held on December 13th, 2004 in Medford, December 16th in Gold Beach, and 

January 3rd, 2005 in Medford. 

One hundred and four oral statements, comment letters, and emails were received in response to 

the Draft EIS. Substantive comments were responded to in three ways: (1) a Response to 

Comments Document was created where reference, response and/or clarification to the DEIS 

comment was provided, (2) changes were made to the content of the DEIS documentation, to be 

documented in the FEIS, and in response to suggestions about the range of alternatives, (3) two 

new alternatives were developed. 

Decision Framework ______________________________ 

The purpose of this FEIS is to disclose environmental effects that could result from 

implementation of the Proposed Action or alternatives. The FEIS is not a decision document. 

Based on the effects of the Proposed Action and its alternatives, the Responsible Official will 

either decide to implement the Proposed Action, one alternative, parts of alternatives, 

combinations of alternatives, or to not implement any action at this time. 

The District Ranger, as Responsible Official, must make the following decisions: 

• Outfitter and Guide Permits. Determine the number of permits to issue, if any. 

• Outfitter and Guide Permit Terms and Conditions. Determine the terms and conditions of 

those permits. 

• Docks. Determine if docks would be permitted at Paradise, Half Moon Bar and Clay Hill 

Lodges in the lower Rogue Wild Section. 

Factors that will be used to make the decision include: 

How does the Proposed Action or alternatives address the purpose and need? How does the 

Proposed Action or alternatives address the significant issues? How does the Proposed 

Action or alternatives protect or enhance the river Outstandingly Remarkable Values without 

limiting other uses that would not substantially interfere with public use and enjoyment of 

these values? 

Issues __________________________________________ 

The interdisciplinary team sorted issues into two categories to facilitate the concise, full 

disclosure, presentation and comparison of environmental effects between alternatives. The 

following issue categories were utilized for this analysis. 

Significant Issues include points of discussion, debate or dispute expressing important, substantive 

cause-effect relationships to the quality of the human environment, which are also relevant to the 

timing and context of the decision to be made. They were used to design alternatives, unique 

alternative mitigation, and/or facilitated the display of important environmental consequences. 
FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 14 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit

Non-significant Issues include points of discussion, debate or dispute that could not be addressed 

with a project level analysis, issues already decided by law, regulation, or other higher level 

decisions, issues, and/or issues received from the public that were found to be conjectural or nonsubstantive. 

The following significant issues were identified for this project and analysis: 

Wildlife and Fish Habitat - Commercial motorboats under special use permit 

can adversely affect animals and their habitat. 

The key indicator for this issue is the number of permitted commercial motorboat trips. 

Refer to FEIS Chapters 3 and 4, Fisheries and Wildlife Sections for consequences. 

User Conflicts - If the special use permits are issued, the recreational 

experience of some floaters may be degraded by commercial motorboats in the 

Wild Section. Motorboat wakes and noise and odor generated by motors 

adversely affect floaters. 

The key indicator for this issue is the maximum number of permitted commercial 

motorboat trips in the Wild Section. Refer to FEIS Chapters 3 and 4, Recreation Section 

for consequences. 

Economic Impacts - Any decision that reduces permitted use below current use 

may have economic impacts that should be considered in the decision. 

The key indicators for this issue are the jobs and income generated by permitted 

activities, both directly to the permit holders’ businesses and secondarily to the 

businesses in the community. Refer to FEIS Chapters 3 and 4, Economics Section for 

consequences. 

Non-significant Issues: 

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations explain this delineation 

in Sec. 1501.7; “...identify and eliminate from detailed study the issues which are not 

significant or which have been covered by prior environmental review” (Sec. 1506.3). A 

complete list of non-significant issues and reasons regarding their categorization as nonsignificant may be found in the project record at the Gold Beach Ranger District. 

Noteworthy issues found to be non-significant and out of scope include: 

There were comments concerning fishing guiding operations (permit violations, boat stunts). These 

comments can be managed through administrative procedures with the permits and the specific 

operating plans. 

Another comment brought up the idea of additional commercial outfitter/guide opportunities from 

Lobster Creek to Watson Bar. The Forest Service does not see a need for additional permit holders at 

this time because current permittees are not using their maximum permitted trips. This can be 

addressed in the Rogue RMP revision. 

Another concern raised by the public was that placing docks at all Rogue Wild Section lodges will lead 

to more development in the Wild Section. The concern over more development is dealt with in the 

Rogue RMP standards and guidelines. 

There were issues that were considered outside the scope because they would not meet the Purpose and 

Need for Action. These included the permit system for private recreational motorboat trips or float trips 

in the Rogue Wild Section, private recreational motorboat trips for ingress/egress to private property 

along the lower Rogue and lower Illinois Rivers, private property easements, non-recreation 

developments, and general recreation use. 
FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 15 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit

CHAPTER 2. ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE 

PROPOSED ACTION

This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered for the lower Rogue and lower 

Illinois outfitter/guide and lodge dock special use permits. This section also presents alternatives 

considered in detail in comparative form, providing a clear basis for choice among options by the 

decision maker. Some information to compare the alternatives is based on alternative design 

(i.e., number of permitted trips and docks) and some on environmental, social and economic 

effects of alternative implementation (i.e., motorboat effects on water quality, wildlife, fish, and 

user group conflicts). Some alternatives were eliminated from detailed study; see below. 

Changes Between Draft and Final: Two additional alternatives were developed in response to 

public comments on the DEIS to have permitted use more in line with actual use. One 

alternative reduces permitted use to the average of the highest two years from 2000-2004, and 

the other reduced permitted use to the average of the lowest two years from 2000-2004. 

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated_____________ 

Information was received from interested groups and individuals, which influenced alternative 

development. Federal agencies are required by NEPA to rigorously explore and objectively 

evaluate all reasonable alternatives and to briefly discuss reasons for eliminating alternatives that 

were not developed in detail (40 CFR 1502.14). The following discusses an alternative 

considered but eliminated from detailed study, including the rationale for elimination. Other 

alternatives raised during public comment are analyzed in detail under the Final EIS. 

Re-Establish 1968 Use Levels in the Wild Section 

An alternative was considered that would have issued 63 special use permits, but reduced the 

commercial motorboat use in the Wild Section to a level approximated from 1968 figures in the 

document, Motorboat Use on the Wild Rogue River: an Investigation of Use between Watson 

Creek and Blossom Bar (Donheffner and Muckleston 1976). The remaining permits (below the 

Wild Section) would be issued under the same terms and conditions that currently exist. 

Rationale: As outlined in Chapter 1, management decisions were made after 1968 by the 

regulatory agency delegated to permit use on the Rogue and Illinois Rivers. Since 1974, 

decisions have been made on managing motorized and non-motorized boat use by requiring 

permits, setting use levels, and implementing seasonal restrictions. The Oregon State Marine 

Board regulated use and issued permits until 1986 when permit system consolidation and 

management became a Forest Service responsibility. The Forest Service continued to issue 

permits to the tour boats, fishing guides, livery services, and other uses for the same numbers of 

trips that had been issued previously by the Marine Board. 

In 2002, the U.S. District Court ruled in a lawsuit that the Rogue RMP “does not require 

motorboat use to be limited to 1968 levels.” Recent user surveys and studies indicate a quality 

experience exists in the Wild Section for ninety percent or more of all users. As stated in 

Chapter 1, the revision to the Rogue RMP will analyze the effects of all recreation use in the 

Wild Section which could modify the permitting system to motorized and non-motorized boat 

use.
FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 16 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit

Alternatives Considered in Detail ___________________ 

Five action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are analyzed in detail in this Final EIS. This 

range of alternatives is designed to provide a variety of choices for responding to existing 

outfitter/guide permit holders and action alternatives are designed to be responsive to the stated 

purpose and need and address the significant issues. These alternatives were developed by the 

Forest Service and are responsive to issues raised by the public. Permitted use levels for all 

alternatives are comparatively displayed in Table 3. 

Alternative 1 - No Action 

Alternative 1 (the No Action Alternative) was developed as a requirement of the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and is used to compare the effects of authorizing the other 

alternatives. This alternative forms the basis for comparison against action alternatives. Under 

the No Action Alternative, the special use permits would not be issued. 

Special use permits for the docks at Paradise and Half Moon Bar Lodges would not be issued 

when they expire. A permit for a replacement dock would not be issued at Clay Hill Lodge. 

Alternative 1 identifies and describes the baseline conditions of the physical, biological, social 

and economic environments within the project area. As required by NEPA, a No-Action 

Alternative is included and analyzed in the Final EIS as a benchmark against which the action 

alternatives can be compared. 

Under this scenario, no project activities would take place, and the resulting environmental 

effects of no-action would be compared to the environmental effects of permitting the Proposed 

Action, or another alternative to go forward. Alternative 1 is not designed to address the stated 

Purpose and Need. With this alternative, it is assumed that current conditions regarding 

commercial operations would change and would not allow commercial operations of existing 

outfitter/guides. Since no special use permits would be authorized, no additional mitigation 

measures or management requirements and constraints would be necessary. 

Alternative 2 - Proposed Action 

This alternative was developed to analyze permitted operations with the same terms and 

conditions as the 2000-2004 permits. 

This alternative would reissue all 63 permits with the similar terms and conditions as the 2000-

2004 permits (see Specific and Unique Mitigation below). 

Total permitted use 26,733 trips per year 

Total permitted Rogue Wild 

Section use 2,128 trips per year 

Jobs 156 

Income $2,392,800 

Commercial Tour Boats

Two commercial tour boat companies would be offered three permits to operate jet boats on the 

Rogue River for scenic trips and to transport lodge guests. Three trip types would be permitted: 

Lobster Creek to either Snout Creek (Agness), Watson Creek (the beginning of the Wild Section 

on the lower Rogue), or to the pool below Blossom Bar Rapids (approximately 10 miles above 

Watson Creek in the Rogue Wild Section). Refer to sample permits in Appendix E for permit 

terms and conditions. 
FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 17 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit

Fishing Guides

Fifty-nine permits would be offered to fishing guides for trips on the lower Rogue and lower 

Illinois Rivers. Refer to the sample permits in Appendix E for permit terms and conditions. 

Livery Service, Boat Training Trips, Scenic Trips, and Raft Trips

Three fishing guide permits would include additional uses. One permit would include livery 

service, scenic trips, and boat training trips from Lobster Creek to the pool below Blossom Bar 

Rapids. Another would include livery trips and scenic trips from Foster Bar to Agness. The 

third permit would include raft trips from Foster Bar to Agness. Refer to the sample permits in 

Appendix E for permit terms and conditions. 

Commercial Lodge Boats

One permit would be issued to transport lodge guests from Foster Bar to Paradise Lodge. Refer 

to the sample permits in the Appendix E for permit terms and conditions. 

Docks

Three special use permits would be issued for docks in the Rogue Wild Section at the Paradise, 

Half Moon Bar, and Clay Hill Lodges. Refer to the sample permits in the Appendix for permit 

terms and conditions. 

Specific and Unique Mitigation

If total commercial use levels exceed the average of the two highest years from 2000-2004 more 

than two years in a row, user surveys, complaints, and on-river monitoring by Forest Service 

personnel would be used to determine if adverse impacts to the recreation Outstandingly 

Remarkable Values (ORVs) are occurring. Commercial outfitter/guide permits would be 

amended as needed to adjust permitted use to protect the Recreation ORV. 

Alternative 3 

This alternative was developed to reduce user conflicts in the Rogue Wild Section by restricting 

motorboat use to Tuesday through Saturday in the Rogue Wild Section. Restrictions apply when 

most floaters are using the river (Sunday and Monday). 

Total permitted use 25,814 trips per year 

Total permitted Rogue Wild 

Section use 1,417 trips per year 

Jobs 139-153* 

Income $2,128,400 - $2,341,700* 

*Actual amount depends on the degree to which Sunday-Monday use shifts to 

Tuesday-Saturday. Higher values are for maximum shift to Tuesday-Saturday. 

From April 1 through October 31, all 63 permits would prohibit motorboat use on Sunday and 

Monday in the Rogue Wild Section. On Tuesday through Saturday, permitted daily trip limits 

for each type of permit would be the same as the Proposed Action. 
FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 18 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit

Commercial Tour Boats

Two commercial tour boat companies would be offered three permits to operate jet boats on the 

Rogue River for scenic trips and to transport lodge guests. Three trip types would be permitted: 

Lobster Creek to either Snout Creek (Agness), Watson Creek (the beginning of the Wild Section 

on the lower Rogue), or to the pool below Blossom Bar Rapids (approximately 10 miles above 

Watson Creek in the Rogue Wild Section). In the Rogue Wild section, trips between November 

1 and March 31 would be specifically authorized for each permittee by the District Ranger. 

Refer to sample permits in Appendix E for permit terms and conditions. 

Fishing Guides

Fifty-nine permits would be offered to fishing guides for trips on the lower Rogue and lower 

Illinois Rivers. Refer to the sample permits in Appendix E for permit terms and conditions. 

Livery Service, Boat Training Trips, Scenic Trips, Raft Trips

Three fishing guide permits would include additional uses. One permit would include livery 

service, scenic trips, and boat training trips from Lobster Creek to the pool below Blossom Bar 

Rapids. Another would include livery trips and scenic trips from Foster Bar to Agness. The 

third permit would include raft trips from Foster Bar to Agness. Refer to the sample permits in 

Appendix E for permit terms and conditions. 

Commercial Lodge Boats

One permit would be issued to transport lodge guests from Foster Bar to Paradise Lodge. Refer 

to the sample permits in the Appendix E for permit terms and conditions. 

Docks (same as Alternative 2) 

Three special use permits would be issued for docks in the Rogue Wild Section at the Paradise, 

Half Moon Bar, and Clay Hill Lodges. Refer to the sample permits in the Appendix for permit 

terms and conditions. 

Specific and Unique Mitigation

If total commercial use levels exceed the average of the two highest years from 2000-2004 more 

than two years in a row, user surveys, complaints, and on-river monitoring by Forest Service 

personnel would be used to determine if adverse impacts to the Recreation ORV are occurring. 

Commercial outfitter/guide permits would be amended as needed to adjust permitted use to 

protect the Recreation ORV. 

Alternative 4 

This alternative was developed to bring use in the Rogue Wild Section closer to actual use, while 

providing some allowance for future increases in demand for outfitter/guide services. 

Total permitted use* 25,470 trips per year 

Total permitted Rogue Wild 

Section use* 1,073 trips per year 

Jobs 156 

Income $2,392,800 

*Includes 25% additional use 

All 63 permits would have permitted use in the Rogue Wild Section calculated as the average 

of the two highest years from 2000 to 2004. 
FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 19 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit

Commercial Tour Boats

Two commercial tour boat companies would be offered three permits to operate jet boats on the 

Rogue River for scenic trips and to transport lodge guests. Three trip types would be permitted: 

Lobster Creek to either Snout Creek (Agness), Watson Creek (the beginning of the Wild Section 

on the lower Rogue), or to the pool below Blossom Bar Rapids (approximately 10 miles above 

Watson Creek in the Rogue Wild Section). 

Additional use may be requested annually by each permit holder and granted by the District 

Ranger. This additional use would not exceed 25% of the permitted use on an annual basis or 

the maximum permitted use in the Proposed Action, whichever is less. Refer to the sample 

permits in Appendix E for permit terms and conditions. 

Fishing Guides

Fifty-nine permits would be offered to fishing guides for trips on the lower Rogue and lower 

Illinois Rivers. Refer to the sample fishing guide permit in Appendix E for permit terms and 

conditions. Additional use may be requested annually by each permit holder and granted by the 

District Ranger. This additional use would not exceed 25% of the permitted use or 10 trips, 

whichever is greater. Refer to the sample permits in Appendix E for permit terms and 

conditions. 

Livery Service, Boat Training Trips, Scenic Trips, and Raft Trips (same as fishing guides) 

Three fishing guide permits would include additional uses. One permit would include livery 

service, scenic trips, and boat training trips from Lobster Creek to the pool below Blossom Bar 

Rapids. Another would include livery trips and scenic trips from Foster Bar to Agness. The 

third permit would include raft trips from Foster Bar to Agness. Additional use may be 

requested annually by each permit holder and granted by the District Ranger. This additional use 

would not exceed 25% of the permitted use or 10 trips, whichever is greater. Refer to the sample 

permits in Appendix E for permit terms and conditions. 

Commercial Lodge Boats 

One permit would be issued to transport lodge guests from Foster Bar to Paradise Lodge. 

Additional use may be requested annually by each permit holder and granted by the District 

Ranger. This additional use would not exceed 25% of the permitted use or 10 trips, whichever is 

greater. Refer to the sample permits in Appendix E for permit terms and conditions. 

Docks

This alternative would only issue special use permits for the two existing docks at Paradise and 

Half Moon Bar Lodges. Refer to the sample permits in Appendix E for permit terms and 

conditions. 

Specific and Unique Mitigation

If total commercial use levels in the Scenic and Recreational Sections of the lower Rogue River 

or in the Recreational Section of the lower Illinois River exceed the average of the two highest 

years from 2000-2004 more than two years in a row, user surveys, complaints, and on-river 

monitoring by Forest Service personnel would be used to determine if adverse impacts to the 

Recreation ORV are occurring. Commercial outfitter/guide permits would be amended as 

needed to adjust permitted use to protect the Recreation ORV. 
FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 20 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit

Alternative 5 - Preferred Alternative 

This alternative was developed in response to public comments on the DEIS to include an 

alternative that analyzed actual use. This alternative would bring all commercial special use 

permits for all sections of the lower Rogue River and the Recreation Section of the lower Illinois 

River closer to actual use. 

All 63 permits would have permitted use for the entire project area based on the average of the 

two highest years use from 2000-2004. Additional use may be requested annually by each 

permit holder and granted by the District Ranger. The additional use could be up to, but would 

not exceed 25% of the permitted use. 

Total permitted use* 3,797 trips per year 

Total permitted Rogue Wild 

Section use* 825 trips per year 

Jobs 156 

Income $2,055,800 

*Includes 25% additional use 

Commercial Tour Boats

Two commercial tour boat companies would be offered three permits to operate jet boats on the 

Rogue River for scenic trips and to transport lodge guests. Three trip types would be permitted: 

Lobster Creek to either Snout Creek (Agness), Watson Creek (the beginning of the Wild Section 

on the lower Rogue), or to the pool below Blossom Bar Rapids (approximately 10 miles above 

Watson Creek in the Rogue Wild Section). Refer to sample permits in Appendix E for permit 

terms and conditions. 

Fishing Guides

Fifty-nine permits would be offered to fishing guides for trips on the lower Rogue and lower 

Illinois Rivers. Refer to the sample permits in Appendix E for permit terms and conditions. 

Livery Service, Boat Training Trips, Scenic Trips, and Raft Trips (Same as Alternative 2) 

Three fishing guide permits would include additional uses. One permit would include livery 

service, scenic trips, and boat training trips from Lobster Creek to the pool below Blossom Bar 

Rapids. Another would include livery trips and scenic trips from Foster Bar to Agness. The 

third permit would include raft trips from Foster Bar to Agness. Refer to the sample permits in 

Appendix E for permit terms and conditions. 

Commercial Lodge Boats

One permit would be issued to transport lodge guests from Foster Bar to Paradise Lodge. Refer 

to the sample permits in the Appendix E for permit terms and conditions. 

Docks (Same as Alternative 2) 

Three special use permits would be issued for docks in the Rogue Wild Section at the Paradise, 

Half Moon Bar, and Clay Hill Lodges. Refer to the sample permits in the Appendix for permit 

terms and conditions. 
FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 21 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit

Specific and Unique Mitigation 

If commercial use levels in the Wild, Scenic and Recreation Sections of the lower Rogue River 

or in the Recreational Section of the lower Illinois River exceed the average of the two highest 

years from 2000-2004 more than two years in a row, user surveys, complaints, and on-river 

monitoring by Forest Service personnel would be used to determine if adverse impacts to the 

Recreation ORV are occurring. Commercial outfitter/guide permits would be amended as needed 

to adjust additional use to protect the Recreation ORV. 

Alternative 6 

This alternative was developed in response to public comments on the DEIS and would reduce 

tour boat and lodge boat permitted use to current outfitter/guide use levels. 

Total permitted use 19,405 trips per year 

Total permitted Rogue Wild 

Section use 930 trips per year 

Jobs 134 

Income $2,055,800 

Commercial Tour Boats

Two commercial tour boat companies would be offered three permits to operate jet boats on the 

Rogue River for scenic trips and to transport lodge guests. Three trip types would be permitted: 

Lobster Creek to either Snout Creek (Agness), Watson Creek (the beginning of the Wild Section 

on the lower Rogue), or to the pool below Blossom Bar Rapids (approximately 10 miles above 

Watson Creek in the Rogue Wild Section). Permitted use on all sections of the lower Rogue 

River would be limited to the average of the two lowest years of use between 2000 and 2004. 

Refer to the sample permits in Appendix E for permit terms and conditions. 

Fishing Guides (same as Alternative 2 for Rogue River Fishing Guides) 

Fifty-nine permits would be offered to fishing guides for trips on the lower Rogue and lower 

Illinois Rivers, but use on the Illinois would be limited to 30 trips per year for each permit. 

Refer to the s sample permits in Appendix E for permit terms and conditions. 

Livery Service, Boat Training Trips, Scenic Trips, Raft Trips (same as Alternative 2) 

Three fishing guide permits would include additional uses. One permit would include livery 

service, scenic trips, and boat training trips from Lobster Creek to the pool below Blossom Bar 

Rapids. Another would include livery trips and scenic trips from Foster Bar to Agness. The 

third permit would include raft trips from Foster Bar to Agness. Refer to the sample permits in 

Appendix E for permit terms and conditions. 

Commercial Lodge Boats 

One permit would be issued to transport lodge guests from Foster Bar to Paradise Lodge. 

Permitted use on all sections of the lower Rogue River would be limited to the average of the 

two lowest years of use between 2000 and 2004. Refer to the sample permits in Appendix E for 

permit terms and conditions. 

Docks (Same as Alternative 2) 

Three special use permits would be issued for docks in the Rogue Wild Section at the Paradise, 

Half Moon Bar, and Clay Hill Lodges. Refer to the sample permits in Appendix E for permit 

terms and conditions. 
FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 22 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit

Specific and Unique Mitigation 

If commercial use levels by fishing guides, livery service, boat training trips, scenic trips and raft 

trips in the Scenic and Recreational Sections of the lower Rogue River exceed the average of the 

two highest years from 2000-2004 more than two years in a row, user surveys, complaints, and 

on-river monitoring by Forest Service personnel will be used to determine if negative impacts to 

the Recreation ORV are occurring. Permits would be amended as needed to adjust permitted use 

to protect the Recreation ORV. 

Maximum Boat Trip Limits - All Action Alternatives 

In accordance with permit terms and conditions, the following maximum daily limits are 

applicable to all action alternatives described above. Also see sample commercial boat and 

lodge boat permits in Appendix E for specific permit terms and conditions. 

Table 1: Daily Maximum Commercial Tour Boat Trip Limits - Action Alternatives 

Rogue River – 

all Sections 

Snout Creek 

(Agness) to 

Watson Creek 

Rogue Wild 

Section 

May 1 – June 15 and day after Labor Day – 

October 31 16 13 6 

June 16 – Labor Day 28 17 6 

November 1 – April 30 4 (maximum 8 

per week) No limit No limit 

Table 2: Daily Maximum Commercial Lodge Boat Trip Limits - Action Alternatives 

Trips per 

Day 

Trips per 

Season Passenger Limits 

May 1 – October 31 2 180 15/day upstream 

15/day downstream 

November 1 – April 

30 No limit 185 18/trip 
FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 23 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit

Comparison of Alternatives_________________________ 

This section presents a comparison of proposed permitted use (Table 3) and a comparison of 

alternatives by key indicators for the significant issues (Table 4). 

Table 3: Average Annual Use (2000-2004) and Proposed Permitted Annual Use (number of trips per year) by 

Alternative. 

Type of 

Permitted 

Use/Area 

Average 

of 2 

highest 

years use 

2000-

2004 

Average 

of 2 

lowest 

years use 

2000-

2004 

Alt. 1 

No 

Action 

Alt. 2 

Proposed 

Action 

Alt. 3 Alt. 4* Alt. 5* Alt. 6 

Tour Boats

Lobster 

Creek To 

Watson 

Creek 

1,089 852 0 2,932 2,724 2,724 1361 852 

Lobster to 

Blossom 

Bar 

510 349 0 1,312 792 639 639 349 

Lodge Boats 

197 130 0 365 261 246 246 130 

Rogue River Fishing Guides ** 

Wild 

Section 

Year-Round 

132 99 0 394 307 165 165 394 

Wild 

Section 

Winter only 

18 5 0 57 57 23 23 57 

Lobster 

Creek To 

Watson 

Creek 

1,061 861 0 17,293 17,293 17,293 1,326 17,293 

Illinois River Fishing Guides

30 16 0 4,380 4,380 4,380 38 330 

Docks

0 3 3 2 3 3 

 *Includes 25% additional use 

**Includes livery trips, scenic trips, and float trips from Foster Bar to Agness 

Table 4: Comparison of Alternatives by Key Indicators for Significant Issues 

Issue and Key Indicators Alt. 1 Alt. 2 Alt.3 Alt.4 Alt. 5 Alt.6 

WILDLIFE AND FISH HABITAT 

Key Indicator – Number of yearly 

permitted commercial motorboat trips 

0 26,733 25,814 25,470* 3,797* 19,405 

USER CONFLICTS 

Key Indicator – number of yearly 

permitted commercial trips in the Wild 

Section of the lower Rogue River 

0 2,128 1,417 1,073* 825* 930 

ECONOMIC IMPACTS 0 156 139 -153** 156 156 134 

Key Indicator –jobs and income 

generated by permitted activities 0 $2,392,800 $2,128,400 -

$2,341,700** $2,392,800 $2,392,800 $2,055,800 

*Includes 25% additional use 

**Depends on the degree to which Sunday-Monday trips shift to Tuesday-Saturday. Higher values are for maximum shift 

of Sunday-Monday trips to Tuesday-Saturday
FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 24 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit

Mitigation Measures Common to All Action Alternatives____ 

Specific resource mitigation measures and terms and conditions are developed for all action 

alternatives analyzed in detail. These include appropriate measures a defined by NEPA 

Regulations at 40 CFR 1502.14(f) and 1508.20. These mitigation measures would be required 

under all action alternatives to reduce, rectify, avoid, eliminate, and/or compensate the potential 

resource impacts as required by 40 CFR 1508.20. 

Botany 

Mitigation measures to reduce the noxious weed spread along the lower Rogue and Illinois River 

corridors would include: 

• Avoid parking equipment or docks on noxious weed populations during winter storage 

• Avoid driving through noxious weed populations while moving docks 

• Treat weed sites by pulling up plants and mark weed locations with flagging prior to 

moving docks for high water events 

• Avoid pulling boats up onto gravel bars near noxious weed populations 

• Clean all equipment and vehicles prior to entry onto USFS lands 

Mitigation measures that would minimize impacts to vegetation resource: 

• Avoid parking equipment in wet areas at Oak Flat. The wet areas at Oak Flat are habitat 

for Scirpus pendulus 

Monitoring___________________________________ 

The following listing outlines specific resources that would be monitored, subject to funding 

availability, over the next five-years of any permitted commercial motorboat use. 

Hydrology 

Continue to monitor stream temperature at designated sites on the Rogue and Illinois Rivers. 

Observe and document specific sites annually where prop wash, willow cutting, and rock moving 

forms of channel maintenance occur on the Rogue River. Also observe excavator operations at 

Illahe Island and document the extent of downstream turbidity. 

Fisheries 

Continue partnering with the Lower Rogue Watershed Council and ODFW to monitor watershed 

attributes and fisheries. 

Wildlife 

Continue to monitor bald eagle, osprey, and peregrine falcon nest locations and western pond 

turtle and yellow-legged frog populations in the Rogue and Illinois River corridors. 

Monitor yellow-legged frog egg masses and/or tadpole/juvenile amphibians in the Rogue and 

Illinois River corridors. 
FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 25 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit

Recreation 

Continue staff observations of all boat types when conducting administrative river trips. Follow 

up on and document any complaints concerning boating conflicts. Conduct surveys with river 

users concerning their recreational experience as described in the specific and unique mitigation. 

Discuss concerns with fishing guides, tour boat operators, lodge boat operator, and floaters 

through meetings with the various user groups. 

Cultural Resources 

Programmatic and random monitoring of known sites will occur to help prevent casual collection 

or looting. 
FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 26 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit

This page intentionally left blank
FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 27 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit

CHAPTER 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

This chapter summarizes the project area physical, biological, social, and economic 

characteristics and presents the scientific and analytical basis for comparing the alternatives 

described in Chapter 2. 

Changes Between Draft and Final: This chapter was updated with information about two 

additional Endangered and Threatened wildlife species – Steller sea lion and brown pelican. The 

Water Resources section on Channel Maintenance was also expanded, with more site-specific 

information on channel maintenance activities and the site-specific locations of these activities. 

The Botany section was updated to remove one former “Survey and Manage” fungus and to add 

the other three former “Survey and Manage” species to the “Sensitive Species” listing. 

Physical Setting _________________________________ 

The Wild and Scenic Rogue and Illinois River corridors are dynamic landscapes. The 

mountainous topography has steep slopes and incised canyons. Rainfall ranges from 90 to 120 

inches per year. The maritime climate has hot, dry summers and wet, moderately cold winters. 

The Rogue River is the third largest river in Oregon after the Columbia and the Willamette. It 

drains 5,164 square miles. It is one of three Oregon rivers that originate in the Cascade Range 

and flow west to the Pacific Ocean. From its source near Crater Lake National Park, the Rogue 

River flows over 200 miles before entering the Pacific Ocean near the town of Gold Beach, 

Oregon. 

The Rogue River stretch from Marial to the mouth is one of the most recreationally diverse areas 

on the Gold Beach Ranger District. The river corridor below Agness has the highest number of 

recreational visitors on the district. Recreational activities include downriver floating with rafts, 

drift boats, canoes and kayaks; motorboating, commercial tour boat trips, fishing, hiking, 

hunting, swimming, camping, and recreational driving. 

The Illinois River is a major Rogue River tributary. The Illinois River drains 990 square miles - 

19 percent of the Rogue River basin. The Illinois basin is located primarily within Oregon’s 

Josephine and Curry Counties, with a small portion in Siskiyou County in northwestern 

California. 

The Lower Illinois Watershed (defined as the Illinois River from Silver Creek to its confluence 

with the Rogue) offers a variety of recreational opportunities, including camping, hiking, rafting, 

recreational driving, mountain biking, motorcycling, horseback riding, hunting, wildflower 

viewing, botanical study, catch and release fishing, motorboating, and downriver floating with 

rafts, drift boats and kayaks. 

Geology - Rogue River 

The Rogue River traverses dissimilar geological provinces between its Cascade Mountain 

headwaters and the Pacific Ocean. The river geomorphology – channel shape, trend, and 

character – reflects these differences in bedrock. 

A wide range of geological land types and soil parent materials is represented along the Rogue 

and Illinois Rivers. The land type diversity includes rock outcrops, river-washed gravels, land 

flows, and land slump terrain. Soil parent materials are also diverse and include Umpqua 

Formation sandstones and siltstones and Galice Formation metavolcanic rocks. The Wild and 

Scenic Sections of both rivers fall within the Klamath Mountains Geologic Province.
FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 28 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit

Flat, open land is limited along both river corridors, but where it does occur, slopes on river 

terraces range from four to ten percent. More commonly, steep mountain slopes, as high as 

5,000 feet, come down to the river. While topography limited historical land use, geology 

provided gold deposits as an economic substitute. 

As the Rogue River nears Galice and the Wild and Scenic Section, it encounters the rugged 

terrain of the Klamath Mountain Geologic Province. The Klamath province is a product of 

millions of years of tectonic subduction and accretion in which pieces of ocean crust, island arc 

volcanoes, and sedimentary basins collided with the North American continent. These rocks are 

faulted, fractured and sheared. Between Galice and Foster Bar the river is bedrock controlled, 

following ancient fault trends and fractures and the more easily eroded rock types. Landforms in 

this segment reflect differential erosion within fracture zones and among rock types with varying 

erosion resistance. 

Metamorphosed volcanic rocks and sheeted dike complexes exposed at Mule Creek Canyon and 

Stair Creek Falls are resistant to erosion, and form steep canyon walls through which the river 

flows rapidly. A zone of sheared muscovite schist creates a knickpoint and rapids at Blossom 

Bar, where large conglomerate boulders are an obstacle for motorboats and a challenge to 

whitewater floaters. 

Stream morphology changes dramatically at Tate Creek below Blossom Bar Rapids, as the river 

flows across a contact between the Rogue and Riddle Formations. Riddle Formation rocks 

include resistant metamorphosed sandstone and conglomerate, and less resistant shale. Near 

vertical bedding shows differential erosion, but because the bedding is thinner and less resistant 

than the Dothan Formation upstream of Blossom Bar, the river cuts a wider, shallower channel. 

Backwater embayments are shallower and less protected than those in similar sites upstream in 

the Dothan Formation. 

Contact between the Riddle Formation and the sedimentary conglomerate, sandstone and shale 

of the Flournoy and Lookingglass Formations is exposed below Clay Hill Creek. Bedding is 

near horizontal, and massive conglomerate beds form cliffs and waterfalls adjacent to the river 

and on tributary streams. The Riddle Formation upper portion is composed of thinly bedded 

mudstone, fine-grained sandstone, and siltstone. The Rogue River channel becomes increasingly 

wider here and the stream gradient continues to decrease. Backwaters, such as those at the 

mouth of Two-mile Creek, are wide and shallow. 

A fault between Shasta Costa and just beyond Tom Frye Creek thrust older Myrtle Group 

sandstone, siltstone, and conglomerate over the younger Lookingglass Formation. Large river 

bends through the Illinois River mouth and around Copper Canyon are structurally controlled. A 

series of parallel faults (shear zones) have juxtaposed rocks of varying hardness, and the faults 

are areas of weakened, fractured bedrock. 

Jurassic Colebrooke Formation is the dominant bedrock type between Copper Canyon and 

Lobster Creek. It is a less resistant graphite schist with occasional but large inclusions of pillow 

lavas. Tributary streams often define the common faults and fractures in the area. Fault trends 

control the river channel, and morphology is controlled by easily eroded fault zones and large, 

ancient, marginally stable to active slumps and earth flows that toe into the stream. Backwater 

embayments are rare in this reach. Small coves form below more quartz-rich (and resistant) 

schist, but these are usually not large enough to offer protection from or to dissipate waves. 
FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 29 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit

Geology - Illinois River 

The Illinois River originates in the Siskiyou Mountains near the California – Oregon border. The 

river travels through an uplifted remnant of a broad plateau, now eroded into rugged and 

mountainous landforms. The geomorphology of the mountains, valleys and stream courses 

reflects the underlying rock and tectonic history. More easily eroded rocks, such as mudstone, 

form rounded hills, while harder rocks, such as gabbro, form sharp resistant ridges. 

The lower Illinois River course is strongly controlled by the underlying geologic structures. The 

project area has many faulted contacts between and within rock types. The fault patterns 

influence stream course and gradient, especially where rocks of different hardness are 

juxtaposed. Where north trending normal faults cut through more resistant rocks, the river is 

confined to a straight, deeply entrenched bedrock channel. Northwest trending faults create 

sharp bends in the stream course, often marked by debris slides and rock falls from the canyon 

walls. 

Geologically recent deposits are unconsolidated water-deposited sand, silt, and gravels. Material 

deposited at Oak Flat or at the Illinois River mouth comes from many sources along the river 

course. Humans have used the river terraces for settlements, pasture, and agriculture. Soil 

development tends to be minimal and droughty on these deposits. Several higher and more 

ancient terraces have developed deeper, productive soils, possibly accelerated by organic 

material additions from crops and livestock. However, because of their lower slope position and 

poor sediment consolidation, they are prone to stability problems that are substantially worsened 

by stream channel erosion, roads and building sites. Surface erosion and landslides can also be 

triggered by groundwater saturation or concentrated surface water runoff. 

River Outstandingly Remarkable Values (WSRA) 

Rogue River

The Outstandingly Remarkable Values (ORVs) for the Rogue River are fisheries, recreation and 

scenery. It is internationally known for its fisheries. In the 1920s and 1930s, the Rogue became 

famous for sport fishing. Recreation use is centered on water oriented activities including 

fishing, boating, and sightseeing. The river flows through many areas of outstanding natural 

beauty. Natural features, including towering cliffs and large moss covered boulders in some of 

the canyons and chutes, are spellbinding. Rapids provide “picture taking” scenery of white water 

conditions. 

Illinois River 

The Outstandingly Remarkable Values for the Illinois River are recreation, fisheries, water 

quality, scenery, and botanical. The Illinois is widely known for its good fishing, clean water, 

scenery, botanical diversity, whitewater rafting and boating. 
FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 30 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit

Water Resources_________________________________ 

Water Quality is designated as an Outstandingly Remarkable Value under the Wild and Scenic 

Rivers Act for the Illinois River. 

River Morphology 

The Rogue River channel gradient ranges from about 35 feet per mile in the upstream section to 

about 3 feet per mile downstream of Clay Hill. River current is strong and punctuated by riffles. 

The riffles result from differential erosion of harder and softer rocks along the river bed, 

slumping of rocks and soil from banks into the river, and rock and debris deposition at tributary 

mouths. The lower Illinois gradient from its mouth to Nancy Creek is also about 3 feet per mile. 

Flooding occurs on a major and minor scale, eroding land along the river and simultaneously 

depositing silt on bars and terraces. Large flood events have occurred in 1861, 1890, 1927, 

1955, 1964, 1974 and 1997. Minor flood events deposit temporary rock and debris dams at 

tributary mouths. These dams last until a major river flood washes them away. Major floods 

also clean silt from river gravels, thin riparian vegetation, carry away or cover up vegetation 

along the river, and change the river bed. 

Water Quantity 

Average annual flow in the lower Rogue River below its confluence with the Illinois is 6,730 

cubic feet per second (cfs): 5,473 cfs from the Rogue River and 1,257 cfs from the Illinois. Flow 

patterns mirror the annual precipitation pattern in the basin. During the relatively wet winter 

season from November through March, flows are high. From March through the end of summer, 

flows recede, gradually as the winter snowpack melts, then more rapidly as the upper watersheds 

dry out. Flow upstream of Marial Lodge has been regulated by Lost Creek Lake (located 110 

miles upstream of Marial on the Rogue River) since February 1977 and by Applegate Lake 

((located 93 miles upstream of Marial on the Applegate River) since December 1980. The effect 

of regulation downstream of Marial Lodge has been to reduce high winter flows and to increase 

low summer flows (see Figure 3). 

Until a certain date, low reservoir levels are maintained for flood storage. Sometime after the 

threat of flooding has sharply decreased, reservoir levels may be increased up to the spillway 

crest for use during low flows. 

From about July through September large quantities of water are withdrawn from Lost Creek and 

Applegate Lakes for many purposes, including irrigation, municipal, and industrial uses. Most 

of this latter use is in the upper Rogue River Valley between Lost Creek Lake and Grants Pass, 

in the Applegate River valley below Applegate Lake, and in the Bear Creek valley below 

Emigrant Lake. 

During the summer and early fall, river flow averages about 2,000 cfs, or less than one-third the 

annual average. The record high flow at the gauging station near Agness was 290,000 cfs on 

December 23, 1964. The 1997 flood produced a flow of 241,000 cfs on January 2. The record 

low flow at this gauging station was 608 cfs on July 9, 1968. 
Figure 3: Average Monthly Flow on the Rogue River Before and After Lost Creek Dam Construction 

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

18000

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Flow (CFS)

Pre Lost Creek Post Lost Creek

Source: USGS 

There are many water withdrawals in the lower Rogue and Illinois Rivers (between Marial and 

Lobster Creek on the lower Rogue and Nancy Creek and the mouth on the lower Illinois). Most 

are for domestic or stock watering use. The water amounts withdrawn are minor in comparison 

with those in the populated valleys in the middle portion of the basin. Figure 4 shows 

withdrawal locations in the lower rivers. 

Figure 4: Water Diversions on the Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Rivers (triangles)

Source: Oregon Water Resources Department

FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 31 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit
FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 32 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit

Water Quality 

The lower Rogue and lower Illinois Wild and Scenic Sections are thought to have excellent 

water quality. Other than storm events that produce high, turbid flows, the rivers are visually 

clear. The Oregon Water Quality Index Report for 1986 to 1995 rated project area water quality 

as ‘good’. Report ratings ranged from ‘very poor’ (Bear Creek in the Middle Lower Rogue subbasin) to ‘good’. The highest rating was at Dodge Bridge in the upper Lower Rogue River. The 

Illinois River was also rated as ‘good’. 

The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (2002) has designated the Rogue River from 

the Pacific Ocean upriver to Little Butte creek at RM 132, and the Illinois River from its 

confluence with the Rogue to RM 56 as stream segments that do not meet water quality 

standards and placed them on the “303(d) List”, in part because they regularly exceed the water 

quality standard for stream temperature. This means that water quality standards designed to 

protect beneficial uses (domestic and municipal water supplies, industrial water supply, 

irrigation, livestock watering, anadromous and resident fish spawning, rearing, and passage, 

wildlife, fishing, hunting, boating, water contact recreation, and aesthetic quality) are regularly 

exceeded. The EPA approved the Oregon 2002 303(d) list on March 24, 2003. 

Both rivers exceed the stream temperature standard most of the summer. The daily high 

temperature 7-day moving average should be at or below 64°

F. High temperatures in both rivers 

are often nearly ten degrees warmer than the standard. Warm water temperatures, while pleasant 

for recreationists, are detrimental to aquatic life, especially salmonids. Figure 5 shows the 7-day 

maximum water temperatures and the water quality standard. 

During the summer, upstream reservoirs (Lost Creek and Applegate) release cooler water than 

would occur at those reservoir sites under natural conditions, and they release considerably more 

flow into the rivers (Rogue and Applegate Rivers) than would be occurring in the rivers under 

natural conditions. The combination of increased flow and cooler temperatures results in lower 

stream temperatures in the project area than would occur under natural flow conditions. Release 

of cooler temperature water by itself is not enough to cool water temperatures in the project area 

due to the warming that occurs between the reservoirs and the project area. 

Elevated stream temperatures are not the only river water quality problem. In summer, the lower 

Rogue River from the mouth to the Illinois confluence also exceeds the pH water quality 

standard of 6.5 - 8.5. Values of 8.9 have been recorded. High pH readings are most likely due 

additional dissolved minerals or to algal growth stimulated by warmer water temperatures. River 

pH between Grave Creek and the Applegate River also exceeds the standard during the fall to 

spring period. 
Figure 5: Summer Water Temperatures on the Rogue River, July-September 2003

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

7/13/2003

7/15/2003

7/17/20037/19/20037/21/2003

7/23/2003

7/25/2003

7/27/20037/29/20037/31/2003

8/2/2003

8/4/2003

8/6/20038/8/2003

8/10/2003

8/12/2003

8/14/20038/16/20038/18/20038/20/20038/22/2003

8/24/2003

8/26/20038/28/20038/30/2003

9/1/2003

9/3/20039/5/2003

Temperature (F)

7-Day Average Maximum Water Quality Standard

Source: USGA

Channel Maintenance 

Channel maintenance activities have occurred since 1935 on the Rogue River at or below Agness 

(see Table 5 and Figure 6), and since 1962 at Illahe Island. Channel maintenance does not occur 

and is not authorized in the Illinois River. 

Boulders, cobbles, gravels, sands, and silt are moved and deposited in response to stream flow. 

Channel maintenance needs occur when enough of these materials build up to restrict boat travel 

at riffles or near Illahe Island, or when willows reduce sight distance. Channel maintenance 

activities include moving accumulated cobbles and gravels and lesser amounts of sand and silt at 

selected riffles and Illahe Island, moving small boulders by hand at selected riffles, and cutting 

willows at specific locations to improve safety. 

Most channel maintenance consists of repositioning small boulders, cobbles, gravels and lesser 

amounts of sands and silts within the channel. This is accomplished at most riffles with a boat 

engine propeller. A boat is tethered to the shore, and the boat propeller creates enough water 

force to suspend cobbles and smaller material in the flowing water so they can be re-deposited to 

one side and/or carried downstream to be re-deposited in deeper parts of the channel. This 

technique is referred to as the “prop wash” method. Thirty-three maintained riffles are in the 

Scenic/Recreational Section and the remaining 11 are below Lobster Creek. Maintenance 

generally occurs at 10-15 riffles each year whenever and wherever needed (and possibly more 

than once a year). The riffles that require channel maintenance vary from year to year, 

depending on the size and number of high winter flows and the sediment supply for that year. 

FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 33 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit
FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 34 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit

Riffle maintenance by prop wash is done where the water depth is 1-1.5 feet or less, and there is 

a hazard to safe boat passage. Maintenance deepens the channel about 1.5-2.5 feet in an area 

about 8-12 feet wide and 50-300 feet long at each riffle. The amount of material moved varies 

from ~22 to 333 cubic yards for each riffle (median amount = 130 cubic yards). Most of the 

material moved (~80%; median amount = 104 cubic yards) is transported downstream to a 

deeper section of the river. The remaining 20% is pushed to the sides of the riffle. These deeper 

river sections (pools) are generally about 100 feet wide, 100 feet long, and 7 feet deep during 

summer flows (about 2,600 cubic yards of water). The median amount of material moved by 

prop wash into a pool represents about 4 percent of the summer pool volume. Assuming that 

half of the 29 river miles from the uppermost prop wash location to the Rogue mouth consist of 

pools, prop wash at 15 sites would fill in about 0.003 percent of the total pool volume. 

Table 5: Lower Rogue River Riffles where Prop Wash Channel Maintenance Occurs 

Riffle Name Map Number Riffle Name Map Number Riffle Name Map Number 

Alder 1 William Miller 16 Nail Keg 30 

Snag Patch 2 Hawkins 17 New 31 

Cannery 3 Silver Creek 18 Bear 32 

Ferry 4 Lowery 19 Bean 33 

Canfield 5 Bacon Flat 20 Boiler/Mixer 34 

Coyote/Jim Hunt 6 Big Fish 21 Peterman 35 

Wakeman/Four 

Seasons 7 Fry’s Landing 22 Twin 

Sisters/Smithers 36 

Bill Ash 8 Bradford Creek 23 Crooked 37 

Gillespie 9 Coal/Lower Coal 24 Upper Crooked 38 

Jimmy Davis 10 Upper Coal 25 Wee 39 

Coffee Pot 11 Slide Creek 26 Smith 40 

Lobster 12 Sherman 27 Hotel 41 

Shallow 13 Auberry 28 Illinois 42 

Scow 14 Tom East 29 Milkmaid 43 

Jennings 15 Mermaid 44 

The deepened portion of the riffles would have a greater hydraulic efficiency, resulting in a 

lower water surface for a given flow. However, there is no or very little visual change in flow 

width due to the fact that the width of the channel on which maintenance is performed is small in 

comparison to the total width. Consequently, change in wetted perimeter due to change in flow 

width is insignificant. The deepening of a portion of the riffle results in an increase in both the 

wetted perimeter and the average depth. Consequently, there is little change in wetted perimeter 

to depth ratios. 

An average of five maintained riffles have additional prop wash two to three times per summer 

as flows decrease. The amount of material moved is small in comparison to that described above 

for the initial maintenance at each site. The turbidity is also much less than for the initial 

maintenance at each location, as fines that produce turbidity have been washed out during the 

initial maintenance.
Figure 6. Lower Rogue River Riffles where Prop Wash Channel Maintenance Occurs

Note: riffle Names are found in Table 5.

Maintenance at Illahe Island occurred in 1974, 1986, 1992, 1994, and 1996-2000. This 

maintenance is not annual and is not done more than once a year. Channel maintenance at Illahe 

Island uses an excavator, tractor, or bulldozer to excavate or push material out of the channel and 

onto a gravel bar in the river. The equipment is brought down the right bank near Illahe Lodge. 

The maintenance takes about one-half day and the material moved varies from 389 to 583 cubic 

yards. The discussion above about changes in flow width and wetter perimeter to depth ratios 

also applies to the Illahe Island maintenance. This maintenance has no impact on pools, as the 

material is placed on a gravel bar. 

At up to four to six riffles each year, small boulders are removed from the boating channel by 

hand. This does not occur every year, and, when it does occur, usually only 1-2 riffles are 

affected. The boulders are placed along the outside edge of the passable channel to mark the 

area safe for boat travel. Water continues to flow on both sides of these boulders. Roughly 40-

60 small boulders are removed from the boating channel by hand at each location. 

Due to relatively large hydraulic forces, particularly during winter flows, the bed material 

deposited and subsequently moved by channel maintenance activities is composed primarily of

cobbles and gravels. The winter flows have enough hydraulic force to redistribute all materials 

moved by channel maintenance, including the small boulders moved by hand. 

FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 35 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit
FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 36 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit

Willows would be cut using hand pruners and chain saws to improve sight distance for boater 

safety. The cut material would be thrown further back onto the river bar among the other 

willows. During most winters high water knocks down or removes these willows. When there 

are unusually low flows the willows are not knocked down or removed by high water and reduce 

the sight distance. Willows are removed from five areas (Foster Creek Rapid, Watson Creek 

Rapid, Burns Rapid, Peyton Rapid, and Clay Hill Island). Willow cutting areas are 15-30 feet 

wide and 40-200 feet long (0.01 to 0.13 acre). 

Fisheries _______________________________________ 

Fisheries are designated as an Outstandingly Remarkable Value under the Wild and Scenic 

Rivers Act for both the Rogue and Illinois Rivers. Fish and fish habitat were identified as a 

significant issue in Chapter 1. The Fisheries Biological Evaluation can be found in FEIS 

Appendix F. 

The Rogue and Illinois Rivers are a rich fishery and their many tributaries offer spawning and 

rearing habitat for a variety of fish. Seasonal runs of anadromous steelhead trout and salmon 

have been important to river corridor dwellers since prehistoric times. Fish aggregate at riffles 

and rapids during spring and fall migrations to inland spawning grounds, providing rich fishing. 

Year-round native trout populations also inhabit these waterways. 

Four Pacific salmon and trout species are found in both rivers. Coho (Oncorhynchus kisutch) and 

chinook (O. tshawytscha) are the traditional Pacific salmon. They must migrate to the ocean and 

they die after one spawning run from the ocean. Steelhead and rainbow trout (O. mykiss) and 

coastal cutthroat trout (O. clarki), have less-restricted life histories. Resident and anadromous 

populations of each species exist in the lower Rogue below Grave Creek and lower Illinois. 

These fish can make more than one return migration to freshwater and can spawn more than once 

in their lifetime. The Rogue River is unusual in that it supports three O. mykiss forms

sympatrically: resident rainbow trout, winter steelhead and summer steelhead. 

The diversity of salmonid stocks that use the middle and upper Rogue River (upstream of Grave 

Creek) and the Illinois River, means there are adult fish in the lower Rogue River throughout the 

year. These fish are the basis of both a world-class sport fishery and the human cultures along 

the Rogue River. Anglers support a large portion of the Agness and Gold Beach economies, and 

many lodge and guide businesses have been developed to serve these anglers. 

Salmonids spawning in the lower Rogue and Illinois Rivers tend to enter the river at the end of 

adult migration runs. Juveniles also enter the ocean earlier than upriver fish and they migrate 

south and stay close to shore in the ocean (Rivers 1991; Meehan and Bjornn 1991). 

Non-salmonids in the two rivers are listed in Table 6. They include: anadromous Pacific 

lamprey, a poorly-known species whose populations are suspected to be in decline throughout 

their range; brook lamprey, another poorly known species whose populations are suspected to be 

in decline throughout their range; and green sturgeon, which was petitioned for listing under the 

Endangered Species Act, but did not warrant listing. 

Nearly all fish production in the lower Rogue and lower Illinois sub-basins occurs in tributaries. 

Winter mainstem flows are too powerful and can mobilize the mainstem stream bottom, 

destroying eggs laid in gravel. Few tributaries have well-developed habitat for salmonids. 

Below Agness, only Lobster and Quosatana Creeks have extensive salmonid habitat, while 

Shasta Costa and Foster Creeks are the only tributaries above Agness that provide habitat. 
FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 37 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit

Lawson, Indigo, and Silver Creeks produce most of the salmon and trout in the lower Illinois. 

However, during low water years, dry tributary mouths block access to spawning habitat and 

chinook will spawn in the mainstem. Tributaries of both rivers also provide spawning and 

rearing habitat for steelhead, anadromous cutthroat, and resident trout. 

Table 6: Non-salmonids in the Rogue and Illinois Rivers 

Common Name Scientific Name Anadromous Native 

Pacific lamprey Lampetra tridentate Yes Yes 

Brook lamprey Lampetra richardsoni No Yes 

Green sturgeon Acipenser medirostrus Yes Yes 

White sturgeon Acipenser transmontanus Yes Yes 

Coast range sculpin Cottus aleuticus No Yes 

Prickly sculpin Cottus asper No Yes 

Reticulate sculpin Cottus perplexus No Yes 

Redside shiner Richardsonius balteatus No No 

Three-spined sticklebacks Gasterosteus aculeatus No Yes 

Umpqua pikeminnow Ptychocheilus umpquae No Yes 

Fish Habitat 

The lower Rogue has a wide active channel and flows through a narrow canyon from river mile 

(RM) 27 to RM 17 (Columbia Basin Inter-Agency Committee 1967). Downstream of RM 17, 

the river valley opens up, the gradient decreases further and extensive gravel bars form. The 

project area extends down to RM 10.8 at Lobster Creek. Downstream of RM 5, tides influence 

flow. Large islands form, and the river flows through multiple channels. 

The lower Illinois flows through a steep bedrock-dominated canyon that starts 40 miles upstream 

near Eight Dollar Mountain. From the mouth of Nancy Creek downstream to the Illinois River 

mouth, the river valley widens. Within this wider channel, large depositional bars change size 

and shape with peak flow events, and the river meanders through these bars. Above the channel 

are alluvial terraces, including Oak Flat on the east bank. 

Both rivers have a low stream gradient and powerful winter stream flows. Active floodplain 

development is minimal and restricted to larger tributary confluences. Large wood is absent 

from the mainstem channel except in the lower five miles of the Rogue, where islands disperse 

the river force and wood accumulates at river bends. 

Fish habitat consists of many elements. Boulders and bedrock outcrops provide structural habitat 

diversity. Deep pools and turbidity provide instream cover. The mainstem Rogue and Illinois 

Rivers in the project area are primarily used for fish migration. The Rogue estuary (downstream 

of RM 5) is important rearing and smolting habitat for salmon and trout. 

During peak flows in late autumn, winter, and spring, the channel of both rivers is submerged, 

with only the inactive terraces above water. Fish hold on the channel margins, in submerged 

tributary mouths, and in eddies behind boulders to escape the flow force. Spawning is restricted 

to the tributaries, where flow force is too low to wash away eggs incubating in gravel 

streambeds. During drought years, spawning may occur in the mainstem when access to 

tributaries is blocked by subsurface flow through alluvial deposits at tributary confluences. 

By late summer the wetted channel is reduced to only a fraction of the total channel width in 

many places, revealing wide gravel bars and islands in the estuary. Exposed to the sun, water 

temperatures rise to the low 70s, and fish hold in cooler water at the bottom of deep pools and at 

tributary mouths.
Table 7: Occupancy and Spawning Times of Salmonids in the Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Rivers

Fish Species JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 

Coho 

Adults 

Coho 

Juveniles 

Fall Chinook 

Adults 

Spring 

Chinook 

Adults 

Chinook 

Juveniles 

Winter 

Steelhead 

Adults 

Summer 

Steelhead 

Adults 

Steelhead 

Juveniles 

Coastal 

Cutthroat 

Fish Present 

Spawning

Source: ODFW unpublished data 

Coho Salmon 

Coho in the Rogue and Illinois Rivers are part of the southern Oregon/northern California 

Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU), listed as Threatened in 1997 under the federal 

Endangered Species Act (ESA). This ESU ranges from the Elk River in Oregon south to the 

Mattole River in California. The Rogue River is one of the major remaining coho producers 

(National Marine Fisheries Service 1997). 

The estimated historical coho abundance ranged from 150,000 to 400,000 spawning fish. Today, 

most of the population is hatchery fish, and there are about 10,000 naturally produced adults. 

Within the Rogue River, coho predominantly spawn and rear in the upper Rogue and the Illinois 

Rivers. Most wild coho production in the Rogue occurs in the Illinois River tributaries. Below 

Agness, a few coho spawn in the South Fork Lobster Creek and in Silver Creek. When coho 

populations were higher, a larger number of strays probably used the marginal habitat in lower 

Rogue River tributaries. 

Fall Chinook 

Fall chinook are part of the southern Oregon and northern California Coastal ESU. This ESU 

ranges from Cape Blanco, Oregon, south to Klamath River, California. This ESU was proposed 

for listing as Threatened under the ESA, but in September 1999 was determined by NMFS (now 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries), to not warrant listing. 

Fall chinook in the upper Rogue River were identified by NMFS (March 9, 1998) as the only 

relatively healthy population in the entire ESU.

FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 38 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit
FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 39 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit

During the late 1980s, the combination of drought, stream habitat degradation, low ocean 

survival and high ocean exploitation rates resulted in a severe decline in chinook populations in 

all of the Oregon coastal basins south of Elk River. Chinook angling in several south coast 

basins, including the lower Rogue and Illinois Rivers, was closed during this time. Populations 

began to increase in 1991, helped by a sharp curtailment in ocean harvest and by the end of the 

drought in 1993 (ODFW 1997).

Winter Steelhead 

Winter steelhead are part of the Klamath Mountains Province ESU. The ESU extends from the 

Elk River in Oregon south to, and including, the Klamath River in California. This ESU was 

proposed as Threatened under the ESA in 1996. However, in 1998 the ESU was determined to 

not warrant a listing due to recovery efforts in Oregon and California. Current ESU abundance 

is estimated to be 85,000, with an historic abundance of greater than 275,000 (National Marine 

Fisheries Service 1996). From 1970-1987, ODFW estimates average annual Rogue River winter 

steelhead populations averaged 44,000 adult spawners. The estimated average since 1990 is 

55,000 adults, indicating a positive trend in the population (RVCOG 1997). 

Summer Steelhead 

The Rogue River has the largest Oregon summer steelhead run outside of the Columbia River 

system. The Hood, Siletz, and North Umpqua rivers are the only other Oregon coastal rivers 

producing summer steelhead. Summer steelhead that spawn in the Rogue River system, 

especially in the middle Rogue, are the weakest population of the Klamath Mountains Province 

steelhead ESU. Huntley Park census information shows a 25 percent population decrease since 

the mid-1980s. 

Unlike winter steelhead, summer steelhead do not spawn or rear in the lower Rogue River or its 

tributaries. They spawn and rear in middle and upper Rogue tributaries, including the Applegate 

River. Summer and winter steelhead are raised at Cole Rivers Hatchery and released into the 

Rogue River. 

Trout and Sturgeon 

Resident and anadromous cutthroat trout occur in the lower Rogue and Illinois Rivers. Multiple 

cutthroat age-classes are consistently present in coastal Oregon streams and forces driving their 

complex life histories are poorly understood (ODFW 1997). Resident rainbow and cutthroat 

trout occupy the uppermost reaches of most tributaries and commingle with the anadromous 

forms throughout the basin. 

Green sturgeon are part of the northern Distinct Population Segment (DPS), which spans the 

coastal region north of the Eel River, California. In 2002, NOAA Fisheries determined that this 

DPS did not warrant listing, as the population did not have declining population trends, but there 

were potential population threats. Sturgeon were placed on the Candidates list for an additional 

status review in five years (Adams et al. 2002). The Rogue, Columbia and Klamath Rivers are 

the documented spawning sites for green sturgeon in this DPS. 
FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 40 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit

Wildlife ________________________________________ 

The Wildlife Biological Evaluation is contained in FEIS Appendix G. Wildlife and wildlife 

habitat were identified as a significant issue in Chapter 1. 

Information in this section comes from the Regional Ecosystem Assessment Project (USDA 

Forest Service 1993), the Southwestern Oregon Late-Successional Reserve Assessment (USDA 

Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management 1995), and three watershed analyses 

(USDA Forest Service 1999, 2000a, 2000b). Other sources of information include wildlife 

observation databases, aerial photography, satellite imagery and field reconnaissance. 

Although the distribution and abundance of animal species of concern are important for 

managing species, a large data gap exists for most of them. Systematic surveys for a few species 

have been conducted, primarily for past environmental analyses, and data on other species comes 

primarily from incidental sightings. With the relatively high amount of human use in the river 

corridor compared to other areas on the Rogue-Siskiyou National Forest, relatively more species 

location data exists for the river corridor than for areas outside of the river corridor. 

Wildlife viewing is an important primary and secondary activity for people recreating on the 

Rogue and Illinois River. The opportunity to see otters, black bears, deer and elk, bald eagles, 

and other wildlife from the river attracts many people to jet boat tours and other river-related 

recreation. 

Rogue River 

The lower 10.8 miles of the Rogue River, which is outside the project area, includes the Rogue 

River estuary, Port of Gold Beach, motels, docks, boat ramps, private residences, businesses 

(including the two tour boat companies) and roads (including U.S. Highway 101). As you move 

upstream there are wide gravel bars with willow clumps, cottonwood, and other vegetation that 

can withstand winter high water flows. Above the high water line there are scattered large 

conifers. Private residences are fewer as you approach the forest boundary. Numerous gravel 

bars provide access to the river’s edge. Annual channel maintenance occurs in this section. 

At the mouth of Lobster Creek, you enter the project area. The section from Lobster Creek to 

Agness is dominated by large conifers and evergreen hardwoods above the high water line. 

Deciduous hardwoods, including alder, maple and willow, occur just below the high water mark. 

Gravel bars and rocky banks dominate the area immediately adjacent to the river. There are a 

few sandy beaches and high terraces that are occasionally used for camping. Lobster Creek and 

Quosatana campgrounds have public boat ramps, and so do a few private residences. Four 

gravel bars are accessible to vehicles. Annual channel maintenance occurs in this section. 

The section from Agness to Watson Creek includes many residences, Illahe Campground, Foster 

Bar boat ramp, roads, and lodges. The river narrows, so rocky banks are more prevalent, and 

sandy beaches are fewer. Large conifers dominate the area above high water; however Oregon 

white oak and California black oak are also common. Annual channel maintenance occurs in 

this section. 

Above Watson Creek, the Rogue Wild Section begins. This reach extends to the limit of 

permitted motorboat use at the pool below Blossom Bar Rapids. There are a few private 

residences. Large conifers and hardwoods are the dominant vegetation above the high water 

line. Oregon white oak and California black oak savannas are found at a few locations. 
FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 41 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit

Illinois River

The Illinois from the mouth to Nancy Creek has wide gravel bars dominating the water’s edge. 

Steep, rocky slopes extend from the gravel bars to the high water line. Oak savanna, meadow, 

pasture, and mixed conifer-hardwood forests dominate the uplands. Private residences and the 

Illinois River trailhead are located in this section. 

Species of Concern 

These include: 

• Species listed as Proposed, Endangered, or Threatened (PETS) under the Endangered 

Species Act 

• Sensitive species designated by the Forest Service Region 6 Regional Forester 

• Management Indicator Species (MIS) identified in the Siskiyou LRMP (USDA Forest 

Service 1989a) representing other species requiring the same habitat 

• Protection Buffer Species (USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management 

1994). 

• Neo-tropical Migrant Birds (NTMP) identified in Partners in Flight Bird Conservation 

Plan for Oregon and Washington (Oregon-Washington Partners in Flight 2000) to 

represent habitat seral stage distributions. 

Proposed, Endangered, or Threatened Species 

Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) 

Status: Federal – Threatened 

References: Anthony and Isaacs (1989), Anthony, et al. (1982), Dillingham (1997), Garrett et al. 

(1993), Johnsgard (1990), Stahlmaster (1987), USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (1986, 1999b). 

Bald eagles were listed as Endangered in Oregon and elsewhere by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS) in 1967, down listed to Threatened status in 1995, and proposed for delisting 

in 1999. 

Oregon and Washington are key locations for wintering bald eagles and support approximately 

25 percent of wintering bald eagles in the contiguous United States. Wintering sites are typically 

near concentrated food sources, such as anadromous fish runs, high waterfowl concentrations, or 

mammalian carrion. Winter roost sites offer protection from inclement weather and are 

characterized by more favorable microclimate. 

Most bald eagles nest within 0.6 to 1.2 miles of aquatic foraging areas, typically a lake, reservoir, 

large river, or coastal estuary. Bald eagles require an abundant food supply of mostly fish, 

waterfowl, small mammals, and carrion, but the specific diet may vary by season and location. 

Suitable bald eagle winter roosting, foraging, and nesting habitat exists in the project area and 

eagles are sighted regularly. The project area has year-round use by bald eagles and there are 

two known nest locations adjacent to the project area. Bald eagle breeding season can start as 

early as January 1 and may extend until August 31 each year. Reproduction at these two sites is 

comparable to bald eagle reproduction elsewhere in the State of Oregon (Isaacs and Anthony 

2004). 
FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 42 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit

The current Programmatic Biological Assessment (USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of 

Land Management 2003) states that “bald eagles are fairly tolerant of human activity, but high 

noise levels or disturbance can dissuade them from important breeding areas or winter roost 

sites, particularly during early nesting season. Individual pairs have widely variable responses to 

disturbance. Some eagles choose to next in areas of high recreational use or urban development 

and consistently and successfully reproduce, while other pairs are more sensitive to disturbance 

and would be adversely impacted by the same type of activity.” 

Bald eagles on the Rogue River are occasionally (<5-10% of the time) flushed by motorboats or 

rafts (pers. comm. Tom Hawkins 2005). Most of the time they are very tolerant of human 

activities. Dillingham (1997) reported that bald eagles in the Rogue River corridor showed 

desensitization to motorboat noise. 

Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) 

Status: Federal – Threatened 

References: Csuti et al. (1997), Dillingham (1997), Dillingham et al. (1995), Hamer and Nelson 

(1995a, 1995b, 1998), Long and Ralph (1997, 1998), Marshall (1998), Paton and Ralph (1990), 

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management (1994), USDI Fish and Wildlife 

Service (1992, 1997). 

Due to nesting habitat loss and poor reproductive success, USFWS listed the marbled murrelet as 

threatened in 1992. 

The marbled murrelet is a small seabird found in the area from Alaska to California. It spends 

most of its life at sea, but nests almost exclusively in mature or old-growth conifer trees with 

large moss-covered branches. Other nesting area characteristics include multi-layered canopies, 

low elevation, and close proximity to water. The breeding season (egg laying, incubation, and 

fledging) for marbled murrelets in Oregon begins in late April and extends to the end of 

September. 

In the Pacific Northwest, murrelets have been found up to 53 miles inland. No murrelets were 

detected more than 32 miles from the ocean on the Siskiyou National Forest, although surveys 

had been conducted up to 47 miles inland. South of the Rogue-Coquille River divide, the 

farthest inland murrelets have been detected is 17 miles. Sixteen murrelet detections have 

occurred in the project area below Agness. There are no detections above Agness. Suitable 

nesting habitat occurs in the project area above Lobster Creek. 

Many bird species, including murrelets, can habituate to relatively high disturbance levels. In 

their summary of all information concerning murrelet disturbance, Long and Ralph (1998) 

reported that “[Marbled] murrelets appeared generally undisturbed by passing vehicles, or sharp 

or prolonged loud noise” and “overall, it appears that marbled murrelets are not easily disrupted 

from nesting attempts by human disturbance except when confronted at or very near the nest 

itself.” 

Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) 

Status: Federal –Threatened 

References: Dillingham (1997), Forsman et al. (1982), Thomas, et al. (1990), USDI Fish and 

Wildlife Service (1990), USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (2003). 

The northern spotted owl was listed as Threatened by USFWS in June 1990. The project area 

contains breeding and foraging habitat for northern spotted owls. Northern spotted owls use oldgrowth forests almost exclusively and rarely use clear cuts or young forest plantations. If young 

stands are used, they typically contain remnant large trees. Where timber harvest has occurred, 

spotted owls are usually found in remaining old-growth and mature forest patches. 
FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 43 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit

Habitat features associated with spotted owl use include multi-layered canopies, relatively high 

canopy closure, large diameter trees, and many snags and logs. These stand features are related 

to requirements for feeding, nesting, and roosting. Spotted owls most commonly nest in tree 

cavities or on platforms created by debris or mistletoe infections between March 1st and June 

30th. 

Suitable owl habitat occurs in the project area and is considered occupied unless surveys indicate 

otherwise. Eleven spotted owl territories overlap into the project area. Of these, the closest 

known activity center to the project area is 700 feet. Dillingham (1997) reported that northern 

spotted owls in the Rogue River corridor show desensitization to motorboat noise. 

Brown Pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis) 

Status: Federal – Endangered 

References: Marshal et al. (2003), USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (2005) 

The brown pelican was first listed in 1970. It is currently designated as Endangered in its entire 

range except the Atlantic Coast, Florida, and Alabama. The subspecies in Oregon is the 

California brown pelican (P. o. californium), a marine coastal species that rarely occurs inland or 

far offshore. 

Non-breeding adult and subadult birds usually begin to arrive in Oregon during April. 

Postbreeding adults arrive in May and June; juveniles during July and August. Peak numbers 

occur in August-September. The return migration southward usually begins in November. 

Brown pelicans feed near shore in the ocean as well as the mouth of the Rogue River. They feed 

mainly on fish, especially northern anchovy, and they roost on sandy shores and off-shore rocks. 

Steller (Northern) Sea Lion (Eumetopias jubatus) 

Status: Federal – Threatened 

References: Verts and Carraway (1998), USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (2005) 

The Steller sea lion was listed in 1990 as Threatened in California, Oregon, Washington, and 

Alaska. The species occurs along the west coast of North America from the Aleutian Islands 

south to the Channel Islands off southern California. They eat lamprey, salmonids, other fish 

and invertebrates. 

Pyramid Rock, on the Rogue River Reef, is one of the primary rookeries used by Steller sea 

lions. Steller sea lion presence in the Rogue River estuary (below RM 5) is highest in June and 

July. 

Forest Service Region 6 Sensitive Species 

American Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum) 

Status: USDA Forest Service – Sensitive 

References: Johnsgard (1990), USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (1999a) 

The American peregrine falcon was identified as an endangered species in the 1970s and then 

delisted in 1999. Peregrine falcons are typically associated with cliffs, which serve as nesting 

and perching sites. Nest site criteria include ledges, potholes, and small caves that are near 

water, inaccessible to mammalian predators, and offer protection from rain and snow, and heat 

and cold. Peregrine falcons feed almost exclusively on birds. 

Peregrines forage within the project area. Two nest sites occur adjacent to the project area, with 

the closest nest site 3,000 feet from the Rogue River. Peregrine breeding season is January 1st

through July 31st

.
FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 44 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit

California Wolverine (Gulo gulo)

Status: USDA Forest Service – Sensitive 

References: Csuti et al. (1997), Hornocker and Hash (1981), Maser (1998), Ruggiero et al. 

(1994), Yocum (1973). 

Wolverines are rare in Oregon and typically found in the Cascade Mountains. They are solitary 

animals with large home ranges, sometimes several hundred square miles. Yocum concluded 

from sighting records that the wolverine was becoming established in the western Siskiyou 

Mountains of Del Norte County, California. Wolverines typically avoid areas used regularly by 

humans. 

Wolverines are commonly associated with open forests at high elevation and in alpine areas, 

though it may be that the high elevation areas simply have the lowest level of human activity. 

Wolverines are opportunistic omnivores in summer and scavengers in winter; they prey on a 

variety of smaller animals, but large mammal carrion is an import food source all year. 

There are no recorded sightings of wolverine for the Gold Beach Ranger District. Numerous 

roads exist within the project area and human disturbance is common. The adjacent wilderness 

provides suitable habitat. The high level of human activity in much of the project area indicates 

poor habitat quality and a low likelihood of wolverine activity. 

Pacific Fisher (Martes pennanti) 

Status: USDA Forest Service – Sensitive 

References: Csuti et al. (1997), Maser (1998), Maser et al. (1981), Ruggiero et al. (1994). 

Pacific fishers are rare in Oregon and typically only found in the southwest and northeast 

quarters of the state. The preferred habitat is coniferous forests, although deciduous forests may 

be used in portions of the range. Fishers may use clear cuts, but more commonly they avoid 

areas with no overhead cover. Natal and maternal dens are typically large cavities in living or 

dead trees. During winter, temporary dens may be found in snow, brush piles, and under logs or 

roots. Resting areas are predominantly in closed canopy stands in large trees, snags, or logs. 

Suitable habitat for fishers exists in the project area, but no fishers have been observed. 

Pacific Fringe-tailed Bat (Myotis thysanodes) 

Status: USDA Forest Service – Sensitive 

References: Csuti et al. (1997), Maser (1998), Maser et al. (1981) 

The Pacific fringe-tailed bat is rare in Oregon, but is most commonly found in southwestern 

Oregon. Little is known about its habitat, but it is known to use caves, mines, rock crevices, and 

buildings for day and night roosts. Preferred habitat seems to be forested and riparian areas. The 

fringe-tailed bat is sensitive to human disturbance. There are no recorded Pacific fringe-tailed 

bat sightings in the WILDOBS database within the project area, however there are bridges, rock 

outcrops, snags, and or buildings present and suitable for roosting. 

Pacific Pallid Bat (Antrozous pallidus pacificus) 

Status: USDA Forest Service – Sensitive 

References: Csuti, et al. (1997), Maser (1998). 

In Oregon, the pallid bat is found east of the Cascade Mountains and in the Siskiyou Mountain 

region of southwest Oregon. The pallid bat is most often found in arid regions where desert 

vegetation predominates, but can also be found in open ponderosa pine and oak forests. Daytime 

roosts include caves, undersides of bridges, and cracks in rocks, hollow trees, buildings, and 

mines. Nighttime roosts include open shelters easily accessible by flight such as open buildings, 

porches, undersides of bridges, and mines. 
FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 45 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit

The Pacific pallid bat is intolerant of disturbance and readily abandons roosts. This species was 

not detected during project area bat monitoring in 2002 and 2003. 

Pacific Shrew (Sorex pacificus pacificus) 

Status: USDA Forest Service - Sensitive 

Pacific shrews are typically found in wet areas along small forest streams that have interspersed 

down wood and marshy patches, or around down wood in moist forests away from streams and 

wetlands (Maser 1998). Pacific shrews are not typically associated with conifer forests, but 

prefer alder/salmonberry riparian areas and skunk cabbage marshes (Csuti et al. 1997). Though 

no Pacific shrew sighting records were located for the project area, field reconnaissance indicates 

suitable habitat within project area riparian areas. 

Del Norte Salamander (Plethodon elongatus) 

Status: USDA Forest Service - Sensitive 

Habitat for Del Norte salamanders includes coniferous and deciduous forests with rocks and logs 

(Cockran and Thomas 1996). This species is most closely associated with rocks or talus slopes 

within forests (Csuti et al. 1997) and may also be found in partially-decayed logs or under forest 

litter in coastal areas (Cockran and Thomas 1996). Del Norte salamanders are common, 

abundant, and widely distributed across the Gold Beach Ranger District, and there are 2 sightings 

in the project area. 

Siskiyou Mountains Salamander (Plethodon stormi) 

Status: USDA Forest Service - Sensitive 

The Siskiyou Mountains salamander is primarily a California species and is only found in the 

Siskiyou Mountains of southern Oregon and northern California (Cockran and Thomas 1996). 

This species is associated with habitat similar to that of the Del Norte salamander. Gold Beach 

Ranger District is outside the known Siskiyou Mountains salamander distribution. No Siskiyou 

Mountains salamanders have been found during surveys on the Gold Beach Ranger District. 

Black Salamander (Aneides flavipunctatus) 

Status: USDA Forest Service - Sensitive 

The black salamander is also a primarily California species and is only found in the Siskiyou 

Mountains of southern Oregon near the California border (Cockran and Thomas 1996). The 

project area is outside the known black salamander distribution. Potential habitat for the black 

salamander occurs in the project area, but no black salamanders have been found during surveys 

on the Gold Beach Ranger District. 

Southern Torrent Salamander (Rhyacotriton variegates) 

Status: USDA Forest Service - Sensitive 

Torrent salamanders are sensitive to desiccation and changes in water temperature, so they are 

rarely found far from cold water (Cockran and Thomas 1996). Typical torrent salamander 

habitat includes cold and clear springs, seeps, headwater streams, and waterfall splash zones 

(Cockran and Thomas 1996). Metamorphosed individuals and adults may be found in moist 

forests near flowing water foraging for food. Larvae and adults are commonly found in gravel or 

under cobbles in clear flowing or seeping water (Cockran and Thomas 1996). Eggs are laid 

singly, loosely, and unattached during the spring in rock crevices where cold water will flow 

around them. Southern torrent salamander habitat exists within the project area; southern torrent 

salamanders are commonly seen along streams in the Gold Beach Ranger District. Three records 

of southern torrent salamander activity adjacent to the project area were located.
Foothill Yellow-legged Frog (Rana boylii) 

Status: USDA Forest Service - Sensitive 

The foothill yellow-legged frog lives in or near streams with rocky or gravel substrates (Cockran 

and Thomas 1996). Streams with sandy or muddy bottoms are occasionally used, as well as 

moist, rocky outcrops (Nussbaum et al. 1983). Adults commonly live among sedge clumps at 

the edges of deep pools, cobbles on the bottom of pools, or in bedrock at the main stream

channel edge (Cockran and Thomas, 1996). Eggs are deposited during late spring or early 

summer in clusters attached to rocks on the bottom or edges of streams and tadpoles live in pools 

for three to four months before metamorphosing into adults (Cockran and Thomas 1996). 

Foothill yellow-legged frog activity has been documented at two sites in the project area. 

Common Kingsnake (Lampropeltis getula) 

Status: USDA Forest Service - Sensitive 

In Oregon, the common kingsnake is thought to be most closely associated with moist river 

valleys with thick riparian vegetation (Storm et al. 1995). The common kingsnake is widely 

distributed throughout the southern United States but is only known in Curry, Douglas, Jackson, 

and Josephine Counties in Oregon. There are two common kingsnake activity records within the 

project area. 

Northwestern Pond Turtle (Clemmys marmorata marmorata) 

Status: USDA Forest Service - Sensitive 

The (north) western pond turtle (WPT) inhabits marshes, ponds, lakes, reservoirs, sloughs, and 

slow moving portions of creeks and rivers (Storm et al. 1995). Pond turtles seem to prefer areas 

that have refugia such as undercut banks, submerged vegetation, rocks, logs, or mud (Storm et al. 

1995). Areas with basking sites for thermoregulation, such as rocks, logs, or emergent 

vegetation are also preferred. Partially submerged logs, vegetation mats, mud banks, rocks, and 

tree branches offer areas for sunning (Stebbins 1985). 

The project area offers suitable year-round habitat for the species, and WPTs are common in the 

project area. Two habitats, both most prominent along the Rogue River north bank, seem to 

have the vast majority of turtle riverine activity. 

The first can be characterized as a willow (Salix

sp.) - pedestal sedge (Carex sp.) shoreline where 

summer river flow is relatively constant, 

resulting in a close proximity of foraging, 

basking, and resting habitat, and security cover. 

Willow and sedge stem and root clumps provide 

structural complexity used by turtle prey (small 

aquatic invertebrates) and are used for security 

cover by turtles. The sedge has a unique growth 

form in which its roots are clumped (“stub 

footed”) and often hanging over the shoreline. 

WPT are often seen at the base of these sedge 

clumps. Peninsular and island rocks are 

regularly used for basking. Water more than 3 

feet deep offers escape cover whenever 

threatening conditions prevail. 

Figure 7: One Type of Western Pond Turtle

Habitat, the Willow-pedestal Sedge Shoreline

FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 46 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit
FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 47 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit

iversity which, in turn, provides turtle foraging, basking, 

vegetation grows.

a

as

h

WPT

atures

h include compact soils and alluvium with 

S,

project area is uneven. At least 95% of the WPT sightings have 

e

re

ound

The second dominant habitat condition (Figure 8) in the shallow shoreline water zone (0.5 to 2 

feet deep) of slow moving, warmer water. The river bed within the geologic Riddle Formation is 

nearly vertical in places and differential erosion results in undulating backwater embayments. 

These embayments provide structural d

resting, and probably rearing habitat. 

The embayments contain ridges upon 

which little to no

Between the ridges there are pools with

sand-silt floor where vegetation, such

curly-leaf pondweed, grows and where 

algae often accumulate in mid to late

summer. The European pondweed 

(Potamegeton crispus) growth form is

dense, wide-spreading, and flexible,

resulting in effective hiding cover for 

turtles and possible heat sinks in whic

water is further warmed and retained.

Pondweed roots in the riverbed and 

extends dense stems through the water

column and often up to the surface.

have been observed taking refuge in 

pondweed patches to avoid being 

captured. 

Holland (1994) found that juvenile WPT use th

Figure 8: Second Western Pond Turtle Habitat 

Type, Shallow Shoreline, Slow Moving Water 

e same habitat as adults, though it is likely 

juveniles will seek microhabitats which afford greater security cover, warmer water temper

to facilitate growth, and greater food abundance. 

Holland (1994) describes nest site attributes, whic

higher amounts of clay or silt and a smaller proportion of sand. Nest sites generally occur on

SW, or SE aspects and on slopes greater than 25 degrees. Nest site distance to water averages 

161 feet above the average high-water line. Nest sites have not been located in the project area

but are likely to be present. 

WPT distribution within the

been in the Wild Rogue Section and upper half of the Recreational Rogue Section. The turtle

distribution indicates habitat differences which are suspected to be positively correlated with th

geologic Riddle Formation. Using the 2002-2003 average population estimate, adult/juvenile 

ratios are, under normal circumstances, quite variable (Holland 1994) and would generally 

consist of 55 to 70 percent adults. The project area shows an adult-biased population structu

(98 percent adults). The reason for this is unknown. Predation and or disease associated with 

introduced species, such as bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana) and red-eared slider (Pseudemys 

scripta), might play a substantial role in juvenile mortality. WPT wintering sites are also f

in the project area. 
Management Indicator Species 

Table 8 identifies Management Indicator Species and their habitat represented in the project area. 

Only those species not already introduced in this FEIS or in the Wildlife Biological Evaluation 

for this project are included here. 

Table 8: Wildlife Management Indicator Species and Habitat Represented in the Project Area

Species Habitat Represented 

Osprey Habitat corridors along large creeks and rivers 

Pileated woodpecker, marten Mature forest 

Woodpeckers Snags (standing dead trees) 

Black-tailed deer, Roosevelt elk Early successional forest stages 

Ospreys (Pandion haliaetus) are commonly observed in the project area. Ospreys arrive during 

early spring (March), nest, and then leave for wintering grounds by October. Their primary diet 

includes fish and eels, which they hunt while in flight. Foraging and nesting occur in the project 

area; district records indicate 45 osprey nest sites within the project area. Ten nest sites are in 

the Rogue Wild Section while the remaining 35 nest sites are downstream of the Wild Section. 

Each year, 13 to 15 percent of the nest sites are active (at least one adult observed at the nest 

site). 

The woodpecker group includes acorn, black-backed, downy, hairy, Lewis’, and white-headed 

woodpeckers, as well as northern flickers and red-breasted sapsuckers. White-headed and blackbacked woodpeckers are unlikely inhabitants of the analysis area. 

Black-tailed deer and Roosevelt elk occur in the project area and deer are commonly sighted 

along the Rogue and Illinois Rivers. 

Protection Buffer Species 

The Record of Decision “To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure 

Standards and Guidelines in Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning 

documents within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl” (USDA Forest Service and USDI 

Bureau of Land Management 2004) (Survey and Manage ROD) removed many species from the 

Survey and Manage requirements. Standard and Guidelines for certain cavity nesting birds, 

Canada Lynx, and some bat roosts remained. Species potentially in the project area include 

white-headed and black-backed woodpeckers, flammulated owl which require large (>20 

inches), and bats that use caves, mines, and abandoned wooden bridges and buildings. Whiteheaded and black-backed woodpeckers and flammulated owl are unlikely inhabitants of the 

project area as white headed woodpeckers are high elevation species and flammulated owls are a 

pine forest associated species. Townsend’s big-eared bat has been observed at one location in 

the project area. 

Neo-Tropical Migrant Birds 

Priority bird species for varying habitats in the project area are summarized in Table 9 (OregonWashington Partners in Flight 2000). Bird conservation objectives are tied to focal species that 

represent habitat attributes and/or ecological functions of various forest age classes. For 

example, Vaux’s Swifts use large snags in old-growth systems, olive-sided flycatchers use 

residual canopy trees in early seral stages, and hermit warblers use the closed canopy in young to 

mature-aged forests. These habitats and their attributes, in certain quantities and combinations, 

should be maintained on landscapes in a shifting mosaic of conditions. Portions of the project 

area provide for nesting, dispersal, foraging, and cover for variety of bird species. 

FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 48 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit
FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 49 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit

Table 9: Partners in Flight Focal Bird Species by Habitat within Project Area 

Habitat Condition Attribute Bird species 

Coniferous forest Old-growth / 

Mature 

Large snags Vaux’s swift, pileated woodpecker 

Coniferous forest Old-growth / 

Mature 

Large trees; conifer cones; mid-story 

tree layers 

Brown creeper; red crossbill; varied 

thrush 

Coniferous forest Mature / Young Varied canopy closure; deciduous 

canopy & understory; complex forest 

floor 

Hermit warbler; Hammond’s 

flycatcher; Pacific-slope flycatcher; 

Wilson’s warbler; winter wren 

Coniferous forest Young / Pole Deciduous canopy Black-throated gray warbler 

Coniferous forest Pole Deciduous subcanopy / understory Hutton’s vireo 

Coniferous forest Early-seral Residual canopy trees, snags, 

deciduous vegetation; nectarproducing plants 

Olive-sided flycatcher; western 

bluebird; orange-crowned warbler; 

rufous hummingbird 

Coniferous forest Unique Mineral spring Band-tailed pigeon 

Oak woodlands 

(including nonforested prairie) 

California quail, western screechowl, Nutall’s woodpecker, oak 

titmouse, wrentit, California 

thrasher, black-chinned sparrow. 

Botanical Resources______________________________ 

The Botanical Resources Biological Evaluation is contained in FEIS Appendix G. The lower 

Rogue and lower Illinois River corridors are botanically diverse. Vegetative types found along 

each river corridor depend on the land type, soil, elevation and aspect of a given area. Plant 

habitats include steep slopes with exposed rock outcrops, arid rocky benches, springs and seeps, 

creeks, gravel bars, forested benches, and the river itself. 

The rivers flow through mountains covered in mixed conifer and hardwood forests of Douglasfir, tanoak, myrtle, golden chinquapin, canyon live oak, sugar pine, ponderosa pine, and incense 

cedar. The forests are generally dry mesic to xeric. South-facing slopes have species more 

tolerant of drier conditions, such as manzanita, Oregon white oak and madrone. Plants that live 

in rock crevices along the river include the brilliant red California fuschia, stonecrops, ferns, and 

Siskiyou daisy. Rocky seeps are home to drooping bulrush, monkey flowers, ferns, sedges, and 

other rushes. Waterfalls and creek confluences are habitat for monkey flower, stream orchid, 

and shrubs. Arid rock benches support wild onions, brodiaea, wild iris, and annual and perennial 

grasses. Shrubs on benches and slopes along the river include poison oak, honeysuckle, hazel, 

wild grape, currants, evergreen huckleberry, salal, and occasionally California smilax (Hickman 

1993). 

Disturbance-Related Habitats 

Plants, plant parts, and seeds are frequently washed downstream with silt and sand during high 

water. Some plants that wash downstream and re-establish are natives, such as willows. Other 

plants that wash downstream and establish in freshly deposited silt or gravel bars are noxious 

weeds, such as purple loosestrife and meadow knapweed. Noxious weeds, such as yellow star 

thistle, French broom, Scotch broom, and Spanish broom, are able to thrive in areas with 

frequent disturbance and nutrient-rich soils that flooding can create. Native species, such as 

willows and alder, can also thrive in frequently disturbed habitats. Sensitive species, such as 

Leach’s brodiaea, require openings created by fire, landslides, or scouring. Pillar sedge (Carex 

nudata) grows among rocks in the river (Figure 9). Pillar sedge appears to be relatively 

impervious to the dynamic Rogue River flows.
Lightning- and human-caused fires are another 

disturbance component of lower Rogue and 

Illinois River ecology (USDA Forest Service 

1999, 2000a). Fire, like other natural 

disturbances, creates habitat for disturbanceloving plant species by removing competition 

for light, water and nutrients. Early settlers in 

the area used fire as a tool to manage meadow 

lands for pasture and for clearing the 

surrounding forests. Early forest management 

curtailed the use of fire for many years, 

creating the patchwork vegetative patterns 

seen today (see Cultural Resource section). 

FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 50 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit

Humans were part of each river’s ecology long

before the advent of northern European 

settlement (USDA Forest Service 1999, 

2000a). Non-native plants, such as asparagus and sweet pea, most likely were planted by 

homesteaders. Other plants, such as teasel, orchard grass, and bull thistle, probably arrived with 

livestock. Occasionally, escaped houseplants like fiery orange Crocosmia wash downstream and 

lodge in the banks above the water. 

Figure 9: Pillar Sedge at Windy Creek (RM 58) in

the Wild Section of the Rogue 

Humans are a well-known vector for seed dispersal and it is likely that present day rafters, 

fishermen, and hikers transport seeds from one campsite to the next. 

Plant Species of Concern 

Current management direction mandates the conservation of several categories of rare plants on 

the Siskiyou National Forest. The Endangered Species Act mandates protection of federally 

listed Threatened and Endangered species. Sensitive species are protected by USDA Forest 

Service regulations and manual direction. No federally listed Threatened Endangered, or 

Proposed plants, nor suitable habitat, are known to occur in the project area. 

The project area potential to support suitable habitat for sensitive plant species was determined 

by pre-field analysis of soils and topographic maps, knowledge of sensitive plant species range, 

distribution, and habitat characteristics; and review of the district’s sensitive plant files. Field 

surveys subsequently verified the habitat suitability. 

All known records of vascular and nonvascular rare and sensitive plants and noxious weeds 

occurring on the Gold Beach Ranger District were reviewed in regard to potential effects on any 

of these species by project activities. 

The most recent plant surveys along the Rogue River occurred in July 2003. The focus was 

aquatic and riparian noxious weed species. The sensitive plant species Scirpus pendulus was 

found near Lookout Rock above Blossom Bar, and at Brushy Bar. No Usnea longissima was 

found in the immediate riparian corridor. Noxious weed species found in the riparian corridor 

include: Centaurea pratensis, Centaurea solsitialis, Cirsium arvense, Cirsium vulgare, Cytisus 

scoparius, Gensita monspessulana, Brachypodium sylvaticum, and Lythrum salicaria. 

The following sensitive plants are considered as having potential habitat and/or presence within 

the project area active areas because there are known populations near by, or because there is 

appropriate habitat: 
FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 51 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit

Sensitive Species 

Information on vascular species is from Mullens (2000). 

Erigeron cervinus: Siskiyou daisy grows in rocky places or crevices on solid rock, especially 

along stream banks at low elevations near seeps or vernally wet spots. The sites are above the 

level of the wake created by jet boats.

Scirpus pendulus: Drooping bulrush grows in marshes wet meadows, river terraces and ditches. 

There are three known sites on the Gold Beach Ranger District, two of which are on rocky 

terraces within the Rogue River flood zone between Blossom Bar and Brushy Bar. The sites are 

above the level of the wake created by jet boats. 

Leucogaster citrinus: This false truffle is found in association with the roots of white fir, 

lodgepole pine, alpine fir, white pine, Douglas-fir, and western hemlock and is endemic to the 

Pacific northwest. The sites are above the level of the wake created by jet boats. 

Scirpus subterminalis: Water clubrush grows in quiet relatively shallow water, typically in 

lakes, ponds and marshes. There are no known sites of water clubrush on the Rogue or Illinois 

Rivers. 

Trillium angustipetalum: Siskiyou trillium is found in coniferous forest, woodland, and 

chaparral at low to moderately high elevations. There are occurrences of Siskiyou trillium on 

benches above the Rogue River. The sites are well above the level of the wake created by jet 

boats. 

Triteleia hendersonii var. leachiae: Leach’s brodiaea is found on wooded or open slopes, brush, 

forest and open meadows. It is found on slopes above the Rogue River. The sites are above the 

level of the wake created by jet boats. 

Wolffia borealis: Dotted water-meal grows in fresh water in areas with less than 3000-foot 

elevation. There are no known sites of dotted water-meal on the Siskiyou National Forest. 

Wolffia columbiana: Columbia water-meal is found free-floating in quiet water. There are no 

known sites of Columbia water-meal on the Siskiyou National Forest. 

Usnea longissima: Tinsel or beard lichen is found on the branches of old growth Douglas-fir 

and on oaks in open areas associated with streams and rivers. There is one known site along the 

Rogue River and potential habitat in oak flats above the Rogue River. Pre-disturbance surveys 

are required. The species is considered rare in Curry and Josephine counties in Oregon and rare 

in California (McCune and Geiser 1997; USDA 2000a). The site is above the level of the wake 

created by jet boats. 

Dermatocarpon luridum: Streamside stippleback is an aquatic lichen found on rocks in seepy 

terraces, slopes and riparian edges with alder, Douglas-fir, western hemlock, and maple. 

Streamside stippleback has not been found along the Rogue River. It is well adapted to the 

effects of moving water and would not be affected by any of the proposed activities. 

Other Species of Concern

Adiantum jordanii and Smilax californica are plants that do not meet all of the criteria to be 

included on the Forest Service Sensitive Plant List, but are listed with the Oregon Natural 

Heritage Information Center (ONHIP) as species of concern. Carex nudata is of concern 

because it was brought up during public scoping as a species potentially affected by jet boat 

wakes. 
FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 52 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit

Adiantum jordanii: California maidenhair is found on shaded hillsides with moist woods. It is 

found near the Illinois and Rogue Rivers, but is considered rare throughout its range by the 

ONHIP (2004). The sites are above the level of the wake created by jet boats. 

Carex nudata: Pillar sedge is found in and along the Rogue River banks. It grows in large 

clumps with a pillar like base of roots that is normally exposed and is found throughout Oregon 

and in northern California. This plant grows within the area potentially affected by jet boat 

wakes. 

Smilax californica: California smilax is found along stream banks in coniferous forest. There 

are a number of occurrences on forested terraces along the Rogue River. It is uncommon on the 

Gold Beach Ranger District outside the Rogue River corridor and is considered as a long-term 

concern by the ONHIP. The sites are above the level of the wake created by jet boats. 

Noxious Weeds 

Noxious weeds are defined as those plant species designated noxious weeds by the Secretary of 

Agriculture or the responsible State official. Noxious weed generally possess one or more of the 

following characteristics: aggressive and difficult to manage, poisonous, toxic, parasitic, a 

carrier or host of a serious insect or disease, or being native or new to or not common to the 

United States or parts thereof. Noxious weed species found during the July 2003 plant survey 

along the Rogue River include: 

Centaurea pratensis: Meadow knapweed is found within the high water mark along the Rogue. 

It spreads though roots, and can establish in new locations when plant parts are washed 

downstream. 

Centaurea solstitialis: Yellow star thistle grows on benches above and below the high water 

mark. Their preferred habitats along the Rogue and Illinois Rivers are gravel bars, and sparsely 

vegetated rocky benches and slopes. 

Cirsium ravens: Canada thistle is found throughout southwest Oregon and is common west of 

the Oregon Coast range. It spreads through airborne seeds. 

Cirsium vulgare: Bull thistle is found throughout southwest Oregon and is common west of the 

Oregon Coast range. It spreads through airborne seeds. 

Cytisus scoparius: Scotch broom grows on benches generally above the high water mark. It 

spreads through tiny persistent seeds produced in great abundance. 

Genista monspessulana: French broom grows on benches generally above the high water mark. 

It spreads through tiny persistent seeds produced in great abundance. 

Lythrum salicaria: Purple loosestrife is found on the banks and river bars on the Rogue River in 

calm flat stretches of water. Its roots are wet-to-submerged year-round. Purple loosestrife can 

reproduce and spread from seeds, roots, and broken bits of stem. 
FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 53 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit

Port-Orford-Cedar ________________________________ 

The BLM and Forest Service recently published the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact 

Statement (FSEIS) for Management of Port-Orford-Cedar in Southwestern Oregon (USDA 

Forest Service-USDI Bureau of Land Management 2004a), which includes the Coos Bay, 

Medford and Roseburg BLM Districts and the Siskiyou National Forest. A Record of Decision 

for lands administered by the Forest Service (USDA Forest Service 2004) was signed in March 

2004. These two documents have Standards and Guidelines for managing POC and reducing the 

spread of Phytophthora lateralis, including: 

• Reduce the spread and severity of root disease in high-risk areas to retain its ecological 

function to the extent practicable; and 

• Reduce the likelihood of root disease becoming established in disease-free 7th-field 

watersheds. 

Port-Orford-cedar (POC) is a conifer tree found in southwestern Oregon and northwestern 

California. This tree can be infected by an introduced pathogen, Phytophthora lateralis (PL),

which causes POC root disease. The root disease is nearly always fatal to the Port-Orford-cedar 

trees it infects, reducing POC in the ecosystem and impacting other organisms dependent upon it. 

Research shows the root disease rate of spread is linked, at least in part, to transport of sporeinfected soil by human and other vectors. Water-borne spores readily spread the pathogen down 

slope and downstream. 

Gold Beach Ranger District database records indicated POC occurs intermittently along the 

entire length of the Rogue River in the project area. POC is found along the Illinois River in the 

project area adjacent to Nancy Creek. POC in Nancy Creek is dead due to fire damage in 2002 

and pre-existing root disease. There are other tributaries infested with PL flowing into the Rogue 

and Illinois Rivers and both rivers are considered infested. 

The project area includes the following uninfested 7th field watersheds: 22M01F, 22M09W, 

23L03W, and 23L06W (USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management 2004a, 

Appendix 1). An uninfested 7th field watershed is defined as having at least 100 acres of POC 

stands, at least 50% federal ownership, and free of PL except within the lowermost 2 acres of the 

drainage. 

Fire ____________________________________________ 

During the summer and early fall months, fire weather, fuel conditions, and the potential for a 

human-caused fire are the highest concern for fire managers. High daily temperatures and strong 

winds can promote rapid-fire growth in the river canyons. Temperatures are generally higher in 

the upper canyon (Foster Bar/Agness to Blossom Bar) than in the reach below, while winds are 

generally stronger in the lower canyon area (Lobster Creek to Foster Bar/Agness). During the 

critical fire season, fuels are generally volatile and vegetation would burn readily if a fire started. 

The greatest potential for fire starts comes from the human presence along the river. The Rogue 

Wild Section has the greatest risk because of the large number of floaters and hikers that 

regularly camp in this area. By comparison, the Lobster Creek to Foster Bar/Agness river reach 

has much less camping. While not as great a threat, private cabins and lodges within the Wild 

Section are also potential sources for fire.
FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 54 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit

The ability to rapidly access the most probable ignition points, which are within a quarter-mile of 

the river corridor, is limited in the Lobster Creek to Foster Bar/Agness Rogue River reach, and 

practically non-existent in the Foster Bar/Agness to Blossom Bar reach. With the exception of 

Rogue River that has parallel access roads within 0.75 mile or less, the river canyon terrain 

makes a rapid response by ground-based firefighting resources impractical. 

The lower Illinois corridor is primarily private land; National Forest System lands begin at Oak 

Flat meadow and campground. Oak Flat campground is the primary source of possible fire 

starts, since there are a large number of campers each summer. A road that accesses the meadow 

and campground can be used for fire prevention and suppression needs if necessary. 

Air Quality ______________________________________ 

Congress passed the first Federal Clean Air Act (Public Law 95-95, as amended) in 1955 to 

regulate air quality across the nation and protect public health and welfare from air pollution. 

The Act gave the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the task of setting limits, or National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), on how much of various pollutants can be in the air 

where the public has access. 

The EPA also develops policy and technical guidance on Clean Air Act implementation. Each 

state is required to develop State Implementation Plans (SIP) that describe and define how the 

state will meet the Clean Air Act. These plans must meet or exceed the Federal EPA standards. 

The Oregon Clean Air Act SIP was developed in compliance with the Federal Clean Air Act and 

is on file with the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and the EPA. 

Air quality can be affected by meteorology and emission sources. Weather processes usually 

cleanse the air of most pollution. Atmospheric stability determines the vertical mixing that can 

occur. Stable air prevents mixing and traps pollutants at the ground. Unstable air facilitates 

mixing and dispersal of pollutants. Due to their proximity to the coast, both river canyons are 

regularly subject to strong afternoon winds that channel cool marine air upstream. These canyon 

winds help circulate air within the area and disperse any concentrations of air pollutants. 

Pollution sources that can impact the lower Rogue and lower Illinois River corridors are 

classified into two categories: area sources and mobile sources. Area sources are relatively small 

individual sources of pollution, usually spread over a broad geographic area that collectively 

contributes emissions. Area sources include: wood stoves, slash and field burning, forest fires, 

backyard burning, and dust emissions from roads and agricultural tilling. Mobile sources 

include: motor vehicles, motorboats, off-highway vehicles, and aircraft. Pollutants of concern 

from motorboats are hydrocarbons (HC) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx). HC and NOx produce 

ground-level ozone, which can irritate the respiratory system, causing chest and lung 

inflammation. Ozone can also aggravate respiratory conditions such as asthma. In the past, river 

user groups apparently have not perceived motorboatboat emissions as a problem and concerns 

over air quality have not been voiced. No air quality monitoring related to motorboat emissions 

has been done for the reaches of the Rogue or Illinois Rivers considered in this study. 

The EPA established new emission standards for spark-ignition gasoline marine engines in 1996 

(Federal Register, Vol. 61, No. 194, pp. 52087-52169). The rule covers outboard engines and 

gasoline marine engines in personal watercraft and jet boats. Emission standards were not set for 

stern drive and inboard engines due to the inherently clean nature of this engine technology. The 

new generation of outboard and personal watercraft marine engines is over 75 percent cleaner 

than current marine engine technology. In addition these engines have less smoke, fumes and 

noise.
FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 55 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit

Cultural Resources _______________________________ 

For millions of years, the Rogue and Illinois Rivers evolved without the influence of humans. 

Over the last several thousand years, Native Americans and early settlers discovered and utilized 

the rivers and the surrounding terrain, functioning as integral parts in the evolution of the 

watersheds as they appear today. The interactions between natural and human forces have 

shaped past human use of the area and have resulted in the configuration of plants, animals, river 

terraces and even the course of each river today. Heritage Resource sites tend to be situated on a 

series of riverine benches and raised terraces along each river. 

The human use history within the river corridors can be reconstructed and interpreted by 

examining the physical remains and historic records of previous inhabitants, and through 

observable changes that are the result of human activities. Remains, examined in conjunction 

with information from the natural environment and historical records, can reveal patterns of 

human behavior and adaptation. Many surveys have been conducted within the Wild and Scenic 

River corridors to identify Heritage Resources which may be impacted from various projects and 

activities. Survey and reconnaissance will continue along the rivers and it is inevitable that new 

sites will be discovered over time. 

The Rogue and Illinois Rivers contain prehistoric and historic sites representing every cultural 

milestone in local history. Some of the earliest sites on the Oregon coast can be found in the 

river vicinities along with sites representing later Indian cultures to the time of Euro-American 

contact. Battle sites and military camps are the remnants of the mid-1850s Rogue River Indian 

Wars. Mining and prospecting remains are quite evident along the river as are the remains of 

early settlement activities. Lodges, vacation cabins and recreation facilities are representative of 

later river recreational uses. Some sites within the Rogue Wild and Scenic River corridor are of 

great significance and are listed on the National Register of Historic Places and many more are 

potentially eligible to be listed. 

Prehistory 

Paleo-Indian Cultures 

The archeological record attests to a continuous human occupation of southwest Oregon for the 

last eight to nine thousand years. The Marial site (35CU84, Griffin 1983) on the Rogue River 

provides carbon-14 dates beginning at 8,560 years before present (BP), clearly establishing the 

antiquity of human life in this portion of southwest Oregon. Excavations near the Illinois River 

mouth at the Tlegetlinten site (35CU59) unearthed materials from another ancient culture, 

possibly dating from two major periods of use at 6,000 and 2,000 years BP. Human adaptations 

in southwest Oregon appear to have changed from a moderately mobile, hunting-gathering 

lifestyle to more sedentary, specialized economies. These changes are likely to have been 

influenced by the effects of population displacement and growth as a result of changing climates 

and environments in southwestern Oregon and other areas. 

Northwest Coast Culture 

Athabaskan-speaking people occupied the Rogue and Illinois watersheds at Euro-American 

contact, although they are considered relative latecomers to the region. The Athabascans may 

have brought with them a way of life more strongly oriented to riverine resources, displacing 

groups who followed a subsistence lifestyle characterized by greater reliance on big game 

hunting in the uplands. 
FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 56 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit

The Athabascans are linked to changes in settlement pattern and technology, which appear in the 

archeological record about 1,500 years ago along the coast and into the interior of southwest 

Oregon. These groups spoke various Athabaskan dialects and are collectively referred to as the 

Tututni or Coast Rogues, although each band had its own name. 

The Tututnis inhabited much of southwestern Oregon from the beaches to the upland forests and 

extending up the coastal rivers. They occupied an area from south of Bandon, Oregon to 

northern California and extending up major drainages like the Smith, Chetco, Pistol, and Rogue 

Rivers. The bands were many and their locations diverse. On the Rogue River, a number of 

bands lived along the river from its mouth to a point just below Grave Creek where they met 

their neighbors, the Lowland Takelma. The general pattern of Tututni settlement indicates that 

large winter villages of 50 to 150 people were established along coastal areas, rivers and major 

streams. On the Rogue River, these villages were on terraces and meadows, often at the 

confluence of streams. These villages served as semi-permanent habitation spots, where foods 

collected throughout the year could be stored for use in the winter. 

History 

The historical period in this portion of southwestern Oregon begins as early as the 16th and 17th

centuries, with the voyages of the Spanish explorers. The log of Captain George Vancouver 

notes the earliest recorded contact between the coastal natives and Europeans in 1792. Within 

the next quarter century, trappers and traders from around the world appeared in southwestern 

Oregon. 

The Rogue River Wars 

The discovery of gold near Jacksonville and the Donation Land Act of 1850 enticed thousands of 

transient miners and permanent settlers to southern Oregon. Mining activity reduced many fish 

runs. Livestock feasted on vital native foods, such as camas and acorns. Over-hunting 

threatened deer and elk populations. The Rogue River Indians, already the victims of infectious 

diseases, became refugees in their own homeland and were reduced to starvation. Within just a 

few years, the Rogue River Indians were fighting for their land and lifestyle in a series of 

conflicts called the Rogue River Wars. 

The Rogue River and its surrounding valleys became the centerpiece for these conflicts. 

Although few pitched battles occurred during the war, many small violent encounters and acts of 

revenge kept the war fires burning. Eventually, Indians sought shelter and protection in the 

Rogue River canyon. Some of the largest battles were fought in the most remote Rogue River 

stretches: Hungry Hill, Skull Bar, Battle Bar and the final conflict at Big Bend. An 

overwhelming number of miners and settlers coupled with the devastation of war, disease and 

starvation finally forced the indigenous inhabitants to relinquish their homelands. The year 1856 

marked the sunset of Native American dominance in the area. At the end of the Rogue River 

Wars the remaining aboriginal peoples were moved to the Grande Ronde or Siletz reservations. 

Euro-American Settlement 

The removal of native inhabitants opened the area to more settlement. Early settlers and miners 

moved into the area, often building their houses on the same river terraces that had provided 

homes for native inhabitants. 

Gold served as the initial spark that ignited settlement. Some of the first permanent EuroAmerican settlers to the region were 1850s gold rush miners. Gold deposits were discovered on 

the coast at places like Whiskey Run and Gold Beach, and later along the Rogue and Illinois 

Rivers and their tributaries, where large mining districts were established.
FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 57 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit

In both rivers, all early mining technologies were employed, including placer mining, hydraulic 

mining, and lode mining (Kramer 1999). Mineral deposits were often re-worked after the initial 

strike played out, first by Chinese miners and later by Depression Era prospectors. Many 

documented heritage sites along the Rogue River are related to the prospecting and mining of 

precious metals. 

Following or accompanying these prospectors were the early settlers. Settlement in the Rogue 

River canyon began in the mid-nineteenth century and continued into the 1950s (Beckham 

1978). In the summer of 1868, a pack train of 20 men, women, and children slowly made their 

way to the Rogue and Illinois confluence, the site that would later become Agness. This group 

of emigrants hailed from the Klamath River gold country, seeking better opportunities on the 

Rogue River and its tributaries. Abraham and Jim Fry, along with their Karok Indian wives, 

established their homesteads on the lower Illinois River that year. Long a prime living space, 

Oak Flat still bore the signs of Indian camps and villages which had been inhabited only fifteen 

years earlier. The open, flat land continued to offer the same rich life source it had provided 

earlier residents. 

The remoteness and difficult access to the river canyon precluded extensive development. Most 

people followed a subsistence-oriented lifestyle, making maximum use of fish and game 

supplemented with produce and animals raised on small farms. Goods and services were traded, 

borrowed and scavenged. Population densities remained low. Cash earning opportunities were 

limited with small-scale mining, raising and sale of livestock, packing, and the sale of fish. One 

alternative to this self-sufficient lifestyle was the development of large-scale hydraulic and hard 

rock mining operations. Although temporary, this industrial development was significant in the 

Rogue River canyon history. Mining sites such as Mule Creek, Galice Creek, Solitude Bar and 

Blossom Bar are lasting reminders of this period, which existed through the 1930s. 

The Siskiyou National Forest was established on October 5, 1906. The early forester’s duties 

included multiple jobs involved with administration of a large timberland and various trails, 

lookouts, forest guard stations, camps and telephone lines were constructed in the area during the 

first three decades of the Forest’s history. 

The 1930s Depression brought an influx of people to the river as many unemployed individuals 

sought survival in the mountains, once again undertaking a subsistence economy lifestyle. These 

people were also engaged in prospecting and small-scale mining encouraged by the re-valuation 

of gold. The Depression Era also marked the creation of Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC) 

work programs in the Rogue River corridor, including many improvement projects along the 

Rogue River Trail. 

In the early twentieth century, recreational river use added a new economic emphasis to the area. 

Guiding and packing, river rafting and motorboat tours, and lodges and hotels have all been 

developed to offer services to visitors. Some riffles and rapids on the Rogue were blasted to 

open the river to boat traffic. Today, the Rogue River corridor is heavily used by recreationists, 

especially river floaters, fishing guides, motorized tour boats, and hikers. 
FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 58 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit

Recreation ______________________________________ 

Recreation is designated as an Outstandingly Remarkable Value under the Wild and Scenic 

Rivers Act for both the Rogue and Illinois Rivers. Recreational user conflicts were identified as 

a significant issue in Chapter 1. 

The Rogue River is internationally known for its fisheries. In the 1920s and 1930s, the Rogue 

became famous for sport fishing, due in part to pioneer river guides like Glenn Wooldridge and 

the writing of Zane Grey. The number of people fishing and recreating increased enough to 

support lodges, with lodges in the Wild Section becoming established in the 1950s and 1960s. 

Early recreational activities in the Illinois watershed were horseback riding and boating. Hunting 

and fishing were subsistence activities that gradually became more recreational over the years. 

The lower Rogue River also provides some of the best opportunities for wildlife viewing on the 

Siskiyou National Forest. Bald eagles, otter, black bear, and deer and elk are often the highlight 

of commercial jet boat tours. 

Trails along the Rogue and Illinois Rivers offered travel routes for Native Americans, then 

miners and settlers. A 1911 Siskiyou National Forest map shows the Rogue River Trail from 

Grave Creek to Big Bend on the north side of the river. A 1915 Forest map shows a trail on both 

sides of the Illinois River, and an additional trail going to Silver Prairie. 

Rivers and trails were the primary access routes in the forest until the Civilian Conservation 

Corps (CCC) arrived in Agness in the 1930s. Trails were improved and roads were constructed 

connecting Agness to Illahe and Powers and to Oak Flat. In the 1960s, roads were constructed 

primarily for timber harvest, and the paved road between Gold Beach and Agness was 

completed. This brought increased road-related recreation activities to the area, such as driving, 

camping, and hunting. 

Before the 1960s, drift boats were primarily used for floating the Rogue Wild Section. Since that 

time, inflatable raft use increased. Technological advances during the 1990s have allowed 

rafting to occur year-round, although the heaviest use on the Rogue River still occurs during the 

regulated season, from May 15 through October 15. 

Commercial tour boats comprise another major component of recreational use on the Rogue 

River, taking visitors upriver to view and experience whitewater, scenery, wildlife, and other 

resources. The first commercial tour boat trip in the lower watershed began in 1938 with Rogue 

River Mailboats taking passengers and mail, from Gold Beach to Agness. This activity became 

more popular in the 1940s after an article about the trip was published in Sunset magazine (E. 

Kammer, pers. comm. September, 1999). In 1962, Shasta Costa rapids were dug and blasted, 

allowing motorboats to travel above Agness to Blossom Bar Rapids without portaging. The first 

104-mile tour boat trip to Blossom Bar was made this same year. Although Blossom Bar Rapids 

were also blasted in the 1950s, larger boats are unable to negotiate this area and it remains the 

upper tour limit. The number of people who recreated via tour boats increased between the 

1960s and the 1990s. The peak years for use were in the early 1990s when nearly 59,000 people 

traveled on the tour boats each year. 
FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 59 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit

Rogue River Recreation 

Whitewater Rafting 

The current regulated season for floating the Rogue Wild Section is May 15 to October 15 for 

private boaters and May 15 to November 15 for commercial companies. One hundred and 

twenty person starts are available per day from May 15 to October 15. Maximum party size for 

private floating groups is 20 and the maximum party size for commercial floating groups is 30. 

Average annual use during the past five years (1998-2003) was 7,412 private floaters and 6,016 

commercial clients. The ratio of private to commercial use remained consistent at 55 percent 

private to 45 percent commercial (See Figures 10-13). 

Most people floating the Rogue Wild Section begin their raft trip at Grave Creek (RM 68) and 

end at Foster Bar (RM 34). Trips can range from two to five days, with a maximum of seven 

days allowed during the regulated season. Drift boats can continue on to Quosatana or Lobster 

Creek boat ramps downstream. There is not much rafting use below Agness due to heavy 

upriver winds. 

Guided Fishing 

Known internationally for decades as a “fish highway”, the Rogue River attracts anglers with its 

five annual runs of fish: spring chinook (April-May), summer steelhead (August-September), fall 

chinook (September-November), coho (December-January), and winter steelhead (DecemberMarch). Most of this fishing occurs with motorized or drift boats, although a large number of 

anglers also fish from the riverbanks and gravel bars. Commercial and non-commercial anglers 

use the river heavily during the spring and fall fish runs, with less use occurring in winter and 

summer. 

Commercial Tour Boats 

There are two commercial tour boat companies that operate boats out of the Rogue River estuary 

in Gold Beach. They feature one day trips to Agness (64-mile round trip), Watson Creek (80-

mile round trip), and to the pool below Blossom Bar Rapids (104-mile round trip). Boats 

traveling to Agness can carry up to 75 passengers. Boats traveling beyond Agness (Snout Creek) 

can carry 42 passengers. The number of passengers carried on any day also depends on water 

levels in the river. 

Between 1999 and 2003, an annual average of 44,000 people rode commercial tour boats on the 

Rogue River. Approximately 12,500 of these passengers visited the Wild Section annually. 

During this period, there was an annual average of 471 trips to Agness, 482 trips to Watson 

Creek, and 447 trips to Blossom Bar (see graphs in FEIS Appendix C). 

Lodges and Recreational Cabins 

There are four commercial lodges in the Rogue Wild Section: Marial, Paradise, Half Moon Bar, 

and Clay Hill. While the lodges primarily cater to downriver floaters, each offers 

accommodations and meals to all visitors. Motorboats can access all lodges except Marial, 

which is above Blossom Bar Rapids and is the only lodge in the Forest Service portion of the 

Wild Section that has road access. Paradise and Half Moon Bar also have grass air strips on their 

property that are used occasionally. Illahe Lodge is just upriver from Foster Bar, in the 

Recreational Section, and also accommodates downriver floaters and motorboaters, or can be 

accessed by vehicle via the Illahe Road (County Road 375). 
FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 60 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit

Historically, lodges and recreational cabins in the Wild Section have had unlimited motorboat 

ingress/egress to their private property for transport of supplies, staff, family, and friends. In 

1999, Paradise Lodge entered into a special use permit agreement that allowed the transport of 

commercial guests to the lodge. The other lodges decided to continue with unlimited 

ingress/egress to their lodge with no provision for transporting commercial passengers. Between 

1999 and 2003, Paradise made an average of 170 round trips per year. The commercial tour 

boats and Paradise Lodge boat help transport approximately 25-40 percent of all guests to lodges 

in the Wild Section. 

Private landowners currently have unlimited ingress/egress to their properties for noncommercial purposes. They are not authorized to go upstream of their property. The boat trips 

to the cabins and lodges are dependent on reconstruction projects at the property, family 

schedules, personal situations, weather conditions, and water flow. Over the last five years, three 

of the four major properties in the Wild Section have been remodeled and this has increased the 

number of trips. Based on staff observations and personal communication with the landowners 

in early 2004, the number of private landowner motorboat trips could range from 400 to 800 trips 

per year, with an estimated average of 730 trips annually, inclusive of remodeling. 

Other Motorboat Use 

Administrative motorboat use is primarily by the U.S. Forest Service and the Curry County 

Marine Deputy. Other agency users include Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and 

Oregon State Police, whose use is primarily in the Recreation and Scenic Sections. The fiveyear average use in the Wild Section was 59 trips per year and 89 trips per year in the 

Recreational and Scenic Sections. 

Private recreational motorboats and landowner boats operate in the Wild Section year-round. 

Between May 15 and November 15, private recreational motorboats are limited to six per day in 

the Wild Section, with little use in the off-season. During the past ten years, an average of 162 

permits has been issued annually during the regulated season. The number of private motorboats 

and passengers that travel into the Wild Section during the regulated season has declined; in 

1995 there were 174 trips and 775 people, while in 2003 there were 102 trips and 314 people. 

Private motorboats traveling from Lobster Creek to Watson Creek are not regulated. The 

average number of passengers per boat is estimated to be one to six persons. Based on staff 

observations and comparing the number of fishing guide boats to private boats, private 

motorboat use in 2003 was estimated to be 1,230 boats (T. Hawkins and T. Heath, pers. comm. 

March 2004). 

Boat ramps on National Forest System lands are located at Lobster Creek and Quosatana 

Campgrounds and at Foster Bar. There are additional boat ramps on private land at Agness and 

below Lobster Creek, which also offer access to the Rogue and Illinois rivers. 

Docks 

Over the years, docks have come and gone at the lodges in the Rogue Wild Section. A number 

of people were interviewed to determine the dock histories. From these conversations, it appears 

that there were buildings on all lodge properties prior to 1968, with primitive docks to unload 

freight and materials (B. Tankersley and A. Boice, pers. comm. November 2003). As building 

took place at the lodges between 1968 and the early 1970s, docks were still being used to unload 

building supplies (E. Rutledge, pers. comm. November 2003; Gold Beach Ranger District 

Conservation Easement files). 
FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 61 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit

 

Long-time fishing guides remember a dock at Paradise Lodge since 1966, when Deak and Louise 

Miller were there, at Half Moon Bar Lodge since Bill Norfleet was there1

, and at Clay Hill in 

1968. These docks were primitive in style, incorporating barrels and planks (I. Urie, M. Norrick, 

G. Briggs, and P. Brown, pers. comm. March 2004). Paradise Lodge had a larger dock than Half 

Moon Bar and Clay Hill, because it was used to unload passengers (L. Miller, pers. comm. 

November 2003). 

From these interviews, it appears that Paradise Lodge had consistent use of a dock at their 

property through the years to the present. When the tour boats stopped at the Half Moon Bar, 

Clay Hill and Wild River Lodges for lunch, they brought docks so passengers could load and 

unload safely. Clay Hill Lodge had a dock in the 1970s from approximately 1973 to 1978 (C. 

Boice, pers. comm. November 2003) and again from 1985 to 1991 (L. Bowen, pers. comm. 

January 2004). Wild River Lodge had a dock for the tour boats in 1976 and it stayed at that 

location for a couple of years (Boice, Urie, and Kammer). 

Some people recall that the docks at Half Moon Bar washed out twice when Bill Norfleet had the 

lodge (Norrick); a dock was not there in the early 1970s and boats landed on the gravel bar (C. 

Boice, B. Scherbarth, and J. Genre, pers. comm. November 2003). A dock was built in the 

1980s when Mark Minnis was owner (W. Crouse, pers. comm. March 2004). This dock was 

washed out in the 1996 flood, after which a request was made to reinstall a dock that would 

safely unload passengers from the commercial tour boats. This request was approved in January 

1998. 

Today, the docks at Paradise and Half Moon Bar Lodges, and the proposed dock at Clay Hill 

Lodge, are 6 to 8 feet wide and 24 feet long. These docks are not permanent structures - they are 

moved out of the river prior to the winter months to keep them from being washed out in high 

flows. Their primary use is for boarding and discharge of passengers, equipment and supplies 

from lodge boats. There is a minor amount of overnight moorage of boats at these facilities. 

Boating Regulations 

To date, the Forest Service has chosen to manage the Rogue Wild Section so it is available to all 

recreationists within the permit limits that were established through OSMB, and the Forest 

Service regulations that were developed through a public process. 

The motorboat use in the Rogue Wild Section was recognized and documented in the Rogue 

RMP. Congress further recognized motorboat use when the Wild Rogue Wilderness was 

established. The river corridor was exempted from Wilderness regulations because of the 

recognized motorboat uses and the homes and lodges in the Wild Section corridor. 

Recreation Conflicts 

Many studies have been conducted on the Rogue River over the years to assess social conflicts, 

user attitudes and displacement, and Agency management and policies. Through these studies 

and conversations with various users, the Forest Service is aware that non-motorized boaters 

complain about motorboat and vice-versa, and anglers also complain about motorboats. 

Donheffner and Muckleston (1976) indicated that the greatest problem cited by motorboaters 

was encountering floaters. In meeting floaters, 41 percent of motorboaters mentioned some form 

of discourtesy. This may reflect attitudes reported in a study on drift use conducted in 1974, 

where 80 percent of downriver users oppose the use of motorboats on the Wild Rogue (Pfister 

and Frenkel 1974). 

1

 Sale of the lodge to Norfleet was in 1966 and 1967, although the dock may have been built later. 
FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 62 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit

These studies helped identify the need for regulation that was developed by the managing 

agencies. The regulations were initially proposed in 1976, and after receiving received and 

analyzing public comment, the regulations were adopted by OSMB for implementation in 1978 

(Conklin 1982). 

Alexander and Weber (1982) completed a study titled Rogue River Report, Recreation Use, 

which reviewed user counts and attitudes from Lobster Creek to Marial. Bank fishermen and 

rafters identified conflicts with commercial jet boats and motorboats. Users were satisfied with 

Rogue River management and they did not wish to have additional regulations. Landowners and 

local citizens were most opposed to additional regulations, while floaters were more supportive 

of prohibiting motorized watercraft and restricting the number of river users. 

River Use Conflicts in Oregon: A Study of Jet Boat Use on Oregon’s Rivers and Streams was 

published in January 1987. This was a general study across the state with public meetings held 

at many locations. It concluded that most jet boaters are aware of the impacts and controversy 

surrounding their jet boat use. For the most part, they operate in a safe and orderly manner. 

However, a few jet boat owners, through either ignorance or a lack of understanding, have 

created a bad image for jet boaters. Many conflicts, real or perceived, stem from overcrowding 

and conflicting fishing techniques, rather than the boat type or propulsion system. In the absence 

of motorized use, many of these problems would still exist. Another cause of conflict is the lack 

of understanding between user groups. The issue of educating all user groups was cited by 76 

percent of the people at the workshop meetings as one of the major solutions for reducing 

conflicts. The recommendation for motorboat regulations varied for each river in the state. No 

further restrictions on the Rogue Wild Section were recommended, since regulations already 

existed. 

Schindler and Shelby (1992) completed the Rogue River User Study: Wild Rogue Planning and 

Policy Study. Floaters identified the number of jet boats, danger from jet boats, and competition 

over campsites as major issues. Anglers were the strongest opponents of jet boat use. 

The Forest Service conducted a survey of private rafters in 2001. This survey was based on 

Schindler and Shelby’s (1992) study to identify visitor perceptions of conditions, preferences for 

recreation opportunities, and assessments of river management. Approximately 10 percent of the 

2001 non-commercial rafters were surveyed. The vast majority of respondents (99 percent) rated 

their river experience as “good, very good, or excellent” and also indicated that their actual trip 

often matched their expectation. There were still occasional conflicts encountered by visitors, 

usually within their own user group, but these occurrences appear to have dropped slightly since 

recorded by Schindler and Shelby a decade earlier. Survey findings also revealed that there was 

still dissatisfaction with allowing motorboats on the Wild Section below Blossom Bar; however 

it seemed people were more willing to tolerate private homeowner/lodge boats over other 

motorboats. 

Some floaters contend that accidents can occur when both boat types are in the same limited 

channel location during low flows. These occurrences raise safety concerns, although no 

accidents between floaters and motorboats under special use permit have been reported in more 

than 30 years of recreational boat use in the Wild Section. 

Noise generated by motorboats is also a concern. Smaller boats consistently generate more noise 

than the larger tour boats, but smaller boats are audible for a shorter time than the tour boats. 
FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 63 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit

The number of complaints or conflicts depends on river levels, boat numbers, boater experience 

level, and other factors. The less water in the river, the narrower the channel, effectively putting 

both boat types closer. The greatest number of float craft and motorboats on the river are in July 

and August when the weather is best and the most people are on vacation. If there are 

inexperienced boat operators that do not know the river or river etiquette, problems can arise. 

The number of complaints about tour boat operators by floaters is small compared to the number 

of trips. The Forest Service receives 0 to 4 complaints per year concerning motorboat operation. 

The complaints range from boat wakes or traveling too close to the floaters, to private 

motorboats going too fast or not yielding the right-of-way to floaters in the Wild Section. There 

was one physical altercation between a private motorboater and a floater a few years ago, but 

that is the only known occurrence. There are also complaints from motorboaters about floaters. 

The most common complaints are that floaters are blocking the channel or not being courteous to 

motorboaters. This, too, is a small number of complaints compared to the number of trips. 

Illinois River Recreation 

Private motorized and float use on the lower Illinois River, from the mouth to Nancy Creek, is 

not regulated. Motorboats can only travel as far as Nancy Creek (3.8 miles), just upstream from 

Oak Flat where private floaters take-out. 

The Illinois River upstream of Nancy Creek is known for its exceptionally rugged and 

undeveloped character. Prior to 1970, the Illinois River from Briggs Creek to Nancy Creek 

received little recreation use due to poor accessibility. However, in the early 1970s, white water 

rafting became popular and rafting increased on the Illinois. Today, an average of 290 people 

float the Illinois Wild Section annually, but the number varies widely each year depending on 

river flows and weather; for example, there were 65 floaters in 1978, compared to 529 floaters in 

1998. Most floaters are private, but there are two commercial companies with special use 

permits for whitewater rafting trips from Miami Bar to Oak Flat. 

The float season is short and generally occurs from early March to mid-May, when the water 

flow ranges from 300 to 2,500 cfs. Water flow on the Illinois River can fluctuate greatly and 

once floaters put in at Miami Bar, there is no point where they can easily take-out until they 

reach Oak Flat, approximately 29 miles downstream. There are no private lodges or cabins 

along the Illinois River downstream of Briggs Creek, and suitable river camping sites are more 

limited compared to the Rogue River. 

Campgrounds and Trails 

Lobster Creek and Quosatana Campgrounds are approximately ten miles and fourteen miles, 

respectively, from Gold Beach on Forest Road 33 (Agness Road). Both campgrounds have boat 

ramps providing access to the Rogue River. Foster Bar campground, about 5 miles north of 

Agness, is the primary take-out for rafters that have floated through the Rogue Wild Section. 

There is a raft pad and a boat ramp used by both motorboats and rafters. Foster Bar is also a 

pick-up/drop-off point for commercial tour boat companies and Paradise Lodge clients. 

In the lower Illinois, the Oak Flat gravel bar offers dispersed camping sites and a day use area for 

swimming. This site is also the take out point for Illinois River Wild Section floaters and a put 

in point for floating the Illinois from Oak Flat to the mouth. Most recreation use occurs in the 

summer, especially on weekends. 
The 42-mile Rogue River Trail from Grave Creek to Big Bend was designated a National 

Recreational Trail in 1981. Within the Forest boundary, the trail is 14 miles long, starting at Big 

Bend meadow and continuing upriver to Marial. The trail parallels the north side of the river and 

in many places it was constructed through rock cliffs, providing spectacular river views below. 

The 13-mile lower Rogue River Trail from Agness to Silver Creek also parallels the north side of 

the river and offers river views downstream of the Agness area. 

Current Permitted Use 

The number of people fishing has been growing steadily. In 2003, 2567 people fished with a 

commercial guide on the National Forest portion of the lower Rogue River. From 1999-2003, 

the average number of clients served by fishing guides was 2374, which includes trips on the 

lower Illinois River. Compared to the Rogue River, commercial fishing use on the lower Illinois 

River is low, with an average of 52 people fishing in the past five years. This is due in part to 

more limited river and fishing conditions on the lower Illinois River during the year. 

The number of tour boat passengers each year has been relatively steady and averages 37,944 

adults and 6,356 children for 1999-2003. In 2003, the number of passengers was close to this 

five-year average. Low water in 2001 caused the 104-mile trips to be cancelled for a month and 

accounted for the lowest number of passengers over the five-year period. Conversely, Paradise 

Lodge carried the most passengers in 2001 with 631 commercial passengers, primarily due to the 

tour boats not running. Paradise Lodge transported an average of 438 commercial passengers 

from 1999-2003. The following figures (Figures 10-13) show the annual outfitter/guide 

permitted use from 1999-2003. The source of this date is commercial permittee annual use 

reports. 

Figures 10-13: Annual Outfitter/Guide Permitted Use 1999-2003 

Annual Trips: Lower Illinois Recreational Section

(1999-2003)

20

30

19

30 30

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Year

Nu

mb

er

of 

tri

ps

FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 64 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit
Annual Trips: All Lower Rogue River Sections

(1999-2003)

171 170

1014 1114 1164 1283 1189

392

730

730

730 730 730

1701

1703

1595 1690

165 216

1482 1439 1368 1312 1397

1648

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Year

Number of trips

USFS, Curry Co. Sherif f

Floaters with Wild Section Permit

Landowners with Wild Section Permit (estimated) Priv ate Motorboats with Wild Section Permit

Fishing Guides Tourboats Lodgeboat

80

85

78 79 112

103

67

127

102 98

Annual Trips: Rogue Scenic/Recreational Sections

(1999-2003)

730

730

730 730 730

1701

1703

1595 1690

392

810 1033 1018 1138 1148

1482 1439 1368 1312 1397

165 171 216 170

1648

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Year

Number of trips

80

103

85

78

67

79

98

112

102

127

FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 65 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit
Annual Trips: Lower Rogue Wild Section

(1999-2003)

730

730

730 730 730

1701

1703

1595 1690

228 264

266 271 188

FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 66 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit

165 171 216 170

544 488 318 419 464

392

1648

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Year

Num ber of trips

52

54

103

50

67

63

98

77

102

127

Wilderness ______________________________________

The nearly 36,000 acre Wild Rogue Wilderness, designated in 1978 under the Endangered 

American Wilderness Act, was established in part to provide watershed protection for the Wild 

Section of the Rogue River. Special provisions of the act applied to the management of the Wild 

Rogue River (see Wilderness in sections on Management Direction and Recreation Affected 

Environment). The entire wilderness is classified as semi-primitive non-motorized under the 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) (USDA Forest Service 1989a, III-125) and as semiprimitive under the Wilderness Recreation Spectrum (WRS), which is defined as a 

predominantly unmodified natural environment with infrequent encounters (five to seven 

encounters per day) with other users (USDA Forest Service 1989a, MA 1 – Wilderness). This 

semi-primitive classification provides a lower level of solitude and primitive experience when 

compared to opportunities offered in other wildernesses with areas classified as primitive or 

pristine. 

The Wilderness affected environment occurs beyond 1⁄4 mile on either side of the Rogue River 

between Blossom Bar Rapids and Watson Creek in the Wild Section. Wilderness also occurs 

beyond 1⁄4 mile on the east side of the Recreational Section from Watson Creek downriver to 

about 1 mile north of Forest Service Road 23. 

The steep canyon landscape of the wilderness area provides limited and challenging trail-based 

recreation. Cross-country travel is generally not feasible due to the steep terrain and heavy 

vegetation. 
FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 67 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit

The Clay Hill and Mule Creek trails connect the lower Rogue River Trail with the high elevation 

Panther Ridge Trail along the north wilderness boundary. These trails receive limited use, 

infrequent maintenance and are steep forested routes with limited views that parallel creek 

canyons. Close proximity to a high-use National Recreation Trail (the Rogue River Trail) results 

in more frequent encounters with other, often larger groups, and a reduction of solitude and 

primitive experience. 

The Panther Ridge Trail is farther from the river – a few miles north at an elevation of about 

3,000 feet. It provides landscape views of the river, especially at the Hanging Rock vista, a 

popular day hike destination. The sights and sounds associated with roads are perceptible to the 

north outside the wilderness boundary. The Mount Bolivar Trail, located on the Powers Ranger 

District above 4,000 feet in the far northeastern tip of the wilderness, is even further removed 

from the river environment. 

Socio-Economic Conditions _______________________ 

Economic return associated with levels of permitted use was identified as a significant issue in 

Chapter 1. 

Gold Beach is a small town dependent on tourists to support businesses and employment for 

residents. Gold Beach, like other coastal communities, had a stronger economy in the 1970s and 

1980s when the timber industry and commercial fishing were stronger. With the last sawmill 

closing in the early 1990s, employment opportunities are limited in Gold Beach and the economy 

is much more dependent on tourism. People traveling on Highway 101, visiting the ocean 

beaches, and visiting the Rogue River for fishing and riding the tour boats are big contributors to 

the local economy. 

Commercial Tour Boats 

There are three permits for two companies to operate tour boats providing scenic trips from Gold 

Beach. There are three types of trips and the permitted area is from Lobster Creek to Snout 

Creek (Agness) (64 miles, round trip), Watson Creek (where the Wild Section begins) (80 miles, 

round trip), or the pool below Blossom Bar Rapids (approximately 10 miles upriver in the Wild 

Section, 104 miles, round trip). Only two of the three tour boat permittees (Rogue Jets, Inc. and 

Mailboat Upriver, Inc.) are allowed to operate in the Wild Section (Watson Creek to below 

Blossom Bar Rapids). Commercial tour boat size is limited above Snout Creek to a maximum of 

42 passengers. Tour boats also transport 25 to 40 percent of the clientele who stay at two lodges 

in the Wild Section. 

Average total trips, revenue and wild trips from 1999 through 2004 are about 1400 total trips, 

$2,152,000 in revenue and about 460 trips into the wild section (Table 10). The data from this 

time period presents a mixed picture of tour boat use. There was a decrease in total trips during 

the first four years and increases in 2003 and 2004 as displayed in Figure 14. The wild section 

shows a decreasing trend during the first three years and increases in the last three years. 

Both wild tour boat clients and total tour boat clients dropped dramatically between 2000 and 

2001 as shown in Figure 15. There has been a general upward trend since 2001 with total clients 

reaching previous levels. Average revenue per client over the last six years, has been fairly 

constant. Total revenue follows the same general trend of total clients. 

Since current operations are not at permit limits, and because past data do not exhibit strong 

trends for projecting different use levels into the future, the averages of the tour boat indicators 

over the past six years are used to project future use. Current use will be the basis for comparing 

alternative economic effects.
Table 10. Tour Boat Data, 1999 through 2004 

Year Total Trips 

Total 

Clients 

Total 

Revenue Clients/Trip 

Rev/ 

Client 

Wild 

Trips 

Wild 

Clients 

1999 1,482 45,694 $2,011,000 31 $49 544 16,137

2000 1,439 47,544 $2,093,000 33 $49 488 16,024

2001 1,368 41,281 $1,739,000 30 $46 318 10,525

2002 1,312 42,340 $1,960,000 32 $48 419 13,663

2003 1,397 43,829 $2,061,000 31 $49 464 15,067

2004 1,480 46,284 $2,256,000 31 $49 519 15,116

Average 1,413 44,632 $2,152,000 31 $48 459 14,422

Figure 14: Tour Boat Total Trips and Wild Section Trips, 1999-2004 

0

300

600

900

1,200

1,500

1,800

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Trips

Total Trips Wild Trips

Figure 15: Tour Boat Total and Wild Section Clients, 1999-2004 

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Clients

Total Clients Wild Clients

FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 68 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit
Figure 16: Tour Boat Annual Revenue, 1999-2004 

$0

$500,000

$1,000,000

$1,500,000

$2,000,000

$2,500,000

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Commercial Transport of Lodge Guests 

There is one permit to transport lodge guests from Foster Bar to Paradise Lodge, Half Moon Bar 

Lodge, and Clay Hill Lodge all within the wild section of the river. A trip is defined as a roundtrip from Foster Bar to the lodge and return. The maximum number of trips is 365 annually. 

Approximately 60 to 75 percent of lodge patrons arrive at the lodges by the lodge boat. The 

remaining 25 to 40 percent arrive on the tour boats. The lodge boat carries both paying hotel 

guests and non-revenue passengers such as employees. 

Revenue per paying client averaged $42 during 1999 through 2004 as shown in Table 11. Total 

revenues over the same period averaged $17,300 generated by about 160 trips per year. The 

spike in trips, clients and revenue that occurred in 2001 was due to low water levels prohibiting 

operation of tour boats to transport clients to the lodges. 

The indicators displayed in Table 11 as well as Figures 17-19, are highly variable and do not 

provide a strong basis for predicting trends in client demand. The average conditions of the past 

six years are projected as the likely conditions in the near future and are used as the base for 

comparing alternative economic effects. 

Table 11: Lodge Boat Data, 1999 through 2004

Year Trips 

Total 

Revenue 

Commercial 

Clients 

Sum of 

Passengers 

Revenue/ 

Client 

1999 165 $22,200 548 1,234 $41

2000 171 $17,700 415 1,236 $43

2001 216 $25,900 631 1,287 $41

2002 170 $18,500 435 1,092 $43

2003 127 $6,600 159 708 $41

2004 133 $12,700 296 856 $43

Averag

e 

164 $18,200 414 1,069 $42

FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 69 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit
Figure 17: Lodge Boat Trips, 1999-2004 

0

50

100

150

200

250

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Trips

Figure 18: Lodge Boat Revenue, 1999-2004 

FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 70 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit

$30,000

$25,000

$20,000

$15,000

$10,000

$5,000

$0

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Figure 19: Lodge Boat Commercial Clients, 1999-2004 

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 71 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit

Fishing Guides 

There are 59 guides permitted to operate guided fishing trips and other trips on portions of lower 

Rogue River and the lower Illinois River. These guides are identified in three categories: Lower 

Rogue fishing guides (R-Guide), Lower Medford Recreation Permit fishing guides (LMRP), and 

Illinois River fishing guides. Forty-six guides have no limit to the number of days the permit can 

be used. Nine of these 46 guides can operate on the lower Illinois River. None of these 46 

guides are allowed to operate in the Rogue Wild Section above Watson Creek. 

The remaining guides have a variety of permit limitations. Among these are eight guides who 

operate in the Rogue Wild Section year-round. These guides are limited to the number of trips 

and user days they are permitted, and on an annual basis, they cannot exceed 394 trips a year 

combined. An additional two guides can operate in the Rogue Wild Section during winter 

months only and they are limited to 57 trips per year. 

Fifty of the total guides are R-Guides. The R-Guides conduct over 80 percent of the fish guiding 

operations and have the most documented use and revenue data. These guides are used to assess 

trends. The average trips, revenue and clients for the LMRP and Illinois fishing guides are added 

to the R-Guide statistics for a fishing guide total in Table 12. 

R-Guide revenue averaged $130 per client from 1999 through 2004 (Table 10). Total revenues 

over the same period averaged $281,000 generated by about 1,048 trips per year. Most of the 

guide boats operate outside of the Rogue Wild Section where use is not limited. Unlike the tour 

and lodge boats, total R-Guide trips, clients and guide boat revenue increased through the first 

four years and have since leveled off. These statistics are displayed in Table 13 and Figures 20-

22. 

Past data on guide boat trips into the Rogue Wild Section of the river do not suggest increasing 

trends in demand. Increases noted in the middle part of the period were short term. 

Since limits on current operations are not binding, the average conditions of the past six years 

(1999-2004) are projected as the likely conditions in the near future and are the base for 

comparing alternative economic effects. 

Table 12: R-Guide Boat Data, 1999-2004 

Year 

Total 

Trips 

Total 

Clients 

Total 

Revenue Clients/Trip Rev/ Client 

Wild 

Trips 

1999 880 1,842 $210,700 2.1 $114 94 

2000 988 2,127 $258,500 2.2 $122 125 

2001 1037 2,099 $272,300 2.0 $130 129 

2002 1150 2,328 $310,600 2.0 $133 123 

2003 1118 2,332 $325,200 2.1 $139 92 

2004 1114 2,172 $308,400 2.1 $142 101 

Average 1,048 2,150 $281,000 2.1 $130 111 
Table 13: All Fishing Guide Averages 

Average 

Total 

Trips 

Total 

Clients Total Revenue 

Wild 

Trips 

R-Guide 1,048 2,150 $281,000 111

LMRP 156 362 $53,500 24

Illinois 25 61 $9,000 0

 Total 1,222 2,573 $343,500 135

Figure 20: Total R-Guide Trips and R-Guide Wild Section Trips, 1999-2004 

0

500

1000

1500

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Trips

Total Trips Wild Trips

Figure 21: R-Guide Clients and R-Guide Wild Section Clients, 1999-2004 

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Clients

Total Trips Wild Trips

FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 72 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit
Figure 22: R-Guide Revenue, 1999-2004 

$0

$50,000

$100,000

$150,000

$200,000

$250,000

$300,000

$350,000

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Local Economic Activity 

People come to Gold Beach, Agness and other locations in Curry County to participate in 

recreational activities offered by the outfitters and guides. The recreationists also stay in hotels, 

eat at restaurants, and buy goods and services. These purchases contribute to local economic 

activities. Based on the expenditure patterns of clients, employment and income associated with 

the tour boats, lodge boat and guide boats are estimated. 

Expenditure patterns vary by whether the client is local or non-local, and whether they are day 

users or overnight users. Forest Service managers estimate the percent of the recreationists in 

each category (Table 14). 

Table 14: Client Types by Use Category

Client Type Tour Boat Lodge Boat Guide Boat 

Local Day Tourist 20% -- 5%

Local Overnight Tourist 0% 15% 0%

Non-local Day Tourist 0% -- 5%

Non-local Overnight Tourist 80% 85% 90%

Based on the expenditure patterns and the number of clients in each category, the current jobs 

and income associated with existing tour, lodge and guide boat uses are estimated and displayed 

in Table 15. 

The magnitude of the direct employment and income estimates need clarification. Although the 

job and income numbers include estimates based on full and part time employment, the 

amusement and recreation services industry sector in IMPLAN, which is used to estimate the 

jobs and income, is an aggregate of several types of businesses. Many of these businesses have 

jobs of much longer duration. However, the tour and guide boat business in general is comprised 

of short duration part time work. For example, the total average annual guide boat trips are 

1,156 and the number of guides is 59. If these trips were distributed evenly among the guides 

each would work less than four weeks a year in the guide business in the project area. 

FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 73 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit
FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 74 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit

Table 15: Current Jobs and Income by Use Category 

Direct Total 

Use Type Jobs Income Jobs Income 

Tour Boat 120 $1,701,500 145 $2,226,900 

Lodge Boat 1 $10,700 1 $13,900 

Guide Boat* 8 $117,200 10 $152,000 

Total 129 $1,829,400 156 $2,392,800 

*Guide boat jobs and income are reduced by 44 percent, which is the percent of guides estimated to be from 

outside of the Curry County impact area. 

Compared to the overall employment and income in Curry County in 2000, the total economic 

effect of the outfitter and guide businesses represents slightly more than one percent of the total 

employment of about 10,500 jobs and slightly less than one percent of total wage related income 

of about $260 million. Relative to current employment in the amusement and recreation 

services, and the hotel and motel employment and income, the total jobs and income associated 

with current client expenditures is over 20 percent. The outfitter and guide businesses associated 

with the project area are a key component of these tourism industries. 
FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 75 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit

CHAPTER 4. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

This chapter summarizes the physical, biological, social, and economic effects of implementing 

each alternative. The analysis of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the No Action, 

Proposed Action, and all other alternatives as described in Chapter 2, is also documented in this 

chapter. 

Direct effects are those that may occur at the site as a result of the proposed activities. Indirect 

effects may occur at a distance from the site or at a later time. Cumulative effects are the result 

of the proposed activities in combination with other projects in the past, present, or reasonably 

foreseeable future, each of which may not affect the environment when considered alone, but 

could accumulate within watersheds or landscapes to create adverse or beneficial effects. 

Changes Between Draft and Final: Effects of the two new alternatives have been added to each 

resource area. Effects on Wild and Scenic Rivers have also been added. 

Effects on Water Resources _______________________ 

There are three potential pollution sources that can degrade surface water quality: petroleum 

products from motorboats (oil, gas, diesel, and propane), turbidity from beach erosion (due to 

boat wakes and human foot traffic), and turbidity from channel maintenance. None of the 

alternatives would have any effect on surface water quantity or distribution or on groundwater 

quality, quantity, or distribution because commercial boating activities have no effect on these 

properties. None of the alternatives would affect Rogue River water temperature or pH or 

Illinois River water temperature because commercial boating activities do not influence the 

variables that affect these properties. 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

Direct Effects

Under the actual use conditions of the past, there have been no documented petroleum tank 

ruptures. However, it is reasonable to assume there is a small probability of tank rupture and, 

thus, petroleum spillage, under actual use conditions. Because there have been no spills under 

actual use conditions, the probability of a spill cannot be estimated from the data; it is anticipated 

to be very small because of the large number of boat trips made with no spills. There is no 

reasonable method to project the decrease in the probability of a spill resulting from a decrease in 

use levels under the no action alternative, but it would be likely to decrease a very small amount. 

Also, because there would be fewer boats on the river, there would be a small decrease in 

turbidity from beach erosion. The decrease would only have a short-duration impact on water 

quality and this impact would be spatially localized to very small areas. Consequently, the 

reduction in beach erosion would not produce a measurable impact to the overall water quality. 

Indirect Effects 

There are no direct effects on water quality large enough to cause an indirect effect on water 

quality downstream of the project or at a later date. Petroleum product spills would be 

evaporated and/or diluted to very small concentrations in a relatively short distance downstream 

and over a relatively short period of time. 
FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 76 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit

Cumulative Effects

This alternative would have a beneficial impact on water quality, but the cumulative effect would 

not be measurable because the water quality effects are negligible compared to natural water 

quality changes and water quality changes from upstream human impacts. 

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action 

Direct Effects - Petroleum Products 

There are two sources of motorboat petroleum product that can affect water quality. One is a 

spill from a ruptured engine tank and the other is smaller boats with two-cycle engines that vent 

exhaust under water. 

Tour boat tanks contain 130-160 gallons of fuel, fishing guide boats have 30-40 gallons, and 

small private boats have 6-12 gallons. Paradise Lodge and Half Moon Bar Lodge ferry 3,000 

gallons of diesel fuel and 3,000 gallons of propane to their property annually in a series of trips. 

Clay Hill ferries less of both fuels. These deliveries represent the largest amounts of fuel that 

would be on the river at one time. 

Petroleum spills generate both water and air pollution. Oil contamination interferes with gas 

exchange in water, coat plants and animals, imparts a taste to fish, and has a direct toxic effect on 

organisms. Twenty-five gallons of oil is enough to create a visible sheen on a square mile of 

water surface. One quart of oil is enough to contaminate two million gallons of drinking water 

(Topeka, Kansas Department of Public Works). A concentration as low as 0.01 milligrams/liter 

(mg/l) can produce strong odors, so water would become objectionable for drinking or contact 

before acute toxicity levels are reached. 

There have been no petroleum spills in the project area. The long history of boat use and the 

lack of spills is a very strong indication that a fuel tank rupture is unlikely under current actual 

use. Factors that keep the probability of a tank rupture low include U.S. Coast Guard regulations 

that require tour boat tanks to be separate from the hull, baffled, and made of 1⁄4” thick 

aluminum. Fishing boats with four-cycle engines have the engine centered in the boat, requiring 

the boat to be cut in two for a rupture. Boats with two-cycle engines are outboards, which would 

be more prone to a direct impact during an accident, however, most commercial fishing boats in 

the project area have four-cycle engines. 

If actual use increased to the permitted levels of Alternative 2, the probability of accidents that 

result in petroleum spills would increase. Because there have been no spills under actual use 

conditions, the probability of a spill cannot be estimated from the data. However, it is reasonable 

to assume that there is a small probability of a petroleum tank rupture despite the fact that the 

data indicate a zero probability. 

Because there is no reasonable method to obtain an estimate of tank rupture probability under 

actual use conditions, there is no reasonable method to estimate the increase in the probability of 

a spill resulting from use increasing to permitted levels. The lack of spills under actual use 

conditions is an indication that the probability of a spill under permitted conditions would also be 

small. If a tank ruptured, the petroleum products would spread quickly over a large surface area, 

but the spill would be broken up by river turbulence. Gasoline is more volatile than oil and 

would evaporate rapidly. 
FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 77 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit

If boats transporting lodge fuel were involved in an accident that released fuel containers into the 

river, container rupture is unlikely. The steel diesel barrels would probably float, moving 

downstream with the river current, and creating an immediate navigation hazard to other boats. 

If they were to rupture, the contents would contaminate water, adjacent shorelines, and aquatic 

habitat. Some of the fuel would evaporate, decreasing the water quality impact. The remaining 

diesel would be noticeable until fully evaporated or diluted to undetectable levels. 

Propane canisters would sink if released in an accident. They would move downstream with the 

current while submerged, creating a navigation hazard. Propane is extremely volatile and would 

be an explosion hazard if the tanks ruptured. Unexploded leaking propane would escape rapidly 

into the air and would not degrade water quality. 

Because two-cycle boat engines are less common than four-cycle and are expected to become 

less common due to states passing regulations against their use, the effect of two-cycle engines 

on water quality will be small. EPA outboard engine emission standards enacted in 1996 (CFR 

61.194) are also expected to decrease water quality effects of two-cycle engines even more. 

Direct Effects - Beach Erosion 

Beach erosion turbidity is unlikely to decrease water quality by a measurable amount River flows 

are the dominant factors controlling beach erosion, and only 11% of the riverbanks are composed 

of erodible material (Klingeman 2001, 2003). Flow adjacent to erodible beaches is normally low 

velocity during low summer flows. Consequently, beach erosion that does occur would impact 

water quality for only a short distance downstream. Any measurable increase in turbidity would 

be of short duration and limited spatial extent at each location, and the total area where this 

would occur would be a very small portion of the river. 

Indirect Effects

There are no direct effects on water quality large enough to cause an indirect effect on water 

quality downstream of the project or at a later date. 

Cumulative Effects

The direct effects are of short duration and limited spatial extent. Consequently, each direct 

effect dissipates before the water reaches the location of the next direct effect. The cumulative 

effects of this alternative are negligible compared to natural changes in water quality and water 

quality changes from upstream human impacts. 

Alternatives 3, 4, 5, 6 

Direct Effects

The direct effects of this alternative would be equal to or less than Alternative 2 because of the 

reduced permitted use in these alternatives. 

Indirect Effects

Same as Alternative 2. 

Cumulative Effects

Same as Alternative 2. 
FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 78 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit

Docks 

The docks are too small to obstruct river flow. Water near docks moves slowly and the surface 

is generally calm. There is little overnight moorage of boats at these facilities, minimizing the 

likelihood of gas/oil sheens on the water surface. There are no documented water quality tests at 

the docks to determine the concentration of petroleum products in the water column, and it is not 

believed to be a problem because the same factors that prevent and/or dissipate petroleum spills 

on the remainder of the river are also at work near the docks. 

Without docks, assuming that the amount of loading and unloading does not change, there would 

be some additional erosion compared to what would occur with the docks in place. This 

additional erosion would be very minor and localized at a few sites. It would be negligible 

compared to natural background erosion rates and erosion from other human activities in the 

watershed. 

Channel Maintenance 

The effects are of short duration, localized at 10-15 sites per year, and the adverse impacts are 

negligible. This is because the materials moved during channel maintenance are primarily 

gravels and other sediments that drop out of the water column as flows decrease. A few small 

boulders are moved by hand at up to six locations. The materials moved, including the boulders 

that are moved by hand, are readily moved by winter flows. The channel maintenance 

operations reposition the materials, but do not affect the hydrology or free-flowing nature of the 

river. Riffle maintenance produces a plume of turbid water for approximately 100 feet 

downstream (B. Blackwell, pers. comm., June 2003). Illahe Island maintenance sediment is 

carried downstream with the river current; the turbidity dissipates rapidly and is not observed at 

Foster Bar, approximately one mile downstream. The distance from the Illahe Island riffle 

maintenance site to the next downstream riffle maintenance site is more than 6 miles and the 

distances between each of the remaining riffle maintenance sites are considerably greater than 

100 feet. Consequently, the turbidity at each riffle maintenance site dissipates before the flow 

reaches the next site, preventing the development of a cumulative effect. 

The heavy equipment that is brought down the right bank to work on the Illahe Island channel 

maintenance would disturb the riparian vegetation on the bank. The disturbed vegetation 

recovers quickly. The site shows no signs of permanent damage (e.g. an eroding bank) from 

infrequent past use. 

The primary factors in the project area that keep the Rogue River from heating up are shadows 

cast by the steep topography, tall trees, and cool tributary inflow. Because of their orientation to 

the river, the willows at two of the five willow cutting sites do not cast a shadow in the direction 

of the water and therefore do not have any effect on stream temperature. At the other three sites, 

the willows cast only a short shadow on the water for a portion of the day. 

The linear length of these willow cutting areas is negligible in comparison to the length of the 

river in the project area that is in shadow a portion of the day due to steep topography and tall 

trees. The net result of willow cutting at these three sites on water temperature is therefore 

negligible. Because repositioning of the bed material at riffles increases the hydraulic efficiency 

of the reach, which increases the average flow velocity in the reach, this could lower stream 

temperatures. However, this effect would be negligible due to riffle maintenance sites affecting 

only a small portion of the total river length in the project area. 
FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 79 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit

Effects on Fisheries ______________________________ 

Effects on Fisheries were identified as a significant issue in Chapter 1. The Fisheries Biological 

Evaluation is contained in FEIS Appendix F (incorporated by reference). 

The proposed commercial boating activities are May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect 

(NLAA) Southern Oregon/Northern California (SONC) coho, for the following reasons: 

• Individuals may be harassed as motorboats pass directly over or within 5 meters, causing 

a startle or avoidance response. This effect is likely to be short in duration. 

• Juvenile coho migrate at night and rest in stream margins during the day, therefore 

interactions with jet boats would be minimal. 

• Motorboat activity occurs during months when juvenile and adult coho are using the 

lower Rogue River as a migration corridor. 

A summary of effects for Threatened and USFS Sensitive Fish Species from commercial boating 

activities is contained in Table 16. 

Table 16: Effects on Threatened and Sensitive Fish Species for All Action Alternatives 

Species Status Management 

Indicator Species 

Present within 

Project Area 

Effect 

Determination 

Coho Salmon Threatened No Yes NLAA 

Fall Chinook 

Salmon Sensitive (USFS) Yes Yes MIIH 

Spring Chinook Sensitive (USFS) Yes Yes MIIH 

Winter Steelhead 

Trout Sensitive (USFS) Yes Yes MIIH 

Summer 

Steelhead Sensitive (USFS) Yes Yes MIIH 

Coastal Cutthroat 

Trout Sensitive (USFS) Yes -Resident forms 

only Yes MIIH 

NLAA = Likely to Adversely Affect 

MIIH = May Impact Individuals and/or Habitat but not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or a loss of viability

Alternative 1 

Direct Effects 

There would be no measurable direct adverse or beneficial impacts on fisheries in the project 

area. Fish would be exposed to less motorboat activity, but drift boat, raft, kayak, and private 

motorboat traffic would remain the same. The majority of coho juvenile migration occurs during 

night and early morning, between the hours of 2100-0400 in river systems in British Columbia 

(Macdonald 1960, Meehan and Siniff 1962, Mace 1983, Groot and Margolis 1991). Coho 

juveniles in the Rogue River likely utilize a similar diel migration pattern. Satterthwaite (1995) 

studied the effects of boat traffic on juvenile salmonids and showed that steelhead and chinook 

juveniles responded more to drift boats or rafts passing overhead than to any other boat type on 

the Rogue River. Both motorboat and float traffic may cause startle responses in individual 

coho, Chinook, steelhead, and cutthroat trout. 
FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 80 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit

Indirect Effects 

Boat traffic may become more concentrated outside the project area in the lower Rogue River 

from the estuary to the mouth of Lobster Creek. This river section is important to juvenile 

salmonids. The estuary is where the salmon smolts finish the process of being able to process 

salt water after living in fresh water, an important stage in their development. Juvenile 

salmonids reside in the estuary from March through November, depending on the species and the 

run. Heavier boat use would have an adverse effect on juvenile salmonids because more boat 

encounters would increase the likelihood of fish being startled. 

Cumulative Effects 

With the exception of channel maintenance activities discussed at the end of the fisheries effects, 

the cumulative effects of projects in the Rogue River and Illinois basins are expected to be 

minimal. There are several projects planned within the Rogue River drainage upstream of Grave 

Creek on Bureau of Land Management and National Forest lands. In the Illinois River basin 

there are a few projects planned for the future. Two major projects are the Illinois River Trail 

Reconstruction and Biscuit Fire Salvage. These projects are required to meet the Northwest 

Forest Plan Aquatic Conservation Strategy. To meet this strategy projects cannot degrade fish 

habitat, therefore these projects would not affect fish or fish habitat in the Rogue or Illinois 

Rivers. 

Alternative 2 

In addition to the tour boat and lodge boat use shown in Table 17, permitted annual fishing guide 

trip limits can be found in Table 18. 

Direct Effects 

Permitted boat use causes startle or avoidance responses in fish as boats passed within 5 meters 

of fish in the lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Rivers (Sattherthwaite 1995). Boat-fish collisions 

are unlikely because of this startle response. The majority of coho juvenile migration occurs 

during night and early morning (between 2100-0400) in British Columbia and coho juveniles in 

the Rogue River probably utilize a similar diel migration pattern. The lodge docks would not 

affect fish or fish habitat, as they are not disturbing spawning or rearing habitat in the river. 

Indirect Effects 

Startle responses may push fish out of thermal refugia or out of feeding and rearing areas, but the 

amount of energy expended is minimal. When juvenile fish move in response to boat traffic they 

also become more visible to predators. Startle responses are likely in predatory fish as well. 

Private motorboat activity from the mouth of the Rogue to Lobster Creek continues, but the 

overall use would be less concentrated than in the No Action Alternative. 
FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 81 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit

Table 17: Permitted Tour Boat and Lodge Boat Use for Alternative 2 

Month Maximum Trips 

per Day 

Maximum Trips 

per Month 

January-April 4 32 

May-June 15 16 496* 

June 16-30 28 660 

July-August 28 868 

September 16 480 

October 16 496 

November-December 4 32 

Total Yearly Permitted 4,244# 

Total Lodge Boat Trips 

Permitted 365 

*Trips for June 1-15 are in the June 16-30 total. 

#Total number of trips per year may not equal total numbers per month due 

to maximum trip levels changing after Labor Day. 

Motorboats and oar boats (rafts, kayaks, and drift boats) cause either a startle response 

(motorboats) or an avoidance response. Both responses can cause an increase in cortisol in fish. 

(Cortisol indicates stress in fish). A study of jet boat effects on juvenile salmonids in the Rogue 

River (Satterthwaite 1995) concluded that cortisol did not differ substantially throughout the day 

in river sections with motorboat traffic. The months of heaviest motorboat traffic are July 

through September. During these months, most of the fish using the lower Rogue River are 

juvenile chinook, juvenile steelhead, adult fall chinook, adult coho, and summer steelhead. The 

effects of boat traffic on adults and juveniles during this time period are expected to be mainly 

startle responses. Fish will move quickly to avoid boats as they pass over. These effects are 

only anticipated if boats pass within 5 meters of a fish. Anything beyond 5 meters does not 

cause a response, probably due to acclimation of fish to motorboat traffic. Another part of this 

study looked at predation of juvenile salmonids by northern pikeminnow. An increase in 

juvenile salmonid predation was not found in conjunction with commercial tour boat traffic. 

When juvenile and adult fish are moving through the Rogue River canyon section (Grave Creek 

to Agness), the fish use tributary confluences as resting areas. These areas typically have 

infusions of colder water from the tributaries. Reid (2002) found that jet boat wakes increased 

the average temperatures in these refugia by 0.24oF, with little effect on salmonids. Jet boat 

traffic (tour boat and jet sled) did not elicit a startle response in juvenile chinook holding in these 

thermal refugia. The physiological effects of jet boat activity on migrating salmonids in the 

lower Rogue River found in the thermal refugia was determined to be minor. A bioenergetics 

model was used to calculate the effect of the increase in temperature on fish physiology. The 

minor increase in temperature over time would not affect the ability of a fish to survive where 

boat activity and warm water temperatures were present. 

A preliminary 2003 study found that jet boat traffic had no effect on green sturgeon in the Rogue 

River. Adult green sturgeon were monitored using radio telemetry over a 24 hour period. No 

movements were recorded during times when motorboats passed over tagged individuals 

(Wildlife Conservation Society unpublished data). 
FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 82 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit

Cumulative Effects 

Same as Alternative 1. 

Alternatives 3, 4, and 6 

Monthly maximum trips per day and trips per month are the same as Table 17. In addition to the 

tour boat and lodge boat use shown in Table 17, permitted annual fishing guide trip limits can be 

found in Table 18. 

Table 18: Permitted Tour Boat and Lodge Boat Use by Month for Alternatives 3, 4, and 6 

Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Alternative 6 

Total Yearly 

Permitted Tour 

Boat Trips 

3,516 3,363 2,000 1,201 

Total Lodge Boat 

Trips Permitted 

261 246 246 130 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Same as Alternative 2. Reductions in use would not reduce the impacts of motorboat activity 

overall as boat activity would still occur below the Rogue Wild Section and on the lower Illinois. 

These alternatives would reduce the total number of tour boat trips per year, but the number of 

trips allowed per month would not change until the annual quota was met. 

The reduction in tour boat traffic in the Wild Section would reduce the probability of startle or 

behavioral responses occurring in the project area. 

Cumulative Effects 

Same as Alternative 1. 

Alternative 5 

Monthly maximum trips per day and trips per month are the same as Table 17. In addition to the 

tour boat and lodge boat use shown in Table 17, permitted annual fishing guide trip limits can be 

found in Table 19 

Table 19: Permitted Tour Boat and Lodge Boat Use by Month for Alternative 5 

Alternative 5 

Total Yearly 

Permitted Tour 

Boat Trips 

2,000 

Total Lodge Boat 

Trips Permitted 

246 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Same as Alternative 2. Reductions in use would not reduce the impacts of motorboat activity 

overall as boat activity would still occur below the Rogue Wild Section and on the lower Illinois. 

These alternatives would reduce the total number of tour boat trips per year, but the number of 

trips allowed per month would not change until the annual quota was met. 

This reduction in tour boat and fishing guide boat traffic throughout the project area would 

greatly reduce the probability of startle or behavioral responses occurring in the project area. 
FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 83 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit

Cumulative Effects 

Same as Alternative 1. 

Channel Maintenance 

Habitat for USFS Sensitive Species and Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) would be affected by 

channel maintenance. The Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 (P.L.104-267), amended the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) to 

require federal agencies to consult with National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

Fisheries (NOAA) on activities that may adversely affect “Essential Fish Habitat”. The Act 

defines EFH as “those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or 

growth to maturity” and includes all freshwater streams accessible to anadromous fish, marine 

waters, and intertidal habitats. 

Prop wash occurs at up to 15 riffles annually. These 15 prop wash locations would temporarily 

modify 26,250 square feet of habitat in the lower Rogue River and would deepen the channel up 

to 1.5 feet. Illahe Island maintenance modifies 583-873 square feet. The amount of riffle habitat 

in the lower Rogue is unknown, but if one assumes that 50% of the available habitat within the 

lower Rogue is riffle habitat, the overall percentage of riffle habitat modified by channel 

maintenance in the lower Rogue would be 0.23%. ([35 river miles from the mouth to Watson 

Creek x 5,280 feet/mile x 125 feet average river width] x 0.5 = 11,550,000 square feet of riffle 

habitat). The effect of maintenance is minimal, as the overall amount of riffle habitat 

temporarily altered is small. 

Channel maintenance temporarily converts small sections of riffle habitat to a deeper habitat type 

more like a run. The deepened habitat could change the macroinvertebrate community within 

the channel where the maintenance occurs, but a shift in macroinvertebrate communities is not 

anticipated. These insects drift into areas with slower velocity water, where they are preyed 

upon by fish. The amount of habitat affected is very small and a detrimental effect is unlikely as 

the percentage of riffle habitat altered is very small. The thalweg deepening (the line defining 

the lowest points along the length of a river bed) may make it easier for larger fish, such as green 

sturgeon, to pass through these riffles during lower flow periods in the summer months. 

Essential fish habitat will be modified. The timing of modification does not affect migration or 

rearing habitat. The macroinvertebrate communities will likely be unaffected. The effects for 

this activity category have been previously assessed and determined to may adversely affect

Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). 

The mitigation measures, and the Northwest Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines would 

adequately minimize the type, frequency, duration, timing, and intensity of potential adverse 

effects to EFH. Adequate conservation measures were incorporated into the proposal to protect 

EFH. Therefore, no further conservation measures are recommended. 
FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 84 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit

Effects on Wildlife ________________________________ 

Effects on wildlife and wildlife habitat were identified as a significant issue in Chapter 1. The 

Wildlife Biological Evaluation is contained in FEIS Appendix G (incorporated by reference). 

Formal consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has been completed: Biological Opinion 

Log #1-14-03-F-511 10 October 2003 (USDI FWS 2003). None of the alternatives or channel 

maintenance necessitate re-initiation of consultation. Table 20 identifies the species considered 

and summarizes the project effect determinations. 

The total number of permitted motorboat trips for Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 6 exceeds the current 

use by 7-10 times. If this increased use were to occur, the effects on wildlife might increase and 

opportunities to observe wildlife while recreating on the Rogue and Illinois Rivers would 

decline. The amount of use that could result in adverse effects and/or reduced wildlife 

observation is unknown. On-going monitoring within the project area will need to continue as 

actual use increases to determine if these effects are occurring. 

This analysis is separated into two parts – effects on habitat and effects on species. Habitat 

impacts from motorboats and docks are limited to the water and the shoreline. Noise disturbance 

to individuals can extend beyond the shoreline. The area described for wildlife habitat in this 

section is generally limited to the river and 300 feet beyond the shoreline. 

The alternatives differ in their potential for impacts primarily as a function of permitted use 

level; the greater the permitted use, the greater the potential for measurable effects. Most of the 

effects are in the form of noise disturbance from boats. Boat noise levels were measured in May 

and November 2001. The ambient noise level for the Rogue River was 50-80 decibels. 

Motorboat noise ranged from 60-92 decibels. This noise levels is not considered to be 

substantially different from ambient levels in the project area. Smaller boats consistently 

generated more noise than the larger tour boats, but smaller boats were audible for a shorter 

period of time than the tour boats (2.8 minutes versus 4.2 minutes). 

Alternative 1 

Under the No Action alternative, effects from non-commercial recreation would continue in the 

form of potential noise disturbance and presence disturbance by roads, motorboatboats, rafts, and 

people. This has been occurring in the project area for decades and would be expected to 

continue without commercial boating. 

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives - Habitat Effects 

Marbled Murrelet Critical Habitat 

About 20 acres of the project area are in critical marbled murrelet habitat. The large conifers 

used as nesting habitat by this species are located above the high water line between Lobster 

Creek and Agness and would not be affected by the boating activities. All alternatives are 

consistent with Project Design Criteria (USDI FWS 2003) that prevent removal or degradation of 

suitable habitat, so there is No Effect on critical habitat. 

Northern Spotted Owl Critical Habitat

Critical habitat occurs in the project area from approximately Waters Creek to Billings Creek. 

The late-successional habitat used by northern spotted owl for roosting and foraging occurs 

above the high waterline between Lobster Creek and Brushy Bar. This project does not modify 

critical habitat constituent elements or impair its function, so there is No Effect on northern 

spotted owl critical habitat. 
FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 85 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit

Direct Effects on Wildlife Habitat 

Direct habitat alteration can occur as a result of commercial boat clients trampling vegetation, 

disturbing sandy beach areas, and using downed wood for campfires. These effects are all 

negligible since they occur on a very small area (less than 1% of the riparian acres in the project 

area) and they occur primarily below the high water mark, so high winter flows have a much 

larger effect on these habitat areas and features than human activities. They are also negligible 

because it is uncommon for commercial clients to go onshore – most of the onshore activities are 

from non-commercial recreationists. 

Indirect Effects on Wildlife Habitat

Since there are minimal direct effects there are no indirect effects. 

Cumulative Effects on Wildlife Habitat 

Disturbance from private residences, businesses, roads, motorboats, rafts, and people has been 

occurring the project area for decades and is expected to continue at some level with or without 

commercial boating. 

There are no cumulative effects because the direct effects of this project on habitat are negligible 

and do not measurably increase any cumulative effects of other projects in the past, present, or 

reasonably foreseeable future. 

Effects on Species of Concern 

Table 20 shows the project effect determinations for each wildlife species of concern noted in 

Chapter 3. Project effect determinations for each species are the same for each alternative. 

Disturbance from private residences, businesses, roads, noncommercial motorboats, rafts, and 

people has been occurring in the project area for decades and is expected to continue at some 

level with or without the commercial boating. 

Endangered and Threatened Species

Three federally-listed species occur in the project area: bald eagle, marbled murrelet, and 

northern spotted owl. The effect determination for these species is May Affect Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect (NLAA) for all alternatives because of the potential disturbance from noise and 

from the presence of people, motorboats and rafts. 

One Endangered species (Steller sea lion) and one Threatened species (brown pelican) are found 

outside the project area in the Rogue River estuary (below RM 5) where they feed on fish. Both 

tour boat companies launch their trips from the estuary. Because there would continue to be 

motorboat activity in the estuary, and the additional effects due to tour boats are negligible in 

comparison, the effects determination for these two species is No Effect. 
FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 86 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit

Table 20: Species Effects Determinations for All Alternatives 

SPECIES DETERMINATION OF EFFECTS 

Proposed, Endangered, or Threatened Species 

Bald eagle May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect 

Marbled murrelet May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect 

Marbled murrelet CRITICAL HABITAT No Effect 

Northern spotted owl May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect 

Northern spotted owl CRITICAL HABITAT No Effect 

Steller Sea Lion No Effect 

Brown Pelican No Effect 

Sensitive Species 

American peregrine falcon May Impact Individuals and/or Habitat but not likely to 

cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability (MIIH) 

California wolverine MIIH 

Pacific fisher MIIH 

Pacific fringe-tailed bat MIIH 

Pacific pallid bat MIIH 

Pacific shrew MIIH 

Del Norte salamander MIIH 

Siskiyou Mountains salamander No Impact - Outside the known species distribution 

Common kingsnake MIIH 

Northwestern pond turtle MIIH 

Black salamander No Impact - Outside the known species distribution range 

California slender salamander No Impact - Outside the known species distribution range 

Southern Torrent salamander MIIH 

Foothill yellow-legged frog MIIH 

Protection Buffer Species 

Bats using caves, mines, and abandoned wooden 

bridges and buildings 

May affect some individuals or some habitat but effect is 

minimal 

Flammulated owl May affect some individuals or some habitat but effect is 

minimal 

Neotropical Migratory Birds 

All birds in this category May affect some individuals or some habitat but effect is 

minimal 

Bald Eagle - Direct Effects 

Project activities would occur when bald eagles are present in the project area. Eagles are 

disturbed less than 5-10% of the time by boating activities (both commercial and noncommercial) and they are generally tolerant of and ignore human presence. Human presence and 

noise have not been associated with any nesting failures in the project area, and most eagles in 

the project area show some level of noise desensitization, so the direct effects are minor and not 

measurable. 

Bald Eagle - Indirect Effects

Due to the abundant quantity and variety of fish in the Rogue and Illinois Rivers, commercial 

sport fishing would have no adverse effect on bald eagle prey and would not require eagles to 

expend extra energy locating prey. 
FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 87 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit

Additional traffic generated by vehicles pulling and/or carrying commercial boats is not expected 

to result in measurable disturbance, as these are a relatively small fraction of total vehicle 

activity in the project area. 

Bald Eagle - Cumulative Effects

Disturbance from private residences, businesses, roads, motorboats, rafts, and people has been 

occurring the project area for decades and is expected to continue at some level with or without 

commercial boating. 

There are no cumulative effects because the direct effects of this project on habitat are negligible 

and do not measurably increase any cumulative effects of other projects in the past, present, or 

reasonably foreseeable future. 

Marbled Murrelet - Direct Effects 

Project activities would occur when marbled murrelet are present in the project area. Involuntary 

displacement due to commercial boat noise is unlikely, but if it occurs, the adverse effects can 

include nest abandonment by adults, reduced nest attentiveness (leading to increased predation 

vulnerability), aborted feeding visits, premature fledging, and avoidance of otherwise suitable 

habitat (Hamer 1998). However, Long and Ralph (1998) report that murrelets generally appear 

undisturbed by human noise and they are not easily disrupted from nesting, and both Hamer 

(1998) and Long and Ralph (1998) report that many bird species, including murrelets, can 

habituate to relatively high levels of disturbance over time. 

Marbled Murrelet - Indirect Effects

Additional traffic generated by vehicles pulling and/or carrying commercial boats is not expected 

to result in measurable disturbance, as these are a relatively small fraction of total vehicle 

activity in the project area. 

Marbled Murrelet - Cumulative Effects

Disturbance from private residences, businesses, roads, motorboats, rafts, and people has been 

occurring the project area for decades and is expected to continue at some level with or without 

commercial boating. 

The cumulative effects of projects in the Rogue River and Illinois basins are expected to be 

minimal. These projects are consistent with Project Design Criteria (USDI Fish and Wildlife 

Service, 2003), therefore these projects would not affect murrelets in the lower Rogue or lower 

Illinois River corridor. 

Northern Spotted Owl - Direct Effects 

Project activities would occur with northern spotted owl are present in the project area. 

Involuntary displacement from noise and presence of people, motorboats, rafts and vehicles is 

unlikely. Dillingham (1997) reports that northern spotted owl in the Rogue River corridor show 

desensitization to motorboat noise; therefore there is a low likelihood of a measurable effect of 

disturbance on owls and/or on owl reproduction. 

Northern Spotted Owl - Indirect Effects

Additional traffic generated by vehicles pulling and/or carrying commercial boats is not expected 

to result in measurable disturbance, as these are a relatively small fraction of total vehicle 

activity in the project area. 
FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 88 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit

Northern Spotted Owl - Cumulative Effects

Disturbance from private residences, businesses, roads, motorboats, rafts, and people has been 

occurring the project area for decades and is expected to continue at some level with or without 

commercial boating. 

The cumulative effects of projects in the Rogue River and Illinois basins are expected to be 

minimal. These projects are consistent with Project Design Criteria (USDI Fish and Wildlife 

Service 2003), therefore these projects would not affect spotted owls in the lower Rogue or lower 

Illinois River corridor. 

Forest Service Sensitive Species 

The effects determinations for Siskiyou mountain salamander, black salamander, and California 

slender salamander are No Impact because they are not likely to occur in the project area. 

The effects determinations for all other species is May Impact Individuals or Habitat (MIIH), but 

not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or a loss of viability because of potential 

disturbance to individuals. 

American Peregrine Falcon - Direct Effects 

Project activities occur when this species is present in the project area. There are no nest sites in 

the project area and the likelihood of displacement of peregrines and/or their prey due to noise 

and/or the presence of people, motorboats, rafts and vehicles in is negligible. Monitoring shows 

peregrines in the Rogue River corridor are desensitized to motorboat noise, hence the low 

likelihood of actual disturbance or measurable effects on reproduction (Pagel 1988, Dillingham 

1997). Peregrines have been observed to be unaffected by the noise and other activities 

associated with Rogue River jet boat races. 

Peregrine Falcon - Indirect Effects

Additional traffic generated by vehicles pulling and/or carrying commercial boats is not expected 

to result in measurable disturbance, as these are a relatively small fraction of total vehicle 

activity in the project area. 

Peregrine Falcon - Cumulative Effects

Disturbance from private residences, businesses, roads, motorboats, rafts, and people has been 

occurring the project area for decades and is expected to continue at some level with or without 

commercial boating. 

The cumulative effects of projects in the Rogue River and Illinois basins are expected to be 

minimal. These projects are consistent with LRMP Standards and Guidelines and Management 

Requirements, therefore these projects would not affect peregrines in the lower Rogue or lower 

Illinois River corridor. 

Sensitive Mammals (Wolverine, Fisher, Bats, Shrews) - Direct Effects 

Wolverine and Fisher: These species are unlikely to be present in the project area because they 

avoid human contact and appear to be very sensitive to human activity and the associated noise. 

Roads and human activity are common in the project area and noise from motorboats may 

decrease habitat suitability or quality, with a net result of decreased habitat use. The project does 

not include any habitat alteration, but the activities occur at a time of year when these species 

could be present in the project area.
FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 89 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit

Bats: The project does not modify bat habitat and is sufficiently removed from known roost, 

nursery, and/or hibernation sites, so effects are negligible. Collisions between bats and boats are 

unlikely, even when boating activity overlaps with twilight bat activity periods. 

Shrew: The project does not alter habitat, but occurs at a time of year when this species could be 

present in the project area. Shrews are unlikely to be trampled or impacted directly by a boat if a 

commercial client comes ashore. 

Sensitive Mammals - Indirect Effects

Additional traffic generated by vehicles pulling and/or carrying commercial boats is not expected 

to result in measurable disturbance, as these are a relatively small fraction of total vehicle 

activity in the project area. This additional traffic also results in increased collision potential, but 

this is also not likely to be large enough to have a measurable effect. 

Sensitive Mammals - Cumulative Effects 

Disturbance from private residences, businesses, roads, motorboats, rafts, and people has been 

occurring in the project area for decades and is expected to continue at some level with or 

without commercial boating. 

The cumulative effects of projects in the Rogue River and Illinois basins are expected to be 

minimal. These projects are consistent with LRMP Standards and Guidelines and Management 

Requirements, therefore these projects will not have a cumulative effect on these species in the 

lower Rogue or lower Illinois River corridor. 

Sensitive Amphibians (salamanders and frogs) - Direct Effects 

The project area is outside the range of the Siskiyou mountain salamander, black salamander, 

and California slender salamander. Project activities would occur when Del Norte salamander, 

southern torrent salamander, and foothill yellow-legged frog would be in the project area. No 

habitat modification is proposed – Del Norte salamander habitat occurs above the high water line 

and southern torrent salamander habitat is unlikely to be found below the high water line. These 

species are unlikely to be trampled or impacted directly by a boat if a commercial client comes 

ashore. 

Depending on the season of year, yellow-legged frog eggs, egg masses, and/or tadpole/juvenile 

amphibians could be lifted by boat wake-generated wave action and deposited on shore and 

thereby become subject to desiccation and/or predation. Based on the Klingeman beach erosion 

studies (2001, 2003), boat wake-generated waves are not powerful enough to cause extensive 

beach erosion, so it is unlikely that these waves would have an impact on salamander and/or frog 

eggs and/or individuals. The Forest Service is continuing to monitor this. 

Boat transportation on roads and loading/unloading activities at boat ramps are unlikely to result 

in salamanders or frogs being injured or killed, and this is unlikely to have a measurable effect. 

Sensitive Amphibians - Indirect Effects 

None identified. 

Sensitive Amphibians - Cumulative Effects 

Disturbance from private residences, businesses, roads, motorboats, rafts, and people has been 

occurring in the project area for decades and is expected to continue at some level with or 

without commercial boating. 
FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 90 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit

The cumulative effects of projects in the Rogue River and Illinois basins are expected to be 

minimal. These projects are consistent with LRMP Standards and Guidelines and Management 

Requirements, therefore these projects would not have a cumulative effect on these species in the 

lower Rogue or lower Illinois River corridor. 

Sensitive Reptiles (kingsnake, western pond turtle) - Direct Effects 

Kingsnake: No habitat modification is proposed in areas likely to be used by the common 

kingsnake. Boat transportation on roads and loading/unloading activities at boat ramps are 

unlikely to result in kingsnakes being injured or killed, and this is unlikely to have a measurable 

effect. 

Western pond turtle (WPT): The proposed activities occur when WPTs can be found along the 

shoreline and/or in the river. Boat activity between April and September has a greater likelihood 

of causing WPT impacts because this is when WPT are most likely to be in the river or on the 

river bank. There is no apparent correlation between commercial boat use levels and western 

pond turtle populations on the lower Rogue and lower Illinois Rivers. Turtle-boat collisions are 

unlikely, and examined turtles (148 of them) commonly showed signs of attempted predation 

(tooth scrapes and indentations) and no evidence of boat collisions. 

Boat wake-generated wave action could splash basking turtles and/or displace them, but the 

Klingeman studies (2001, 2003) indicate that the wave energy is low and this is unlikely to occur 

except when the largest boats (tour boats) are “plowing” (vs. “on-plane”) and generate the largest 

waves, so this effect is likely to be small. If it does occur, Holland (2003) notes that “motorized 

watercraft can interfere with normal foraging, basking, movement, reproductive and other 

behaviors for all age and size classes of WPT. ...[M]otorized watercraft can [also] interfere with 

normal development of eggs in gravid females by altering basking behavior, altering basking site 

selection and/or deep body temperatures by wave action, and /or by creating noise that disturbs 

them. After two years of monitoring, WPT are seldom (<5% of the time) seen altering their 

behavior in response to motorboats and non-motorized boats have generated at least as much, if 

not more, involuntary displacement as motorized boat activity. The lack of evasive action may 

be explained by desensitization (Holland, 1994), but each event is unique to the individual turtle 

and particular circumstances (e.g., boat-turtle proximity). 

Motorboat wakes are unlikely to affect turtle microhabitat such as shorelines, vegetation, pools, 

floor composition, basking sites, and other areas because these areas are subjected to much 

greater levels of impact from high winter flows and any microhabitat effects are limited in extent 

and duration and likely to be unmeasurable. 

Habitat degradation from trampling, excavation, soil loss, and undercut bank collapse from 

commercial clients going ashore are also of limited extent and duration and likely to be 

unmeasurable in the long term because of the greater impact of high winter flows. 

During times of year when turtles are more likely to be using terrestrial habitats, boat 

transportation on roads and loading/unloading activities at boat ramps are unlikely to result in 

turtles being injured or killed. Since most known turtle locations are in the Rogue Wild Section 

where there are no roads, road-injured and/or killed turtles are unlikely to have a measurable 

effect on overall population levels. 

Additional traffic generated by vehicles pulling and/or carrying commercial boats is not expected 

to result in measurable disturbance, as these are a relatively small fraction of total vehicle 

activity in the project area. This additional traffic also results in increased collision potential, but 

this is also not likely to be large enough to have a measurable effect. 
FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 91 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit

Sensitive Reptiles - Indirect Effects

Shoreline litter accumulation from human activity can attract turtle predators such as bear, 

raccoon, and gray fox. The effect to kingsnakes and turtles would be minor from the proposed 

activities, as most shoreline litter is associated with non-commercial recreationist campsites and 

commercial outfitter/guides are required to pick up all litter associated with their activities. 

Sensitive Reptiles - Cumulative Effects

Disturbance from private residences, businesses, roads, motorboats, rafts, and people has been 

occurring in the project area for decades and is expected to continue at some level with or 

without commercial boating. 

The cumulative effects of projects in the Rogue River and Illinois basins are expected to be 

minimal. These projects are consistent with LRMP Standards and Guidelines and Management 

Requirements, therefore these projects would not have a cumulative effect on these species in the 

lower Rogue or lower Illinois River corridor. 

Protection Buffer Species 

The effects determination for flammulated owl and bats that use caves, mines, and abandoned 

wooden bridges and buildings is may have an adverse effect to some individuals or some habitat, 

but effect is minimal. 

Direct Effects

Flammulated owl: Large snags would not be affected by the proposed activities. Involuntary 

displacement of flammulated owl due to motorboat noise and/or human presence is unlikely. 

Bats: The proposed activities would not modify bat habitat and they are sufficiently removed 

from known roost, nursery, and/or hibernation sites so as not to pose an impact. Collisions 

between bats and boats are unlikely, even when boating activity overlaps with twilight bat 

activity periods. 

Indirect Effects 

Additional traffic generated by vehicles pulling and/or carrying commercial boats is not expected 

to result in measurable disturbance, as these are a relatively small fraction of total vehicle 

activity in the project area. 

Cumulative Effects 

Disturbance from private residences, businesses, roads, motorboats, rafts, and people has been 

occurring in the project area for decades and is expected to continue at some level with or 

without commercial boating. 

The cumulative effects of projects in the Rogue River and Illinois basins are expected to be 

minimal. These projects are consistent with LRMP Standards and Guidelines and Management 

Requirements, therefore these projects would not have a cumulative effect on these species in the 

lower Rogue or lower Illinois River corridor. 

Management Indicator Species

The determination for these species is may have an adverse effect to some individuals or some 

habitat, but effect is minimal because there may be some disturbance, but otherwise all proposed 

activities comply with LRMP Standards and Guidelines related to these species. 
FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 92 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit

Osprey - Direct Effects 

No habitat modification is proposed. Osprey populations in the project area are reproducing at a 

sustainable rate and any direct effects from involuntary displacement and/or vehicle-osprey 

collisions are not likely to have a measurable effect on osprey populations. 

Osprey - Indirect Effects

Smaller fish injured as a result of commercial fishing may provide a more readily available 

source of prey for osprey, but this effect is likely to be small due to the quantity and variety of 

fish in the lower Rogue and lower Illinois Rivers. 

Osprey - Cumulative Effects

Disturbance from private residences, businesses, roads, motorboats, rafts, and people has been 

occurring in the project area for decades and is expected to continue at some level with or 

without commercial boating. 

The cumulative effects of projects in the Rogue River and Illinois basins are expected to be 

minimal. These projects are consistent with LRMP Standards and Guidelines and Management 

Requirements, therefore these projects would not have a cumulative effect on these species in the 

lower Rogue or lower Illinois River corridor. 

Woodpeckers and Marten - Direct Effects

The woodpecker group includes pileated, acorn, black-backed, down, hairy, Lewis’, and whiteheaded woodpeckers, as well as northern flickers and red-breasted sapsuckers. White-headed 

and black-backed woodpeckers are unlikely inhabitants of the project area. 

Woodpeckers and Marten - Direct Effects

No habitat modification is proposed. Involuntary displacement and/or disturbance is unlikely to 

occur unlikely to have a measurable effect if it does occur because their habitat (mature forest for 

pileated and pine marten, snags for other woodpeckers) occupies a relatively large area when 

compared to the river corridor, allowing them to readily avoid the disturbance. 

Woodpeckers and Marten - Indirect Effects

Additional traffic generated by vehicles pulling and/or carrying commercial boats is not expected 

to result in measurable disturbance, as these are a relatively small fraction of total vehicle 

activity in the project area and the pileated woodpecker and marten have ample habitat away as 

mentioned under direct effects. 

Woodpeckers and Marten - Cumulative Effects

Disturbance from private residences, businesses, roads, motorboats, rafts, and people has been 

occurring in the project area for decades and is expected to continue at some level with or 

without commercial boating. 

The cumulative effects of projects in the Rogue River and Illinois basins are expected to be 

minimal. These projects are consistent with LRMP Standards and Guidelines and Management 

Requirements, therefore these projects would not have a cumulative effect on these species in the 

lower Rogue or lower Illinois River corridor. 

Blacktail Deer and Roosevelt Elk - Direct Effects 

No habitat modification is proposed. Boat noise is unlikely to cause involuntary displacement 

and/or disturbance that could have a measurable impact for the same reasons as those mentioned 

for woodpeckers and pine martens above. 
FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 93 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit

Blacktail Deer and Roosevelt Elk - Indirect and Cumulative Effects 

Same as woodpeckers and pine marten. 

Neo-Tropical Migrant Birds 

The determination for these species is May affect some individuals or some habitat but effect is 

minimal. 

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects 

Same as woodpeckers and pine marten. 

Channel Maintenance 

The Endangered brown pelican utilizes habitat below where channel maintenance occurs, 

therefore there would be No Effect to brown pelicans. In comparison to ongoing activities in the 

estuary, channel maintenance impacts are negligible and the effects determination for Steller sea 

lion is No Effect. 

One channel maintenance site (Illahe Island) occurs in northern spotted owl critical habitat (OR67). One channel maintenance site (Coffee Pot) occurs in marbled murrelet critical habitat (OR07-b). Late-successional habitat occurs above the high waterline at these locations and would 

not be affected by channel maintenance. Channel maintenance would have No Effect to northern 

spotted owl or marbled murrelet critical habitat. 

Channel maintenance effects to the bald eagle, northern spotted owl and marbled murrelet are 

May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect due to the potential for disturbance from noise and/or 

presence of people, boats, and equipment. 

All but one channel maintenance site (Illahe Island) occurs outside the area where western pond 

turtles have been observed in the project area. Western pond turtle are present near the mouth of 

Billings Creek, which is approximately 1,000 feet downstream from Illahe Island, so the effect 

on western pond turtle is May Impact Individuals or Habitat (MIIH), but will not likely 

contribute to a trend towards Federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or 

species. 

There are no known foothill yellow-legged frog sightings where channel maintenance would 

occur, and there is un-surveyed suitable habitat at some of these sites. Juvenile and adult frogs 

could be temporarily displaced from pools. Channel maintenance effects for this species is MIIH 

because the impacted area is limited to a small portion of the suitable habitat within the project 

area, the species occurs at other locations in the project area, watershed and Forest, this activity 

has been occurring in the project area for decades, and the species is reproducing. 

For Endangered species, northern spotted owl and marbled murrelet critical habitat are not 

affected by channel maintenance, and involuntary displacement or disturbance is unlikely. There 

would also be no impact to the American peregrine falcon. Although not known to be present in 

the project area, sensitive mammals (wolverine and fisher), and bats and shrews may be 

impacted by disturbance associated with channel maintenance, but this would not likely to lead a 

trend towards loss of habitat viability. Effects on Management Indicator Species from channel 

maintenance may cause temporary displacement but are not likely to lead a trend towards loss of 

habitat viability because of disturbance associated with channel maintenance. 
FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 94 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit

Effects on Botanical Resources ____________________ 

The Botanical Resources Biological Evaluation is contained in FEIS Appendix H (incorporated 

by reference). 

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives 

No sensitive plants were found or are known from the immediate edge of, or in the lower Rogue 

or lower Illinois Rivers at boating season water levels. Drooping bulrush is found on rocks 

above the summer water level near Brushy Bar and is probably affected only by seasonal 

flooding. There would be no effect on known sensitive plant populations as a result of 

implementation of the action alternatives. The lower Rogue and lower Illinois Rivers Special 

Use Permits would not impact individuals, but may impact habitat. The proposed project 

activities are not likely to contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause loss of viability to 

sensitive species. 

Sensitive Plants 

Direct Effects 

There are no known sensitive plant sites within the area impacted by jet boat wakes. Scirpus 

pendulus grows on the river banks above the wake level. No direct adverse effects on sensitive 

species are anticipated from this project for any alternative. 

Indirect Effects

There are no indirect effects because there are no sensitive species within the area impacted by 

jet boat wakes.

Cumulative Effects 

Throughout their range, sensitive plants have been impacted to varying degrees by past 

management activities such as fire suppression, timber harvest, road and landing construction. 

Natural events, such as wild fire and landslides, have also contributed to changes in habitat and 

loss of sensitive plants. The impact intensity and duration varied considerably and has not been 

tabulated, but given the magnitude of these actions over the past 150 years of human settlement 

and intervention, it is likely that plants have been destroyed and populations extirpated. Other 

projects within the Rogue River corridor were considered and cumulative effects for all 

alternatives of this proposal are not considered to be of sufficient magnitude to result in a trend 

toward federal listing or loss of viability for the sensitive plant species listed in Chapter 3 – 

Botanical Resources. 

Noxious Weeds 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Ground disturbance while installing the Clay Hill dock or when removing the Clay Hill dock 

prior to seasonal flooding would not cause subsequent spread of noxious weed seeds if 

mitigations for noxious weeds are followed (see Mitigation Measures Common to All Action 

Alternatives in Chapter 2). 

Noxious weed populations are present near Paradise and Half Moon Bar Lodges, but are not 

adjacent to or affected by docks or dock removal for winter flooding. 
FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 95 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit

Cumulative Effects 

Human travel through river corridors can increase the risk of noxious weed spread within the 

riparian corridor. This travel can be along roads or trails on land or via boats and rafts on water. 

This type of travel has been part of the Rogue River corridor since prior to settlement. Jet boat 

traffic distributes people upstream, but has little effect on increasing the spread of noxious weeds 

when considered with other forms of human travel along the corridor. It is unlikely that the 

wave action caused by jet boats is as effective at moving plants as the seasonal high water flows. 

Considering the other projects in the Rogue River Corridor, the cumulative effects of 

constructing new boat docks are not likely to spread existing noxious weed populations during 

placement and/or seasonal removal for high water events, if mitigations for noxious weeds are 

followed (see Chapter 2). 

Channel Maintenance 

Channel maintenance would not impact any sensitive plants or habitat because the activities 

associated with channel maintenance are confined to the river, with the exception of maintenance 

at Illahe Island. At Illahe Island, an excavator is driven from near Billings Creek along the edge 

of the river to the maintenance site. There are no known sensitive plant sites where the excavator 

is driven. If there is exposed mineral soil above the high water mark, native grass straw and 

native grass seed will be used to minimize erosion and revegetate the disturbed area. Mitigation 

measures would require all Illahe Island maintenance equipment to be washed before crossing 

and working within National Forest System lands to minimize the invasive and noxious weed 

spread. All other channel maintenance sites are accessed by boat. 

Effects on Port-Orford-Cedar_______________________ 

This analysis documents project-specific effects and mitigations related to the spread of 

Phytophthora lateralis (PL), the pathogen that causes Port-Orford-cedar (POC) root disease. 

Application of the Port-Orford-cedar Risk Key and the management practices (if any) indicated 

by the Risk Key will make the project consistent with the mid- and large-geographic and 

temporal scale effects described in the FSEIS and ROD for Management of Port-Orford-cedar in 

Southwestern Oregon (USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management 2004a, 

USDA Forest Service 2004). 

The POC Risk Key (Figure 23) is a site-specific analysis tool to determine where risk reduction 

management practices would be applied. The risk key identifies where new infections should be 

avoided, and guides the application of one or more management practices until the risk is 

acceptably mitigated. 
FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 96 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit

Figure 23: Port-Orford-Cedar Risk Key for All Action Alternatives 

1a. Are there uninfected POC within, near1, or downstream of the activity area whose ecological Tribal, or 

product use or function measurably contributes to meeting land and resource management plan objectives? 

Yes; POC contributes to the visual objectives in the LRMP for both of these Wild and Scenic Rivers. 

1b. Are there uninfected POC within, near1

, or downstream of the activity area that, were they to become 

infected, would likely spread infections to trees whose ecological Tribal, or product use or function 

measurably contributes to meeting land and resource management plan objectives? 

Yes; POC contributes to the visual objectives in the LRMP for both of these Wild and Scenic Rivers. 

1c. Is the activity area within an uninfested 7th field watershed2

as defined in Attachment 1? 

Yes; the project area is within the 22M01F, 22M09W, 23L03W, and 23L06W 7th field watersheds. 

2. Will the proposed project introduce appreciable additional risk3

 of infection to these uninfected POC? 

[If no, then risk is low and no POC management practices are required.] 

No; there will not be enough infested soil or organic matter attached to boats, trailers, or vehicles to 

spread the disease since boat ramps are constructed of either rock, concrete or asphalt. Also, both 

rivers already contain Phytophthora lateralis are considered to be infected, so any introduction of 

additional P. lateralis into the rivers would not have a measurable effect. There is also no POC near 

the boat ramps, so the introduction of P. lateralis to the boat ramp areas would not increase the risk 

of infection either. 

(from USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management 2004a). 

1

In questions 1a and 1b, “near” generally means within 25 to 50 feet downslope or 25 feet upslope 

from management activity areas, access roads, or haul routes; farther for drainage features; 100 to 200 

feet in streams. 

2

Uninfested 7th field watersheds are defined and listed in Attachment 1, and are those with at least 100 

acres of POC stands, are at least 50% federal ownership, and are free of PL except within the 

lowermost 2 acres of the drainage. 

3

Appreciable additional risk does not mean “any risk.” It means that a reasonable person would 

recognize risk, additional to existing uncontrollable risk, to believe mitigation is warranted and would 

make a cost-effective or important difference (see Risk Key Definitions and Examples for further 

discussion). 

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives 

There are no POC management practices required and there are no anticipated direct, indirect 

and cumulative effects from alternatives with this project on the spread of PL because both the 

Illinois and Rogue Rivers are considered to be infested with Phytophthora lateralis. The risk of 

additional infection from this project is low and not anticipated to add to the existing infection 

for the reasons noted in Figure 23. 

Channel Maintenance 

There are no POC management practices required and there are no anticipated direct, indirect 

and cumulative effects from alternatives with this project on the spread of PL because both the 

Illinois and Rogue Rivers are considered to be infested with Phytophthora lateralis. The risk of 

additional infection from this project is low and not anticipated to add to the existing infection. 
FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 97 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit

Effects on Fire ___________________________________ 

Direct Effects 

The commercial motorboats on the lower Rogue and Illinois Rivers are not a concern to fire 

managers, because the boats travel up and down the river and commercial passengers spend little 

time on the river banks (where fires start) in comparison to other river users. 

Indirect Effects 

The boat presence offers a benefit in the form of fire prevention and detection. The Forest 

Service does not have the ability to continually patrol the river corridor during fire season, 

whereas commercial motorboats are generally present daily during fire season. The operators are 

generally aware of fire prevention concerns and they often report violations of closure orders 

and/or the abuse of fire use by other river users. They also have the ability to report wildfires via 

radio. 

When a wildfire occurs in the Rogue Wild Section, firefighting resources would need to be 

deployed in the area. Currently, if a wildfire incident escalates into a multi-shift, project-size fire, 

tour boats can provide transportation and support of firefighting resources that would reduce the 

level of risk firefighters are exposed to. 

Alternatives that reduce or eliminate commercial motorboats increase the risk of an undesirable 

wildfire situation developing in the Rogue Wild Section. 

Alternative 1 would eliminate the benefits of fire prevention and detection provided by tour 

boats, while not reducing the risks presented by other river users. Motorboats would not be 

available as firefighting support resource if the tour boats are no longer in business, resulting in 

wildfires that would grow larger, be of higher severity, and be more expensive to manage and/or 

suppress. 

Alternatives 2, 4 and 5 meet or exceed the current level of fire prevention and detection 

capability. Alternative 2 provides the greatest potential benefit to fire management and provides 

the least risk of a wildfire growing larger and more expensive to suppress. 

Alternative 3 meets or exceeds the current level of fire prevention and detection capability, but 

reduces detection capabilities during two high-risk days of the week. This alternative would be 

similar to Alternative 1 if a fire occurred on a Sunday or Monday. 

Alternatives 6 minimally meets the current level of fire prevention and detection capability. 

Tour boats would be available for fire suppression needs. 

Cumulative Effects 

There would be no beneficial or adverse cumulative effects on fires or fire management 

resources over what has already been described. Fuels reduction projects downriver and upriver 

of the Rogue Wild Section would reduce the fire hazard in those areas but the effects of a fire 

start in the Rogue Wild Section would remain the same as described. If fuels reduction projects 

do not occur, the risk of a fire growing larger and more catastrophic would increase. 

The presence or absence of docks at the lodges is not a fire management concern. 
FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 98 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit

Effects on Air Quality____________________________ 

Motorboat traffic effects on air quality in the Rogue Wild and Scenic River corridor were 

analyzed by the Bureau of Land Management in the Rogue National Wild and Scenic River: 

Hellgate Recreation Area Proposed Recreation Area Management Plan and Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (USDI Bureau of Land Management 2003), p. 6-7. Although 

the Hellgate Recreation Area is upstream of the project area, it is part of same river corridor and 

also designated as a Wild and Scenic River. 

In addition to analyzing alternatives designed to decrease or maintain recreation use on the 

Rogue River, the BLM studied the effects of increased use on the river (p. 31-38). Under the 

BLM scenario, 30 commercial motorized angling permits with up to two trips per day would 

have been authorized, as well as four commercial motorized tour boats with up to 26 round trips 

(in the Applegate Reach) or up to 16 round trips (in the Dunn Reach) per day. This scenario 

would have been similar to Alternative 2 in this document. The BLM’s analysis of the effect of 

motorboat traffic on air quality found no substantial effect on regional or local air quality based 

on historical or future motorboat traffic. There would be little to no effect on air quality for all 

alternatives. 

The Forest Service testified in Riverhawks v. Zepeda that Rogue River tour boat engines are 

four-cycle, inboard, fuel injection marine engines. These engines are more efficient, and do not 

generate as much pollution as an outboard engine. Diesel engines are not used. 

It is unknown how many of the outfitter/guide motorboats use two-cycle versus four-cycle 

engines, although the industry is voluntarily transitioning to four-cycle outboards. The more 

efficient four-cycle engines have been an EPA requirement for new manufactured gasoline 

marine engines since 1997. For those outfitter/guides still operating with two-cycle engines, 

exhaust is localized and only present at engine start up or during slow trolling. Slow-moving 

floaters would certainly notice exhaust fumes if they are directly behind a two-cycle engine boat. 

In addition, stable air within the river canyons is uncommon. Daily off-shore winds blow up 

canyon almost daily, mixing air and dispersing pollutants within the river corridors. 

Direct Effects 

To estimate emissions generated by motorboats, “A Desk Reference for NEPA Air Quality 

Analysis,” prepared for the USDA Forest Service by CH2MHill, April 1995, was used. The 

category “Emission Factors for Uncontrolled Gasoline Powered Industrial Engines” was used as 

the closest match (Table 3.3.-2). Annual usage figures were obtained from Table 1 to calculate 

trips per day averaged across the entire year, regardless of the noted season of use. There are no 

usage figures for jet boats that travel to and from the lodges and the private cabins in the Rogue 

Wild Section, and these trips are not included in this analysis. 

Tour boats have three 360 hp engines and the lodge boat is powered by two 360 hp engines. 

Private boats have a single engine configuration of about the same power. Trip times were 

estimated using non-stop cruising speeds and a Load Factor of 75%, based on the stops and starts 

required and the effort needed to attain and maintain cruising speeds. 

The primary emissions in Table 21 are Exhaust Hydrocarbons (HC) and Nitrogen Oxides (NOx). 

The HC factors do not include crankcase emissions, as they are controlled (Positive Crankcase 

Ventilation), or fueling emissions, because no fueling takes place in the Rogue Wild Section. 
FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 99 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit

The figures in Table 21 below are estimated daily emissions in grams. 

Table 21: Estimated Daily Emissions 

ALL MOTORBOAT USE - LOBSTER CREEK TO BLOSSOM BAR RAPIDS 

Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 5 Alt. 6 

HC (g) NOx (g) HC (g) NOx (g) HC (g) NOx (g) HC (g) NOx (g) HC (g) NOx (g) 

205,749 152,092 186,113 137,574 180,699 133,571 45,744 33,819 142,025 104,980 

(See Appendix I for a full display of the analysis) 

The figures for Alternative 1 would not be zero, since there would still be motorboats on the 

river. These boats have a mix of four-cycle and two-cycle engines, and emissions from this user 

group were not analyzed. This user group is not regulated, has not been studied, and accurate 

data is not available for analysis. 

The tour boat engines currently in use meet the California Air Resources Board (C.A.R.B.) rating 

of “3 Star – Ultra Low Emission” with maximum combined emissions (HC and NOx) of 16.0 

g/kilowatt-hour. The analysis in the table above uses 16.3 g/kW-h, which excludes 0.66 g/kW-h 

of fueling emissions, so the values in the table are probably somewhat high. Engine 

manufacturers are currently working with the tour boat companies to develop engines which will 

meet the 2007 emissions goal of 5.0 g/kW-h. 

Indirect and Cumulative Effects 

Based on testimony in Riverhawks v. Zepeda and the analysis and conclusion made by the BLM 

in the Hellgate Recreation Area RAMP/FEIS, there would be little to no indirect or cumulative 

effects to air quality for any of the alternatives. 

Channel Maintenance 

There would also be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on air quality due to the infrequent 

maintenance at Illahe Island and the small, localized riffle maintenance areas. 

Effects on Cultural Resources______________________ 

Water-based activities involving the use of river craft, such as tour boats, drift boats, and rafts, 

on the lower Rogue and lower Illinois Rivers are considered to have “no effect” on the Heritage 

Resource. These activities are considered non-undertakings in the Programmatic Agreement 

Among the United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, 

the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the Oregon State Historic Preservation 

Officer Regarding Cultural Resource Management on National Forests in the State of Oregon. 

A non-undertaking is defined as: “an action having little or no potential to affect historic 

properties and is considered to be excluded from case-by-case review.” The Non-Undertakings 

List, a supplement to the Programmatic Agreement, includes #13, “Issuance of special-use 

permits, easements and other agreements where no surface disturbance is authorized and where 

no properties greater than 50 years old are involved” and #14, “Renewals, assignments and 

conversions of existing special-use permits, easements and other agreements where existing 

stipulations in the permit are sufficient to protect historic properties which may be involved.” 
FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 100 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit

Although activities on the water do not have an effect on the Heritage Resource, those associated 

activities which take place off-river on terraces and gravel bars such as camping, exploring, and 

recreational collecting do have the potential to disturb the sites. Tour boats and the lodge boat 

usually only unload passengers at lodges and developed facilities and therefore have little 

potential effect on the resource. Fishing guides are also primarily day users, with little to no offriver use. Each alternative would result in little to no off-river activities and therefore, would 

have no impact on archeological sites. 

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects 

Although river use itself has little to no effect on archeological sites, use of gravel bars, river 

terraces and trails has the potential for site disturbance. Monitoring known sites will help 

prevent casual collection or looting. Limiting river usage by permit or other means also limits 

the potential for site disturbance. Interpretation and education regarding certain sites or features 

will not only enhance the visitor experience but can offer a diversion from the more sensitive 

sites. Heritage Resource sites contain information important to the development of human 

activities in the Wild and Scenic Rogue and Illinois Rivers, are a non-renewable resource, and 

cannot be lost due to complacency. 

Channel Maintenance 

For channel maintenance taking place within the river corridor, there would also be no direct, 

indirect, or cumulative effects on cultural resources. 

Effects on Recreation _____________________________ 

Recreation user conflicts in the lower Rogue Wild Section were identified as a significant issue 

in Chapter 1. 

Alternative 1 

Direct Effects 

Over 46,000 people use outfitter/guide services on the lower Rogue and lower Illinois Rivers 

annually. People who do not have the time, equipment, or experience to engage in these river 

activities without an outfitter/guide would not be able to have this recreation experience. 

The loss of commercial motorboat transportation would affect more than half of the lodge 

clients. They would have to either forgo the experience or hire an outfitter/guide to float them 

down to the lodges from the upper Rogue River, and then float down to Foster Bar when they 

leave. These float trips would be more expensive, take multiple days and include more 

whitewater. People who want a short trip, are intimidated by whitewater, or cannot afford the 

float trip would not have the opportunity to vacation at the lodges. 

New/inexperienced boat owners would have to learn whitewater motorboat skills from friends 

who have jet boat experience, learn by experience, or receive training on other rivers. This 

would affect only a few people since only six training trips were reported from 2000-2004. 

People without a boat or river-running experience would not be able to take scenic trips to take 

photos or view wildlife. Scenic trips are booked by people who want to have the flexibility to 

stop at their leisure and that is generally not possible on tour boats. There were 19 of these trips 

between 2000 and 2004. 
FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 101 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit

People without rafts, equipment, or river-running experience would not be able to take float trips 

below Foster Bar. There were 13 of these trips between 2000 and 2003. 

Some non-motorized boaters (rafts, kayaks, drift boats, etc.) do not like motorboats in the Rogue 

Wild Section for a variety of reasons, including safety, motorboat wakes, noise, exhaust smells, 

and sharing the river with another user group. Non-motorized users do not like tour boat 

passengers taking pictures of them or looking at their camps, as it adversely affects their 

recreational experience (Laitner, Knapp, Sally, McDonald, Higgins, Ludwig, and Flotho 

declarations in Riverhawks 2001 lawsuit). For non-motorized boaters, Alternative 1 would have 

beneficial effects, but there would still be non-commercial motorboats on the river, so not all of 

the adverse effects would be eliminated. Inexperienced and/or unknowledgeable private 

motorboaters can cause conflicts with floaters by going too fast or too close to their boats. This 

can also occur accidentally if the people in the different boats do not see each other. 

Private motorboats and floaters would have less motorboat traffic to negotiate with commercial 

motorboats no longer on the river. Conflicts would be reduced accordingly. 

Under this alternative, there would be a shift to 100% private motorboat recreation on the lower 

Rogue and Illinois Rivers within the National Forest boundary. No commercial motorboat 

recreation use or services use would occur. 

Safety for Paradise and Half Moon Bar Lodge guests and staff would be reduced due to dock 

removal. Guests would have to step in and out of boats on an uneven gravel or sand bar. Lodge 

staff would have to lift heavy supplies and equipment in and out of boats on uneven gravel bars. 

There would be no room to use hoists to lift the loads in and out of the boats. Safety conditions 

at Clay Hill Lodge would not be changed because they currently do not have a dock. 

Indirect Effects

With no commercial livery service, private landowners without road access would have to make 

more boat trips to get supplies and they would have to buy a motorboat if they did not already 

own one. Commercial livery services made 269 trips from 2000-2004. 

Some people who would have taken commercial trips above Lobster Creek would use 

commercial fishing guides and tour boats to take trips below Lobster Creek. They would have a 

different recreation experience because the river banks are more developed below Lobster Creek 

and the river is much slower and straighter. Others would go to another river or on the upper 

Rogue River near Grants Pass and would not get to experience the unique qualities of the lower 

Rogue River. People vacationing on the coast or those locals who do not have the time or money 

to travel to other areas would forgo the experience. 

Many outfitter/guide clients use other recreation facilities in or near Gold Beach, including 

Forest Service campgrounds and trails, during their stay in Gold Beach. Use of these facilities 

would decline as these commercial clients move to other areas for recreation. 

Cumulative Effects

No cumulative effects were identified. 
FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 102 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit

Alternative 2 

Direct Effects 

At the full permitted level, adverse recreation impacts are likely on the lower Rogue and lower 

Illinois Rivers. The overuse threshold in terms of commercial boat traffic is not clear. The 

recreation experience would be protected from this effect of overuse by required mitigation that 

would reduce the permitted number of commercial trips if adverse impacts to recreation were 

occurring. Outfitter/guide clients would have the most opportunities to book a trip on the lower 

Rogue and lower Illinois Rivers when compared to other alternatives. 

When compared to other alternatives, lodge guests would have the most opportunities to get to 

the lodges in the Rogue Wild Section under this alternative. The number of trips would more 

than double current actual use at the full permitted level and the number of lodge guests would 

increase in response to demand. 

Livery service, whitewater boat training, scenic trips, and raft trips (Foster Bar to Agness) would 

expand to the full permitted level in response to demand. 

Lower Rogue River motorboat traffic would increase around tenfold to 32,818 trips if use 

expanded to the full permitted level. There would be an increase in conflicts between nonmotorized and motorized users, and all motorboats would experience high levels of boat traffic. 

The recreation experience would be protected from these effects by the required mitigation that 

would reduce the permitted number of commercial trips if adverse impacts to recreation were 

occurring. 

More motorboats would mean more noise and increased boat traffic and noise would impact 

hikers on the Rogue River Trail because they would hear and see more boat traffic than at 

current levels of use. 

Lower Illinois River motorboat traffic would increase over a hundredfold to 4380 trips from an 

average 2 highest years use of 30 trips (2000-2004) if use expanded to the full permitted level. 

There would be more noise and traffic and crowding of popular fishing holes. The recreation 

experience would be protected from these effects by the required mitigation that would reduce 

the permitted number of commercial trips if adverse impacts to recreation were occurring. 

Safety for lodge guests and staff would be maintained at Paradise and Half Moon Bar Lodges. 

Safety would be improved at Clay Hill Lodge with the addition of a dock. This could be 

especially beneficial to people who have difficulty keeping their balance or difficulty walking. 

Lodge staff would have less difficulty loading and unloading materials and supplies and would 

have the opportunity to use hoists to assist them in lifting heavy objects. 

Indirect Effects 

People who do not like motorized use in the Rogue Wild Section and float the river at current use 

levels would stop floating the Rogue Wild Section as motorized boat use increases beyond 

historical levels. The number of displaced users would depend on their tolerance for motorized 

use. Most users who dislike motorized use would stop floating the lower Rogue Wild Section if 

motorized use reaches the permit limits. 

The risk of motorized boating accidents would increase on the lower Rogue River at the permit 

limits since the number of motorboat trips would be greatly increased over the 2000-2004 actual 

use levels.
FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 103 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit

During periods of good fishing, boat ramps would be crowded with both commercial and noncommercial fishing boats if full permit levels were reached. 

Cumulative Effects 

Private boats and floaters would have a cumulative impact. Private motorboats and floaters, in 

addition to the commercial traffic, would increase traffic and noise. An increase in demand for 

commercial recreation would likely mirror an increase in demand for private recreation as well. 

This would add to the direct and indirect effects listed above. 

Alternative 3 

Direct Effects 

Commercial recreational use would be able to expand with demand but would be limited to 

Tuesday through Saturday in the Rogue Wild Section, limiting the number of people with the 

opportunity to recreate in that section. Saturday demand for Rogue Wild Section trips would be 

higher since most commercial demand is on the weekend and there would be no Wild Section 

trips on Sunday/Monday. 

It is possible that at the fully permitted level the tour boat recreational experience would be 

diminished for some clients since they would see more boats and people on the river than at 

current levels. It is not clear where the threshold of overuse, in terms of too much commercial 

boat traffic, would occur. The recreation experience would be protected from this effect by the 

required mitigation that would reduce the permitted number of commercial trips if adverse 

impacts to recreation were occurring. 

Lodge boat use would expand with demand. At full permitted use there would be 54% more 

trips than the current use level. 

Livery service, whitewater boat training, scenic trips, and raft trips would be more difficult to 

schedule in the Rogue Wild Section due to the Tuesday through Saturday only restriction. 

There would be a nearly a tenfold increase in commercial boat traffic at the full permitted level. 

There would be an increase in motorized vs. non-motorized conflicts in the lower Rogue Wild 

Section, and the conflicts would occur Tuesday through Saturday, but this could be mitigated if 

people who don’t like motorized use would schedule their float trips so they would float between 

Blossom Bar Rapids and Foster Bar on Sunday or Monday. All motorboats would experience 

high levels of boat traffic in the Recreational and Scenic Sections of the lower Rogue River. The 

recreation experience would be protected from these effects by the required mitigation that 

would reduce the permitted number of commercial trips if adverse impacts to recreation were 

occurring. 

High levels of motorized traffic would increase noise and the increased traffic and noise would 

impact hikers on the Rogue River Trail on Tuesday through Saturday. On Sunday and Monday 

they would continue to see and hear private motorboats. 

Effects of commercial motorboat use on the lower Illinois would be the same as Alternative 2. 

Safety for lodge guests and staff would be the same as Alternative 2. 

Indirect Effects 

The Rogue Wild Section would receive more Tuesday through Saturday use by people displaced 

from the Sunday and Monday trips. 
FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 104 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit

Float permits with starts of Friday and Saturday would have increased demand so floaters can be 

on the Rogue Wild Section on Sunday and Monday when commercial motorized use is 

prohibited. 

The Recreational and Scenic Sections of the lower Rogue River would receive more 

Sunday/Monday use by people who were displaced from the Rogue Wild Section. 

The risk of motorized boating accidents would be the same as Alternative 2. 

Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative effects would be the same as Alternative 2. 

Alternative 4 

Direct Effects 

Commercial motorboat use would be able to expand with demand until it reached the permit 

limit. Effects in the Recreational and Scenic sections of the lower Rogue and lower Illinois 

rivers would be the same as described in Alternative 2. 

It is unlikely that there would be an increase in motorized vs. non-motorized conflicts or adverse 

impacts to recreation in the lower Rogue Wild Section. The additional permitted increase in use 

by commercial boat traffic on the river would not exceed a 25% increase above the two highest 

years use from 2000-2004 and the District Ranger would have the ability to restrict the additional 

use to a lower level or deny it. It is not clear where the threshold of overuse, in terms of too 

much commercial boat traffic, would occur. If the threshold were below the 25% additional use, 

the recreation experience would be protected from this effect of overuse by the required 

mitigation that would reduce the permitted number of commercial trips if adverse impacts to 

recreation were occurring. 

Tour boat and fishing guide clients would have the same opportunities to book a trip in the lower 

Rogue Wild Section in 2000 to 2004. If future demand is higher than the high 2 year average, 

those opportunities would increase as much as 25% if additional use were approved. 

Opportunities on the Recreational and Scenic Sections would be the same as those described in 

Alternative 2. 

Lodge boat use would expand with demand until it reached permit limits. At full permitted use 

there would be 42% more trips than at the current use level. 

Livery service, whitewater boat training, scenic trips, and raft trips would expand with demand 

until they reached permit limits. 

Safety for lodge guests and staff at Paradise and Half Moon Bar Lodges would be the same as in 

Alternative 2. The effects at Clay Hill Lodge would be the same as those described in 

Alternative 1. 

Indirect Effects 

It is expected that some people who do not like motorized use in the Rogue Wild Section and 

float the river at current use levels would stop floating the Rogue River to Foster Bar if the 

additional use were approved. It is difficult to determine the threshold of additional use where 

this effect would occur because of the variation in individual tolerance to motorized use. 

The risk of motorboat accidents in the lower Rogue Wild Section would increase slightly if the 

25% additional use were approved. Risk of motorboat accidents in the Scenic and Recreational 

Sections would be the same as in Alternative 2. 
FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 105 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit

Cumulative Effects 

Same as Alternative 2 

Alternative 5 

Direct Effects 

Commercial recreation use, whitewater boat training, and livery service would be similar to 2000 

through 2004 on the lower Rogue River because permitted use is based on the high 2 year 

average use for that period. If future demand for services is higher than the high 2 year average, 

the use would increase as much as 25% if additional use were approved. 

It is unlikely that there would be an increase in motorized vs. non-motorized conflicts or adverse 

impacts to recreation in the lower Rogue Wild, Scenic or Recreational Sections. The additional 

permitted increase in use by commercial boat traffic on the river would not exceed a 25% 

increase above the two highest years use from 2000-2004 and the District Ranger would have the 

ability to restrict the additional use to a lower level or deny it. However, it is not clear where the 

threshold of overuse, in terms of too much commercial boat traffic, would occur. If the threshold 

were below the 25% additional use the recreation experience would be protected from this effect 

of overuse by the required mitigation that would reduce the permitted number of commercial 

trips if adverse impacts to recreation were occurring. 

Effects on safety for lodge guests and staff would be the same as Alternative 2. 

Indirect Effects 

Use of the lower Rogue River by floaters who dislike motorboats would be expected to continue 

at a level similar to the past five years (2000-2004) because commercial motorboat use is based 

on the high 2 year average. 

The low risk of motorboat accidents on the lower Rogue River would continue because 

commercial motorboat use would be similar to the past 5 years (2000-2004). 

Cumulative Effects 

Same as Alternative 2. 

Alternative 6 

Direct Effects 

If demand remains the same as from 2000-2004 levels there would be more demand than 

available trips on tour boats in three of the next five years. The recreation experience may be 

enhanced for some of the clients since they would see fewer boats and people on the river than at 

current use levels but fewer people would have the opportunity to take a tour boat trip. 

Opportunities to fish with a guide on the lower Rogue River would be the same as in Alternative 

2. Opportunities to fish with a guide on the lower Illinois would expand with demand to the 

limit of 30 trips per guide per year. 

In three of the next five years there would be more demand than available lodge boat trips. 

Those guests would either have to forgo a stay in the lodges or find alternative transportation as 

described in Alternative 1. 

Effects on livery service, whitewater boat training, raft trips, and safety for lodge guests and staff 

would be the same as Alternative 2. 
FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 106 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit

Conflicts between motorized and non-motorized users would be less than in the past five years 

(2000-2004) because the motorboat use would be lower than average. 

Indirect Effects 

Use of the lower Rogue River by floaters who dislike motorboats would be expected to increase 

slightly since commercial motorboat trips would be limited to the average of the two lowest 

years use (2000-2004). 

The low risk of motorboat accidents would continue. 

Cumulative Effects 

Same as Alternative 2. 

Channel Maintenance 

Direct Effects 

More people are able to recreate on the lower Rogue River with tour boat trips and guided 

fishing trips, especially during the summer recreation season when water flows are lowest. More 

private trips can also occur as a result of channel maintenance. Increased riffle depth would 

reduce the probability of boats hitting bottom and would provide a wider channel for boats to 

maneuver, reducing the risk of accidents during low summer flows. Cutting willows would 

increase sight distance at several riffles and would reduce the risk of accidents and reduce user 

conflicts during low flows. 

Indirect Effects 

A longer section of the river could be used by motorboats during the maximum recreation use 

period, lessening crowding on the lower Rogue River. 

Cumulative Effects 

None identified. 

Effects on Wild and Scenic Rivers___________________ 

Effects on Outstandingly Remarkable Values - Rogue River 

Under all alternatives, the Fisheries Outstandingly Remarkable Values (ORVs) would be 

protected because commercial motorboat use is not likely to adversely affect southern 

Oregon/northern California coho salmon. For Forest Service Sensitive Species, motorboat use 

may impact individual fish but it not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or a loss of 

viability. Refer to the Fisheries section in Chapter 4 (and FEIS Appendix F) for an in depth 

discussion of effects. 

Under all alternatives, the Scenic ORV would be protected because there are no activities in this 

project that would change or modify views from the river except dock installation. The proposed 

docks are in compliance with the Rogue Wild and Scenic River Management Plan because they 

existed at the time of the Wild and Scenic River designation in 1968. 
FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 107 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit

All alternatives except Alternative 1 would protect the Recreation ORV. All components of 

recreational opportunity would be retained. The required mitigation to monitor effects on the 

Recreation ORV would protect this ORV from the adverse impacts of overuse. Alternative 1 

would not protect the Recreation ORV because commercial motorboat use, one of the major 

components of recreation opportunity on the lower Rogue River now and at the time it was 

designated Wild and Scenic, would be eliminated. Additional information on the effects on 

recreation can be found in the Recreation section of Chapter 4. 

Effects From Channel Maintenance 

Under all action alternatives, the Fisheries ORV would be protected because the amount of fish 

habitat affected is small and the effect is temporary. Channel maintenance is not likely to affect 

individual fish. The increased channel depth would make it easier for larger fish to pass through 

these riffles during low flow periods. Refer to the channel maintenance effects discussion in the 

Fisheries section of Chapter 4 for an in depth discussion of effects. 

Cutting willows to improve sight distance would not affect the Visual Quality Objective (VQO) 

of Retention because the cutting would occur in areas where the river would normally knock 

them down or wash them away during high flows. The cuttings would be scattered among the 

remaining willows and would not be visible from the river. The cut willows quickly resprout 

from the remaining steams and leaf-out conceals the cut stems. This activity would be 

subordinate to the character of the landscape and would not be apparent to the average visitor 

because the areas are small in size (0.01 to 0.13 acre), and short in length (40 to 200 feet) and the 

view duration would be very short as people float by or pass by in motorboats. The Scenic ORV 

is protected because the channel maintenance activities meet the VQO of retention. 

Channel maintenance would enhance the Recreation ORV because it would allow more people 

to recreate on the lower Rogue during low flows. Refer to the channel maintenance discussion in 

the Recreation section of Chapter 4 for more in depth discussion of effects. 

Effects on Outstandingly Remarkable Values - Illinois River 

The Fisheries ORV would be protected. Commercial motorboat use is not likely to adversely 

affect southern Oregon/northern California coho salmon. For Forest Service Sensitive Species, 

motorboat use may impact individual fish but is not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing 

or a loss of viability. Refer to the effects to fisheries discussion in Chapter 4 for details. 

The Scenic ORV would be protected because there would be no activities occurring that would 

change views from the river. 

The Water Quality and Botanical ORVs would be protected because the proposed activities 

would have no measurable adverse effect on these values. 

The effects on the Recreation ORV are described below. Additional information on recreation 

effects can be found in the recreation section of Chapter 4. 

Effects on Recreation Outstandingly Remarkable Values 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

Eliminating commercial fishing guides would have little effect on the Recreation ORV because 

there are only a small number of guided trips each year. The Recreation ORV would be 

protected. 
FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 108 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit

Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 

All components of recreational opportunity would be retained. The required mitigation to 

monitor effects on the Recreation ORV would protect it from the adverse impacts of overuse by 

commercial fishermen. 

Alternative 6 

All components of recreational opportunity would be retained. The Recreation ORV would be 

protected from over use by commercial fishermen because permitted use for each guide would be 

limited to 30 trips per year. 

Effects on Wilderness_____________________________ 

Wilderness values potentially at risk from motorized use (commercial or private) on the Rogue 

Wild Section include opportunities for solitude and primitive experience due to the sound of 

motors and the sight of motorized boats. Historical motorized use on the Rogue Wild Section 

has had limited influence on these wilderness values due to distance and screening of these trails 

from the river. There are no records of complaints from wilderness hikers about motorboat 

activity on the Rogue River. 

The presence of docks on the river would not have an influence on wilderness values. 

Alternative 1 

Direct Effects 

Private recreational and landowner boats would continue their use in the Rogue Wild Section. 

There would be less noise heard from within the wilderness and less chance to see motorboats 

from a distance since there would be fewer motorboats in the Rogue Wild Section. This would 

provide greater opportunities for solitude in the wilderness. Noise would also be less on trails 

closest to the river, such as the Clay Hill Trail. Wilderness users would continue having 

encounters with numerous groups along the high use Rogue River Trail before heading into the 

wilderness, which would compromise opportunities for solitude. 

Other wilderness trails would be too far away to be affected by the noise from non-commercial 

motorboat use. Some of the motorboat use would be visible from the Panther Ridge Trail. The 

visual impact would be minor due to the small size of the boats from that distance. 

All wilderness trails would maintain wilderness-related opportunities consistent with the semiprimitive WRS classification. 

Indirect Effects 

Those people expecting solitude and a primitive experience in the wilderness are not likely to 

achieve that 100 percent of the time due to the private use and the existing semi-primitive 

classification of the area. These people would either not return to this area or would seek 

wilderness opportunities elsewhere. 

Cumulative Effects 

There are no known adverse cumulative effects on the wilderness resource when considering the 

other projects that may occur in the area because the effect of this alternative would be to reduce 

the sight and sound of motorized activity. 
FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 109 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit

On-going activities would continue over time, such as routine non-motorized trail maintenance 

on the wilderness trails and routine motorized maintenance on the Rogue River Trail. 

Alternatives 2 and 6 

Direct Effects 

Some boat noise would extend into the Wilderness, and this has been the existing condition since 

wilderness designation. The effect would dissipate as distance from the river increased. 

Motorboat noise would be most noticeable on the lower portion of the little-used Clay Hill Trail. 

Trail users transitioning from outside the wilderness on the Rogue River Trail to the Clay Hill 

Trail would have less expectation of solitude initially until they were further away from both the 

river and national recreation trail. 

Motorboat noise on the river would not affect other wilderness trails due to the distance from the 

river. Boat activity would be visible from the higher elevation Panther Ridge Trail, but boats 

would appear very small from that distance. 

All wilderness trails would maintain wilderness-related opportunities consistent with semiprimitive WRS classification. 

Indirect Effects 

Those people expecting solitude and a primitive experience in the wilderness are not likely to 

achieve that 100 percent of the time due to the number of motorboats and the existing semiprimitive nature of the area. People with expectations for complete solitude and isolation from 

motorized activity would either not return to this area or would seek wilderness opportunities 

elsewhere. 

Cumulative Effects 

Same as Alternative 1. 

Alternative 3 

Direct Effects 

There would be less noise in the wilderness on Sundays and Mondays. On Tuesday through 

Saturday, noise effects on wilderness would be the same as Alternative 2. 

Indirect Effects and Cumulative Effects 

Same as Alternative 2. 

Alternatives 4 and 5 

Direct Effects 

Reduced tour boat use in the Rogue Wild Section compared to Alternative 2 would reduce noise 

in the wilderness. Effects on the Clay Hill and Panther Ridge Trails would be the same as in 

Alternative 2. Effects on wilderness would be the same as Alternative 2. 

Indirect and Cumulative Effects 

Same as Alternative 2. 
FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 110 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit

Channel Maintenance 

There are no effects on wilderness from channel maintenance because it would only occur 

outside the wilderness in the Wild River corridor. 

Effects on Socio-Economic Conditions ______________ 

The alternatives result in changes to the amount of access to different segments of the rivers for 

commercial tour boats, fishing guides, and for the transport of customers to lodges in the Wild 

section of the Rogue River. Businesses that supply goods and services for outfitters and their 

customers are also affected. The potential economic effects to communities and businesses due 

to changes in commercial outfitter purchases and the associated recreation expenditures are 

discussed. The effects to communities are focused on Curry County identified as the primary 

economic impact area. 

The types of permitted special use activities on the Rogue River analyzed are: 

• commercial tour boats offering scenic trips and transport of guests to lodges in the Wild section 

• commercial transport of lodge guests to Paradise Lodge and Half Moon Bar Lodge 

• fishing guides using both float craft and motorboats 

The key indicators used to assess the effects are: 

• Alternative annual operations by operator type (Tour Boats, Lodge Boats and Fishing Guides) 

o Trips 

o Clients 

o Revenue 

• Alternative annual community and business impacts by operator type (Tour Boats, Lodge Boats 

and Fishing Guides 

o Employment 

o Income 

These indicators are measured using the permitted outfitter and guide operations and revenue 

trends under each alternative for the years 2005 to 2009. The projections are based upon 

recorded business activity over the years 1999 to 2004. 

o The effects of issuing or not issuing permits for docks are also considered. They are 

primarily assessed for qualitative differences associated with safety. They are addressed in 

the recreation section. 

Methods and Assumptions 

The economic methods and assumptions use trip and revenue data from the three types of 

operators. Commercial tour boat and lodge boat data covers the years 1999 to 2004. Fishing 

guide boat data is developed from the years 1999 to 2004, and 2000 to 2004. The revenue 

histories are not adjusted for inflation since the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Consumer Price 

Index for the Recreation Expenditure Class averaged about one percent annually from 1999 

through 2005. 

Fees paid to the Forest Service are either based on a flat rate or 3 percent of gross revenue, or 

vary by permit year to year. The difference in the fees paid does not vary substantially between 

the two fee schedules. The compiled historical data does not specify the fee plan by operator. 

All federal receipts are assumed to be 3 percent of reported gross revenue. 
FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 111 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit

Past operation and revenue data for operators is evaluated to estimate rates of growth or decline 

in use demand. Permit use restrictions would limit future operations and could result in 

differences in the economic effects. If permitted use exceeds projected demand, economic 

effects are not expected to be different from the current situation. 

Ticket prices were not reported by all operators, but are likely to be competitive with the prices 

that are reported. Table 22 identifies average ticket prices for the years 1999 through 2003 used 

in this analysis. 

Table 22: Ticket Prices for Tour Boats (1999-2003) 

64-Mile 80-Mile 104-Mile Year 

Adult Child Adult Child Adult Child 

1999-2000 $30 $12 $45 $20 $75 $35 

2001-2003 $34 $14 $49 $24 $75 $35 

Estimates for employment and income effects are based on user expenditures. These are direct 

purchases for outfitter/guide services, lodging, food and beverages and other needs. 

Expenditures for lodging include hotels and motels in the local communities and lodges on the 

river. Indirect and induced employment and income effects are also estimated. Indirect effects 

are purchases by businesses from other businesses supporting them. An example is purchases of 

gas, oil, and boat supplies by tour boat operators and fishing guides. Induced effects result from 

employees of these businesses spending their income on goods and services such as housing, 

clothing, food and medical services. 

Expenditure patterns to estimate river use spending are based on National Recreation Use 

Monitoring (NVUM) profiles as documented in Spending Profiles of National Forest Visitors, 

2000 Update (Stynes and White 2004). The expenditure profiles were modified to reflect current 

outfitter/guide fees in the project area. 

The affected environment for socio-economic conditions (Chapter 3) discusses the existing 

commercial tour boats, commercial transport of lodge guests and fishing guides. In addition, the 

effects of these commercial operations are discussed in the context of the local economic activity 

for Gold Beach and Agness. 

The economic effects of the alternatives are primarily based on the potential differences in the 

limits on the number and timing of trips. In order to affect current and projected uses, these 

limits must be binding. Table 23 displays actual use and permitted use under each alternative. 

Given current and projected use, only the No Action alternative, Alternative 3, and Alternative 6 

limit current use levels in the near term. The economic effects of each alternative are discussed 

below and summarized in Table 23. 

Alternative 1 

Under the No Action alternative the existing special use permits are allowed to expire under their 

own terms. No new permits would be issued. 
FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 112 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit

Economic Effects 

Elimination of special use permits for commercial tour, lodge and guide boats means that this 

type of commercial recreational use on the lower Rogue and Illinois Rivers would cease. The 

current number of trips and clients would drop to zero. The outfitter and guide businesses that 

are dependent on these clients would cease business activity in the project area. The purchases 

by the outfitter and guides from other local business will decrease. Client purchases in other 

businesses such as lodging, food and services will also decrease. 

Alternative 1 reduces trips, clients, revenues to the outfitter and guides along with the associated 

business activity, employment, and income. Table 23 displays these results by the economic 

indicators. 

Table 23: Projected Use and Economic Effects by Alternative 

Economic 

Indicator

Current 

Actual Use

Alt 1 Alt 2 

Projected 

Use

Alt 3 

No 

Substitution

Alt 3 

With 

Substitution 

Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6

Clients

Tour Boat 

Totals 44,632 0 44,632 40,511 44,632 44,632 44,632 37,936 

Lodge Boats 414 0 414 296 414 414 414 328 

Guide Boat 

Total 2,573 0 2,573 2,369 2,573 2,573 2,573 2,573 

Revenue

Tour Boat 

Totals $2,152,000 0 $2,152,000 $1,953,300 $2,062,300 $2,152,000 $2,152,000 $1,829,100 

Lodge Boats $18,200 0 $18,200 $13,000 $13,000 $18,200 $18,200 $14,400 

Guide Boat 

Total $343,500 0 $343,500 $316,300 $343,500 $343,500 $343,500 $343,500 

Total Jobs 156 0 156 139 153 156 156 134 

Total Income $2,392,800 0 $2,392,800 $2,128,400 $2,341,700 $2,392,800 $2,392,800 $2,055,800 

Alternative 2 

Under the Proposed Action, the existing special use permits continue. Based on current use 

levels, demand would need to increase by almost 200 percent in the Wild Section for trip limits 

to become binding. Increases in demand of this magnitude are not expected. 

Economic Effects 

The current levels of use, revenues and associated jobs and income continue (Table 23). The 

existing outfitter and guide business can expand or contract services to meet demand. 

Alternative 3 

This alternative issues the 63 special use permits but excludes commercial motorized boats from 

the Wild Section on Sunday and Monday. This alternative results in a possible range of 

outcomes depending on the level of substitution with non-Wild Section trips and movement to 

different days of the week. Under complete substitution, the reduction in operable days lowers 

the cap so that growth in user demand is reduced to about 70 percent for tour boats and 60 

percent for lodge boats until the limit becomes binding. Guide boat operations can still expand 

over 100 percent if other days can be substituted for Sundays and Mondays. 
FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 113 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit

Economic Effects 

The current levels of use, revenues and associated jobs and income can generally continue with 

full substitution (Table 23). Without substitution, and if use is distributed evenly across the 

week, 2 days out of 7 days, or 28% of Wild Section visits are lost. This equals a potential 

reduction of 4,120 tour boat clients if no substitution occurs and about nine percent of tour boat 

revenue. 

The full impact of this loss is displayed in Table 23 in the column identifying Alternative 3 

without substitution. With substitution to other sections of the river, there is a four percent 

revenue loss. Lodge boat clients cannot substitute, and fishing guides are considered to be able 

to substitute completely. Implementation of this alternative would result in effects that lie 

somewhere between the indicators displayed Table 23 by the no substitution and substitution 

columns for Alternative 3. 

Alternative 4 

This alternative issues the 63 special use permits, but modifies the permitted use levels in the 

Wild Section to more closely reflect actual use during the last five years. Under these limits, 

tour boats are able to expand by about 40 percent, lodge boats by about 50 percent and guide 

boats are able to expand by about 60 percent in the Wild Section. 

Economic Effects 

The current levels of use, revenues and associated jobs and income continue (Table 23). The 

existing outfitter and guide business can expand or contract services to meet demand. 

Alternative 5 

This alternative issues the 63 special use permits, but modifies the permitted use levels in all 

sections of the river to reflect the two highest years of actual use during 2000 through 2004. 

Under these limits, tour boats are able to expand by about 40 percent, lodge boats by about 50 

percent and guide boats are able to expand by over 100 percent in the Wild and non-wild 

sections of the river. 

Economic Effects 

The current levels of use, revenues and associated jobs and income continue (Table 21). The 

existing outfitter and guide business can expand or contract services to meet demand. 

Alternative 6 

This alternative issues the 63 special use permits, but modifies the permitted use levels in all 

sections of the river to reflect the two lowest years of actual use during 2000 through 2004. 

Under these limits, tour boats trips and clients would decline by about 25 percent in the Wild 

Section and 10 percent in other sections of the river. The reduction in trips means about a 15 

percent declined in revenues. Lodge boat trips and revenues decline by about 20 percent and 

there is no reduction in guide operations. 

Economic Effects 

The current levels of use, revenues and associated jobs and income are reduced (Table 23). The 

existing outfitter and guide operations will need contract services and provide fewer 

opportunities to clients. The reduction in guide operations and loss of client expenditures 

supports about 20 fewer jobs and about $340,000 less income in the local economy. 
FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 114 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit

Channel Maintenance 

Channel maintenance activities would have beneficial effects on the economics of all the action 

alternatives. Without channel maintenance commercial outfitter/guide opportunities, private 

boating and recreation use within the river corridor would be reduced with an adverse effect on 

economics. 

Aquatic Conservation Strategy Effects_______________ 

Application of the standards and guidelines in the Northwest Forest Plan, including those relating 

to the Aquatic Conservation Strategy, significantly limits the potential adverse effects that may 

result from the design and implementation of individual projects. As a result, an individual 

project (or individual management activity) would rarely, if ever, have a sufficient scope and 

duration to preclude or achieve any of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives at fifth-field 

watershed and larger scales. Decision makers are not able or required to assess the contribution 

of a site-specific project to achieving Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives. The Aquatic 

Conservation Strategy objectives are not to be interpreted as standards and guidelines applicable 

to individual projects (USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management 2004c). 

ACS components are designed to operate together to maintain and restore the productivity and 

resiliency of riparian and aquatic ecosystems. If a project is in compliance with the requirements 

stated in the RODs (USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management 1994, 2004c) 

for each of these components, it will be in compliance with the ACS. 

Riparian Reserves ACS Component

Chapter 3, Water Resources section, describes the existing condition, including the important 

physical and biological components of the fifth-field watersheds in which the project lies. 

Chapter 4, Effects on Water Resources, also describes the effect of the project on the existing 

condition. The project record demonstrates that in designing and assessing the project, relevant 

information was used from the applicable watershed analyses. 

Riparian Reserve Standards and Guidelines

Standards and Guidelines (NWFP pages #-31 to 3-38) were reviewed to determine which were 

applicable to this project. Recreation Management Standards and Guidelines RM-1 and RM-2 

are the only ones that apply to activities in this project. 

RM-1 – New recreational facilities within Riparian Reserves, including trails and dispersed sites, 

should be designed to not prevent meeting Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives. For 

existing recreation facilities within Riparian Reserves, evaluate and mitigate impact to ensure 

that these do not prevent, and to the extent practicable, contribute to attainment of Aquatic 

Conservation Strategy objectives. 

Compliance: Only Alternatives 2, 3, 5, and 6 propose a new facility, Clay Hill dock. 

Construction of the dock with the required mitigations in Chapter 2 would have no adverse 

effects on resources as described in Chapter 4 and would not retard or prevent attainment of ACS 

objectives. Alternatives 1 and 4 would not build any facilities. 

RM-2 – Adjust dispersed and developed recreation practices that retard or prevent attainment of 

Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives. Where adjustment measures such as education use 

limitations, traffic control devices, increased maintenance, relocation of facilities, and/or specific 

site closures are not effective, eliminate the practice or occupancy. 
FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 115 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit

Compliance: Alternative 1 would not issue permits and no motorboat use would occur. 

Alternatives 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 would issue permits that would control the amount of commercial 

boat traffic and monitor use levels. These alternatives and the required mitigation (terms and 

conditions) are designed so they would not retard or prevent attainment of ACS objectives. 

Key Watersheds, Watershed Analysis, and Watershed Restoration ACS 

Components 

The project is not in a key watershed, and watershed analyses have been completed on the Rogue 

River from the mouth to Marial (USDA Forest Service 1999, 2000a, 2000b). This project does 

not propose any changes to Riparian Reserve widths, and no timber harvest or new road 

construction is planned as a part of this project. This project is therefore in compliance with the 

key watersheds and watershed analysis components of the ACS. 

No instream restoration actions are planned for this project, consequently, it is in compliance 

with the watershed restoration component of the ACS. 

Summary of Cumulative Effects_____________________

Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations require that federal agencies assess the 

cumulative effects of proposed actions. This requires a review of all environmental effects that 

may result, not from the direct effects of a proposal, but from a combination of existing stresses 

and additional effects of other actions. 

Cumulative effects are defined as those impacts that result from identified actions when they are 

added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions (such as salvage logging 

or road maintenance) regardless of who undertakes such other actions. Cumulative effects can 

result from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over time. 

The area of consideration for cumulative effects varies by resource. Effects on aquatic resources 

such as sediment, water quality, and fisheries, accumulate within the stream systems and are 

analyzed by watershed. Effects on terrestrial resources, such as wildlife, accumulate at various 

scales. Scales range from the 1.3 mile mean home radius around known spotted owl activity 

centers to the Rogue River/South Coast Province scale. 

When considering the cumulative effects, projects in the Rogue and Illinois River watersheds 

described in the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest’s Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) 

Report for 4/1/2004 through 6/30/2004 and the Medford District Bureau of Land Management’s 

Medford’s Messenger for Winter 2004 are listed in Table 24. These projects may occur in the 

reasonably foreseeable future within the area that includes the watersheds from the Forest 

Boundary at Marial to the Forest Boundary at Lobster Creek. 

All these projects must meet their Land and Resource Management Plan and Northwest Forest 

Plan Standards and Guidelines. For water quality, all these projects must meet Aquatic 

Conservation Strategy. As a result, the projects would not affect the Rogue or Illinois water 

quality, and downstream effects on the project area would not occur. Since water quality is not 

adversely affected, these projects would not adversely affect the listed and other fish species 

found in the project area. 
FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 116 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit

For wildlife, these projects would follow the terms and conditions of the Biological Opinions 

resulting from Consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Forest Plan Standards 

and Guidelines. As a result there would be no adverse cumulative effects from these projects to 

the Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive species and Management Indicator Species within the 

project area. 

For recreation, management direction for motorized and non-motorized boat recreation is in the 

Hellgate Recreation Area Management Plan (RAMP) for the Rogue River, from the confluence 

of the Applegate River to Grave Creek. Management direction related to non-motorized boat 

travel from Grave Creek to Blossom Bar Rapids is in the Wild and Scenic Rogue River 

Management Plan and regulations adopted by the Oregon State Marine Board, Bureau of Land 

Management and Forest Service. Adverse cumulative effects on the recreation resource from the 

proposed projects would not occur due to the projects meeting Forest Plan standards and 

guidelines and project-specific mitigation measures. 

Table 24: Past, Current and Future Projects in the Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Watersheds 

Project Type Project Name Watershed Extent Status 

Timber Sale, including 

road construction 

Too Wild Illinois-Lawson 

Rogue-Gold Beach 

526 acres Under Contract 

Timber Sale, including 

road construction 

Southwest Rogue-Gold Beach 19 acres Under Contract 

Timber Sale Black Cat Lobster Creek 120 acres Decision Notice Signed 

Road Reconstruction Agness Road 

Reconstruction 

Rogue-Illahe and 

Rogue-Gold Beach 

22 miles Work in Progress 

Road Reconstruction Illahe Road 

Reconstruction 

Rogue-Illahe 3 miles Work in Progress 

Road Damage Site 

Repair, Fish Passage, 

Road Decommissioning 

Several Rogue-Illahe 

Rogue-Gold Beach 

Lobster Creek 

3 sites 

10 sites 

12 sites 

EA Completed, Some 

Portions Under Contract 

Road Decommissioning 

and Stormproofing 

Road 3313150 Rogue-Gold Beach 4.9 miles EA Completed, Not 

currently Funded 

Trail Reconstruction Illinois River Trail, 

Oak Flat to Silver 

Creek 

Illinois-Lawson 8 miles EA Completed, Contract 

Being Prepared 

Trail Maintenance Rogue River Trail, 

Marial to Big Bend 

Rogue-Illahe 16 miles Spot maintenance 

planned for Summer 2005 

Trail Maintenance Lower Rogue River 

Trail 

Rogue-Illahe 

Rogue-Gold Beach 

13 miles Spot maintenance as 

needed 

Road Maintenance Various Locations Rogue-Illahe, RogueGold Beach, IllinoisLawson, Lobster Creek 

Varies by 

year 

Blading, brushing, ditch 

debris and small slide 

removal 

Placer Mining Three mining claims 

on Lobster Creek 

Lobster Creek 1,000 feet Suction dredging, 

panning, sluicing 

Shaded Fuel Breaks Along existing roads Rogue-Illahe, RogueGold Beach, IllinoisLawson 

7 miles Planned, unknown 

implementation date 

The past, current and reasonably foreseeable future projects that are listed in Table 24 were 

included in the cumulative effects analysis for each resource area in Chapter 4. 
FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 117 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit

In addition to these specific projects, the following activities may take place in the foreseeable 

future within project area watersheds: 

• Timber harvest, road maintenance, and road reconstruction on private timber company 

lands 

• Meadow restoration on Forest Service managed lands. 

• Fish habitat restoration in small to medium streams, including placing large wood or 

brush bundles, or planting trees in riparian areas of fish-bearing streams 

• Pre-commercial thinning of crowded young trees 

• Special forest products permits for harvest of mushrooms, boughs, and other vegetation 

• Residential tree removal, vegetative clearing and earthmoving in Agness, Illahe, and 

scattered residences and agricultural areas along the river 

• Gravel extraction from depositional bars in the Rogue River 

• Road maintenance of Forest Service, County, and private roads and driveways 

• Motorized traffic on roads in the watershed. 

Cumulative effects for each alternative are addressed in Chapter 4. Incremental impacts from 

multiple actions over time are assessed for each resource. 

The cumulative effects of the past and potential future effects of the Biscuit Fire and logging in 

the watershed were addressed in the Biscuit Fire EIS. The Biscuit Fire effects only affect the 

Rogue River below the confluence of the Illinois River. The impacts on the watershed from all 

of the alternatives in this EIS are minor and negligible compared to natural changes in the 

watershed and to impacts caused by many of the projects listed above. 

Due to the inherent level of precision in cumulative effects analysis, a more detailed cumulative 

effects analysis that include these activities could only assume that approximately zero additional 

impacts would result from all alternatives. Consequently, a more detailed cumulative watershed 

effects analysis beyond what has already been done for the Biscuit Fire EIS was not justified. 

Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity _________ 

NEPA requires consideration of “the relationship between short-term uses of man’s environment 

and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity” (40 CFR 1502.16). As 

declared by Congress, this includes using all practicable means and measures, including financial 

and technical assistance, in a manner calculated to foster and promote the general welfare, to 

create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony, and 

fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations of 

Americans (NEPA Section 101). 

Short-term land use includes the day-to-day and even year-to-year activities that visitors, 

permittees and Forest Service land manages engage with the Rogue and Illinois Wild and Scenic 

River Corridors. This includes activities that remove resources from the land, such as hunting 

and fishing: and activities that do not, such as rafting, motorboating, scenery viewing, hiking 

and photography. Short-term actions include management activities, such as vegetation 

management, facility improvements, road and trail maintenance. 
FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 118 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit

Long-term productivity refers to the land’s continuing ability to produce commodities, such as 

fish, wildlife, plant products, recreation opportunities, scenery for future generations. This 

includes management practices and uses that do not impair soil productivity and water quality 

and that provide habitat without altering the natural landscape to recover, or impair geologic 

features to the extent they lose identity. 

The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act provides for federal protection of designated rivers to be freeflowing and preserving them and their immediate environments. The Rogue National Wild and 

Scenic Management Plan and the Illinois Wild and Scenic River Management Plan outline 

management objectives. These objectives maintain short-term uses and enhance long-term 

productivity of the river corridors. 

Unavoidable Adverse Effects_______________________ 

Implementing any alternative would result in environmental effects. Effects are lessened by 

following the mitigation measures intended to keep the extent and duration of these effects 

acceptable and by following the standards and guidelines outlined within the Rogue and Illinois 

Wild and Scenic River Management Plans, the Siskiyou National Forest LRMP, and by 

following applicable laws and regulations. Unavoidable adverse effects for each of the 

alternatives are discussed below. 

Alternative 1 

There would be adverse effects to the economy of Curry County. Trips, clients, and revenues to 

the outfitter and guides would be reduced along with associated business activity, employment 

and income. The total estimated reduction in total revenue would be $2,392,800 and an 

estimated 156 jobs would be lost. 

Commercial motorboat use, one of the major components of the recreation Outstandingly 

Remarkable Value on the Wild and Scenic Rogue River would be eliminated in the lower Rogue 

River (Lobster Creek to the pool below Blossom Bar rapid). 

There would be startle or avoidance responses in fish as private boats pass within 5 meters. 

There would be temporary displacement of wildlife with no measurable loss of habitat by private 

recreation use. 

Benefits of fire prevention and detection provided by tour boats would be eliminated while not 

reducing the risks presented by other private river users. Safety for Paradise and Half Moon Bar 

Lodge guests and staff would be reduced due to dock removal. 

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives 

There would be startle or avoidance responses in fish as commercial and private boats pass 

within 5 meters. There would be temporary displacement of wildlife with no measurable loss of 

habitat by commercial and private recreation use. 

Alternative 3 

There would be adverse effects to the economy of Curry County. Trips, clients, and revenues to 

the outfitter and guides would be reduced along with associated business activity, employment 

and income. 
FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 119 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit

The total estimated reduction in total revenue would be $264,400 and an estimated 17 jobs would 

be lost. Fire detection capabilities by tour boats would be reduced during two high-risk days 

each week. 

Alternative 6 

There would be adverse effects to the economy of Curry County. Trips, clients, and revenues to 

the outfitter and guides would be reduced along with associated business activity, employment 

and income. The total estimated reduction in total revenue would be $337,000 and an estimated 

22 jobs would be lost. 

Channel Maintenance 

Habitat for USFS Sensitive Species and Essential Fish Habitat would be affected by channel 

maintenance (MAA = May Adversely Affect). The effect is minimal as the overall amount of 

riffle habitat altered is small. 

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources____ 

Irreversible resource commitments are those that cannot be regained, such as species extinction, 

critical habitat loss, cultural site disturbance or mined ore removal. 

• Whether or not to issue new special use permits for commercial outfitter/guide 

opportunities would have no irreversible commitments of resources. 

Irretrievable commitments are those that are lost for a time, such as the temporary loss of 

developed recreational opportunities where wildlife management is the emphasis or loss of 

timber productivity in forested areas that are kept clear for use as a power line rights-of-way or 

road. 

• Special use permits for commercial outfitter/guides are issued for five-year periods or 

terms. Modifications to permitted authorizations can be implemented if temporary 

impacts to other resources are identified and confirmed. There are no irretrievable 

commitments with this Proposed Action and alternatives. 

Environmental Justice ____________________________ 

Under Executive Order No. 12898 (1994), Environmental Justice ensures that, to the greatest 

extent practicable and permitted by law, all populations will have the opportunity to comment 

before decisions are rendered on, are allowed to share in the benefits of, are not excluded from, 

and are not affected in a disproportionately high or adverse manner by government programs and 

activities affecting human health or the environment. 

One goal of Environmental Justice is to provide, to the greatest extent practicable, the 

opportunity for minority and low-income populations to participate in planning, analysis, and 

decision-making that affects their health or environment, including identification of program 

needs and designs. 

This EISA process has been conducted under USDA Departmental Regulation 5600-2 (1997) 

including the Environmental Justice Flowchart. The Proposed Action and alternatives, purpose 

and need, and area of potential effects have been clearly defined. Scoping under the National 

Environmental Policy Act and comment periods defined in 36 CFR 215 have used multiple ways 

to communicate.
FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 120 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit

The Proposed Action and alternatives do no appear to have a disproportionately high or adverse 

effect on minority or low-income populations. The scoping and previous comment period did 

not reveal issues or concerns with the principles of Environmental Justice. No mitigation 

measures to offset or ameliorate adverse effects on these populations have been identified. All 

interested and affected parties will continue to be involved with the comment and decision 

process. 

The Forest Service does not regulate prices or charges for services offered by permitted 

commercial outfitter/guide businesses. The price ranges for services are determined by demand 

and competition. All permittees are required to provide professional and reasonable services 

without discrimination. 

Among the alternatives, there would be no discernable effects on Native Americans, women, 

other minorities, or the Civil Rights of any American Citizen. No adverse effects on the 

agriculture or transportation sectors are expected from implementing any of the alternatives. 

Other Potential Effects ___________________________ 

Effect on Prime Farmland, Rangeland, and Forestland 

All alternatives are in keeping with the intent of the Secretary of Agriculture Memorandum 1827 

for prime farmland. The project area does not contain prime farmland or rangelands. Prime 

forestland does not apply to lands within the National Forest System. In implementation of any 

alternative, Forest Service lands would be managed with sensitivity to the effects on adjacent 

lands. 

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum 

Rogue National Wild and Scenic River (the project area) is within the semi-primitive, semiprimitive motorized, rural and roaded natural Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) 

classifications. The Illinois Wild and Scenic River within the project area has ROS 

classifications of rural and roaded natural. The existing classifications would not be changed 

under any of the alternatives. 

Wetlands and Floodplains 

The environmental effects of commercial outfitter/guiding within the lower Rogue and lower 

Illinois Wild and Scenic River corridor wetlands and floodplains are consistent with the 

Standards and Guidelines of the Rogue National Wild and Scenic Management Plan, the Illinois 

Wild and Scenic River Management Plan, and the Siskiyou National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan. No adverse effects are anticipated to occur in wetlands and floodplains with 

the no action or action alternatives. Refer to the Water Resources section and Aquatic 

Conservation Strategy Objectives for further discussion regarding action alternatives. 

Threatened and Endangered Species 

No alternatives would have adverse effects on Threatened or Endangered fish, plant, or wildlife 

species. Refer to the Fisheries, Botanical, and Wildlife sections of this FEIS and appropriate 

FEIS appendices for further discussion. 

Cultural Resources 

The project proposal is considered a No Effect undertaking relative to Heritage Resources. Refer 

to the FEIS Cultural Resources section for an additional discussion. 
FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 121 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit

CHAPTER 5. CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION 

Preparers and Contributors _______________________ 

The Forest Service consulted the following individuals, Federal, State, and local agencies, tribes 

and non-Forest Service persons during the development of this environmental assessment: 

INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM MEMBERS: 

Bill Blackwell, Recreation, Visual Resources, Wilderness 

Jon Brazier, Hydrology 

Rene Casteran, Wilderness 

Jerry Darbyshire, Recreation, Visual Resources 

Robyn Darbyshire, Writer/Editor 

Bruce Floyd, Fire and Fuel, Air Quality

Jenifer Hutchison, Botany and Noxious Weeds

Bart Lander, Economics

Gary Martinek, Cultural Resources

Margaret McHugh, Geology

Rolando Mendez-Treneman, Wildlife 

Michael Miller, Wildlife 

Hilaire Peck, Hydrology 

Richard Phillips, Economics

Skye Sieber, Writer/Editor

James Simino, Fisheries 

Kenneth Vines, River Manager and Special Use Permit Administrator 

John Williams, Port-Orford-cedar 

FEDERAL, STATE, AND LOCAL AGENCIES: 

Oregon State Marine Board 

Bureau of Land Management, Medford District 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 
FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 122 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit

Environmental Impact Statement Distribution 

Copies of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) have been distributed to the 

following organizations and government agencies in the form of hard copy, compact disc, or 

have been notified that the document is available on the Internet. Those individuals specifically 

requesting a copy of the Final EIS have also been mailed a hard copy or compact disc. Other 

parties on the project mailing list have been mailed a Summary document. 

Copies of the Final EIS are available for review at the following locations: 

Rogue River – Siskiyou National Forest Rogue River – Siskiyou National Forest 

Supervisor’s Office Gold Beach Ranger District 

333 West 8th St. 29279 Ellensburg 

P.O. Box 520 Gold Beach, OR 97444 

Medford, OR 97501 

Federal Agencies

Federal Railroad Administration 

USDA-Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region 

Natural Resources Conservation Service 

USDA National Agricultural Library 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

Army Corps of Engineers – Northwestern Division 

Environmental Protection Agency 

US Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Land Management - Oregon State Office 

Bureau of Land Management – Medford District 

National Park Service – Pacific West Region 

Northwest Power Planning Council 

US Department of Transportation – US Coast Guard 

Federal Aviation Administration – Northwest Mountain Region 

Federal Highway Administration – Western Region 
FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 123 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit

State Agencies

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 

Oregon Parks and Recreation Department 

Oregon Water Resources Department 

Oregon Division of State Lands 

Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries 

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 

Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development 

Oregon Economic and Community Development 

Oregon State Economist 

Oregon Department of Forestry Resources Library 

Oregon Governor’s Natural Resource Policy Director 

Oregon Governor’s Forest Advisor 

Oregon Rural Development Section 

County

Curry County Board of Commissioners 

City

City of Gold Beach 

Native Americans

Siletz Tribe 

Organizations

Friends of Living Oregon Waters (FLOW) 

Siskiyou Regional Education Project (SREP) 

Association of O&C Counties 

Rogue River Alliance 

Greenpeace 

Riverhawks 

Headwaters 

Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Center 

Sierra Club, Rogue Group 
FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 124 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit

INDEX 

1972 Rogue National Wild and Scenic River, Oregon: Notice of Revised Management Plan 7, 8

1985 Illinois Wild and Scenic River Management Plan 2, 8

1989 Siskiyou National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 5, 8, 41, 66 

A 

Actual Use 75, 76, 84, 102, 111, 113 

Air quality 54 

Alternative 1 - No Action 16, 75, 79, 82, 83, 84, 97, 99, 100, 101, 104, 105, 107, 111, 113, 115 

Alternative 2 - Proposed Action 12, 16, 76, 80, 81, 97, 102, 112 

Alternative 3 - 17, 82, 97, 103, 109, 111, 112, 118 

Alternative 4 - 18, 82, 104, 113 

Alternative 5 - 20, 82, 105, 113, 119 

Alternative 6 - 21, 82, 105, 108, 111, 113 

Aquatic Conservation Strategy 10, 80, 114, 115 

B 

Bald eagle 41, 86, 87 

Beach erosion 75, 77, 89 

Boating Regulations 1, 7, 61 

Bureau of Land Management 80, 98, 115, 116 

C 

Campgrounds and trails 63 

Channel maintenance 6, 8, 27, 33, 34, 78, 83, 93, 96, 100, 106, 107, 110, 117, 119 

Clean Water Act 6, 10 

Coho salmon 38, 79, 106, 107 

Commercial motorboats 1, 14, 101 

Commercial tour boats 16, 18, 21, 58, 67, 111 

Cultural resources 55, 99, 100, 120 

D 

Docks 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 23, 24, 40, 60, 61, 78, 80, 84, 94, 97, 106, 108, 110 

Drift boats 27, 58, 59, 79, 81, 99, 101 

E 

Effects on air quality 98 

Effects on botanical resources 94 

Effects on cultural resources 99 

Effects on fire 97 

Effects on fisheries 79 

Effects on Port-Orford-cedar 95 

Effects on recreation 100 

Effects on socio-economic conditions 110 
FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 125 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit

Effects on water resources 75 

Effects on Wild and Scenic Rivers 106 

Effects on wilderness 108 

Effects on wildlife 84 

Endangered American Wilderness Act 8 

Endangered and Threatened Species 27, 38, 39, 41, 56, 78, 85, 86, 116, 120 

Environmental Justice 119 

F 

Fall chinook 26, 27, 38, 59, 79, 81 

Fire 44, 50, 53, 94, 97, 118 

Fishing guides 1, 2, 4, 12, 15, 17-23, 25, 57, 60, 61, 64, 71, 72, 76, 80, 101, 110 

Forest Service Region 6 Sensitive species 41, 43, 49, 50, 51, 83, 86, 88, 94, 106, 107, 116, 119 

G 

Geology - Illinois River 29 

Geology - Rogue River 28 

I 

Illinois River recreation 63 

Issues 13 

M 

Management Indicator Species 48 

Marbled murrelet 42, 84 

Mitigation measures 24 

Monitoring 24, 88, 90, 100 

Motorboat wakes 51, 63, 75, 81, 90, 94, 101 

Neo-tropical migrant birds 48 

N 

Non-motorized boaters 7, 15, 61, 66, 90, 101-106, 109, 116 

Northern spotted owl 10, 42, 43, 84-87, 93, 115 

Noxious weeds 49, 50, 52, 94 

O 

Oregon State Marine Board 1, 2, 10, 12, 15, 116 

Outstandingly Remarkable Values (WSRA) 6, 17-22, 29, 106-108 

P 

Phytophthora lateralis 53, 95, 96 

Port-Orford-cedar 53, 95, 96 

Preferred alternative 20 

Project area 9 

Proposed action 12 

Protection buffer species 48 
FINAL Environmental Impact Statement Page 126 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permit

R 

Riparian Reserves ACS Component 14 

River morphology 30 

Rogue River Recreation 59 

Rogue Wild Section 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 12-22, 40, 48, 53, 55, 58-63, 66, 71, 82, 90, 97, 98, 100-109 

S 

Safety 7, 11, 12, 33, 36, 62, 101-105, 110, 118 

Sediment 29, 33, 78, 115 

Specific and unique mitigation 17, 18, 19, 21, 22 

Summary of cumulative effects 115 

Summer steelhead 36-39, 59, 79, 81 

T 

Trout and sturgeon 39 

U 

User conflicts 14, 17, 23, 58, 100, 106 

V 

Visual resources 9, 96, 107, 108 

W 

Water quality 6, 29, 30, 32, 75-78, 107, 115, 118 

Water quantity 30, 75 

Western pond turtle 24, 46, 86, 90, 93 

Whitewater rafting 29, 59, 63 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA) 5, 6, 29 

Wilderness 8, 9, 44, 61, 66, 67, 108, 109, 110 
REFERENCES Page A-1 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

APPENDIX A: REFERENCES 

Adams, P.B., C.B. Grimes, J.E. Hightower, S.T. Lindley, and M.L. Moser. 2002. Status Review 

for the North American Green Sturgeon. NOAA, National Marine Fisheries Service, 

Southwest Fisheries Science Center, Santa Cruz, CA. 

Alexander and Weber. 1982.Rogue River Report, Recreation Use. 

Anthony, R.G. et al. 1982. Habitat use by nesting and roosting bald eagles in the Pacific 

Northwest. Proceedings of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources 

Conference. 47:332-342. 

Anthony, R.G., and F.B. Isaacs. 1989. Characteristics of bald eagle nest sites in Oregon. Journal 

of Wildlife Management 53:148-159. 

Arora, D.. 1986. Mushrooms Demystified: A Comprehensive Guide to the Fleshy Fungi. Ten 

Speed Press, Berkeley, CA. 

Beckham, S.D. 1978. Cultural Resource Overview of the Siskiyou National Forest. Siskiyou 

National Forest, Grants Pass, OR. 

Columbia Basin Inter-Agency Committee. 1967. River Mile Index, Rogue River. 

Conklin, W.F. 1982. An Overview of Management on the Rogue Wild and Scenic River, 

Siskiyou National Forest. 

Cockran C.C. and C.T. Thomas. 1996. Amphibians of Oregon, Washington and British 

Columbia: a field identification guide. Lone Pine Publishing, Edmonton, Alberta 

Csuti, B., et al. 1997. Atlas of Oregon Wildlife. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR. 

Dillingham, C.P., R.C. Miller, and L.O. Webb. 1995. Marbled murrelet distribution in the 

Siskiyou National Forest of southwestern Oregon. Northwestern Naturalist 76:33-39. 

Dillingham, C. 1997. Monitoring potential human disturbances to nesting and foraging peregrine 

falcons, osprey, and bald eagles on the Rogue River, Oregon. Unpublished manuscript on 

file at the Gold Beach Ranger District. 

Donheffner, P.E. and K.W. Muckleston. 1976. Motorboat Use on the Wild Rogue River: An 

Investigation of Use Between Watson Creek and Blossom Bar. 

Forsman, E.D., K.M, Horn, and W.A. Neitro. 1982. Spotted owl research and management in the 

Pacific Northwest. Proceedings of the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources 

Conference. 47:323-331. 

Garrett, M.G., J.W. Watson, and R.G. Anthony. 1993. Bald eagle home range and habitat use in 

the Columbia River estuary. Journal of Wildlife Management 57:19-27. 

Griffin, D. 1983. Archeological Investigation at the Marial Site, Rogue River Ranch, 35CU84. 

Department of Anthropology, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR. 

Groot, C. and L. Margolis, eds. 1991. Pacific salmon life histories. Vancouver, Canada: UBC 

Press, 564 pp. 
REFERENCES Page A-2 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

Hamer, T.E., and S.K. Nelson. 1995a. Characteristics of marbled murrelet nest trees and nesting 

stands in Ralph, C. J., G.L. Hunt, Jr., M.G. Raphael, and J.F. Piatt (eds.) Ecology and 

conservation of the marbled murrelet U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Pacific Southwest Research Station, General Technical Report PSW-GTR-152. pp. 

69-82. 

______. 1995b. Nesting chronology of the marbled murrelet in Ralph, C J., G.L. Hunt Jr., M.G. 

Raphael, and J.F. Piatt (eds.) Ecology and conservation of the marbled murrelet U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, General 

Technical Report PSW-GTR-152. pp. 49-56. 

Hamer, T.E. and S.K. Nelson. 1998. Effects of disturbance on nesting marbled murrelets: 

summary of preliminary results. 

Hickman, James C. (ed.) 1993. The Jepson Manual. University of California Press, Berkeley, 

CA. 

Holland, D.C. 1994. The Western Pond Turtle: Habitat and History - Final Report. U.S. 

Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, OR. 

______. 2003. Third Declaration of Dr. Dan C. Holland. United States District Court for the 

District of Oregon. Civil No. 01-3035-AA. Riverhawks v. Zepeda, 55 ERC (BNA) 1147 

(D. Or. 2002). 

Hornocker, M.G., and H.S. Hash. 1981. Ecology of the wolverine in northwestern Montana. 

Canada Journal of Zoology 59:1286-1201. 

Isaacs, F.B., and R.G. Anthony, 2004, Bald eagle nest locations and history of use in Oregon and 

the Washington portion of the Columbia River Recovery Zone, 1971 through 2004. 

Oregon Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Oregon State University, Corvallis, 

Oregon, USA. 

Johnsgard, P.A. 1990. Hawks, Eagles, and Falcons of North America. Smithsonian Institution 

Press, Washingtion D.C. 

Klingeman, P.C. 2001. Lower Rogue River Bank Erosion between Blossom Bar and Foster Bar 

and Comparison with Nearby Beaches. A report submitted to the USDA-Forest Service, 

Siskiyou National Forest. 

______. 2003. Lower Rogue River Sand Beach Erosion Study, 2001-2002. A report submitted to 

the USDA-Forest Service, Siskiyou National Forest. 

Kramer, G. 1999. Mining in Southwestern Oregon: A Historic Context Statement. Medford 

Bureau of Land Management and Rogue River National Forest, Medford, OR. 

Long, L.L. and C.J. Ralph, 1997. Effects of human disturbance on nesting marbled murrelets, 

alcids, and other seabirds. Unpublished Report. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Arcata, California. 29pp. 

Long, L., and C.J. Ralph. 1998. Regulation and observation of human disturbance near nesting 

marbled murrelets. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Redwood 

Sciences Laboratory, Arcata, CA. 

Mace, P.M. 1983. Bird predation on juvenile salmonids in the Big Qualicum estuary, Vancouver 

island. Can Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 1176:79 p. 
REFERENCES Page A-3 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

Marshal, D.B., M.G. Hunter, and A.L. Contreras, Eds., 2003, Birds of Oregon: A General 

Reference. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR. 768 pp. 

Marshall, D.B. 1998. Status of the Marbled Murrelet in North America: with Special Emphasis 

on California, Oregon and Washington. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological 

Report 88(30). 

Maser, C. 1998. Mammals of the Pacific Northwest, From the Coast to the High Cascades. 

Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR. 

Maser, C., B.R. Mate, J.F. Franklin, and C.T. Dryness. 1981. Natural history of Oregon coast 

mammals. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service General Technical Report 

PNW-133. Pacific Northwest Region, Forest and Range Experiment Station, Portland, 

OR. 

McCune, B. and L. Geiser. 1997. Macrolichens of the Pacific Northwest. Oregon State 

University Press. Corvallis, OR. 

McDonald, J. 1960. The behaviour of Pacific salmon fry during their downstream migration to 

freshwater and saltwater nursery areas. J. Fish. Res. Board. Can. 17:655-676. 

Meehan, W.R. and T.C. Bjornn. 1991. Salmonid distributions and life histories. In “Influences 

of Forest and Rangeland Management on Salmonid Fishes and their Habitats.” American 

Fisheries Society Special Publication 19: 47-82. 

Meehan, W.R., and D.B. Siniff. 1962. A study of the downstream migration of anadromous 

fishes in the Taku River, Alaska. Transactions of the AFS 91:399-467. 

Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc. 2000. IMPLAN system (2000 data and software). Stillwater, MN: 

Minnesota Implan Group, Inc., 1940 South Greely Street, Suite 101, Stillwater, MN 55082. 

www.implan.com. 

Mullens, L. 2000. A Guide to Rare Plants of the Siskiyou National Forest. USDA Forest Service. 

Grants Pass, OR. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 1996. West coast steelhead briefing package. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 1997. Endangered and Threatened Species: Threatened 

Status for Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast Evolutionarily Significant Unit 

(ESU) of Coho Salmon. Federal Register, Vol. 62, No. 87, pp. 24588-24609. 

National Marine Fisheries Service. 1998. Endangered and threatened species: proposed 

endangered status for two chinook salmon ESUs and proposed threatened status for five 

chinook salmon ESUs; proposed redefinition, threatened status, and revision of critical 

habitat for one chinook salmon ESU; proposed designation of chinook salmon critical 

habitat in California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho. Federal Register, Vol. 63, No. 45 pp. 

11482-11520. 

Nussbaum, R.A., E.D. Brodie, Jr., and R.T.M. Storm. 1983. Amphibians and Reptiles of the 

Pacific Northwest; A Northwest Naturalist Book, University of Idaho Press. 

ODFW (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife). 1997. Juvenile fall chinook trapping, 1997; 

Lobster Creek, Pistol River, and Winchuck River. Gold Beach, OR. 

ONHIP. 2004. Rare, threatened and endangered species of Oregon. Oregon State University, 

Corvallis, OR 105 pp. 
REFERENCES Page A-4 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. 2002. 303(d) List of Impaired Waters in Oregon. 

http://www.deq.state.or.us/wq/303dlist/303dpage.htm. 

Oregon-Washington Partners in Flight. 2000. Conservation strategy for landbirds in lowlands 

and valleys of western Oregon and Washington. Version 1.0. 

Paton, P.W. and C. J. Ralph. 1990. Distribution of the Marbled Murrelet at Inland Sites in 

California. Northwest Naturalist 71:72-84. 

Pfister and Frenkel. 1974. Interim Report: Field Investigations of River Use Within the Wild 

River Area of the Rogue River, Oregon. 

Reid, I. 2002. Physiological effects to migrating salmonids from motorboats. Unpublished 

report on file at Gold Beach Ranger District. 

Risley, C. 2003. Unpublished report on file at Gold Beach Ranger District. 

Rivers, C.M. 1991. History and development of the Rogue River basin as related to its fishery 

prior to 1941. Rogue River Fisheries, vol. 1. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 

Portland, OR. (published posthumously from a 1963 manuscript). 

Rood, S.B., A.R. Kalischuk, M.-L. Polzin, and J.H. Braatne. 2003. Branch propagation, not 

cladoptosis, permits dispersive, clonal reproduction of riparian cottonwoods. Forest 

Ecology and Management. 186(1-3): 227-242. 

Ruggiero, L.F., et al. (eds.) 1994. The scientific basis for conserving forest carnivores: 

American marten fisher, lynx, and wolverine in the western United States. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, General Technical Report RM-254. 

RVCOG (Rogue Valley Council of Governments). 1997. Southwest Oregon Salmon 

Restoration Initiative Phase 1: A Plan to Stabilize the Native Steelhead Population in 

southwest Oregon from Further Decline. Central Point, OR. 

Satterthwaite, T.D. 1995. Effects of Boat Traffic on Juvenile Salmonids in the Rogue River. 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. Portland, OR. 

Schindler, B. and B. Shelby. 1992. Rogue River User Study: Wild Rogue Planning and Policy 

Study, Oregon State University. 

Stahlmaster, M.V. 1987. The Bald Eagle. Universe Books, New York. 

Stebbins, R.C. 1985. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians. Peterson Field Guild 

Series #16, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA. 

Storm, R.M., et al. 1995. Reptiles of Washington and Oregon, Seattle Audubon Society, Seattle, 

Washington. 

Stynes, Daniel J. and Eric M. White. 2004. Spending Profiles of National Forest Visitors, 2002 

Update. USDA Forest Service, Inventory and Monitoring Institute and Michigan State 

University. 46 pages. 

Thomas, J.W., et al. 1990. A Conservation Strategy for the Northern Spotted Owl: Report of the 

Interagency Scientific Committee to Address the Conservation of the Northern Spotted 

Owl. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department of Interior, 

Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Park Service. 

Portland, OR. 
REFERENCES Page A-5 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

Topeka Kansas Department of Public Works. 

http://www.cjnetworks.com/~sccdistrict/resubwt.htm. 

Ulloa, M. 2003. Declaration of Maria Ulloa in the United States District Court for the District of 

Oregon. Civil No. 01-3035-AA. Riverhawks v. Zepeda, 55 ERC (BNA) 1147 (D. Or. 

2002). 

USDA Forest Service. 1985. Illinois Wild and Scenic River Management Plan. Siskiyou 

National Forest, Pacific Northwest Region. 

USDA Forest Service, 1986. 1986 ROS Book. Washington D.C. 

USDA Forest Service. 1989a. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Land and Resource 

Management Plan Siskiyou National Forest. Siskiyou National Forest, Pacific Northwest 

Region. 

USDA Forest Service, 1993. REAP Report, Pacific Northwest Regional Office, Portland Oregon. 

USDA Forest Service, 1999. Rogue River Watershed Analysis Marial to Agness, Iteration 1.0, 

Siskiyou National Forest. 

USDA Forest Service. 2000a. Rogue River Below Agness Watershed Analysis. Siskiyou 

National Forest. 

USDA Forest Service. 2000b. Lower Illinois River Watershed Analysis. Siskiyou National 

Forest. 

USDA Forest Service. 2004. Record of Decision for Management of Port-Orford-Cedar in 

Southwestern Oregon. Medford, OR. 

USDA-Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1994. Record of Decision for 

Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents 

Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl, Standards and Guidelines for 

Management of Habitat for Late-Successional and Old-Growth Forest Related Species 

Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl, Portland, OR. 

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1995. Southern Oregon LateSuccessional Reserve Assessment 10/95 Medford District, Bureau of Land Management, 

Department of Interior and Siskiyou National Forest, U.S. Forest Service, Department of 

Agriculture, Medford and Grants Pass, Oregon. 

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2003. Rogue River/South Coast 

Biological Assessment FY 04-08 for Activities that may affect listed species in the Rogue 

River/South Coast Province for Medford District, Bureau of Land Management, Rogue 

River and Siskiyou National Forests. 

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2004a. Final Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement for Management of Port-Orford-Cedar in Southwestern 

Oregon. Portland, OR. 

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2004b. Record of Decision to 

Remove Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines. Portland, 

OR. 
REFERENCES Page A-6 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2004c. Record of Decision 

Amending Resource Management Plans for Seven Bureau of Land Management Districts 

and Land and Resource Management Plans for Nineteen National Forests within the 

Range of the Northern Spotted Owl. Decision to Clarify Provisions Relating to the 

Aquatic Conservation Strategy. Portland, OR. 

USDI Bureau of Land Management. 1972. Rogue National Wild and Scenic River, Oregon: 

Notice of Revised Development and Management Plan. Federal Register, Vol. 37, No. 

131, pp. 13408-13416. Washington D.C. 

USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2003. Rogue National Wild and Scenic River: Hellgate 

Recreation Area. Proposed Recreation Area Management Plan and Final Environmental 

Impact Statement. BLM/OR/WA/PL-03/008-1792. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1986. Recovery Plan for the Pacific Bald Eagle. U.S. 

Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Portland, OR. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; 

determination of threatened status for the northern spotted owl. Final rule. Federal 

Register 55:26114-26194. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; 

determination of threatened status for the Washington, Oregon, and California population 

of the marbled murrelet Final rule. Federal Register 57:45328-45337. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service.1997. Recovery plan for the threatened marbled murrelet 

(Brachyramphus marmoratus) in Washington, Oregon, and California. Portland, OR. 

203pp. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999a. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; final 

rule to remove the American peregrine falcon from the federal list of endangered and 

threatened wildlife, and to remove the similarity of appearance provision for free-flying 

peregrines in the conterminous United States. Final rule. Federal Register 

64:46542-46558. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999b. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; 

proposed rule to remove the bald eagle in the lower 48 states from the list of endangered 

and threatened wildlife. Proposed rule. Federal Register 64: 36453-36464. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, 2003. Formal and informal consultation on activities that may 

affect listed species in the Rogue River Basin for fiscal year 2004 through fiscal year 

2008 (1-14-03-F-511). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Roseburg Field Office, Roseburg, 

Oregon. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, 2005. Species profile. http://ecos.fw.gov/species_profile 

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, U. S. Department of Labor. Website: 

http://www.bls.gov/ 

Verts, B. J. and Carraway, 1998. Land Mammals of Oregon. University of California Press, 

Berkeley and Los Angeles, California. 

Yocum, C.F. 1973. Wolverine Record in the Pacific Coastal States and New Records for 

Northern California. California Fish and Game 59(3):207-209. 
WSR SECTION 7 REPORT Page B-1 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

APPENDIX B 

Lower Rogue River Channel Maintenance Permit under Section 7 

The Forest Service is the administering agency for the lower Rogue and lower Illinois Rivers. 

The Regional Forester will make a determination, based on the effects analysis documented in 

this FEIS, about whether channel maintenance would have a direct and adverse effect on the free 

flowing nature of the river, and whether or not this activity would invade the area or 

unreasonably diminish the Rogue Wild and Scenic River Outstandingly Remarkable Values as 

defined under Section 7 of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968. 

Channel maintenance is needed in the lower Rogue River to maintain safe passage for 

commercial, private, and public boats (e.g. Sheriff's Office, BLM, and Forest Service boats). 

Channel maintenance consists of cutting willows for sight distance and re-positioning small 

boulders, cobbles, gravels, and lesser amounts of sands and silts within the channel to maintain 

safe boat passage. Channel maintenance requires permits from the Army Corps of Engineers 

(ACOE) and the Oregon Department of State Lands (DSL) because the materials are excavated 

from and discharged into portions of the channel that lie below the ordinary high water level. 

These permits are required under provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. 

A description of the channel maintenance activities is contained in FEIS Chapter 3, Water 

Resources, and the effects of channel maintenance are discussed in FEIS Chapter 4 for each 

affected resource area. 

Channel maintenance activities have occurred since 1935 on the Rogue River at or below Agness 

(see Table 1 and Figure 1), and since 1962 at Illahe Island. Channel maintenance does not occur 

and is not authorized in the Illinois River. 

Boulders, cobbles, gravels, sands, and silt are moved and deposited in response to stream flow. 

Channel maintenance needs occur when enough of these materials build up to restrict boat travel 

at riffles or near Illahe Island, or when willows reduce sight distance. Channel maintenance 

activities include moving accumulated cobbles and gravels and lesser amounts of sand and silt at 

selected riffles and Illahe Island, moving small boulders by hand at selected riffles, and cutting 

willows at specific locations to improve safety. 

Most channel maintenance consists of repositioning small boulders, cobbles, gravels and lesser 

amounts of sands and silts within the channel. This is accomplished at most riffles with a boat 

engine propeller. A boat is tethered to the shore, and the boat propeller creates enough water 

force to suspend cobbles and smaller material in the flowing water so they can be redeposited to 

one side and/or carried downstream to be redeposited in deeper parts of the channel. This 

technique is referred to as the “prop wash” method. Thirty-three maintained riffles are in the 

Scenic/Recreational Section and the remaining 11 are below Lobster Creek. Maintenance 

generally occurs at 10-15 riffles each year whenever and wherever needed (and possibly more 

than once a year). The riffles that require channel maintenance vary from year to year, 

depending on the size and number of high winter flows and the sediment supply for that year. 

Riffle maintenance by prop wash is done where the water depth is 1-1.5 feet or less, and there is 

a hazard to safe boat passage. Maintenance deepens the channel about 1.5-2.5 feet in an area 

about 8-12 feet wide and 50-300 feet long at each riffle. The amount of material moved varies 

from ~22 to 333 cubic yards for each riffle (median amount = 130 cubic yards). Most of the 

material moved (~80%; median amount = 104 cubic yards) is transported downstream to a 

deeper section of the river. The remaining 20% is pushed to the sides of the riffle. 
WSR SECTION 7 REPORT Page B-2 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

These deeper river sections (pools) are generally about 100 feet wide, 100 feet long, and 7 feet 

deep during summer flows (about 2,600 cubic yards of water). The median amount of material 

moved by prop wash into a pool represents about 4 percent of the summer pool volume. 

Assuming that half of the 29 river miles from the uppermost prop wash location to the Rogue 

mouth consist of pools, prop wash at 15 sites would fill in about 0.003 percent of the total pool 

volume. 

Table 1: Lower Rogue River Riffles where Prop Wash Channel Maintenance Occurs 

Riffle Name Map Number Riffle Name Map Number Riffle Name Map Number 

Alder 1 William Miller 16 Nail Keg 30 

Snag Patch 2 Hawkins 17 New 31 

Cannery 3 Silver Creek 18 Bear 32 

Ferry 4 Lowery 19 Bean 33 

Canfield 5 Bacon Flat 20 Boiler/Mixer 34 

Coyote/Jim Hunt 6 Big Fish 21 Peterman 35 

Wakeman/Four 

Seasons 7 Fry’s Landing 22 Twin 

Sisters/Smithers 36 

Bill Ash 8 Bradford Creek 23 Crooked 37 

Gillespie 9 Coal/Lower Coal 24 Upper Crooked 38 

Jimmy Davis 10 Upper Coal 25 Wee 39 

Coffee Pot 11 Slide Creek 26 Smith 40 

Lobster 12 Sherman 27 Hotel 41 

Shallow 13 Auberry 28 Illinois 42 

Scow 14 Tom East 29 Milkmaid 43 

Jennings 15 Mermaid 44 

The deepened portion of the riffles would have a greater hydraulic efficiency, resulting in a 

lower water surface for a given flow. However, there is no or very little visual change in flow 

width due to the fact that the width of the channel on which maintenance is performed is small in 

comparison to the total width. Consequently, change in wetted perimeter due to change in flow 

width is insignificant. The deepening of a portion of the riffle results in an increase in both the 

wetted perimeter and the average depth. Consequently, there is little change in wetted perimeter 

to depth ratios. 

An average of five maintained riffles have additional prop wash two to three times per summer 

as flows decrease. The amount of material moved is small in comparison to that described above 

for the initial maintenance at each site. The turbidity is also much less than for the initial 

maintenance at each location, as fines that produce turbidity have been washed out during the 

initial maintenance. 
Figure 1. Lower Rogue River riffles Where Prop Wash Channel Maintenance Occurs 

Note: riffle Names are found in Table 1.

Maintenance at Illahe Island occurred in 1974, 1986, 1992, 1994, and 1996-2000. This 

maintenance is not annual and is not done more than once a year. Channel maintenance at Illahe 

Island uses an excavator, tractor, or bulldozer to excavate or push material out of the channel and 

onto a gravel bar in the river. The equipment is brought down the right bank near Illahe Lodge. 

The maintenance takes about one-half day and the material moved varies from 389 to 583 cubic 

yards. The discussion above about changes in flow width and wetter perimeter to depth ratios 

also applies to the Illahe Island maintenance. This maintenance has no impact on pools, as the 

material is placed on a gravel bar. 

At up to four to six riffles each year, small boulders are removed from the boating channel by 

hand. This does not occur every year, and, when it does occur, usually only 1-2 riffles are 

affected. The boulders are placed along the outside edge of the passable channel to mark the 

area safe for boat travel. Water continues to flow on both sides of these boulders. Roughly 40-

60 small boulders are removed from the boating channel by hand at each location. 

Due to relatively large hydraulic forces, particularly during winter flows, the bed material 

deposited and subsequently moved by channel maintenance activities is composed primarily of

cobbles and gravels. The winter flows have enough hydraulic force to redistribute all materials 

moved by channel maintenance, including the small boulders moved by hand. 

WSR SECTION 7 REPORT Page B-3 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits
WSR SECTION 7 REPORT Page B-4 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

Willows would be cut using hand pruners and chain saws to improve sight distance for boater 

safety. The cut material would be thrown further back onto the river bar among the other 

willows. During most winters high water knocks down or removes these willows. When there 

are unusually low flows the willows are not knocked down or removed by high water and reduce 

the sight distance. Willows are removed from five areas (Foster Creek Rapid, Watson Creek 

Rapid, Burns Rapid, Peyton Rapid, and Clay Hill Island). Willow cutting areas are 15-30 feet 

wide and 40-200 feet long (0.01 to 0.13 acre). 

Effects on Water Resources 

The effects are of short duration, localized at 10-15 sites per year, and the adverse impacts are 

negligible. This is because the materials moved during channel maintenance are primarily 

gravels and other sediments that drop out of the water column as flows decrease. A few small 

boulders are moved by hand at up to six locations. The materials moved, including the boulders 

that are moved by hand, are readily moved by winter flows. The channel maintenance 

operations reposition the materials, but do not affect the hydrology or free-flowing nature of the 

river. Riffle maintenance produces a plume of turbid water for approximately 100 feet 

downstream (B. Blackwell, pers. comm., June 2003). Illahe Island maintenance sediment is 

carried downstream with the river current; the turbidity dissipates rapidly and is not observed at 

Foster Bar, approximately one mile downstream. The distance from the Illahe Island riffle 

maintenance site to the next downstream riffle maintenance site is more than 6 miles and the 

distances between each of the remaining riffle maintenance sites are considerably greater than 

100 feet. Consequently, the turbidity at each riffle maintenance site dissipates before the flow 

reaches the next site, preventing the development of a cumulative effect. 

The heavy equipment that is brought down the right bank to work on the Illahe Island channel 

maintenance would disturb the riparian vegetation on the bank. The disturbed vegetation 

recovers quickly. The site shows no signs of permanent damage (e.g. an eroding bank) from 

infrequent past use. 

The primary factors in the project area that keep the Rogue River from heating up are shadows 

cast by the steep topography, tall trees, and cool tributary inflow. Because of their orientation to 

the river, the willows at two of the five willow cutting sites do not cast a shadow in the direction 

of the water and therefore do not have any effect on stream temperature. At the other three sites, 

the willows cast only a short shadow on the water for a portion of the day. 

The linear length of these willow cutting areas is negligible in comparison to the length of the 

river in the project area that is in shadow a portion of the day due to steep topography and tall 

trees. The net result of willow cutting at these three sites on water temperature is therefore 

negligible. Because repositioning of the bed material at riffles increases the hydraulic efficiency 

of the reach, which increases the average flow velocity in the reach, this could lower stream 

temperatures. However, this effect would be negligible due to riffle maintenance sites affecting 

only a small portion of the total river length in the project area. 
WSR SECTION 7 REPORT Page B-5 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

Effects on Fisheries 

Habitat for USFS Sensitive Species and Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) would be affected by 

channel maintenance. The Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 (P.L.104-267), amended the 

Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) to 

require federal agencies to consult with National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

Fisheries (NOAA) on activities that may adversely affect “Essential Fish Habitat”. The Act 

defines EFH as “those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or 

growth to maturity” and includes all freshwater streams accessible to anadromous fish, marine 

waters, and intertidal habitats. 

Prop wash occurs at up to 15 riffles annually. These 15 prop wash locations would temporarily 

modify 26,250 square feet of habitat in the lower Rogue River and would deepen the channel up 

to 1.5 feet. Illahe Island maintenance modifies 583-873 square feet. The amount of riffle habitat 

in the lower Rogue is unknown, but if one assumes that 50% of the available habitat within the 

lower Rogue is riffle habitat, the overall percentage of riffle habitat modified by channel 

maintenance in the lower Rogue would be 0.23%. ([35 river miles from the mouth to Watson 

Creek x 5,280 feet/mile x 125 feet average river width] x 0.5 = 11,550,000 square feet of riffle 

habitat). The effect of maintenance is minimal, as the overall amount of riffle habitat 

temporarily altered is small. 

Channel maintenance temporarily converts small sections of riffle habitat to a deeper habitat type 

more like a run. The deepened habitat could change the macroinvertebrate community within 

the channel where the maintenance occurs, but a shift in macroinvertebrate communities is not 

anticipated. These insects drift into areas with slower velocity water, where they are preyed 

upon by fish. The amount of habitat affected is very small and a detrimental effect is unlikely as 

the percentage of riffle habitat altered is very small. The thalweg deepening (the line defining 

the lowest points along the length of a river bed) may make it easier for larger fish, such as green 

sturgeon, to pass through these riffles during lower flow periods in the summer months. 

Essential fish habitat will be modified. The timing of modification does not affect migration or 

rearing habitat. The macroinvertebrate communities will likely be unaffected. The effects for 

this activity category have been previously assessed and determined to may adversely affect

Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). 

The mitigation measures, together with Best Management Practices and the Northwest Forest 

Plan Standards and Guidelines would adequately minimize the type, frequency, duration, timing, 

and intensity of potential adverse effects to EFH. Adequate conservation measures were 

incorporated into the proposal to protect EFH. Therefore, no further conservation measures are 

recommended. 

Effects on Wildlife 

The Endangered brown pelican utilizes habitat below where channel maintenance occurs, 

therefore there would be No Effect to brown pelicans. In comparison to ongoing activities in the 

estuary, channel maintenance impacts are negligible and the effects determination for Steller sea 

lion is No Effect. 

One channel maintenance site (Illahe Island) occurs in northern spotted owl critical habitat (OR67). One channel maintenance site (Coffee Pot) occurs in marbled murrelet critical habitat (OR07-b). Late-successional habitat occurs above the high waterline at these locations and would 

not be affected by channel maintenance. Channel maintenance would have No Effect to northern 

spotted owl or marbled murrelet critical habitat. 
WSR SECTION 7 REPORT Page B-6 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

Channel maintenance effects to the bald eagle, northern spotted owl and marbled murrelet are 

May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect due to the potential for disturbance from noise and/or 

presence of people, boats, and equipment. 

All but one channel maintenance site (Illahe Island) occurs outside the area where western pond 

turtles have been observed in the project area. Western pond turtle are present near the mouth of 

Billings Creek, which is approximately 1,000 feet downstream from Illahe Island, so the effect 

on western pond turtle is May Impact Individuals or Habitat (MIIH), but will not likely 

contribute to a trend towards Federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or 

species. 

There are no known foothill yellow-legged frog sightings where channel maintenance would 

occur, and there is un-surveyed suitable habitat at some of these sites. Juvenile and adult frogs 

could be temporarily displaced from pools. Channel maintenance effects for this species is MIIH 

because the impacted area is limited to a small portion of the suitable habitat within the project 

area, the species occurs at other locations in the project area, watershed and Forest, this activity 

has been occurring in the project area for decades, and the species is reproducing. 

For Endangered species, northern spotted owl and marbled murrelet critical habitat are not 

affected by channel maintenance, and involuntary displacement or disturbance is unlikely. There 

would also be no impact to the American peregrine falcon. Although not known to be present in 

the project area, sensitive mammals (wolverine and fisher), and bats and shrews may be 

impacted by disturbance associated with channel maintenance, but this would not likely to lead a 

trend towards loss of habitat viability. Effects on Management Indicator Species from channel 

maintenance may cause temporary displacement but are not likely to lead a trend towards loss of 

habitat viability because of disturbance associated with channel maintenance. 

Effects on Botanical Resources 

Channel maintenance would not impact any sensitive plants or habitat because the activities 

associated with channel maintenance are confined to the river, with the exception of maintenance 

at Illahe Island. At Illahe Island, an excavator is driven from near Billings Creek along the edge 

of the river to the maintenance site. There are no known sensitive plant sites where the excavator 

is driven. If there is exposed mineral soil above the high water mark, native grass straw and 

native grass seed will be used to minimize erosion and revegetate the disturbed area. Mitigation 

measures would require all Illahe Island maintenance equipment to be washed before crossing 

and working within National Forest System lands to minimize the invasive and noxious weed 

spread. All other channel maintenance sites are accessed by boat. 

Effects on Port-Orford-Cedar 

There are no POC management practices required and there are no anticipated direct, indirect 

and cumulative effects from alternatives with this project on the spread of PL because both the 

Illinois and Rogue Rivers are considered to be infested with Phytophthora lateralis. The risk of 

additional infection from this project is low and not anticipated to add to the existing infection. 

Effects on Air Quality 

There would also be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects on air quality due to the infrequent 

maintenance at Illahe Island and the small, localized riffle maintenance areas. 

Effects on Cultural Resources 

For channel maintenance taking place within the river corridor, there would also be no direct, 

indirect, or cumulative effects on cultural resources.
WSR SECTION 7 REPORT Page B-7 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

Effects on Recreation 

Direct Effects 

More people are able to recreate on the lower Rogue River with tour boat trips and guided 

fishing trips, especially during the summer recreation season when water flows are lowest. More 

private trips can also occur as a result of channel maintenance. Increased riffle depth would 

reduce the probability of boats hitting bottom and would provide a wider channel for boats to 

maneuver, reducing the risk of accidents during low summer flows. Cutting willows would 

increase sight distance at several riffles and would reduce the risk of accidents and reduce user 

conflicts during low flows. 

Indirect Effects 

A longer section of the river could be used by motorboats during the maximum recreation use 

period, lessening crowding on the lower Rogue River. 

Cumulative Effects 

None identified. 

Effects on Wild and Scenic Rivers 

Under all action alternatives, the fisheries ORV would be protected because the amount of fish 

habitat affected and the effect is temporary. Channel maintenance is not likely to affect 

individual fish. The increased channel depth would make it easier for larger fish to pass through 

these riffles during low flow periods. Refer to the channel maintenance effects discussion in the 

Fisheries section of Chapter 4 for an in depth discussion of effects. 

Cutting willows to improve sight distance would not affect the Visual Quality Objective (VQO) 

of Retention because the cutting would occur in areas where the river would normally knock 

them down or wash them away during high flows. The cuttings would be scattered among the 

remaining willows and would not be visible from the river. The cut willows quickly resprout 

from the remaining steams and leaf-out conceals the cut stems. This activity would be 

subordinate to the character of the landscape and would not be apparent to the average visitor 

because the areas are small in size (0.01 to 0.13 acre), and short in length (40 to 200 feet) and the 

view duration would be very short as people float by or pass by in motorboats. The scenic ORV 

is protected because the channel maintenance activities meet the VQO of retention. 

Channel maintenance would enhance the recreational opportunity ORV because it would allow 

more people to recreate on the lower Rogue during low flows. Refer to the channel maintenance 

discussion in the Recreation section of Chapter 4 for more in depth discussion of effects. 

Effects on Wilderness 

There are no effects on wilderness from channel maintenance because it would only occur 

outside the wilderness in the Wild River corridor. 

Effects on Socio-Economics 

Channel maintenance activities would have beneficial effects on the economics of all the action 

alternatives. Without channel maintenance commercial outfitter/guide opportunities, private 

boating and recreation use within the river corridor would be reduced with an adverse effect on 

economics. 
United States

Department of 

Agriculture

Forest 

Service 

Pacific 

Northwest 

Region 

333 SW First Avenue (97204)

PO Box 3623

Portland, OR 97208-3623

503-808-2468

File Code: 2350 Date: March 25, 2005 

Route To:

Subject: Rogue Wild and Scenic River Channel Maintenance Section 7 (a) Determination, 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act 

To: District Ranger, Chetco and Gold Beach Ranger Districts 

This letter is to provide you with status information regarding the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act 

(WSRA) Section 7 Determination for channel maintenance proposals for the Rogue Wild and 

Scenic River (Rogue WSR). The WSRA Section 7 (a) determination is the responsibility of 

Linda Goodman, PNW Regional Forester. 

As you are aware, Section 7(a) of the WSRA requires evaluation of all water resource projects 

on rivers designated into the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Proposed channel 

maintenance within the Rogue WSR corridor is evaluated to determine if it has a direct and 

adverse effect on the values for which the river was designated. Within the Rogue WSR 

corridor, channel maintenance is analyzed on the channel and water quality conditions, riparian 

and floodplain conditions, hydrologic and biologic processes, free-flowing conditions, time scale 

of effects, outstandingly remarkable values, and management goals of the river. No upland and 

off-site conditions are affected by the proposed channel maintenance. Portions of the proposal 

below Lobster Creek are outside the WSR corridor. These portions are being evaluated to 

determine whether they invade the Rogue WSR area or unreasonably diminish its scenic, 

recreational, fish or wildlife values as of the date of its addition to the National System. The 

procedure being used for this analysis is described in Forest Service Manual 2354, Washington 

Office Amendment 2300-94-4. 

Rogue Mail Boat Services, Inc. and Rogue River Jet Boats have requested permits for channel 

maintenance from the US Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE). The Rogue Mail Boat Services, 

Inc. permit (ACOE Action Number 000006415) proposes channel clearing using prop-wash at 

44 sites within and below the Rogue WSR corridor. The Rogue River Jet Boats permit (ACOE 

Action Number 199500281) proposes removal of gravel in the channel on the north side of Illahe 

Island at approximately river mile 38, and depositing the gravel adjacent to the channel, blading 

to smooth the contour and restore natural appearance. 

The channel maintenance permit application from Rogue Mail Boat Services, Inc. has been 

accepted by ACOE as complete, subject to completion of consultation with the National Marine 

Fisheries Service under the federal Endangered Species Act. However, the permit application 

from Rogue River Jet Boats to date has not been accepted as complete by ACOE. Therefore, 

final WSRA Section 7 Determination cannot be completed until all channel maintenance permit 

applications are accepted as complete by ACOE. I anticipate that the permit applications will be 

completed in the near future, that no new activities will be proposed in the final permit 

applications, and that a WSRA Section 7 Determination will be issued shortly by the Regional 

Forester. 

WSR SECTION 7 REPORT Page B-8 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits
WSR SECTION 7 REPORT Page B-9 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

Because I have closely coordinated the preliminary WSRA Section 7 (a) Determination with 

your preparation of the 2005 Final Environmental Impact Statement Prepared for the Special 

Use Permits for Outfitter Guide Operations on the Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Rivers

(FEIS), I believe that, unless there are some unanticipated changes in the permit applications, all 

effects on the Rogue WSR from the proposed channel maintenance activities have been 

addressed and disclosed in the FEIS. Because the effects to the classified rivers as discussed in 

the FEIS, in the ACOE permit applications and in the Forest Service specialist’s analyses are 

comparable to the effects considered in past years, I expect I will be able to recommend to the 

Regional Forester a determine that there are no direct or adverse impacts or unreasonable 

diminishment of the designated Rogue WSR. 

Sincerely, 

/s/Susan Sater 

Pacific NW Region Wild and Scenic River Program Manager 

 

 

 

cc: Susan Sater, Susan Zike, Jill Dufour, Michael Heilman 
APPENDIX C: OUTFITTER AND GUIDE USE 

The figures included in this appendix show the actual use on the lower Rogue and 

lower Illinois Rivers by year, permit type, and river section. They are provided so 

that interested readers can compare past actual use with the proposed permitted use 

under each Alternative. The source of this information is the Commercial

Permittee Annual Use Reports. 

1999 Tour Boat Trips

48

90 120 117

73 47

157

69

55

86

133 152

88

30

2

12

48

150

0

5

0

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct

Month

Number of trips

Lobster to Blossom Bar (104 mi.)

Lobster to Watson (80 mi.)

Lobster to Agness (64 mi.)

2000 Tour Boat Trips

46

85 111 121

69 41

54

149

202

64

50

74

114

140

84

25

1

0

0 1 8

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct

Month

Number of trips

OUTFITTER AND GUIDE USE Page C-1 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits
2001 Tour Boat Trips

38

76

125 109

71 40

46

295

185

56

57

77

14

111

58

0

3 6

1

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct

Month

Number of trips

2002 Tour Boat Trips

52 75

120 94 76

32

50

187

167

32 39

78

129

120

51

1

7

0

0 2

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct

Month

Nu

mber of trips

OUTFITTER AND GUIDE USE Page C-2 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits
2003 Tour Boat Trips

40

80 111 125

84

37

44

169

199

37

44

81

133

147

59

7

0

0

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct

Month

Nu

mber of trips

1999 Paradise Lodge Trips

Foster Bar to Blossom Bar (Wild Section)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Month

Number of round trips

OUTFITTER AND GUIDE USE Page C-3 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits
2000 Paradise Lodge Trips

Foster Bar to Blossom Bar (Wild Section)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Month

Number of round trips

2001 Paradise Lodge Trips

Foster Bar to Blossom Bar (Wild Section)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Month

Number of round trips

OUTFITTER AND GUIDE USE Page C-4 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits
2002 Paradise Lodge Trips

Foster Bar to Blossom Bar (Wild Section)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Month

Number of round trips

2003 Paradise Lodge Trips

Foster Bar to Blossom Bar (Wild Section)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Month

Number of round trips

OUTFITTER AND GUIDE USE Page C-5 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits
1999 Fishing Guide Trips

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Month

Num

b

er of Trips Illinois Riv er

Rogue Wild Section

Rogue Scenic/Rec

2000 Fishing Guide Trips

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Month

Num

b

er of trips

OUTFITTER AND GUIDE USE Page C-6 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits
2001 Fishing Guide Trips

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Month

Num

b

er of trip

s

2002 Fishing Guide Trips

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Month

Num

b

er of trip

s

OUTFITTER AND GUIDE USE Page C-7 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits
2003 Fishing Guide Trips

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Month

Number of trips

OUTFITTER AND GUIDE USE Page C-8 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits
RESPONSE TO DEIS COMMENTS Page D-1 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT 

Special Use Permits for Outfitter and Guide Operations 

on the Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Rivers 

Appendix D 

Summary of Responses to Comments Received on the November 2004 Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)

The DEIS was made available for public review and comment under provisions of the National 

Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR 1500-1508), and Notice, Comment, and Appeal Procedures for 

National Forest System Project and Activities, (36 CFR 215). The Forest Service accepted written, 

electronic and oral comments as provided in 36 CFR 215.6. Pursuant to 36 CFR 215.6(b), (1), this 

appendix documents the Responsible Official’s considerations of all substantive comments submitted by 

interested parties. 

Public Involvement

A 45-day comment period notifying interested parties to the availability of the DEIS for review and 

comment was announced through a press release on December 2004. Public meetings were scheduled on 

December 13th, 2004 in Medford, December 16th, 2004 in Gold Beach, and January 3rd, 2005 in Medford. 

Two hundred and fifty paper copies were produced. Copies of the DEIS were distributed to federal and 

state agencies, local governments, elected officials, eight tribes, media representatives, libraries, 

organizations and businesses. 

One hundred and four oral statements, comment letters and emails were received in response to the DEIS 

by the Gold Beach Ranger District. All comments received by the close of the Comment Period were 

reviewed and were considered as part of the comment analysis process. All comments were read and 

coded based on content and intent. The Responsible Official read all the comments. 

Substantive comments were responded to in three ways: (1) a Response to Comments Document was 

created where reference, response and/or clarification to the DEIS comment was provided, (2) changes 

were made to the content of the DEIS documentation, to be documented in the FEIS, and in response to 

suggestions about the range of alternatives, (3) new alternatives were developed. 

Summary of Comments

Substantive comments received generally focused on the transparency of analysis, and the detail and basis 

of assumptions of analysis. Some comments provided new information to be considered. Additional 

comments requested clarification of the analysis. Two additional alternatives were developed in the FEIS 

based the some of the comments. 

Response to Comments

The Response to Comments is organized into resource areas following the same sequence as in DEIS and 

FEIS Chapters 3 and 4. The number in parentheses after the word “comment” refers to the assigned 

number of the letter, FAX, or email that the comment comes from. Comments without these numbers 

came from the public meetings. 

Key acronyms:

Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) 

Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS)
RESPONSE TO DEIS COMMENTS Page D-2 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

Water Quality 

1. Comment: (#45) I do not believe that intensive jet boat use is compatible with the “Wild and 

Scenic” designation that includes sections of the Rogue River corridor. There is insufficient 

attention to the cumulative impacts of the discharge of pollutants into the water body from such 

activity, and their impact on at risk species. Moreover, there are real questions as to whether 

permitting such activity would violate the Clean Water Act. 

Response: The DEIS described how the cumulative impacts of the discharge of pollutants into the Rogue 

River are negligible (also, see response to comment 3). The “insufficient attention” to cumulative impact 

to at risk species is addressed by Fisheries. The Forest Service knows of no wording in the Clean Water 

Act that would preclude the permitting described in all action alternatives. 

Starting on Page 17 of the DEIS, there is a discussion of the roles of the US Army Corps of Engineers and 

Oregon Department of State Lands in administering section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) relative 

to the channel maintenance activities. These two agencies are responsible for enforcing the requirements 

of this section of the CWA. If a permit were issued for this activity, meeting the terms of the permit 

would ensure compliance with the CWA. 

2. Comment: (#86) Alternative 4 fails to identify or analyze the erosion impacts of not allowing a 

dock at Clay Hill Lodge. The DEIS fails to identify, let alone analyze, the erosion impacts of not 

allowing a dock at Clay Hill Lodge. (See DEIS, p. 161) (“Since none of the alternatives increase the 

number of boats permitted on the river, there should be no change in the current effects of boats on 

the beaches,”). The failure to identify either the benefit of allowing a dock or, conversely, the 

impact of not allowing a dock under Alternative 4 with regard to bank erosion is a legal 

insufficiency that must be corrected. 

Response: Whether or not there were increases to erosional impacts would depend upon the 

configuration and material composition of the bank at this location. Because there is a sandy beach where 

the Clay Hill Lodge boat comes ashore, increased erosion impacts from not allowing a dock would be 

extremely minor, even if boats continued to moor at this location at the same rate as they would have with 

a dock. Any localized increase in erosion rates due to not allowing a boat dock would be negligible 

compared to natural background erosion rates and to increased erosion from some of the activities listed 

in the table on DEIS page 157. If there were increased erosion impacts without a dock, these impacts 

would be addressed by adding mitigation measures to the operator’s permit. The benefit of allowing a 

dock at Clay Hill Lodge is described on page 140 of the DEIS. The adverse impact to Clay Hill Lodge of 

not allowing a dock is described on pages 147-148 of the DEIS. This will be clarified in the FEIS. 

3. Comment: (#87) Page 119 of the DEIS acknowledges that the massive Biscuit salvage timber 

sale will result in cumulative impacts when combined with the proposed action and contends that 

the cumulative impacts will be disclosed and analyzed in the summary of cumulative effects found 

on page 156. Unfortunately this summary contains no actual analysis of the cumulative impacts to 

wildlife, recreation, or hydrology resulting from the listed projects. The DEIS clearly does not 

analyze the effect of other projects in combination with the proposed project to ensure that 

individually minor but collectively significant effects are not overlooked. 

Response: Page 119 of the DEIS does not acknowledge that the Biscuit salvage timber sale will result in 

cumulative impacts when combined with the proposed action. It does say that the Illinois River Trail 

Reconstruction and the Biscuit Fire Salvage projects “... will not degrade fish habitat, therefore these 

projects will not affect fish or fish habitat in the Rogue or Illinois Rivers.” The impacts on the watershed 

from all of the alternatives in the DEIS are minor and negligible compared to natural changes in the 

watershed and to impacts caused by many of the projects listed on page 157 of the DEIS. 
RESPONSE TO DEIS COMMENTS Page D-3 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

Due to the inherent level of precision in cumulative effects analysis, a more detailed cumulative effects 

analysis could only assume that approximately zero additional impacts would result from all alternatives 

in the DEIS. Consequently, a more detailed cumulative watershed effects analysis was not justified based 

on the factors described above. 

4. Comment: (#87) In-stream dredging runs afoul of the Clean Water Act. The dredging project 

as proposed in the DEIS fails all three parts of EPA’s fill analysis. 

Response: See response to comments 1 and 7. This comment presupposes that the appropriate Clean 

Water Act permits will not be obtained. In fact, all required permits will be obtained before the activities 

proceed. Section 7 of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act requires compliance with the Clean Water Act. 

5. Comment: (#87) The proposed dredging and jet boat wake clearly violates Aquatic 

Conservation Strategy standards 3, 5, and 8. The contention on page 166 of the DEIS that dredging 

activity somehow maintains or restores the physical integrity of the aquatic system, including 

shorelines, banks, and bottom configurations, is unsupported and arbitrary. 

Response: The FEIS will clarify the language of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS). The proper 

focus for determining ACS effects is the 5th field watershed scale. The language in the FEIS will reflect 

this. 

6. Comment: (#92) The DEIS does not adequately address the past cumulative effects of logging in 

the watershed of the Rogue’s Wild River Area or the past and potential future cumulative effects of 

the Biscuit Fire and the logging of thousands of acres of the roadless area and Late-Successional 

Reserve. 

Response: The cumulative effects of the past and potential future effects of the Biscuit Fire and logging 

in the watershed were addressed in the Biscuit Fire EIS. The impacts on the watershed from all of the 

alternatives in this EIS are minor and negligible compared to natural changes in the watershed and to 

impacts caused by many of the projects listed on page 157 of the DEIS. Due to the inherent level of 

precision in cumulative effects analysis, a more detailed cumulative effects analysis that included 

activities in the DEIS could only assume that approximately zero additional impacts would result from all 

alternatives in the DEIS. Consequently, a more detailed cumulative watershed effects analysis beyond 

what has already been done for the Biscuit Fire EIS was not justified based on the factors descried above. 

CHANNEL MAINTENANCE 

7. Comment: (#41) The public is offered little specific information on where these activities have 

occurred in the past, and the impacts of these past dredging operations. The DEIS offers only an 

extremely cursory analysis of the dredging operations, not even offering detailed information 

regarding the extent, frequency, and possible impacts of dredging operations. 

Response: The use of the term “dredging” in the DEIS is not an accurate reflection of the described 

activities. Dredging means to remove material from the bottom of a channel with any of various powerful 

machines (dredges) designed for this purpose. The actions described as “dredging” in the DEIS are in 

fact relatively minor re-positioning of channel material within the channel and do not make use of 

dredges. 

The impacts caused by the re-positioning of material within the channel are, as described in the DEIS, 

minor. Consequently, a more detailed analysis as suggested by this comment was not justified. As 

discussed on page 91 of the DEIS, the “prop wash” method of re-positioning gravel displaces the channel 

material a short distance downstream and does not produce a plume of water more than a short distance 

downstream (approximately 100 feet). 
RESPONSE TO DEIS COMMENTS Page D-4 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

An excavator is used to move gravels from the low flow channel to an existing gravel bar within the high 

water channel at Illahe Island. Turbid conditions from the excavation dissipates in less than one mile and 

lasts no longer than about half a day, a very minor impact that occurs only in some years, as discussed on 

page 91 of the DEIS. Neither type of activity removes any material from the active channel. Since 

materials are not removed from the active channel, they are subject to repositioning during the annual 

high flow events, just as they are in the undisturbed reaches, and in fact, there appears to be no difference 

between disturbed and undisturbed reaches in response to flow. 

A table was added to the FEIS that provides the names of the sites where channel maintenance has 

occurred in the past and is expected to occur in the future. A figure was added that shows the location of 

these channel maintenance sites. The FEIS text was also modified to provide the amount of material that 

is moved by these channel maintenance operations. 

8. Comment: (#92) The DEIS provides no enforceable or measurable standards about water 

depths or conditions which require dredging for safe navigation at 44 riffles at or below Agness. 

The DEIS needs to obtain site-specific data about how the determination is made to initiate “prop 

wash” dredging and excavations at Illahe Island. How does the Forest Service know that dredging 

is accomplishing safe boating conditions in a timely manner or is dredging being done excessively, 

without justification? 

Response: The Army Corps of Engineers and the Oregon Department of State Lands, through the 

channel maintenance permits that they issue, provide the conditions for which channel maintenance 

activities are permitted. Operations must follow the terms and conditions set forth in those permits. 

The Forest Service has not assumed responsibility for accomplishing channel maintenance in order to 

provide safe boating conditions. Consequently, the Forest Service has not assumed responsibility for 

determining that safe boating conditions are accomplished and that they are accomplished in a timely 

manner. Channel maintenance is performed by the tour boat industry in order to improve the economic 

viability of their operations. It is in their economic interest to provide safe boat operations, but not to 

spend money on channel maintenance that is unneeded. It is the Corps of Engineers and the Oregon 

Department of State Lands responsibility to only issue channel maintenance permits that comply with the 

Clean Water Act. 

9. Comment: (#92) The DEIS does not address the issue of tour boat size and the need for 

dredging. Why couldn’t tour boat operators use smaller boats later in the season and forgo some of 

the need to dredge? 

Response: Tour boat size is regulated. Historically, the need for channel maintenance has been approved 

during years of low water flows. The Rogue RMP addresses the need and approves this activity. Smaller 

boats do not necessarily have a shallower draft than large boats. The large tour boats in current use are of 

a shallow draft design with a draft of about 4 to 6 inches when on plane. Smaller boats with a shallow 

draft design would only improve the draft by an inch or two. This is not enough of a margin to reduce or 

eliminate channel maintenance. 

10. Comment: (#92) The DEIS provides no quantitative data about the area impacted by dredging 

or the volume of sediment removed. The DEIS (p. 118) can’t assert that dredging is minor without 

providing quantitative data. Also, even if the impact is minor or insignificant, the cumulative 

impact of dredging at 32 sites may be significant. 

Response: A table was added to the FEIS that provides the names of the sites where channel 

maintenance has occurred in the past and is expected to occur in the future. A figure was added that 

shows the location of these channel maintenance sites. The FEIS text was also modified to provide the 

amount of material that is moved by these channel maintenance operations. 
RESPONSE TO DEIS COMMENTS Page D-5 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

As discussed on page 91 of the DEIS, turbid flow conditions caused by the prop wash method of channel 

maintenance clears up about 100 feet downstream of the activity. Because the distance between each site 

is greater than 100 feet, there would be no cumulative effects from this activity. 

As discussed on page 91 of the DEIS, turbid flow conditions caused by channel maintenance activities at 

Illahe Island dissipate about one mile downstream. The nearest prop wash channel maintenance site is 

more than 6 miles downstream of Illahe Island. Consequently, there would be no cumulative effects from 

this activity. 

11. Comment: (#92) The DEIS provides conflicting information about dredging intensity: DEIS (p. 

121) states that channel maintenance (dredging) does not occur annually but DEIS (p. 91) states 

that prop wash dredging “generally occurs at 10-15 riffles a year, wherever needed and more than 

once during the year if necessary. 

Response: This will be corrected and addressed in the FEIS. 

12. Comment: (#92) The DEIS states that channel maintenance is an on-going activity and the 

decision to permit it is a federal and state action made by the Army Corps of Engineers and the 

State Department of Lands and that the Forest Service must complete a Section 7 determination. 

The DEIS must clarify why the channel maintenance is outside of the scope of the DEIS and the 

interpretation of the Section 7 of the WSR Act. 

Response: Channel maintenance is outside of the scope of the EIS because the decision to allow it or not 

is the responsibility of the Army Corps of Engineers. This and the Section 7 determination process is 

explained in the DEIS (DEIS, p.17 &18). This will be clarified in the FEIS.

Fisheries

COHO 

13. Comment: (#33) Maybe I missed something, but in all of the 208 page report I found little-tonothing about the negative effects of motorboat wakes on young coho, which are known to depend 

on shoreline areas. Neither are other effects of the wakes considered. This omission is not 

remedied by the statement that wakes on or at the shore are “smaller” than they are next to the jet 

boats (p 161). Of course they are “smaller” there, but anyone who has stood on the shore or had a 

boat beached there knows that the wakes are substantial. The effects of wakes on coho are not 

covered under this subject on page 162. Do you have definitive studies about wakes and young 

coho? 

Response: During the summer periods, when the jet boats are present, juvenile coho are not found in the 

project area. This portion of the lower Rogue River is not a rearing area. Rearing of juvenile coho occurs 

in smaller tributaries of the Rogue River. The lower Rogue River is primarily a migration corridor during 

smolting periods for coho and other salmonids. Some spawning by adult fall Chinook does occur in the 

lower Rogue River Corridor. Spring Chinook and steelhead juveniles are found in the project area. A 

study conducted by Satterthwaite (1994) made no visual observations of stranded fish from jet boat wakes 

in the Middle Rogue River above the project area. This will be clarified in the FEIS.

14. Comment: (#41) The likely to Adversely Affect determination for threatened coho salmon 

would appear to be inconsistent with the “maintain or improve” standard for Wild and Scenic 

River Outstandingly Remarkable Values. 
RESPONSE TO DEIS COMMENTS Page D-6 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

Response: The Likely to Adversely Affect (LLA) determination was based on an analysis including the 

effects of fishing for coho salmon in the Rogue River. The effects of fishing on coho salmon are what 

influenced the determination of LAA. After discussions with NOAA Fisheries, it was determined that the 

effects of fishing are already covered under the 4(d) permit that the State of Oregon has for fishing. There 

is a new determination in the FEIS of a Not Likely to Adversely Affect, therefore the actions proposed in 

this analysis would maintain the standard for Wild and Scenic River Outstandingly Remarkable Values.

15. Comment: (#41) The programmatic National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration – 

Fisheries (NOAA) take permit for the threatened coho salmon that is cited as covering this action 

may be entirely inappropriate for the jet boat issue. The DEIS deals with actions ranging from 

powerboat use and motorized tour boat use to excavation of gravels of the Rogue and Illinois Rivers 

to maintain a navigable channel for large vessels. The wide array of actions permitted under the 

preferred alternative represents an increase over current actual use, and the associated take of 

threatened coho salmon may seriously hinder the health and recovery of this species in the Rogue 

and Illinois Rivers. The lack of a complete consultation in the DEIS limits the ability of the public 

to judge the impacts of this action. It is difficult to believe that NOAA’s programmatic take permit 

for fishing applies in this case, with such a wide variety of possible impacts. 

Response: The DEIS evaluates commercial boat use on the Lower Rogue and Illinois River and the 

placement of docks within the river. The channel maintenance that occurs is not permitted through the 

EIS or the Forest Service. The permittees apply to the Oregon Department of State lands and the Army 

Corps of Engineers for the channel maintenance permits. The channel maintenance does occur in 

conjunction with the jet boat use and will be included in any consultation with National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration – Fisheries as described in the FEIS. 

16. Comment: (#65) Given that coho salmon constitute a threatened species, it is unclear why they 

are excluded as an indicator species for management. 

Response: This comment is considered outside the scope of the analysis. Management Indicator Species 

is an element of the National forest Management Act and were designated in the Land and Resource 

Management Plan in 1989. 

17. Comment: (#65) Given that the effect determination for coho salmon is Likely to Adversely 

Affect, it is unclear why the determination for other salmon species from the same actions is only 

MIIH. 

Response: The DEIS included a Likely to Adversely Affect (LLA) determination which was based on an 

analysis including the effects of fishing for coho salmon in the Rogue River. The effects of fishing on 

coho salmon are what influenced the determination LAA. After discussions with National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration – Fisheries and further analysis, it was determined that the effects of fishing 

are already covered under the 4(d) permit that the State of Oregon has for fishing. With this new 

information the effects determination for coho, as documented in the FEIS is Not Likely to Adversely 

Affect (NLLA). 

The effects determination for sensitive species is still “may impact individuals or habitat but not likely to 

cause a trend towards federal listing for a loss of viability” (MIIH) for all sensitive species. There are 

different effects determinations for threatened or endangered species, verses sensitive species. 

18. Comment: (#65) Given the Likely to Adversely Affect classification for coho salmon, I 

understand that a judgment from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - Fisheries 

would be required before permits could be issued. Effect of alternatives can’t be assessed in a 

meaningful way until the NOAA judgment and the rationale for that judgment can be provided. 
RESPONSE TO DEIS COMMENTS Page D-7 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

Response: The results of consultation will be available prior to the Forest Service decision regarding 

special use permits (to be documented in a Record of Decision). Comments on the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration - Fisheries (NOAA) take permit should be addressed through NOAA. 

19. Comment: (#89) Since the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - Fisheries take 

permits for Coho salmon have not yet been issued, the public has had no opportunity to review or 

comment on it. The public should be given the opportunity to read and comment on it before the 

Record of Decision is issued. 

Response: Comments on the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - Fisheries (NOAA) 

take permit should be addressed through NOAA.

“SALMON”/STEELHEAD 

20. Comment: (#65) The reported findings that cortisol levels did not differ throughout the day in 

juvenile salmonids are of concern to me because cortisol typically varies throughout the day in nonstressed individuals of species with which I am familiar. Perhaps this study reveals a chronically 

elevated measure of stress. My own research has suggested that unpredictable, recurring stressors 

(perhaps occasional jet boats in this case?) can yield chronic stress. 

Response: The Chetco and Gold Beach Ranger Districts would be interested in the results of this 

research, if it is applicable to the analysis.

21. Comment: (#92) Although injury to fish from motor boats is unlikely (DEIS, p. 119), the DEIS 

fails to acknowledge that at least some salmon are killed and injured by jet boats. The DEIS needs 

to at least estimate the number of adult salmon killed and injured by jet boats. Assertions that 

thousands of boat trips do not injure or kill any salmon are false and misleading. 

Response: There was no data found that showed direct mortality from jet boat interactions with adult 

salmon. Many salmon die each summer from columnaris, a disease that is exasperated by the warm water 

temperatures found in the lower Rogue River during the summer months.

22. Comment: (#92) The DEIS reports the income generated by guide boats (p. 109) but fails to 

report the number of salmon and steelhead killed by clients of guides. 

Response: The USDA Forest Service does not monitor the numbers of salmon and steelhead taken in the 

sport fishery. This is covered by the 4(d) permit that the State of Oregon has for fishing from National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - Fisheries.

23. Comment: (#92) The DEIS fails to acknowledge that boat trips, especially those in the off 

season, would affect spawning fall Chinook salmon (DEIS, p. 53). 

Response: Fall Chinook salmon primarily spawn in the lower Rogue River tributaries, such as Lobster, 

Quosatana, and Shasta Costa Creeks. During dry years or when rains come late in October or November, 

fall Chinook may spawn in the main stem. During this late season, jet boat use is considerably lower than 

during the summer. During seasons when flows are too low, the boats will not make any trips. When 

boats are running on the river and traveling through riffles, which are the primary spawning areas, the 

boats are using the deepest part of the channel, jet boats have been shown to affect redds in less than 14 

inches of water, but the channels the boats use are deeper than this and there are not anticipated to be 

direct effects to eggs in the gravel.

24. Comment: (#92) The DEIS fails to acknowledge that guided trips to the Illinois River are likely 

to increase greatly because the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife has changed the fishing 

regulations to allow a kill fishery on fin clipped steelhead in the Illinois River. 
RESPONSE TO DEIS COMMENTS Page D-8 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

Response: The number of guided trips on the lower Illinois River is as permitted, and the analysis 

included the number of permitted trips on the river.

GREEN STURGEON 

25. Comment: (#92) The DEIS misrepresents Wilderness Conservation Society (WCS) data about 

green sturgeon. The fact that boats did not cause adult sturgeon to move doesn’t mean there is no 

effect (DEIS, p. 120). Boat traffic is likely to be causing adverse impacts to eggs deposited in riffles 

(impacts to sturgeon from jet boats were not studied by WCS). 

Response: There has been no research conducted on the effects of boat traffic on sturgeon eggs. 

However, there have been studies conducted on effects of jet boats on salmonid eggs. These studies 

showed an effect to eggs occurring in less than 10 inches of water and the commercial tour boats travel in 

water of much greater depths than that. Therefore there is not anticipated to be any effects to sturgeon 

eggs from the boat traffic.

26. Comment: (#92) Please include the Wilderness Conservation Society study about green 

sturgeon in an appendix. 

Response: The study conducted by Wilderness Conservation Society has not been published; therefore it 

is not appropriate to consider it a scientific reference at this time.

OTHER 

27. Comment: Additionally, the agency must properly document and disclose to the public the 

“best available science”, methodology and data upon which it relies in presenting the technical 

conclusions in the DEIS. See, 40 CFR 1502.24; Idaho Sporting Congress v. Thomas, 137 F.3d 1146, 

1150 (9th Cir. 1998). 

Response: Any methodology or science used will be adequately cited in the FEIS, and can be found in 

each section as well as the bibliography.

28. Comment: (#41) The DEIS does not include specific information about the assumptions made 

or the data used in this analysis. 

Response: Any methodology or science used will be adequately cited in the FEIS, and can be found in 

each section as well as the bibliography.

29. Comment: (#41) The DEIS does not attempt to represent the public benefit by attempting to 

quantify the externalities caused by powerboat use in the form of diminished recreational 

experience for non-motorized users and in harm to fisheries (as the preferred alternative is Likely 

to Adversely Impact the threatened coho salmon, as well as may impact other species). 

Response: The effect to fisheries has been analyzed in the FEIS. 

30. Comment: (#41) The Siskiyou National Forest has failed to analyze the possible impacts of 

releasing, not only gravels, but also sediments, into the rivers. Particularly with regards to the 

fisheries, Management Indicator Species (MIS), and wildlife impacts in Chapter 4 of the DEIS, the 

Siskiyou National Forest has failed to present site-level information that describes the actions to be 

taken, and the anticipated impacts of these actions. Without knowing where or how intensely the 

dredging will occur, the public can’t verify the assertion the “essential fish habitat will not be 

affected by minor modifications from dredging” (DEIS p. 121). 

Response: There will be a more in-depth analysis in the FEIS.
RESPONSE TO DEIS COMMENTS Page D-9 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

31. Comment: (#41) The cumulative effects analysis presented in the DEIS is cursory, particularly 

regarding fisheries effects. 

Response: There will be a more in-depth analysis in the FEIS. 

32. Comment: (#87) The contention (DEIS) that essential fish habitat is unaffected by in-stream 

dredging is not supported by any documentation or analysis. 

Response: There will be a more in-depth analysis in the FEIS. 

33. Comment: (#87) Impacts to the Outstandingly Remarkable Values (ORVs) of fisheries is 

downplayed or ignored by the DEIS, while impacts to all other forms of recreation other than 

motorized boating are discounted by the agency. 

Response: ORVs to fisheries is addressed in the FEIS. 

34. Comment: (#87) The contention on page 131 of the DEIS that prop wash and excavator has no 

effect on essential fish habitat is not supported by any analysis or documentation. In-stream 

dredging can cause direct and indirect mortality of salmon, steelhead, native trout and other 

aquatic species. 

Response: There will be a more in-depth analysis in the FEIS.

35. Comment: (#89) The DEIS fails to address or disclose effects on fish runs which may be 

covered by the Magnuson-Stevens Act. 

Response: There will be a more in-depth analysis in the FEIS.

36. Comment: (#92) The DEIS (p. 118 & 121) falsely asserts that because dredging does not occur 

during spawning season, no habitat impact will occur. 

Response: There will be a more in-depth analysis in the FEIS.

37. Comment: (#92) The cumulative effects analysis is inadequate (DEIS, p. 119). Although DEIS 

decisions are not covering private recreational motor boat or float use (DEIS, p. 17), cumulative 

impact analysis must consider all boat use (private and permitted). For example, the DEIS fails to 

discuss the impacts of jet skis. The DEIS fails to address cumulative impacts to invertebrate 

production due to disturbance from dredging and jet boat turbulence. 

Response: There will be a more in-depth analysis in the FEIS.

38. Comment: (#92) The DEIS admits that boats increase stream temperatures in thermal refugia 

but provide no mitigating measures (DEIS, p. 120). A possible mitigation would be to curtail late 

afternoon trips when the river temperatures are peaking during July (DEIS, p. 46). 

Response: The increase in water temperature in thermal refugia is insignificant on its effect on fish; 

therefore no mitigation measures are needed. This will be clarified in the FEIS. 
RESPONSE TO DEIS COMMENTS Page D-10 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

Wildlife 

WESTERN POND TURTLES 

39. Comment: (#33) The report says that wakes “could negatively affect microhabitat for 

hatchling and juvenile” western pond turtles (p 163). But then the issue is not addressed; further, it 

is implied that there is no “affect”. The implication here seems to be that microhabitat is too small 

to matter, but biologists know that “microhabitat “can make all the difference. In fact, most 

species entire existence depends on small and specialized areas of habitat. 

Response: The direct, indirect and cumulative effects are addressed on DEIS pgs. 128-130 and 

concluded that the effects is May Impact Individuals and/or Habitat but not likely to cause a trend toward 

federal listing or a loss of viability (MIIH).

40. Comment: (#86) Alternative 4 fails to identify or analyze the impacts to western pond turtles as 

a consequence of not allowing a dock at Clay Hill Lodge. The DEIS acknowledges that western 

pond turtles are present in the water and on the beach near Clay Hill Lodge (DEIS, p. 66, 67). 

However, it contains absolutely no discussion of the impacts to western pond turtle under 

Alternative 4, and its conclusion that Alternative 4 will have fewer impacts to fish and wildlife than 

Alternative 2 is arbitrary and capricious to the extent that it has failed to consider these impacts. 

Response: The effects of docks to wildlife will be discussed in the FEIS.

41. Comment: (#87) The western pond turtle analysis in the DEIS appears to be skewed so as to 

continue current human use patterns regardless of the impact to western pond turtles. Perhaps one 

reason for the lack of juvenile western pond turtles is that “Wakes resulting from motorized boat 

traffic could negatively affect microhabitat for hatchling and juvenile western pond turtles 

(Holland 2003, DEIS p. 129). 

Response: The effects of all alternatives on the western pond turtle are included in the DEIS including 

the potential effects of wakes. 

SPOTTED OWLS/BALD EAGLES 

42. Comment: (#41) The effects on bald eagles and northern spotted owls may be more serious 

than suggested by the DEIS. We would look for more population-level data to corroborate the 

assertion that boat activity does not affect some of these and other sensitive vertebrates. 

Response: Past monitoring within the project area determined that they are habituated to the noise. 

43. Comment: (#87) Impacts to bald eagles and northern spotted owls are consistently downplayed 

or ignored in the DEIS. The Forest Service relies on the contention that some bald eagles may get 

desensitized to motor use (DEIS, p. 56) in concluding that there is a “low likelihood of actual 

disturbance or measurable effect on reproduction.” Yet later in the DEIS (p. 124) it is disclosed 

that up to 30% of the time a perched eagle leaves as the boats approach and/or pass. Furthermore, 

as stated in the DEIS (p.123) “motorized boats are likely to take extra measures to look at an eagle 

closer and for a longer period of time.” Yet the disproportionate likelihood of motorized users 

causing displacement is not fully disclosed or analyzed in the DEIS. 

Response: The potential discrepancies identified by this comment will be clarified in the FEIS (Bald 

Eagles – Chapters 3 & 4). 
RESPONSE TO DEIS COMMENTS Page D-11 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

44. Comment: (#87) Please disclose and discuss if the project is within USFW designated critical 

habitat for either the bald eagle or the northern spotted owl. 

Response: Bald Eagle – The USFW has not designated critical habitat for bald eagles. Critical habitat 

for northern spotted owl is discussed at DEIS p. 126. This will be clarified in the FEIS.

OTHER 

45. Comment: The Endangered Species Act was not given enough weight in the DEIS. 

Response: Analysis in the DEIS is consistent with the endangered species act (DEIS p. 8 Preferred 

Alternative, p.35 Comparison of Alternatives, Chapter 3. Affected Environment, Wildlife pgs. 54-58, 

Chapter 4, Environmental Consequences, Effects to Wildlife, pgs.122-131.) The Responsible Official 

will consider the importance of ESA listed species in the Record of Decision. 

46. Comment: Language needs to be clear on the difference between immeasurable effects and no 

effects. 

Response: This will be clarified in the FEIS. A person would not be able meaningfully measure, detect 

or evaluate insignificant effects. 

47. Comment: (#5) Environmental Impacts: The lower Rogue has undergone a reduction in 

wildlife numbers, particularly birds, in recent years. When I first started out in paddle craft, over 

20 years ago, both the lower Rogue and the Klamath River had wildlife in similar numbers. Now 

the Rogue is wanting when it comes to wildlife, while the lower Klamath seems to have all the 

wildlife that it ever had. I believe this can be directly attributed to multiple jet boat trips every day. 

The Forest Service should compare the Wildlife diversity and numbers of the Klamath River to the 

lower Rogue. 

Response: This comparison is beyond the scope of the project and outside of project area and watershed. 

The data for the lower Rogue does not show a decline in populations. 

48. Comment: (#41) The analysis is extremely cursory and does not offer a scientific rationale that 

links specific actions to specific impacts, or lack of impacts. For instance, the DEIS states on p. 131 

that Management Indicator Species and the western pond turtle may face “temporary 

displacement” from channel maintenance activities. Without a detailed description of these 

activities and how they affect specific MIS it is impossible for the public to judge the veracity of this 

statement. Without more detailed information regarding channel maintenance and its impacts, the 

DEIS is inadequate in giving direction to the Regional Forester for a Section 7 determination. 

Response: A more detailed description of the proposed activities and how they affect wildlife will be 

included in the wildlife section of the FEIS. The analysis under the EIS is intended to give direction to 

the Regional Forester for a Section 7 determination as required by the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.

49. Comment: (#41) The Siskiyou National Forest inadequately enumerates impact to 

management indicator species. No population-level data is offered to help the public verify the 

environmental impacts of the proposed action. The Siskiyou National Forest is required to provide 

quantitative population data to corroborate their claims about effects to sensitive species. The 

Forest is required to present the public with population data for management indicator species in a 

given project area. There is no suitable habitat proxy offered in the DEIS to replace this specific 

type of data. 
RESPONSE TO DEIS COMMENTS Page D-12 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

Response: Existing population data will be disclosed in the FEIS. The effects to habitat will be 

expanded in the FEIS. With little or no impact to habitat, there would be no loss of viability expected 

within the river corridor for wildlife.

50. Comment: (#65) In a document that should be based on sound science, it is simply 

unacceptable to use “immeasurable” or “not measurable” to characterize effects. Such descriptions 

cannot be assessed objectively. These descriptions could mean, for example, that the Forest Service 

lacks the knowledge required to measure the effects. 

Response: A person would not be able meaningfully measure, detect or evaluate insignificant effects. 

More definitive language for effects determination will be explained in the FEIS.

51. Comment: (#65) It is inappropriate to conclude that current use levels are having negligible 

effects because measures of those effects are stable under current use levels. Stable effects may 

reflect stable, adverse effects from use. Proper science requires an appropriate baseline to 

determine effects. For example, one approach could be to compare measures on the Rogue River to 

a comparable river with not jet boat use. 

Response: The Forest Service is required to analyze the effects of all alternatives (including no action) to 

specific Forest Service wildlife goals. The effects of the no action alternative serve as a baseline for 

comparing action alternatives. 

52. Comment: (#65) There is no suitable scientific justification for the use of river miles of intact 

riparian vegetation as a key indicator for impact on an extensive range of aspects of both the 

physical and biological environment. Furthermore, there are no criteria stated by which the 

intactness of riparian vegetation could be objectively evaluated. 

Response: Key indicator(s) for potential effects from all alternatives to both the physical and biological 

environment will be revised in the FEIS and include measures for objective evaluation. 

53. Comment: (#65) To permit meaningful evaluation of some of the information that is provide in 

the DEIS, may impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute towards a trend of 

federal listing or, cause of loss of viability to the population or species (MIIH) classification requires 

clarification. For example, can a local population of a species that is otherwise abundant become 

federally listed? 

Response: The MIIH classification will be clarified in the FEIS. Local populations are not generally 

federally listed by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

54. Comment: (#87) Potential impacts to king snakes and foothill yellow frogs are not fully 

disclosed and analyzed. Population trends and potential impacts to these species are not adequately 

addressed by the DEIS. 

Response: Potential impacts to king snakes and foothill yellow frogs will be expanded in the FEIS. 

55. Comment: (#87) The DEIS fails to disclose or assess population data or trends for management 

indicator species pileated woodpecker and pine marten. 

Response: Existing population data will be disclosed in the FEIS. 
RESPONSE TO DEIS COMMENTS Page D-13 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

Botany

56. Comment: (#65) It is unclear how actions could impact botanical resources habitat but not 

impact individuals. 

Response: There can be habitat that is suitable for plant species that is not occupied by that plant species. 

57. Comment: (#65) It is unclear how a survey of unspecified areas in only three months in only 

one year could afford meaningful conclusions regarding botanical resources. 

Response: There are two sensitive plants whose habitat has the potential to be impacted by jet boat wake. 

They are Wolffia columbiana and Wolffia borealis. W. borealis is known from fresh water at elevations 

below 3,000 feet. W. columbiana is known from quiet fresh water. It is unlikely these tiny water plants 

would be impacted more by jet boat wake than they would be by seasonal variations in water levels on the 

Rogue River. Neither Wolffia has been found on the Rogue River, or on the Siskiyou National Forest. 

Other TES species that are known from the Rogue River corridor exist above the wake zone. Plants that 

live in the flood zone (which includes the wake zone) have to be able to withstand frequent disturbance 

due to seasonal fluctuations in the water level (see pages 73-74). The wake of jet boats is of shorter 

duration and does not extend into the riparian zone as far or with as much force as seasonal fluctuations in 

water levels. Seasonal water fluctuations have a much greater impact on vegetation along the Rogue 

River than does the wake from jet boats. 

Port-Orford-Cedar

58. Comment: (#87) The DEIS (p. 78) acknowledges that “Ingress and egress of the Rogue and 

Illinois Rivers by fishing guides using Lobster Creek, Quosatana Creek, Foster Bar, Cougar Lane, 

and Oak Flat boat ramps could affect the spread of Port-Orford-cedar root disease, Phytopthera 

lateralis.” Yet the DEIS (p. 135) concludes that “ there will not be much infested soil or organic 

matter attached to the boats, trailer, or vehicles if there is some kind of surfacing at the boat 

ramps.” That conclusion lacks analysis or documentation. 

Response: The discussion in the DEIS summarizes the analysis and risk assessment that was completed 

for this project and is part of the project records (sometimes called the analysis file). Pertinent excerpts 

from that report leading to the stated conclusion include: 

• Activities include ingress and egress of the Rogue River by fishing guides using Lobster Creek, 

Quosatana Creek, Foster Bar, Cougar Lane and Oak Flat boat ramps. 

• Most of the project encompasses boats in the rivers with a minor part of the project being vehicles 

with boat trailers moving boats in and out of the rivers. 

• For the purposes of this project these vehicles would not operate where soil or mud would adhere 

to tires. 

• The boat ramps that may be used are constructed of concrete with access routes of asphalt 

surfaced, rock surfaced, or natural gravel bars. 

This will be clarified in the FEIS.

59. Comment: (#87) Will the proposed project introduce appreciable additional risk of infection to 

these uninfected POC? 
RESPONSE TO DEIS COMMENTS Page D-14 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

Response: Since the focus of the concern is moving infested soil or organic matter, there isn’t going to 

be a much attached to the boats or trailers or vehicles, if there is some kind of surfacing at the boat 

landing. Appreciable additional risk does not mean “any risk.” It means that a reasonable person would 

recognize risk, additional to existing uncontrollable risk, to believe mitigation is warranted and would 

make a cost-effective or important difference (see Risk Key Definitions and Examples for further 

discussion – Record of Decision and Resource Management Plan Amendment for Management of PortOrford-Cedar in Southwest Oregon, Coos Bay, Medford, and Roseburg Districts, May 2004, pg 34-35).

It is believed both rivers already contain PL but are so diluted with the volume of water, that the 

possibility of disease spread is not measurable. The transport of soil would be the main cause for adverse 

effects but the probability of this is extremely low given the surfacing in and around the boat ramps and 

even if spores were to be transported in water or soil, they have to find a POC to infect which is also a 

low probability since there are no POC near the boat ramps. The risk of additional infection from this 

project is very low and not anticipated to add to the existing infection. Commercial boats having any 

effect to POC or for causing the disease to spread is not measurable. It is not likely vehicles or boat 

trailers would pick up soil or mud from the rivers, from areas near boat ramps, or from access roads. 

Therefore the transport PL to uninfected POC is not likely. There are no POC management practices 

required and there are no anticipated direct, indirect and cumulative effects from any alternative with this 

project on the spread of PL. 

60. Comment: (#92) There is an omission in the cumulative effects section. The DEIS does not 

disclose that approximately 90 percent of the proposed 360 mmbf volume from the Biscuit Fire 

Project timber sales will be logged from the watershed of the 50 mile long stretch of the Illinois 

River just before it enters the Rogue River. 

Response: The omission in the cumulative effects section will be corrected. The mitigations measures 

designed for the Biscuit Fire Recovery Project insure all standards and guidelines of the Siskiyou 

National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan as amended by the Northwest Forest Plan will be 

met, specifically along the stretch of the Illinois River.

Effects to Fire and Fuels

61. Comment: (65) The DEIS makes a strong point that the availability of jet boats could assist in 

fighting fire, but it is unclear that this is a necessary consequence of allowing jet boats on the Rogue 

River. Does the Forest Service have a formal agreement with the tour companies, or can the tour 

companies be compelled by law to make their boats available for assisting with firefighting needs? 

Response: There are no agreements or laws currently in place; however it would be in their best interest 

to provide the needed services, for a fee at the prevailing rate. Should the river be shut down (or partially 

shut down) to commercial tour boat traffic due to a wildfire situation or other emergencies, the boats 

would be available for hire to move firefighters and supplies, just as would school buses and large trucks 

typically used to shuttle firefighters and equipment in most large wildfire situations. 

Effects to Air Quality 

62. Comment: (#65) There is no meaningful information on the effects of any alternative on air 

quality. Stating that jet boats do not generate the pollution of an outboard motor boat begs the 

questions of how much pollution is actually produce by the jet boats. 

Response: The current permitted use of jet boats allows up to 6 commercial passenger boats (tour boats) 

per day and up to 2 trips per day of lodge service (Paradise Lodge). The actual use of jet boats (for the 

above) during the 2004 season averaged 1.95 trips per day for the tour boats, and .37 trips per day for the 

service to Paradise Lodge. There are no usage figures available documenting the use of jet boats that 

travel to and from the other lodges and the private cabins in the wild section of the river. 
RESPONSE TO DEIS COMMENTS Page D-15 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

The commercial tour boat industry on the Rogue River (those which operate in the Wild Section) utilize 

engines of the most modern manufacture, and meet the most stringent of applicable air quality standards. 

The engines currently in use meet the California Air Resources Board (C.A.R.B.) rating of “3 Star- Ultra 

Low Emission”. This information ahs been added to the FEIS Air Quality section of Chapter 4 and an 

Air Quality appendix has been created. 

Cultural 

63. Comment: (#65) The potential effects on cultural resources can’t be evaluated when those 

resources are not specifically identified. The Forest Service has potentially overlooked some critical 

cultural resources. 

Response: The disclosure of Heritage Resource sites are not specifically identified and are not included 

in the EIS because this would violate the various laws, acts and executive orders which direct the 

protection of cultural resources. A number of Heritage Resource surveys and site evaluations have been 

performed within the Rogue River corridor and all have met concurrence with the State Historic 

Preservation Office. The Heritage Resource assessment for the Rogue River DEIS is predominantly an 

internal document used to evaluate the eligibility of areas for inclusion in the National Register of 

Historic Places under the National Historic Preservation Act. 

The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 declares national policy of historic preservation: the 

protection, rehabilitation, restoration and reconstruction of districts, sites, buildings, structures, and 

objects significant in American history, architecture, archeology or culture. An amendment authorizes the 

Secretary to withhold from public disclosure locational information on National Register listings if such 

disclosure would create a risk of damage or destruction to such sites or objects. 

In addition, the Forest Service Policy for Cultural Resources, FSM 2361.03, states that a major goal of 

cultural resource management is to, “Ensure cultural properties and their records are protected from 

unauthorized uses.” 

The release of specific details regarding sites within the Rogue River corridor would reveal the past 

culture, religious customs and traditions of Native Americans which are protected by the American Indian 

Religious Freedom Act. The act requires the Federal agencies to respect the ceremonies, customs and 

traditions of Native American religions and enables the agencies to accommodate Native American 

religious needs through administrative procedures. In addition to violating the act, release of site specific 

information would impair the agency’s ability to obtain information and collaboration from the 

Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians. Violation of the trust would impair the agency’s relationship with 

the confederation. 

The 36 CFR 800 of the Code of Federal Regulations, the Protection of Historic and Cultural Properties, 

provides implementing regulations for Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and 

Executive Order 11593 (Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment). It delineates Federal 

agency and State Historic Preservation Office responsibilities in locating, inventorying and evaluating 

cultural properties on Federal land. All known sites within the river corridor have been assessed to meet 

these standards and direction and comply with Section 106. 

Identification and evaluation of heritage sites within the Rogue River corridor is an on going process. 

Survey and reconnaissance will continue along the river and it is inevitable that new sites will be 

discovered over time. When new sites are discovered, they will be evaluated to meet the same strict 

standards to comply with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation procedures as described in 36 

CFR 800. 

Site specific information is available to the Responsible Official for analysis of effects on the 

environment.
RESPONSE TO DEIS COMMENTS Page D-16 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

Recreation

RANGE OF ALTERNATIVES/ADDITIONAL ALTERNATIVES 

64. Comment: There needs to be an alternative that would reduce the number of existing 

motorized trips in the Wild Section of the Rogue River or at least an alternative that caps use at the 

existing level. 

Comment: There needs to be an alternative that limits motorized use to the current level. 

Comment: The range of alternatives is inadequate. The DEIS does not have any alternatives to 

address a reduction in actual commercial use. 

Response: Two Alternatives have been added in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). One 

would cap commercial use at a level that averages the 2 highest use years of use from 1999 to 2004. The 

other alternative would reduce commercial use to a level that is the average of the two lowest years of use 

from 1999-2004. This EIS process will not make any decisions about private boat use or other activities. 

65. Comment: The No Action Alternative should be the status quo. That is, many permits have 

been issued many times over the years and No Action should be to continue these permits. 

Response: The Purpose and Need for this project is to respond to a request and need to issue special use 

permits. The No Action alternative, as described in the DEIS, would not issue permits. This allows for 

comparison of the effects of action alternatives with a baseline of no action. The status quo is addressed 

by Alternative 2- the proposed action. 

66. Comment: We would like to see an alternative developed that is based on user capacity instead 

of predicted business growth. 

Response: Determining use capacity would involve studying all of the uses within the Wild and Scenic 

River corridor. Revisions to the Rogue RMP and Illinois RMP would be the correct process to determine 

user capacities. Determining user capacities for all uses is beyond the scope of this EIS process. The 

DEIS (p. 17) describes actions outside of the scope of the EIS and states that general overall recreation 

use would not be addressed.

67. Comment: (#4) The range of alternatives in the DEIS appears inadequate. Basically, you have 

put forth a No Change alternative that lets all commercial Special Use Permits expire without 

reauthorization and three action alternatives that are very similar. The current alternatives don’t 

leave much choice except no authorizations at all and three similar alternatives that are close to the 

current situation. A statement was made by a Forest Service representative at a DEIS meeting that 

the court decision leading to this EIS effort somehow approved the range of alternatives in the 

DEIS. I didn’t see that rationale or its basis expressed in the DEIS. 

Response: In response to public comments, two Alternatives have been added in the FEIS. One would 

cap commercial use at a level that averages the 2 highest use years of use from 1999 to 2004. The other 

alternative would reduce commercial use to a level that is the average of the two lowest years of use from 

1999-2004. The Forest Service representative was speaking about alternatives that were considered but 

eliminated, specifically about the re-establishment of 1968 use levels in the Wild Section. The 

explanation for this is on page 32 of the DEIS. 
RESPONSE TO DEIS COMMENTS Page D-17 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

68. Comment: (#5) Purpose and Intent of the DEIS: At the conclusion of the last courtroom 

session I attended, relevant to our lawsuit directed at the agency, a federal attorney brazenly 

announced that the agency was going to conduct an Environmental Impact Statement simply to 

declare all of the existing permits as legal. The clear message in this statement was that the Forest 

Service was going to begin an expensive, extensive planning process, but the end result was already 

a foregone conclusion. 

Response: The purpose and need of the project is stated on page 11 of the DEIS. The decisions to be 

made are described on page 14 of the DEIS and public involvement is described on page 26. Additional 

public involvement is described in the FEIS. Federal attorneys are not involved in decision making and 

this interpretation of the alleged statements may be incorrect or taken out of context. 

69. Comment: (#5) In order to protect all the river’s users, including those who use motors, I 

suggest that the Forest Service needs to look at a process, or at least other alternatives, which 

gradually reduce less appropriate uses of a Wild river. 

Response: The special uses to be addressed in the FEIS are appropriate and comply with the Rogue 

RMP and Illinois RMP. Other uses are outside of the scope of this EIS and would be considered when 

the Rogue RMP and Illinois RMP are revised. Page 17 of the DEIS describes actions outside of the scope 

of the FEIS. 

70. Comment: (#16) I take issue with any EIS that does not propose greater limits on the amount 

of motorboat use on the lower river from Blossom Bar downstream to at least Lobster Creek. 

Response: In response to public comments, two Alternatives have been added in the FEIS. One would 

cap commercial use at a level that averages the 2 highest use years of use from 1999 to 2004. The other 

alternative would reduce commercial use to a level that is the average of the two lowest years of use from 

1999-2004. 

71. Comment: (#22) I support development of an alternative that would increase the activity of 

motorized jet boats. Particularly in the Wild Section of the Rogue, I support renewing the permits. 

Response: Alternative 2 – the Proposed Action, Alternative 3- no Sunday/Monday Use, and Alternative 

4 – Modified Actual Use, would all allow varying levels of increased use over the current actual jet boat 

activity. 

72. Comment: (#23, #25, #27 and other form letters) I support the development of an alternative 

that would drastically reduce or eliminate entirely the activity of motorized jet boats on these 

magnificent Wild rivers. 

Response: In response to public comments, two Alternatives have been added in the FEIS. One would 

cap commercial use at a level that averages the 2 highest use years of use from 1999 to 2004. The other 

alternative would reduce commercial use to a level that is the average of the two lowest years of use from 

1999-2004. The No Action alternative would eliminate jet boats that operate under the special use 

permits as described in the purpose and need. Completely eliminating all motorized boats from these 

rivers is an issue with the revisions to the 1972 Rogue National Wild and Scenic River, Oregon: Notice of 

Revised Development and Management Plan (Rogue RMP) and Illinois Wild and Scenic River 

Management Plan (Illinois RMP) are beyond the scope of this EIS process. This EIS process will not 

make any decisions about private boat use or other activities. 
RESPONSE TO DEIS COMMENTS Page D-18 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

73. Comment: (#29) It is unclear from this DEIS why the Siskiyou National Forest chose not to 

develop an action alternative that would exclude jet boats from the Wild Rogue River which is the 

most controversial area where user conflicts are likely to occur. The Siskiyou National Forest 

should consider an alternative that limits jet boat use in those portions of each river where 

Congress intends to place more stringent environmental protections; namely, the Wild portions of 

the Rogue and Illinois Rivers. 

Response: In response to public comments. two Alternatives have been added in the FEIS. One would 

cap commercial use at a level that averages the 2 highest use years of use from 1999 to 2004. The other 

alternative would reduce commercial use to a level that is the average of the two lowest years of use from 

1999-2004. The Rogue RMP permits jet boats below Blossom Bar in the Wild Section. It would require 

a revision of the management plan to exclude jet boats from the Wild Section. The DEIS (Past 

Management Decisions on Motorized Boat Use, p.17) describes the history of motorized use management 

on the Rogue River. Motorized boats are prohibited on the Wild Section of the Illinois River. 

74. Comment: (#33) I think the level of use should be limited to what it now is (rather than what 

the permits now allow). With great foresight, non-motorized use has been limited for many years 

through the permit program. It is ironic however, that motorized use is allowed to increase on a 

“wild” river when non-motorized use is not. 

Response: In response to public comments, two Alternatives have been added in the FEIS. One would 

cap commercial use at a level that averages the 2 highest use years of use from 1999 to 2004. The other 

alternative would reduce commercial use to a level that is the average of the two lowest years of use from 

1999-2004. 

75. Comment: (#40) We ask the Forest Service to add an alternative to this FEIS that would 

require a phase-out or severe reduction in the use of jet boats on the Lower Rogue and Illinois. 

Response: Two Alternatives have been added in the FEIS. One would cap commercial use at a level that 

averages the 2 highest use years of use from 1999 to 2004. The other alternative would reduce 

commercial use to a level that is the average of the two lowest years of use from 1999-2004. This EIS 

process will not make any decisions about private boat use or other activities. Historical jet boat use to 

access private properties in the Wild Section is not part of this EIS. 

76. Comment: (#41) The DEIS does a severe disservice to the public by not only failing to consider 

a reduction in powerboat usage on the Wild section, but also by failing to consider an alternative 

that holds usage to its current actual level. 

Response: Two Alternatives have been added in the FEIS. One would cap commercial use at a level that 

averages the 2 highest use years of use from 1999 to 2004. The other alternative would reduce 

commercial use to a level that is the average of the two lowest years of use from 1999-2004. This EIS 

process will not make any decisions about private boat use or other activities. 

77. Comment: (#65) No alternative is afforded that specifically sets use levels at current levels, or 

even at the highest levels in recent years. 

Response: Two Alternatives have been added in the FEIS. One would cap commercial use at a level that 

averages the 2 highest use years of use from 1999 to 2004. The other alternative would reduce 

commercial use to a level that is the average of the two lowest years of use from 1999-2004. This EIS 

process will not make any decisions about private boat use or other activities. 

78. Comment: (#65) Apart from the No Action alternative, there is no alternative that presents a 

realistic reduction in use. 
RESPONSE TO DEIS COMMENTS Page D-19 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

Response: Two Alternatives have been added in the FEIS. One would cap commercial use at a level that 

averages the 2 highest use years of use from 1999 to 2004. The other alternative would reduce 

commercial use to a level that is the average of the two lowest years of use from 1999-2004. This EIS 

process will not make any decisions about private boat use or other activities. 

79. Comment: (#65) Because the Wild Section is very special, another meaningful reduction to 

consider would be cessation of jet boat tours (and perhaps private excursions, etc.) on the Wild 

Section only. 

Response: Two Alternatives have been added in the FEIS. One would cap commercial use at a level that 

averages the 2 highest use years of use from 1999 to 2004. The other alternative would reduce 

commercial use to a level that is the average of the two lowest years of use from 1999-2004. The FEIS 

analyzes a broad range of alternatives. The Responsible Official will consider the effects of each 

alternative and may combine different elements of the alternatives in the Record of Decision (ROD). 

Consideration will be given to the cessation of jet boat tours in the Wild Section in making that decision. 

The reasoning behind the final decision will be described in the ROD. 

80. Comment: (#65) The rationale for excluding easements from all alternatives is not suitable. In 

point of fact, the EIS is to cover special use permits for docks at lodges that are covered by 

easements. 

Response: Easements are outside the scope of this EIS process (DEIS, p.17). An alternative to analyze 

conservation easements was considered but eliminated from further study (DEIS, p. 33). The agency 

feels that the rationale given on page 33 is suitable and should be part of the revisions to the Rogue RMP 

and Illinois RMP. The proposed dock would be authorized by a special use permit and are for 

commercial purposes. This EIS is specific to commercial special use permits. The dock permits would 

be in compliance with the conservation easements at the described locations. 

81. Comment: (#88) Please amend the DEIS to include alternatives for phasing out jet boats from 

the Wild and Scenic Section. At the very minimum, there should be closures on the days that jet 

boats can run on the Rogue River, as has been implemented on the Deschutes River in Oregon. 

Response: The Rogue River Management plan permits jet boats below Blossom Bar in the Wild Section. 

Excluding jet boats from the Wild Section would require revisions to the Rogue RMP and Illinois RMP. 

Alternative 3 – No Sunday/Monday use, would exclude commercial motorized boats on Sundays and 

Mondays from the Wild section of the Rogue River. In response to public comments, two Alternatives 

have been added in the FEIS. One would cap commercial use at a level that averages the 2 highest use 

years of use from 1999 to 2004. The other alternative would reduce commercial use to a level that is the 

average of the two lowest years of use from 1999-2004. 

81. Comment: (#89) The DEIS contains a no-action alternative as required by law but all of the 

remaining three alternatives allow increases in actual jet boat use. In scoping comments, 

Riverhawks specifically requested that the DEIS include an alternative that limits powerboat use to 

historic levels. NEPA requires a reasonable range of legal alternatives in addition to the no-action 

alternative. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 are all very similar once we apply the assumption that the 

District Ranger would exercise the option to grant all the case-by-case exceptions allowed. 

Response: In response to public comments, two Alternatives have been added in the FEIS. One would 

cap commercial use at a level that averages the 2 highest use years of use from 1999 to 2004. The other 

alternative would reduce commercial use to a level that is the average of the two lowest years of use from 

1999-2004. 
RESPONSE TO DEIS COMMENTS Page D-20 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

83. Comment: (#89) Issues that were presented during scoping were dismissed with no analysis. 

Riverhawks specifically asked for an alternative that held tour boat use at historic levels as 

required by the River Management Plan and Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. The DEIS offered little 

explanation why these laws would not apply. 

Response: The DEIS explains why an alternative that would re-establish 1968 use levels in the Wild 

Section was considered but not analyzed (Alternatives Considered but Eliminated, p.32). In response to 

public comments, two Alternatives have been added in the FEIS. One would cap commercial use at a 

level that averages the 2 highest use years of use from 1999 to 2004. The other alternative would reduce 

commercial use to a level that is the average of the two lowest years of use from 1999-2004. 

DOCKS

84. Comment: (#4) The alternatives dealing with the authorization of docks in the Wild Section 

are stated as though the issue was mostly about safety. I think that it is also an issue of accessibility 

particularly for the elderly or disabled who can’t scramble around the rocks anymore. 

Response: Accessibility and safety are linked. Elderly or disabled people who have limited mobility 

may be more likely to fall and be injured. Wording has been added to the FEIS to address this point. 

85. Comment: (#6) It is our understanding that the property has been continuously serviced with a 

dock for about 30 years or more, although admittedly the dock is sometimes stored and not left in 

the river out of consideration for and to help preserve the wild and scenic state of the river. We are 

quite concerned to learn that the DEIS mentions that the Wild River Lodge had a dock for only a 

few years around 1976, and that none of the alternatives set forth in the DEIS recognizes or 

provides for the dock at Wild River Lodge. We request that Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 of the DEIS be 

amended to provide for the issuance of special use permits for the use of the existing dock at Wild 

Rivers Lodge in the manner that it has been used over the years. 

Response: The analysis within this EIS is for docks at commercial lodges open to the public and weather 

to permit them or not. Additional requests for private docks are not part of this analysis. Additional 

docks would be part of the revision to the Rogue RMP and Illinois RMP. 

86. Comment: (#34) There are other instances in the statement where issues fall outside the scope 

of the title for this DEIS such as the issue of docks. Several of us have had docks in the past; both 

in the Recreation Section and the Wild Section and one other in the Wild section has expressed an 

interest to replace one that did exist there beyond those listed. If docks are to be addressed then 

those with that interest should be invited to make comment. 

Response: This EIS is for docks at commercial lodges open to the public and weather to permit them or 

not. Additional requests for private docks will be part of the analysis within the revision to the Rogue 

RMP and Illinois RMP. 

87. Comment: (#35) The permits issued to dock users in the Wild Section, fails to take into 

consideration the environmental easements purchased by the USFS thirty five years ago. The 

easements would disallow any anchoring of docks to the banks of the river. At the expense of the 

environmental easements the USFS purchased in the past, ergo, the need for docks remains, in my 

opinion, in violation of the easements. 

Response: The docks that are being considered for permits would be in compliance with the 

conservation easements at each location. 
RESPONSE TO DEIS COMMENTS Page D-21 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

88. Comment: (#86) Denial of Clay Hill Lodge’s right to have a dock, as contemplated under 

Alternative 4, does not comply with federal law and violates the terms of the federal government’s 

easement agreement with Clay Hill Lodge. 

Response: Federal Law requires reasonable access to the property. The FEIS will provide the 

Responsible Official with information that is needed to determine what is required for reasonable access. 

Alternative 4 is not a decision but part of a range of alternatives to be considered that addresses and 

analyzes options for the Responsible Official to consider in a Record of Decision.

89. Comment: (#86) The discussion of Alternative 4 in the DEIS fails to analyze the safety, 

environmental, and economic impacts of not issuing a permit for a dock at Clay Hill Lodge. 

Response: These impacts were analyzed in Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences, of the DEIS 

(Water Quality, p. 117; Fisheries, p. 121; Botany, p.133; Recreation, p.147; Economics, p. 155). 

90. Comment: (#86) Given the identified benefits and complete absence of negative impacts 

associated with allowing a dock at Clay Hill lodge, it is not apparent why the Forest Service moved 

from it’s Proposal, which allowed a dock, to it’s Preferred Alternative, which does not allow a dock. 

The DEIS is silent on this issue, and the lack of explanation suggests that the Forest Service’s shift 

represents a compromise at the expense of Clay Hill Lodge rather than a substantive analysis of the 

benefits and (lack of) impacts associated with allowing a dock at Clay Hill Lodge. 

Response: These impacts were analyzed in Chapter 4 – Environmental Consequences, of the DEIS 

(Water Quality, p. 117; Fisheries, p. 121; Botany, p.133; Recreation, p.147; Economics, p. 155). 

Alternatives are considered that address and analyze options for the Responsible Official to consider in a 

Record of Decision. An EIS is not a decision document. It is an analysis of the consequences of a range 

of reasonable alternatives. 

91. Comment: (#86) The DEIS contains no analysis of the issue that issuance of dock permits at all 

commercial lodges would lead to more development in the Wild Section. 

Response: This has been corrected in the FEIS. Conservation easements set and define standards and 

guidelines for approved facilities and improvements on private property within the Wild and Scenic River 

corridors. The issues and management direction of additional docks are addressed in the Rogue RMP and 

are not part of the Proposed Action. 

92. Comment: (#86) The dock at Clay Hill Lodge was in existence at the time that the Rogue was 

deemed a Wild river and has been used at times during each of the past four decades (see DEIS, p. 

90) (discussing existence of a dock in the late 60’s, early70’s, and from 1973-78, 1985-91). The DEIS 

is incorrect when it states that “there would be an additional dock at Clay Hill Lodge which has not 

been there for approximately 20 years”. (DEIS, p. 145) 1991 is 13 years before the DEIS was 

drafted. 

Response: This has been corrected in the FEIS. 

93. Comment: (#86) The DEIS conclusion regarding Alternative 4 is incorrect and unsupported by 

and internally inconsistent with other statements in the DEIS. This conclusion states that: 

“Alternative 4 provides the best mix of economic benefits while minimizing effects to wildlife and 

fisheries, and further minimizes the potential effects of commercial boating within the Wild Section 

of the lower Rogue River with other river users” (DEIS, p.8). To the contrary, Alternative 4, to the 

extent that it does not allow issuance of a permit for a dock at Clay Hill Lodge, is inconsistent with 

federal laws, and holds the potential for greater negative effects on safety, wildlife, and economics 

than other alternatives. Furthermore, to the extent that the Forest Service has failed to take a hard 

look at these impacts, adoption of this alternative is inconsistent with NEPA.
RESPONSE TO DEIS COMMENTS Page D-22 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

Response: The Forest Service believes that Alternative 4 complies with all federal laws. Analysis of 

impacts, including safety, wildlife, and economics are described in Chapter 4. The safety analysis has 

been expanded in the FEIS. 

94. Comment: (#86) Alternative 4 does not comply with all federal laws. Any proposal that does 

not include issuance of a special use permit for a dock at Clay Hill Lodge does not comply with 

Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA). The DEIS itself does not indicate 

that Alternative 4 complies with all federal laws. The DEIS states that the Proposal (Alternative 2) 

is also in accordance with other required federal statutes but remains silent on whether the 

Preferred Alternative or any other alternative complies with federal law. 

Response: ANILCA requires that reasonable access be provided to private landowners. It doesn’t 

specify what form that access should take. One of the decisions to be made in this EIS process is whether 

or not to permit a dock at Clay Hill Lodge. Alternative 4 is part of a range of alternatives considered for 

the analysis of environmental impacts. The analysis will give the Responsible Official the information 

needed to make a decision on reasonable access to Clay Hill Lodge. The rationale for that decision will 

be contained in the Record of Decision. The FEIS states that all alternatives would comply with federal 

law. 

95. Comment: (#86) The DEIS understates the safety impacts of not allowing a dock at Clay Hill 

Lodge under Alternative 4. The DEIS in several instances emphasizes the important safety reasons 

for allowing replacement of the dock at Clay hill Lodge. In the discussion of alternative 4, however, 

these safety concerns are understated and minimized. The DEIS does acknowledge that Alternative 

4 doesn’t provide for safety of passengers, staff, and clients of Clay Hill Lodge but contains no 

analysis of this impact. This lack of analysis suggests that the Forest Service did not take a hard 

look at this issue. If the Forest Service did analyze this issue, the DEIS is insufficient because it fails 

to include any substantive discussion of safety impacts. 

Response: The safety analysis and discussion for docks has been expanded in the FEIS. 

96. Comment: (#86) As the DEIS states, with no dock, “the economic viability of the lodge 

businesses would be greatly impacted” (DEIS, p. 141). The DEIS thus acknowledges the impact to 

Clay Hill lodge of not having a dock. In its discussion of Alternative 4, however, the DEIS later 

attempts to minimize this impact by characterizing it as the absence of a benefit. (See DEIS, p. 148) 

(“This same benefit would not occur at Clay Hill Lodge although it is no different that the current 

condition”). Any discussion of Alternative 4 should characterize its economic impacts accurately 

and not sugar coat or gloss over them. 

Response: This discussion has been clarified and expanded in the FEIS. 

97. Comment: (#89) The Rogue RMP clearly states “New boat docks, moorings, or salmon boards 

will not be permitted.” The alternatives that allow new docks to be built are clearly in violation of 

the Rogue RMP and should be withdrawn. 

Response: The historical record shows that a dock at Clay Hill Lodge has been in place before the 

designation of the Rogue National Wild and Scenic River and subsequent river management plan (and is 

therefore not “new”. The Forest Service has approved a dock at Clay Hill Lodge in the past. 
RESPONSE TO DEIS COMMENTS Page D-23 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

DETERMINATION OF CARRYING CAPACITY 

98. Comment: (#41) The Siskiyou National Forest should note that there is legal precedent for the 

need to address the actual capacity of these rivers. Without analyzing the amount of impact caused 

by different types of users, including motorized tour boats, and without establishing what level of 

impact the system can withstand without diminishing ORVs, the Siskiyou national Forest is failing 

to uphold its NEPA obligation to fully analyze the environmental impacts of its action. 

Response: The purpose of this EIS is analyze whether or not to continue providing recreational activities 

on the lower Rogue and Illinois Rivers through existing outfitting and guiding opportunities. The need is 

to respond to existing outfitter and guide permit holders that want to continue their commercial 

operations. 

Determining carrying capacity would involve studying all of the recreational uses within the Wild and 

Scenic River corridor along with non-recreational activities such as conservation easements, power lines, 

etc. Revisions to the Rogue RMP and Illinois RMP would be the correct process to determine carrying 

capacities. Determining carrying capacities for all uses is beyond the scope of this EIS. The DEIS (p. 17) 

describes actions outside of the scope of the EIS and states that general overall recreation use, i.e. 

carrying capacity, would not be addressed. 

99. Comment: (#41) Without a determination of user capacity, it is difficult to judge in this DEIS 

alone whether jet boats, along with other uses, are negatively affecting the fisheries values of these 

rivers. Without analyzing effects in the light of a set user capacity or use level, the Siskiyou 

National Forest is failing to adequately describe the impacts its preferred alternative to fisheries 

resources. 

Response: Within the context of cumulative effects, other river use is evaluated for overall effects to 

fisheries. Revisions to the Rogue RMP and Illinois RMP would be the correct process to determine 

carrying capacities. Determining carrying capacities for all uses is beyond the scope of this EIS. The 

DEIS (p. 17) describes actions outside of the scope of the EIS and states that general overall recreation 

use, i.e. carrying capacity, would not be addressed. 

100. Comment: (#77) Why have there been no efforts to determine, based upon objective scientific 

studies, a realistic carrying capacity for motorboat use? 

Response: Revisions to the Rogue RMP and Illinois RMP would be the correct process to determine 

carrying capacities. Determining carrying capacities for all uses is beyond the scope of this EIS. The 

DEIS (p. 17) describes actions outside of the scope of the EIS and states that general overall recreation 

use, i.e. carrying capacity, would not be addressed. 

101. Comment: (#87) The Forest Service has not established a user capacity for the river so as to 

determine appropriate levels of commercial motorboat use as required by law (Please see Friends 

of Yosemite Valley v. Norton 348 F3d 789, 9th Cir. 2003). 

Response: Revisions to the Rogue RMP and Illinois RMP would be the correct process to determine 

carrying capacities. Determining carrying capacities for all uses is beyond the scope of this EIS. 

102. Comment: (#89) Before the Siskiyou National Forest can seriously propose raising motorboat 

use levels, it must determine what the carrying capacity of the Rogue River is for recreational use. 

Response: Determining carrying capacity would involve studying all of the uses within the Wild and 

Scenic River corridors. Revisions to the Rogue RMP and Illinois RMP would be the correct process to 

determine carrying capacities. Determining carrying capacities for all uses is beyond the scope of this 

EIS. The DEIS (p. 17) describes actions outside of the scope of the EIS and states that general overall 

recreation use, i.e. carrying capacity, would not be addressed. 
RESPONSE TO DEIS COMMENTS Page D-24 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

CONSISTENCY WITH RIVER MANAGEMENT PLAN/FOREST PLAN/WILD & SCENIC 

RIVERS ACT 

103. Comment: Why isn’t the Forest Service following the existing River Management Plan for the 

Rogue River and reducing use to 1968 levels? 

Response: Management decisions affecting the 1968 use levels are explained in Alternatives Considered 

but Eliminated (DEIS, p. 32). 

104. Comment: (#89) The River Management Plan states “In the Wild area, Boating regulations to 

achieve the Wild River objectives will be encouraged. The regulations should: (1) Favor nonmotorized use. Motorboat use from Watson Creek to Blossom Bar will be held to the use level 

consistent with that of 1968, the year of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.” It is clear that the DEIS 

does not favor non-motorized use, or does it hold use levels to that of 1968. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 

violate the River Management Plan and should be withdrawn. 

Response: Motorized use is prohibited on 22.6 miles of the Wild Section of the Rogue River. Limited 

motorized use is permitted on the lower 9.8 miles. Non-motorized users only encounter motorized use 

during the last day of what is normally a 3-day trip. Non-motorized use is favored in the Wild Section. 

The reasons that motorboat use is not held to 1968 levels are explained in Alternatives Considered but 

Eliminated (DEIS, p. 32). The Rogue RMP allows historical motorboat use to continue in the Wild 

Section below Blossom Bar Rapids. Past management decisions have reduced and limited motorboat use 

in the Wild Section. 

105. Comment: (#89) Forest-wide standards and guidelines state that “Commercial rafting and 

guide permits on the Illinois and Rogue Rivers shall be issued in accordance with requirements of 

the management plans of these rivers.” Since Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 of the DEIS are in violation of 

the River Management Plan. They also violate the Forest-wide standard and guideline. 

Response: These alternatives are in accordance with the Rogue RMP and Illinois RMP along with 

subsequent management decisions effecting use levels. 

106. Comment: (#92) The proposal does not comply with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and is 

not based on legal River Management Plans. 

Response: The proposal and its alternatives comply with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and are based 

on the Rogue RMP and Illinois RMP along with subsequent management decisions. 

107. Comment: (#92) The DEIS does not disclose that the Siskiyou National Forest Plan states that 

the Rogue RMP was scheduled for review and possible revision 15 years ago – an important fact 

because the 1986 amendment of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act requires agencies to review existing 

RMPs for conformity with the clarifications/requirements of the amended act. 

Response: This is an issue with the legal interpretation of the 1986 amendment and is beyond the scope 

of this EIS process. 

108. Comment: (#92) The purpose and need is flawed because the Forest Service has incorrectly 

assumed that motorized use generally and /or the level and type of motorized use currently 

occurring on the Wild & Scenic Rogue and Illinois Rivers is consistent with the Wild and Scenic 

Rivers Act or was grandfathered in by the Act or by the Endangered American Wilderness Act. 

Response: The purpose and need specifies the underlying purpose and need to which the agency is 

responding in proposing alternatives for action. The proposed action and its alternatives comply with the 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and the Endangered American Wilderness Act. Specifically, the Rogue RMP 

and Illinois RMP allow for motorized use in certain sections of the rivers.
RESPONSE TO DEIS COMMENTS Page D-25 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

USER CONFLICTS 

109. Comment: (#87) A study referenced in the DEIS (p. 92) indicates that a survey in 1974 

showed that 80% of downriver users opposed the use of motorboats on the Wild Rogue (Pfister and 

Frenkel, 1974). A 1992 study (DEIS, p. 93) confirmed that floaters and anglers continue to oppose 

jet boat use in the Wild section of the river. Yet the Forest Service inexplicably relies on the low 

number of complaints it receives to push its commercial jet boat agenda in the Wild river sections 

(DEIS, P. 94). 

Response: The discussion on page 94 of the DEIS simply describes the conflicts that arise between 

different types of users and the number of complaints that are received. The same study reflects a 

majority (99 percent) of respondents rated their river experience as “good, very good, or excellent.” 

110. Comment: (#89) The assumption that motorboat use does not deter non-motorized use is 

unfounded. The simple fact that the Forest has only surveyed non-motorized users who come to the 

Rogue River doesn’t mean that people don’t avoid the Rogue River because of the motorboat use. 

It just means that they don’t show up to be surveyed. 

Response: The user studies were specific to the Rogue and not rivers in general. The target questions 

where developed to address management issue, user expectations and experiences on the Rogue River. 

111. Comment: (#33) Regarding the Wild section of the Rogue, the report states that most 

respondents to surveys are pleased with their experience. But recognition should be made that 

people who are not pleased with this place quit coming here. In this well –understood phenomenon, 

the place attracts the people who enjoy being there. Therefore, boaters who strongly dislike 

motorized use simply don’t come to the Rogue anymore, so they are not there to fill out the surveys. 

This is especially true of the lower river. 

Response: The DEIS only describes attitudes of rafters on the Rogue River (DEIS, p. 93). It is well 

known that a rafting experience on the Rogue River may and probably will involve encounters with 

motorboats on the lower portion of the Wild Section. People who wish to completely avoid motorboats 

choose to raft other rivers. The DEIS states that “It is unlikely that many floaters would quit floating the 

Rogue River because of the motorboats being on the river. Some floaters, who have expressed their 

concerns and dislike for motorboats continue to float the river multiple times a year during all seasons.” 

(DEIS, p.143). 

112. Comment: (#89) The assertion that there are few complaints about conflict between 

motorized users is based upon the several erroneous assumptions. One assumption is that conflicts 

will be reported. Another assumption is that reported conflicts will be recorded. 

Response: A complaint, by definition, is expressed dissatisfaction. If conflicts are not reported or 

expressed then it is not a complaint. Reported complaints are recorded. 

113. Comment: (#89) There is no mitigation offered to mitigate the effects on the non-motorized 

user of the possible 193% increase in tour boat use above Watson Creek that would be allowed by 

alternatives 2 and 4. There is no mitigation offered for the possible 77% increase allowed by 

alternative 3. 

Response: Mitigations common to all action alternatives are described in Chapter 2 (DEIS, p. 37). The 

economic analysis finds that annually, a 5 percent increase of use could be expected over the next 5 year 

term of the permits, not 193% and 77% respectfully. 
RESPONSE TO DEIS COMMENTS Page D-26 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

114. Comment: (#89) The assertion that increased motorized use would not cause increased 

conflict between motorized and non-motorized users (DEIS, p. 142) is unfounded. 

Response: The analysis in the FEIS has been changed to reflect maximum permitted use instead of 

actual use to more accurately describe the impacts of Alternative 2 – the Proposed Action. In addition, in 

response to public comments, two alternatives have been added in the FEIS. One would cap commercial 

use at a level that averages the 2 highest use years of use from 1999 to 2004. The other alternative would 

reduce commercial use to a level that is the average of the 2 lowest years of use from 1999-2004. 

115. Comment: (#92) The key indicator for “user conflicts” also does not provide a way to 

determine if the quality of the public’s uses and enjoyment of a Wild, Scenic, or Recreation River 

Area will be protected and enhanced. 

Response: Two methods of monitoring user conflicts have been utilized. First, user conflicts have been 

determined by surveys which partly measure user satisfaction and experience, which many users (99%) 

rated their experience as “good, very good, or excellent.” Second, complaints have been minimal (0-4 

annually) about river related user conflicts. 

116. Comment: (#98) Safety is an important issue that has been grossly minimized in this DEIS. I 

have witnessed many near accidents over the years. 

Response: The safety analysis discussion has been expanded in the FEIS. No accidents between floaters 

and motorboats under special use permits have been reported for more than 30 years. 

OTHER 

117. Comment: Private floater use of the Rogue River has been limited so why not limit motorized 

use? 

Response: Special use permits control the amount of commercial motorized use by limiting the number 

of permits issued, by limiting the number of daily trips and by limiting some trips by the time of year. 

Private motor boat use is only limited in the Wild Section. Revisions to the Rogue RMP and Illinois 

RMP would be the correct process to determine appropriate levels of all other river related activities. 

118. Comment: Finding no effect is only meaningful as to what was measured. The DEIS reads 

more like an economics effects analysis than an environmental analysis. 

Response: The environmental analysis(consequences) is contained in Chapter 4 of the DEIS. The 

economic analysis is only a portion of the consequences on resources described in Chapter 4. The issues 

that drive the analysis were determined by public scoping and are described in the DEIS (DEIS, P. 26). 

No additional issues or comments on specific indicators of measure have been received during the 

comment period for the DEIS. 

119. Comment: I feel that the permittees overstate the amount of use of their permits. The DEIS 

is weak on monitoring and control of permitted use. 

Response: Control of permitted use is outlined within the operating plans for each permit holder. River 

monitoring by Forest Service personnel is the primary method to check permittees’ use levels. Use levels 

are summarized annually. The Forest Service has not observed any overstatements of use levels by 

permittees. 

120. Comment: It is a major flaw that private motorized use that isn’t required to have a special 

use permit is not evaluated in the DEIS. 
RESPONSE TO DEIS COMMENTS Page D-27 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

Response: Private motorized use by permit exists only in the Wild Section. This EIS only analyzes 

commercial special use permits. Revisions to the Rogue RMP and Illinois RMP would be the correct 

process to analyze all other river related activities. 

121. Comment: I feel that my property rights include a dock at Clay Hill Lodge and that a special 

use permit should not be required. 

Response: Under Forest Service policy, special use permits are required for docks or any other facility 

located on the Rogue or Illinois Rivers. 

122. Comment: There are too many jet boats in the Wild Section during the early fall fishing 

season (after September). Do not increase daily permitted use. 

Response: Daily use levels will be discussed as part of the Record of Decision. 

123. Comment: (#3) I would like to request the Forest Service to also incorporate the 2004 use 

levels in the average use if possible. 

Response: 2004 use levels are being incorporated in the average use. 

124. Comment: (#4) Nowhere in the DEIS do I see a clear statement of what will happen to 

existing outfitter-guide operations if their Special Use Permits expire before a decision can be made 

for authorization. I think that it is likely that appeals and subsequent litigation will stretch the time 

period until a decision can be implemented over many months or even years. 

Response: The No Action alternative analyzes the effects of not issuing permits to existing operations 

(DEIS, p. 152). The Forest Service recognized the need to issue permits during the interim of when the 

Record of Decision could be implemented. This was done with a new Categorical Exclusion that allows 

for issuance of expiring permits that need to be reauthorized when there are no changes in the terms and 

conditions of the permits. 

125. Comment: (#4) The DEIS makes a statement on page 94 that “there is no regulated float 

season on the Illinois river at this time”. Actually, Forest Service permits are required to float 

through the Wild section of the Illinois River during the spring float season. Outside of the spring 

season the Illinois is almost always too low to float. These permits are not currently limited in 

number but a permit is still required and a restriction on the number of float permits available 

could be applied at some later date if use exceeds specified limits. 

Response: This error will be corrected in the FEIS. 

126. Comment: (#5) Weak and ineffective monitoring: There is nothing in this DEIS that would 

indicate any presence whatsoever of an effective and comprehensive monitoring program being 

conducted by the Forest Service. The technique proposed in the DEIS (going almost unmentioned) 

is known as random sampling – a method known for being ineffective and prone to error. 

Response: Monitoring requirements have been expanded in the FEIS, and are included in Chapter 2. 

The Forest Service has increased river monitoring over the last three years utilizing payment made by the 

permittees through the Fee Demo authority. This has improved permittees compliance with the terms and 

conditions of their permitted activities. 

127. Comment: (#5) When do all of these expansions of use come to an end? Why are there no 

limits proposed? 
RESPONSE TO DEIS COMMENTS Page D-28 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

Response: In response to public comments, two alternatives have been added in the FEIS. One would 

cap commercial use at a level that averages the 2 highest use years of use from 1999 to 2004. The other 

alternative would reduce commercial use to a level that is the average of the 2 lowest years of use from 

1999-2004. 

128. Comment: (#5) Jet boat docks: One applicant for a new dock may have had a previous owner 

of the property take actions years ago so as to render the current application for a dock illegal. Yet 

the DEIS mentions that another special use permit for another dock may be issued by the Forest 

Service. This inequity is found in Alternative 2 and should be researched further. 

Response: The proposal to permit a dock at Clay Hill Lodge, as described in Alternative 2, would meet 

the requirements of the conservation easement at that location, and is legal. 

129. Comment: (#70) Jet boats are just too loud and, I believe, unnecessarily disturb wildlife along 

the lower Rogue and Illinois Rivers. Yet recreation is important too. It does draw tourists essential 

for local employment. Alternative motor crafts should be considered instead such as fan boats as 

seen in the Everglades. There is less aquatic disturbance and sonar disruption of fish, and there 

would be less intrusion on non-motorized craft. 

Response: Existing technology has yet to develop a boat that could travel to the same locations upriver 

and eliminate user conflicts. Fan boats are louder than the jet boats currently being used and would not be 

a feasible solution. Oregon Administrative Rules require engine noise levels to be less than 88 decibels. 

Tour boats that access the Wild Section have a noise level between 68.0 to 69.3 decibels. 

130. Comment: (#33) The lower Rogue, below Foster Bar, is one of the premier rivers in the West 

for an overnight river trip on an undeveloped and scenic river without heavy whitewater. On the 

West Coast, only a handful of other rivers offer the opportunities available here. Awareness of this 

appears to be completely absent in the report (DEIS). 

Response: A very high percentage of camping is by motorized boat use. Use is high on summer and fall 

weekends and holidays, sporadic through the rest of the year. Non-motorized boat use for camping is 

very low. This EIS only analyzes the commercial special use permits. Revisions to the Rogue RMP and 

Illinois RMP would be the correct process to analyze all other activities within the Rogue and Illinois 

Wild and Scenic Rivers. 

131. Comment: (#35) If permits are to be issued at all, they must be done with a condition that 

they will be revoked prior to the present five year USFS intended permit conditions, and reissued 

with major entry limitation changes, once the revised management plan takes effect. 

Response: Revisions to the Rogue RMP and Illinois RMP could affect the existing special use permits. 

Permits would be amended when decisions are made with a new river management plan to reflect any 

changes. 

132. Comment: (#41) The Siskiyou National Forest has failed to demonstrate how the current use 

is impacting the environment, particularly regarding fisheries and other established Outstandingly 

Remarkable Values (ORVs) of the Illinois and Rogue Rivers. 

Response: Effects of current use on the environment and ORVs were described in the analysis of 

Alternative 2- the Proposed Action, in Chapter 4 of the DEIS. The Outstandingly Remarkable Values for 

the Rogue, as identified by Congress (HR 1623 July 3, 1968 and HR 1917 September 24, 1968) and as 

described in the Rogue RMP (Federal Register Vol. 37, No 13, 13408-134116) include natural scenic, 

fisheries and recreation. Other river-related values that are important, but were not considered 

outstandingly remarkable at the time include wildlife and cultural resources. The ORVs for the Illinois 

River, as described in the Illinois RMP, are water quality, fisheries, scenery, botanical resources, and 

recreation (p. 2). This will be clarified in the FEIS.
RESPONSE TO DEIS COMMENTS Page D-29 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

133. Comment: (#41) The preferred alternative does not specifically address how proposed 

increases in actual use over the averages the past few years might increase the impact on the 

environment. 

Response: Chapter 4 of the FEIS will analyze the effects that each alternative has on the environment by 

specifically addressing known impacts within specific resource areas. 

134. Comment: (#41) The Siskiyou National Forest has failed to justify why a 25% increase over 

past actual use is necessary. The economic growth figure factor of 25% is unsupported in the 

DEIS. Why did the Siskiyou National Forest arrive at this particular figure? It seems extremely 

arbitrary, particularly considering the Siskiyou National Forest has failed to establish what level of 

commercial powerboat use the river can handle without degrading the ORVs of the river. The 

Siskiyou National Forest fails to adequately analyze how or if this increase may diminish natural 

and scenic values, fisheries health, and how it may exacerbate existing user conflicts by increasing 

actual jet boat usage on the Rogue and Illinois rivers, particularly in the Wild Section of the Rogue. 

Response: Alternative 4 was developed as an alternative to reduce the level of permitted trips from the 

level in Alternative 2 - the Proposed Action. The 25% increase over actual use was used to help display 

the differences in impacts between Alternative 2 - the Proposed Action and an alternative with reduced 

permitted trips. The FEIS will provide the deciding officer with information to determine how best to 

permit commercial use while protecting or enhancing the ORVs. 

In response to public comments, two Alternatives have been added in the FEIS. One would cap 

commercial use at a level that averages the 2 highest use years of use from 1999 to 2004. The other 

alternative would reduce commercial use to a level that is the average of the two lowest years of use from 

1999-2004. The analysis of impacts of these new alternatives will help contrast the impacts between 

actual use, reduced use, and the possibility of increases to maximum permitted use in the other 

alternatives. 

There is a difference between actual use and permitted or authorized use. Actual use is projected to grow 

2 to 3% a year over the next five year term of the permits for a term growth of 10 to 15%. Use numbers 

in Alternative 4 utilized and account for this projected increase. There is no indication in the economic 

and use analysis that shows growth rates to be greater than 10 to 15% over the five year term of the 

permits. 

135. Comment: (#41) The DEIS does not attempt to represent the public benefit by attempting to 

quantify the externalities caused by powerboat use in the form of diminished recreational 

experience for non-motorized users and in harm to fisheries (as the preferred alternative is Likely 

to Adversely Impact the threatened coho salmon, as well as may impact other species). 

Response: The Rogue RMP and Illinois RMP allow for appropriate levels of motorized boating. The 

purpose of this EIS is to determine the appropriate level of commercial boating through the analysis of a 

range of alternatives. The effects of diminished recreational experience to non-motorized users are 

analyzed. 

136. Comment: (#41) The Siskiyou National Forest has failed to provide a credible plan by which 

use will be monitored and controlled in the future. The “honors system “ may be suitable, but the 

Siskiyou National Forest has not demonstrated how it will reinforce this system with monitoring 

and what recourse is available to the public in the event that a permit holder does not abide by the 

terms of its agreement. 

Response: Monitoring requirements have been expanded in the FEIS, and are included in Chapter 2. 

The Forest Service has increased river monitoring over the last three years utilizing payment made by the 

permittees through the Fee Demo authority. This has improved permittees compliance with the terms and 

conditions of their permitted activities.
RESPONSE TO DEIS COMMENTS Page D-30 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

137. Comment: (#41) The DEIS does not present the public with a thorough, well-reasoned 

analysis of channel maintenance activities and its possible impacts to the environment. The current 

DEIS is deeply inadequate for the purpose of developing a Section 7 determination on whether the 

current use will negatively impact the ORVs of the Rogue and Illinois Wild and Scenic Rivers. For 

instance, it has failed to analyze the visual impact caused by dredging and the resultant release of 

stream bottom sediment into the Rogue and Illinois rivers. The effects to the natural scenic ORV, 

as well as other ORVs of the Rogue and Illinois Rivers, are difficult to ascertain from this DEIS, 

which lacks site-specific information about how dredging has occurred, how it might occur in the 

future, and what the specific effects might be. 

Response: The analysis of channel maintenance and it possible impacts to the environment are found in 

Chapter 4 of the DEIS (Effects on Water Resources, p.117; Effects to Fisheries, p. 121; Effects to 

Wildlife, p. 131; Effects to Botanical Resources, p. 133; Effects to Air Quality, p.138; Effects to Cultural 

Resources; p. 139; Effects to Recreation, p. 148; Effects to Wilderness, p. 151; Effects to Economics, p. 

155). 

Additional information on the intensity and context of channel maintenance is added in the FEIS to the 

Effects of Water Resources Section. The description of effects to Outstandingly Remarkable Values 

(ORV) has been expanded in the FEIS. The ORV of recreation is maintained and enhance by periodic 

channel maintenance. 

138. Comment: (#41) Because the DEIS lacks detailed, reliable information regarding the impacts 

to other ORVs, this analysis is inadequate for developing a Section 7 determination. Dredging may 

have many other impacts rather than alleviating possible barriers to a subset of recreational users 

on the Rogue and Illinois Rivers, and this DEIS gives no detailed analysis of these possible effects. 

Response: Environmental impacts are described in detail in Chapter 4 of the DEIS. The ORV’s and the 

Section 7(a) Determination will be addressed in more detail in the FEIS. 

139. Comment: (#41) The Siskiyou National Forest failed to analyze the cumulative impacts of all 

recreational and management activities in the DEIS. It is not adequate to simply list other activities 

without presenting a thorough rationale for how specific impacts may or may not occur. 

Response: The Summary of Cumulative Effects (DEIS, pages 156 through 165) contains a thorough 

discussion of cumulative effects and the impacts upon specific resources. 

140. Comment: (#55) The DEIS appears to give a preference to commercial interests and doesn’t 

consider an option of preserving the natural habitat. 

Response: The purpose of the proposal in the EIS is to continue providing recreational opportunities on 

the lower Rogue and Illinois Rivers through existing outfitting and guiding opportunities as outlined by 

Forest Service Policy. The proposed action and all alternatives are designed to meet Forest Plan 

standards and guidelines and protect or enhance ORVs. The option of preserving habitat is a land 

allocation decision made in the Forest Plan or revisions to the Rogue RMP and Illinois RMP and is 

outside of the scope of the FEIS. 

141. Comment: (#65) The potential impact of some alternatives can’t be evaluated because the 

level of use that could potentially result depends on the personality, motivation, etc., of an 

individual. These do not constitute objective policies; they are subjective policies that preclude 

appropriate assessment. 

Response: Use levels, types of users and user trends have been stable over the last ten years. This 

information was utilized in the analysis of the alternatives.
RESPONSE TO DEIS COMMENTS Page D-31 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

142. Comment: (#65, #89) Some alternatives afford the potential for use to triple or otherwise 

increase over recent levels. There is no meaningful assessment of the effects of increased use. 

Response: Increased use within some of the alternatives has been corrected and re-analyzed in the FEIS. 

There is a difference between actual use and permitted or authorized use. Actual use is projected to grow 

2 to 3% a year over the next five year term of the permits for a term growth of 10 to 15%. Use numbers 

in Alternative 4 utilized and account for this projected increase. There is no indication in the economic 

and use analysis that shows growth rates to be greater than 10 to 15% over the five year term of the 

permits. 

143. Comment: (#65) When there are many political and economic motivations to issue the special 

use permits, it is not acceptable that the document is full of assertions that are informed to an 

unknown extent by data. Phrases such as “it is unlikely”, “may possibly” or “should not have” are 

abundant. For example, on page 133 the document simply asserts: “It is unlikely that jet boats 

cause wake with the power sufficient to dislodge or break purple loose strife stems or roots.” 

Response: Corrections have been made in the FEIS to clarify impacts where this phrasing occurred in 

the DEIS. 

144. Comment: (#65) It is quite inappropriate to dismiss jet boat effects on Wilderness and other 

resources on the basis that private jet boats, for example, produce similar or even worse effects. 

These other uses are yet to be addressed and should not be presumed for the future. 

Response: Other uses on the Rogue River are a reality that is appropriate to address. Impacts from 

private jet boats would remain if no commercial permits were issued. Impact analysis in the DEIS is 

based on the existing levels of these other uses. Revisions to the Rogue RMP and Illinois RMP would 

address the environmental impacts of all activities with the Rogue and Illinois Wild and Scenic Rivers. 

145. Comment: (#65) The DEIS provides not rationale for affording the potential for increased use 

that could triple current levels. The DEIS contains statements such as the following on page 142: 

“However, since the number of people recreating has been relatively stable over the last five years 

(the only years measured?), the amount of recreational use is not expected to increase or decrease 

dramatically”. Under alternatives 2, 3, and 4 the potential for dramatic increases in use would be 

permitted without a demonstration of need or evaluation of potential impact. 

Response: In response to public comments, two alternatives have been added in the FEIS. One would 

cap commercial use at a level that averages the 2 highest use years of use from 1999 to 2004. The other 

alternative would reduce commercial use to a level that is the average of the 2 lowest years of use from 

1999-2004. The economic analysis shows a potential of 5% increase of use annually of the next five year 

term of the special use permits. 

146. Comment: (#86) The DEIS states that “private property easements” are not within the scope 

of the FEIS (DEIS, p.17). To the extent that the Preferred Alternative (Alternative 4), as opposed 

to the Proposal (Alternative 2), contradicts the express terms of Clay Hill Lodge’s easement, Clay 

Hill Lodge submits that discussion of the impacts of Alternative 4 on the government’s legal 

obligation to comply with the terms of the easement is an appropriate and essential subject for 

discussion in the DEIS. To the extent that the Forest Service disagrees, Clay Hill Lodge 

respectfully requests an explanation for the disagreement, as there is no indication why the 

easement is not included in the DEIS as drafted. 

Response: How the Forest Service administers the Clay Hill Lodge easement is beyond the scope of the 

EIS. It is the agency’s position that all alternatives comply with the law and current Forest Service 

regulations. Revisions to the Rogue RMP and Illinois RMP would address all activities including 

easements.
RESPONSE TO DEIS COMMENTS Page D-32 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

147. Comment: (#87) The purpose and need statement for the project appears to be so narrowly 

crafted as to discount all recreational, ecological, and hydrological uses that are in conflict with 

commercial jet boat use in the Wild Section of the river. 

Response: The purpose of this EIS is whether or not to continue providing recreational activities on the 

lower Rogue and Illinois Rivers through existing outfitting and guiding opportunities. The need is to 

respond to existing outfitter and guide permit holders that want to continue their commercial operations. 

The EIS analyzes the impacts of this proposal within a range of alternatives and the proposal’s effects to 

other resources within the Rogue and Illinois Wild and Scenic Rivers. Impacts to recreational, ecological, 

and hydrological uses are described in Chapter 4- Environmental Consequences. 

148. Comment: (#87) The large scale, and daily, commercial jet boat use of the Wild Section of the 

Rogue River does not protect the Outstandingly Remarkable Values of the Wild section as 

established throughout this document. Indeed fish will be impacted and all other recreational uses 

will be degraded. 

Response: The discussion of the Outstandingly Remarkable Values has been expanded in the FEIS. 

Analysis to the effects to fish and all other recreation uses is addressed within the range of alternatives 

and analyzed in Chapter 4. 

149. Comment: (#87) Impacts to the Outstandingly Remarkable Values of fisheries is downplayed 

or ignored by the DEIS, while impacts to all other forms of recreation other than motorized boating 

are discounted by the agency. 

Response: Discussions of the Outstandingly Remarkable Values have been expanded in the FEIS. 

150. Comment: (#87) The DEIS failed to avoid, minimize, and mitigate to the maximum extent 

possible. The tour boats are able to avoid impacts on the aquatic environment by not operating in 

low flows, for example. Additionally the DEIS neither proposed nor discussed any plans or 

attempts to minimize the impacts of the action. Indeed the proposed use of an in-stream excavator 

is the antithesis of attempting to minimize the impacts of the action. 

Response: Mitigations are described in the DEIS (DEIS, p. 37). The No Action alternative and the 

addition of an alternative to the FEIS that would greatly reduce actual use are both options for reducing 

impacts. Effects of channel maintenance are discussed and analyzed. Within the Rogue RMP channel 

maintenance is identified as an appropriate method to allow continuance of the Outstandingly Remarkable 

Value of Recreation. 

151. Comment: (#89) It is quite clear that the DEIS is making no effort to prevent use levels from 

reaching “the point where the quality of the recreation experience or the quality of the stream 

environment deteriorates.” The Siskiyou National Forest seems to believe that powerboat use can 

increase significantly from current use levels without impacting the recreational experience or the 

stream environment. The Siskiyou National Forest has presented no evidence to support this 

arbitrary and capricious belief. 

Response: The effects of increased jet boat use (Alternatives 2, 3, and 4) were described in DEIS 

Chapter 4. In response to public comments, two alternatives have been added in the FEIS. One would 

cap commercial use at a level that averages the 2 highest use years of use from 1999 to 2004. The other 

alternative would reduce commercial use to a level that is the average of the 2 lowest years of use from 

1999-2004. The analysis of the range of alternatives will give the Responsible Official the information 

needed to make a decision on the level of permitted commercial use, including powerboat use. The 

rationale for that decision will be contained in the Record of Decision.
RESPONSE TO DEIS COMMENTS Page D-33 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

152. Comment: (#89) The provision in alternatives 3 and 4 that allows the District Ranger to 

authorize additional trips on a case-by-case basis is totally inconsistent with the intent of the Wild 

and Scenic Rivers Act (WSRA) and the River Management Plan (RMP). The intent of the WSRA 

and the RMP is clearly to place limits on growth of motorized use, any provision to allow a District 

Ranger the authority to modify the limits set in an EIS is inconsistent with the RMP and WSRA. 

Alternatives 3 and 4 should be withdrawn. 

Response: In response to public comments, two additional alternatives were developed and analyzed. 

Clarifications have been made in the FEIS. 

153. Comment: (#89) The purpose and need statement only recognizes an economic need for the 

commercial interests to be able to make more money. The purpose and need is not justified by 

sound rationale and evidence. 

Response: The purpose of this EIS is to analyze whether or not to continue providing recreational 

activities on the lower Rogue and Illinois Rivers through existing outfitting and guiding opportunities. 

The need is to respond to existing outfitter and guide permit holders that want to continue their 

commercial operations. The EIS analyzes the impacts of this proposal within a range of alternatives and 

the proposal’s effects to other resources within the Rogue and Illinois Wild and Scenic Rivers. Impacts to 

recreational, ecological, and hydrological uses are described in Chapter 4- Environmental Consequences. 

154. Comment: (#89) The list of Federal Agencies, federal recognized tribes, state and local 

governments, and organizations representing a wide range of views regarding issuing special use 

permits for commercial motorized boat activity on the lower Rogue and Illinois Rivers is 

incomplete. This list fails to list any environmental organizations or river protection groups. The 

failure to list these groups effectively denies them the ability to collaborate on analysis and 

comments. 

Response: The Schedule of Proposed Actions is made available by mailing to interested parties and 

electronically on the Internet. Interested parties responding to the scoping for the proposed action 

received notification of the availability of the draft and were mailed copies of the DEIS. 

155. Comment: (#89) The DEIS fails to adequately assess the cumulative effects of motorized use 

on the river environment in alternatives 2, 3, and 4. These alternatives pose the possibility of 

significant increases in motorized use. The DEIS should analyze these along with the possibility 

that private and lodge boat use might increase to their maximum permitted levels. 

Response: The Summary of Cumulative Effects (DEIS, pages 156 through 165) contains a thorough 

discussion of cumulative effects and the impacts upon specific resources. There is a difference between 

actual use and permitted or authorized use. Actual use is projected to grow 2 to 3% a year over the next 

five year term of the permits for a term growth of 10 to 15%. Use numbers in Alternative 4 utilized and 

account for this projected increase. There is no indication in the economic and use analysis that shows 

growth rates to be greater than 10 to 15% over the five year term of the permits. 

156. Comment: (#92) The DEIS uses boat trips to assess impacts and regulate use but does not 

explain the methods used to obtain boat trip data or cite reports that contain these data. 

Response: Data for boat trips comes from Forest Service use reports submitted by the commercial 

permittees and are monitored through permit administration. 

157. Comment: (#92) The key indicator for the wildlife, fish, and water quality issue is insufficient 

to determine if the rivers’ fish, water quality, or wildlife ORV’s are protected and enhanced. 
RESPONSE TO DEIS COMMENTS Page D-34 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

Response: Analysis to the effects on fish, water quality, and wildlife within Chapter 4 has been 

expanded. 

158. Comment: (#98) One of my concerns about this DEIS is that private jet boats were not 

included. Why not? 

Response: The purpose an of this project is to continue providing recreational activities on the lower 

Rogue and lower Illinois Rivers through existing outfitter and guide opportunities as outlined by Forest 

Service policy. There is a need to respond to existing guide permit holders who want to continue their 

commercial operations by issuing new special use permits that authorize occupancy on National Forest 

system lands. Requiring special use permits for private, non-commercial, motorboats does not meet this 

purpose and need and is beyond the scope of this proposal. Revisions to the Rogue RMP and Illinois 

RMP would be the correct process to analyze all activities within the Rogue and Illinois Wild and Scenic 

Rivers. 

Wilderness

159. Comment: (#87) The Forest Service’s refusal to limit commercial jet boat traffic to the nonwild sections of the Rogue River violates the 1978 Wilderness Act. 

Response: This is not true as the Rogue Wild and Scenic River is not managed as wilderness. The Wild 

Rogue Wilderness was established by the passage of the Endangered American Wilderness Act of 1978 

(Public Law 95-237). A portion of the Wild and Scenic Rogue River, which was designated under the 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act in 1968, bisects the Wild Rogue Wilderness.

The Endangered American Wilderness Act contains specific language as how to manage the Wild and 

Scenic portion of the Rogue River. Its states, in part, that “...certain lands...shall be known as the Wild 

Rogue Wilderness: Provided, that the portion of the segment of the Rogue River designated as a 

component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System ... which lies within the Wild Rogue 

Wilderness shall be managed as a wild river notwithstanding section 10(b) of that Act or any provision of 

the Wilderness Act to the contrary...” 

Therefore, the river within the Wild Rogue Wilderness is managed separately under Wild and Scenic 

Rivers Act direction. This specific direction for the river was made in recognition of certain established 

uses along the river; while not consistent with wilderness direction, Congress did not wish to eliminate by 

passage of the Endangered American Wilderness Act. 

Economics 

160. Comment: How are indirect jobs and income determined? 

Response: The indirect and induced jobs and income estimates are derived using the IMPLAN model 

which is a widely accepted and applied input-output modeling system (see DEIS page 111). 

161. Comment: (#1) The agency must recognize and adequately address the socioeconomic needs 

of the locale, including proper maintenance of the outfitting industry in southwestern Oregon. The 

Rogue and Illinois are destination resources, and local communities derive substantial economic 

benefit through the existing permit system. The progressively drastic socioeconomic impacts of 

Alternatives 4, 3, and 1 are not fully analyzed or disclosed in the DEIS. 

Response: The importance of the Rogue River outfitter and guide industry to Gold Beach, Agnes and 

Curry County was discussed in the DEIS pages 110 and 111. The results of the analysis of the effects of 

the alternatives was displayed and discussed in the DEIS pages 152-155. 
RESPONSE TO DEIS COMMENTS Page D-35 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

162 Comment: (#2) The last five years has been tumultuous for our nation and for Oregon. In this 

timeframe we have experienced dramatic fluctuations in our fish stocks, the social response to the 

attacks of September 11, 2001, high gas prices, prolonged economic recession and war abroad. 

Combined with the immediate impacts of drought, we do not believe this five-year period is an 

accurate benchmark for average use of the Rogue and Illinois rivers. Thus, Alternative 2 is 

preferable to Alternative 4 because it does not set limits calculated on this short-term average. The 

reductions in Alternative 4, while modest compared to the last 5 years, could result in a net-loss of 

recreational use of the area as the economy normalizes. 

Response: The last five year period was chosen because it includes the most detailed and consistent data 

by outfitter and guide type available. The average annual total use for the five-year period is two percent 

less than the average annual total use for the last nine years. The nine-year period includes the peaks of 

1994 and 1995. Earlier years of use data were not considered because they were about 20 percent less 

than the last five years reflecting a different type of outfitter and guide industry on the Lower Rogue. 

163 Comment: (#4) I am concerned about the lack of depth of the economic analysis. Nowhere do 

I see a statement declaring the devastating impact a significant reduction in the authorization of 

outfitter-guide permits on the Lower Rogue would have on the communities of Agness and Gold 

Beach. 

Response: The DEIS discusses that the Lower Rogue outfitter and guide industry makes up about 20 

percent of the tourism industries in Gold Beach, Agnes and Curry County (DEIS page 111). The effects 

of the alternatives were displayed and discussed in the DEIS pages 152-155. 

164. Comment: (#41) How was the indirect economic benefits of motorized recreation users on the 

Rogue determined? 

Response: The indirect economic effects of motorized outfitter and guides on the Rogue were derived by 

estimating the direct and induced jobs and income effects using the IMPLAN model which is a widely 

accepted and applied input-output modeling system (see DEIS page 111). 

165. Comment: (#65) Assertions regarding economic impact can’t be evaluated based upon the 

information provided. For example, the means of determining indirect costs is not provided nor is 

it apparent to me how this was determined; in fact, much of the economic information seems to be 

based upon estimates deriving from unspecified premises. Furthermore, the direct costs for no 

action are presumably based upon a complete cessation of jet boat tours. Such a premise is not 

clearly warranted. The premise can’t be based upon the fact that on business seeking to provide 

tours only to Lobster Creek went out of business. This could have occurred for a number of 

reasons, including poor management and competition from other tour companies that could offer 

more. If only tours to Lobster Creek were available, perhaps such a tour could be quite successful, 

while protecting the wild portions of the Rogue River. 

Response: The methods and assumptions used to estimate the economic costs and benefits of the 

alternatives were discussed in the DEIS page 103-111 and pages 152-155. The DEIS also states that 

additional information on the economic analysis is available in the project record. 

The no-action alternative was not considered based on the cessation of any outfitter and guide businesses. 

The alternative was developed and analyzed to address the purpose and need, the issues, and their 

resolution within the decision space of the Responsible Official. 
RESPONSE TO DEIS COMMENTS Page D-36 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

166. Comment: (#86) The DEIS conclusion regarding Alternative 4 is incorrect and unsupported 

by and internally inconsistent with other statements in the DEIS. This conclusion states that: 

“Alternative 4 provides the best mix of economic benefits while minimizing effects to wildlife and 

fisheries, and further minimizes the potential effects of commercial boating within the Wild Section 

of the lower Rogue River with other river users” (DEIS, p.8). To the contrary, Alternative 4, to the 

extent that it does not allow issuance of a permit for a dock at Clay Hill Lodge, is inconsistent with 

federal laws, and holds the potential for greater negative effects on safety, wildlife, and economics 

than other alternatives. Furthermore, to the extent that the Forest Service has failed to take a hard 

look at these impacts, adoption of this alternative is inconsistent with NEPA. 

Response: This will be addressed in more detail in the FEIS. 

************************************************************************************* 

RESPONSE FROM OTHER GOVERNMENTS, ELECTED OFFICIALS AND AGENCIES 

The full text of letter from governmental agencies and elected officials is reproduced in accordance with 

Forest Service policy. This does not imply that the many comments from individuals and groups were 

considered less seriously. The agency letters are reproduced to inform readers of the positions taken by 

their public servants. 
RESPONSE TO DEIS COMMENTS Page D-37 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits
RESPONSE TO DEIS COMMENTS Page D-38 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits
RESPONSE TO DEIS COMMENTS Page D-39 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits
SAMPLE PERMITS Page E-1 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

APPENDIX E: SAMPLE PERMITS 

These sample permits are provided to display the terms and conditions that would 

be required if new permits were issued. New permits would have a 5 year term. 

The number of trips permitted, as described in each alternative in Chapter 2, may 

change in the new permits. The exact terms and conditions of the new permits, if 

issued, would depend upon the decision that will be made in the Record of 

Decision. 
SAMPLE PERMITS Page E-2 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

Authorization ID FS-2700-4 (05/03)

Contact ID: OMB 0596-0082

Expiration Date: 12/31/2005 

Use Code: 153 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service 

SPECIAL USE PERMIT

AUTHORITY:

LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND ACT OF 1964, AS AMENDED 

September 3, 1964 

 (hereinafter called the Holder) is hereby 

authorized to use or occupy National Forest System lands, to use subject to the conditions set out 

below, on the Rogue River - Siskiyou National Forest. 

This permit covers 35 miles and issued for the purpose of: 

Commercially guided fishing and recreational float services on the Rogue River between Lobster 

Creek and the holding pool at the bottom of Blossom Bar Rapids. 

“A” USE: Motorized use that occurs between Watson Creek and the holding pool at the bottom 

of Blossom Bar Rapid. This use may occur year-round. The specific allocation for this permit 

for this type of use is 27 annual boat days. 

“A+” USE: “A” USE that occurs only between November 16 and May 14 annually. The 

specific allocation for this permit for this type of use is 37 annual boat days.

“B” USE: Float use that begins at Foster Bar and ends at Agness. This Use is for nonmechanized recreational floating and may occur year-round. The specific allocation for this 

permit for this type of use is 36 annual boat days. 

“C” USE: Motorized use that begins at or below Foster Bar and occurs between Watson Creek 

and Lobster Creek. This use may occur year-round. The specific allocation for this permit for 

this type of use is 21 annual boat days. 

“D” USE: Float/motorized use that begins at or below Foster Bar and occurs between Watson 

creek and Quosatana Creek. Motors used must be 20 horsepower or less. This use may occur 

year-round. The specific allocation for this permit for this type of use is 48 annual boat days.

The above described or defined area shall be referred to herein as the "permit area". 

TERMS AND CONDITIONS 

I. AUTHORITY AND GENERAL TERMS OF THE PERMIT 

A. Authority. This permit is issued pursuant to the authorities enumerated at Title 36, Code of 

Federal Regulations, Section 251 Subpart B, as amended. This permit, and the activities or use 

authorized, shall be subject to the terms and conditions of the Secretary's regulations and any 

subsequent amendment to them. 
SAMPLE PERMITS Page E-3 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

B. Authorized Officer. The authorized officer is the Forest Supervisor or a delegated 

subordinate officer. 

C. License. This permit is a license for the use of federally owned land and does not grant any 

permanent, possessory interest in real property, nor shall this permit constitute a contract for 

purposes of the Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (41 U.S.C. 611). Loss of the privileges granted 

by this permit by revocation, termination, or suspension is not compensable to the holder. 

D. Amendment. This permit may be amended in whole or in part by the Forest Service when, at 

the discretion of the authorized officer, such action is deemed necessary or desirable to 

incorporate new terms, conditions, and stipulations as may be required by law, regulation, land 

management plans, or other management decisions. 

E. Existing Rights. This permit is subject to all valid rights and claims of third parties. The 

United States is not liable to the holder for the exercise of any such right or claim. 

F. Nonexclusive Use and Public Access. Unless expressly provided for in additional terms, use 

of the permit area is not exclusive. The Forest Service reserves the right to use or allow others to 

use any part of the permit area, including roads, for any purpose, provided, such use does not 

materially interfere with the holder's authorized use. A final determination of conflicting uses is 

reserved to the Forest Service. 

G. Forest Service Right of Entry and Inspection. The Forest Service has the right of unrestricted 

access of the permitted area or facility to ensure compliance with laws, regulations, and 

ordinances and the terms and conditions of this permit. 

H. Assignability. This permit is not assignable or transferable. If the holder through death, 

voluntary sale or transfer, enforcement of contract, foreclosure, or other valid legal proceeding 

ceases to be the owner of the improvements, this permit shall terminate. 

I. Permit Limitations. Nothing in this permit allows or implies permission to build or maintain 

any structure or facility, or to conduct any activity unless specifically provided for in this permit. 

Any use not specifically identified in this permit must be approved by the authorized officer in 

the form of a new permit or permit amendment. 

II. TENURE AND ISSUANCE OF A NEW PERMIT 

A. Expiration at the End of the Authorized Period. This permit will expire at midnight on 

12/31/2005. Expiration shall occur by operation of law and shall not require notice, any decision 

document, or any environmental analysis or other documentation. 

B. Minimum Use or Occupancy of the Permit Area. Use or occupancy of the permit area shall 

be exercised at least 0 days each year, unless otherwise authorized in writing under additional 

terms of this permit. 

C. Notification to Authorized Officer. If the holder desires issuance of a new permit after 

expiration, the holder shall notify the authorized officer in writing not less than six (6) months 

prior to the expiration date of this permit. 
SAMPLE PERMITS Page E-4 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

D. Conditions for Issuance of a New Permit. At the expiration or termination of an existing 

permit, a new permit may be issued to the holder of the previous permit or to a new holder 

subject to the following conditions: 

1. The authorized use is compatible with the land use allocation in the Forest Land and 

Resource Management Plan. 

2. The permit area is being used for the purposes previously authorized. 

3. The permit area is being operated and maintained in accordance with the provisions of the 

permit. 

4. The holder has shown previous good faith compliance with the terms and conditions of all 

prior or other existing permits, and has not engaged in any activity or transaction contrary to 

Federal contracts, permits laws, or regulations. 

E. Discretion of Forest Service. Notwithstanding any provisions of any prior or other permit, 

the authorized officer may prescribe new terms, conditions, and stipulations when a new permit 

is issued. The decision whether to issue a new permit to a holder or successor in interest is at the 

absolute discretion of the Forest Service. 

F. Construction. Any construction authorized by this permit may commence by na and shall be 

completed by na. If construction is not completed within the prescribed time, this permit may be 

revoked or suspended. 

III. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE HOLDER 

A. Compliance with Laws, Regulations, and other Legal Requirements. The holder shall 

comply with all applicable Federal, State, and local laws, regulations, and standards, including 

but not limited to, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq., the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq., the Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S. C. 9601 et seq., and other relevant 

environmental laws, as well as public health and safety laws and other laws relating to the siting, 

construction, operation, and maintenance of any facility, improvement, or equipment on the 

property. 

B. Plans. Plans for development, layout, construction, reconstruction, or alteration of 

improvements on the permit area, as well as revisions of such plans, must be prepared by a 

qualified individual acceptable to the authorized officer and shall be approved in writing prior to 

commencement of work. The holder may be required to furnish as-built plans, maps, or surveys, 

or other similar information, upon completion of construction. 

C. Maintenance. The holder shall maintain the improvements and permit area to standards of 

repair, orderliness, neatness, sanitation, and safety acceptable to the authorized officer and 

consistent with other provisions of this authorization. If requested, the holder shall comply with 

inspection requirements deemed appropriate by the authorized officer. 

D. Hazard Analysis. The holder has a continuing responsibility to identify all hazardous 

conditions on the permit area which would affect the improvements, resources, or pose a risk of 

injury to individuals. Any non-emergency actions to abate such hazards shall be performed after 

consultation with the authorized officer. In emergency situations, the holder shall notify the 

authorized officer of its actions as soon as possible, but not more than 48 hours, after such 

actions have been taken.
SAMPLE PERMITS Page E-5 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

E. Change of Address. The holder shall immediately notify the authorized officer of a change in 

address. 

F. Change in Ownership. This permit is not assignable and terminates upon change of 

ownership of the improvements or control of the business entity. The holder shall immediately 

notify the authorized officer when a change in ownership or control of business entity is pending. 

Notification by the present holder and potential owner shall be executed using Form SF-299 

Application for Transportation and Utility Systems and Facilities of Federal Lands, or Form FS2700-3a, Holder Initiated Revocation of Existing Authorization, Request for a Special Use 

Permit. Upon receipt of the proper documentation, the authorized officer may issue a permit to 

the party who acquires ownership of, or a controlling interest in, the improvements or business 

entity. 

IV. LIABILITY 

For purposes of this section, "holder" includes the holder's heirs, assigns, agents, employees, and 

contractors. 

A. The holder assumes all risk of loss to the authorized improvements. 

 

B. The holder shall indemnify, defend, and hold the United States harmless for any violations 

incurred under any such laws and regulations or for judgments, claims, or demands assessed 

against the United States in connection with the holder's use or occupancy of the property. The 

holder's indemnification of the United States shall include any loss by personal injury, loss of life 

or damage to property in connection with the occupancy or use of the property during the term of 

this permit. Indemnification shall include, but is not limited to, the value of resources damaged 

or destroyed; the costs of restoration, cleanup, or other mitigation; fire suppression or other types 

of abatement costs; third party claims and judgments; and all administrative, interest, and other 

legal costs. This paragraph shall survive the termination or revocation of this authorization, 

regardless of cause. 

C. The holder has an affirmative duty to protect from damage the land, property, and interests of 

the United States. 

The holder shall maintain $500,000.00 worth of insurance coverage, naming the United States 

additionally insured on the policy(ies), to partially fund the indemnification obligations of the 

holder for any and all losses due to personal injury, loss of life, or property damage, including 

fire suppression and hazardous waste costs. The holder shall furnish proof of insurance (such as 

a surety bond, or certificate of insurance) to the authorized officer prior to execution of this 

permit and verify annually, and in writing, the insurance obligation to the authorized officer. 

The authorized officer may allow the holder to replace, repair, restore, or otherwise undertake 

necessary curative actions, to the satisfaction of the authorized officer, in order to mitigate 

damages in addition to or as an alternative to monetary indemnification. 
SAMPLE PERMITS Page E-6 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

D. In the event of any breach of the conditions of this authorization by the holder, the authorized 

officer may, on reasonable notice, cure the breach for the account at the expense of the holder. If 

the Forest Service at any time pays any sum of money or does any act which will require 

payment of money, or incurs any expense, including reasonable attorney's fees, in instituting, 

prosecuting, and/or defending any action or proceeding to enforce the United States rights 

hereunder, the sum or sums so paid by the United States, with all interests, costs and damages 

shall, at the election of the Forest Service, be deemed to be additional fees hereunder and shall be 

due from the holder to the Forest Service on the first day of the month following such election. 

E. With respect to roads, the holder shall be proportionally liable for damages to all roads and 

trails of the United States open to public use caused by the holder's use to the same extent as 

provided above, except that liability shall not include reasonable and ordinary wear and tear. 

F. The Forest Service has no duty to inspect the permit area or to warn of hazards and, if the 

Forest Service does inspect the permit area, it shall incur no additional duty nor liability for 

identified or non-identified hazards. This covenant may be enforced by the United States in a 

court of competent jurisdiction. 

V. TERMINATION, REVOCATION, AND SUSPENSION 

A. General. For purposes of this permit, "termination", "revocation", and "suspension" refer to 

the cessation of uses and privileges under the permit. 

 "Termination" refers to the cessation of the permit under its own terms without the 

necessity for any decision or action by the authorized officer. Termination occurs automatically 

when, by the terms of the permit, a fixed or agreed upon condition, event, or time occurs. For 

example, the permit terminates at expiration. Terminations are not appealable. 

 "Revocation" refers to an action by the authorized officer to end the permit because 

of noncompliance with any of the prescribed terms, or for reasons in the public interest. 

Revocations are appealable. 

 "Suspension" refers to a revocation which is temporary and the privileges may be 

restored upon the occurrence of prescribed actions or conditions. Suspensions are 

appealable. 

B. Revocation or Suspension. The Forest Service may suspend or revoke this permit in whole 

or part for: 

1. Noncompliance with Federal, State, or local laws and regulations. 

2. Noncompliance with the terms and conditions of this permit. 

3. Reasons in the public interest. 

4. Abandonment or other failure of the holder to otherwise exercise the privileges granted. 

C. Opportunity to Take Corrective Action. Prior to revocation or suspension for cause pursuant 

to Section V (B), the authorized officer shall give the holder written notice of the grounds for 

each action and a reasonable time, not to exceed 90 days, to complete the corrective action 

prescribed by the authorized officer. 
SAMPLE PERMITS Page E-7 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

D. Removal of Improvements. Prior to abandonment of the improvements or within a 

reasonable time following revocation or termination of this authorization, the holder shall 

prepare, for approval by the authorized officer, an abandonment plan for the permit area. The 

abandonment plan shall address removal of improvements and restoration of the permit area and 

prescribed time frames for these actions. If the holder fails to remove the improvements or 

restore the site within the prescribed time period, they become the property of the United States 

and may be sold, destroyed or otherwise disposed of without any liability to the United States. 

However, the holder shall remain liable for all cost associated with their removal, including costs 

of sale and impoundment, cleanup, and restoration of the site. 

VI. FEES 

A. Termination for Nonpayment. This permit shall automatically terminate without the 

necessity of prior notice when land use rental fees are 90 calendar days from the due date in 

arrears. 

B. The holder shall pay an annual fee of Ninety Dollars $90.00 for the period from 01/01/2005 

to 12/31/2005 and thereafter annually on March 1, Ninety Dollars $90.00: Provided, charges for 

this use shall be made or readjusted whenever necessary to place the charges on a basis 

commensurate with the fair market value of the authorized use. 

C. Payment Due Date. The payment due date shall be the close of business on March 1 of each 

calendar year payment is due. Payments in the form of a check, draft, or money order are 

payable to USDA, Forest Service. Payments shall be credited on the date received by the 

designated Forest Service collection officer or deposit location. If the due date for the fee or fee 

calculation statement falls on a non-workday, the charges shall not apply until the close of 

business on the next workday. 

D. Late Payment Interest, Administrative Costs and Penalties Pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3717, et 

seq., interest shall be charged on any fee amount not paid within 30 days from the date the fee or 

fee calculation financial statement specified in this authorization becomes due. The rate of 

interest assessed shall be the higher of the rate of the current value of funds to the U.S. Treasury 

(i.e., Treasury tax and loan account rate), as prescribed and published by the Secretary of the 

Treasury in the Federal Register and the Treasury Fiscal Requirements Manual Bulletins 

annually or quarterly or at the Prompt Payment Act rate. Interest on the principal shall accrue 

from the date the fee or fee calculation financial statement is due. 

In the event the account becomes delinquent, administrative costs to cover processing and 

handling of the delinquency will be assessed. 

A penalty of 6 percent per annum shall be assessed on the total amount delinquent in excess of 

90 days and shall accrue from the same date on which interest charges begin to accrue. 

Payments will be credited on the date received by the designated collection officer or deposit 

location. If the due date for the fee or fee calculation statement falls on a non-workday, the 

charges shall not apply until the close of business on the next workday. 
SAMPLE PERMITS Page E-8 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

Disputed fees are due and payable by the due date. No appeal of fees will be considered by the 

Forest Service without full payment of the disputed amount. Adjustments, if necessary, will be 

made in accordance with settlement terms or the appeal decision. 

If the fees become delinquent, the Forest Service will: 

Liquidate any security or collateral provided by the authorization. 

If no security or collateral is provided, the authorization will terminate and the holder will be 

responsible for delinquent fees as well as any other costs of restoring the site to it's original 

condition including hazardous waste cleanup. 

Upon termination or revocation of the authorization, delinquent fees and other charges associated 

with the authorization will be subject to all rights and remedies afforded the United States 

pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 3711 et seq. Delinquencies may be subject to any or all of the following 

conditions: 

Administrative offset of payments due the holder from the Forest Service. 

Delinquencies in excess of 60 days shall be referred to United States Department of Treasury 

for appropriate collection action as provided by 31 U.S.C. 3711 (g), (1). 

The Secretary of the Treasury may offset an amount due the debtor for any delinquency as 

provided by 31 U.S.C. 3720, et seq.) 

VII. OTHER PROVISIONS 

A. Members of Congress. No Member of or Delegate to Congress or Resident Commissioner 

shall benefit from this permit either directly or indirectly, except when the authorized use 

provides a general benefit to a corporation. 

B. Appeals and Remedies. Any discretionary decisions or determinations by the authorized 

officer are subject to the appeal regulations at 36 CFR 251, Subpart C, or revisions thereto. 

C. Superior Clauses. In the event of any conflict between any of the preceding printed clauses 

or any provision thereof and any of the following clauses or any provision thereof, the preceding 

printed clauses shall control. 

D. Access to Records (A7). For the purpose of administering this authorization (including 

ascertaining that fees paid were correct and evaluating the propriety of the fee base), the holder 

agrees to make all of the accounting books and supporting records to the business activities, as 

well as those of sublessees operating within the authority of this authorization, available for 

analysis by qualified representatives of the Forest Service or other Federal agencies authorized to 

review the Forest Service activities. Review of accounting books and supporting records shall be 

made at dates convenient to the holder and reviewers. Financial information so obtained shall be 

treated as confidential as provided in regulations issued by the Secretary of Agriculture. 
SAMPLE PERMITS Page E-9 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

The holder shall retain the above records and keep them available for review for 5 years after the 

end of the year involved, unless disposition is otherwise approved by the authorized officer in 

writing. 

E. Nondiscrimination (B-1 

1. The holder and its employees shall not discriminate against any person on the basis of race, 

color, sex (in educational activities), national origin, age, or disability or by curtailing or refusing to 

furnish accommodations, facilities, services, or use privileges offered to the public generally. In 

addition, the holder and its employees shall comply with the provisions of Title VI of the Civil 

Rights Act of 1964 as amended, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, Title 

IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, as amended, and the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, 

as amended. 

2. The holder shall include and require compliance with the above nondiscrimination provisions 

in any third-party agreement made with respect to the operations authorized under this permit. 

3. The Forest Service shall furnish signs setting forth this policy of nondiscrimination. These 

signs shall be conspicuously displayed at the public entrance to the premises and at other 

exterior or interior locations, as directed by the Forest Service. 

4. The Forest Service shall have the right to enforce the foregoing nondiscrimination 

provisions by suit for specific performance or by any other available remedy under the 

laws of the United States or the State in which the violation occurs. 

F. Insurance (B10). The holder shall have in force public liability insurance covering a 

combined single limit in the amount $500,000.00. The minimum amount and terms are subject 

to change at the sole discretion of the authorized officer at the five-year anniversary date of this 

authorization. The coverage shall extend to property damage, bodily injury, or death rising out 

of the holder's activities under the authorization including, but not limited to, occupancy or use 

of the land and the construction, maintenance, and operation of the structures, facilities, or 

equipment permitted by this authorization. Such insurance shall also name the United States as 

additionally insured. The holder shall send an authenticated copy of its insurance policy to the 

Forest Service immediately upon issuance of the policy. The policy shall also contain a specific 

provision or rider to the effect that the policy shall not be cancelled or its provisions changed or 

deleted before thirty (30) days written notice to the authorized officer at 29279 Ellensburg, Gold 

Beach, OR 97444 by the insurance company. 

G. Operating Plan (C8). The holder shall provide an Operating Plan and revise the plan as 

needed. The plan shall be prepared in consultation with the authorized officer or designated 

representative and cover operation and maintenance of facilities, dates or season of operations, 

and other information required by the authorized officer to manage and evaluate the occupation 

and/or use of National Forest System lands. The provisions of the Operating Plan and the annual 

revisions shall become a part of this authorization and shall be submitted by the holder and 

approved by the authorized officer or their designated representative(s). This Operating Plan is 

hereby made a part of the authorization. 

H. Regulating Services and Rates (X22). The Forest Service shall have the authority to check 

and regulate the adequacy and type of services provided the public and to require that such 

services conform to satisfactory standards. The holder may be required to furnish a schedule of 

prices for sales and services permitted by the authorization. Such prices and services may be 

regulated by the Forest Service: Provided, that the holder shall not be required to charge prices 

lower than those charged by comparable or competing enterprises.
SAMPLE PERMITS Page E-10 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

I. Advertising (X30). The holder, in advertisements, signs, circulars, brochures, letterheads, and 

like materials, as well as orally, shall not misrepresent in any way, either the accommodations 

provided, the status of the authorization, or the area covered by it or the vicinity. The fact that 

the permitted area is located on the National Forest shall be made readily apparent in all of the 

holder's brochures and print advertising regarding use and management of the area and 

authorized facilities. 

According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid 

OMB control number. The valid OMB control number for this information collection is 0596-0082. 

This information is needed by the Forest Service to evaluate requests to use National Forest System lands and manage those lands to protect 

natural resources, administer the use, and ensure public health and safety. This information is required to obtain or retain a benefit. The authority 

for that requirement is provided by the Organic Act of 1897 and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, which authorize the 

Secretary of Agriculture to promulgate rules and regulations for authorizing and managing National Forest System lands. These statutes, along 

with the Term Permit Act, National Forest Ski Area Permit Act, Granger-Thye Act, Mineral Leasing Act, Alaska Term Permit Act, Act of 

September 3, 1954, Wilderness Act, National Forest Roads and Trails Act, Act of November 16, 1973, Archaeological Resources Protection Act, 

and Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to issue authorizations for the use and occupancy of 

National Forest System lands. The Secretary of Agriculture's regulations at 36 CFR Part 251, Subpart B, establish procedures for issuing those 

authorizations. 

 

The Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a) and the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552) govern the confidentiality to be provided for 

information received by the Forest Service Public reporting burden for collection of information, if requested, is estimated to average 1 hour per 

response for annual financial information; average 1 hour per response to prepare or update operation and/or maintenance plan; average 1 hour 

per response for inspection reports; and an average of 1 hour for each request that may include such things as reports, logs, facility and user 

information, sublease information, and other similar miscellaneous information requests. This includes the time for reviewing instructions, 

searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.

This permit is accepted subject to the conditions set out above. 

HOLDER NAME: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

 Forest Service 

By: By: 

 (Holder Signature) (Authorized Officer 

Signature) 

By: Title: JOHN BORTON, District 

Ranger 

 (Holder Signature) (Name and Title) 

Date: Date: 
SAMPLE PERMITS Page E-11 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

LMRP PERMIT OPERATING PLAN

FOR

COMMERCIAL OUTFITTER/GUIDE OPERATIONS

ON THE SISKIYOU NATIONAL FOREST

FOR PERIOD JANUARY 1, 2005 – DECEMBER 31, 2005 

This plan will be reviewed annually and updated or revised, as needed. It is a part of the permit 

and describes stipulations pertinent to the conduct of operations authorized by the Special Use 

Permit attached hereto. 

PERMITTEE NAME OF BUSINESS

 

 

BUSINESS ADDRESS TELEPHONE

 `

PERMITTEE REPRESENTATIVE

The following individual(s) are designated to represent the permittee in contacts with the Forest 

Service concerning permit administration. 

NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE LIMITS OF 

AUTHORITY

OBJECTIVE 

This document's purpose is to clarify requirements for operations conducted under authority of 

this permit and will provide direction for the full term of the permit. Modifications to this plan 

may be made as necessary to update it or address and resolve any special issues which may arise 

during the term of the permit. 

INTRODUCTION 

Special Use Permits are necessary for all commercial outfitter/guiding operations on the National 

Forest system, including roads and rivers that traverse National Forest lands. 

LICENSES 

The permittee is responsible for compliance with all state, local, and federal laws, rules, and 

regulations applicable to the permitted activities, including appropriate state outfitter/guide 

registration through the 

Oregon State Marine Board. 

INSURANCE 
SAMPLE PERMITS Page E-12 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

INSURANCE MUST REMAIN CURRENT OR THE PERMIT IS INVALID

The insurance requirement is satisfied by providing the Forest Officer a complete, authenticated 

copy of the Permittee's insurance policy in the first year of a multi-year permit and certificates of 

insurance with original signature of the Insurer in the remaining years of a multi-year permit. 

The name of the insured on the policy must be identical to the name or names given on the 

permittee application including names of individuals and/or corporations. When coverage is not 

in force, the permittee is in violation of the permit. 

Some insurance policies are not in force if personal floatation devices (pfd's) are not provided 

and/or worn by passengers at all times during boating operations. Check your insurance policy 

and ensure that pfd's are available in the craft and/or worn if this is a policy requirement. 

Any instance or occurrence that may subject the permittee or the U.S. Government to any 

personal liability claims must be reported to the insurance company and authorized Forest 

Service Representative at the same time. 

FOREST SERVICE REPRESENTATIVE 

The District Ranger is the Forest Officer responsible for the issuance and administration of 

permits on any area within the boundaries of the Gold Beach Ranger District. 

RECORDS 

Actual Use Report forms will be provided by the Ranger District and must be used by the 

permittee to record total use. Reports are due on or before January 15, annually. 

These reports must be submitted by the due date, and compliance with this requirement will be 

reflected in your performance evaluation. If you prefer, you may submit these forms as often as 

you choose for your business needs. 

FEES 

Total fees are based on the minimum fee of $90.00 at permit issuance and actual use at the end of 

the annual operating period, December 31. At the end of the permit period, a comparison will be 

made between the minimum use and actual use. If more use has occurred than the originally 

paid minimum use fee of $90.00, the permittee will be billed for the additional use fees. Fees are 

due 30 days from billing date. Fees not paid on time are subject to late charges and may affect 

permit privileges. 
SAMPLE PERMITS Page E-13 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

FEE SCHEDULE

Option 1: Set charge per service day: 

Client

Charge Charge per Fee Per 

Category Service Day Service Day

 A 1.00 - 8.00 .25 

 B 8.01 - 20.00 .40 

 C 20.01 - 35.00 .80 

 D 35.01 - 50.00 1.30 

 E 50.01 - 75.00 1.90 

 F 75.01 - 100.00 2.60 

 G 100.01 - 125.00 3.40 

 H 125.01 - 150.00 4.10 

 I 150.01 - 175.00 4.90 

 J 175.01 - 200.00 5.60 

 K 200.01 - 250.00 6.75 

 L 250.01 - 300.00 8.25 

 M 300.01 - 400.00 10.00 

 N Over 400.00 3% of adjusted Service Day 

Option 2: As an alternative to Option 1, fees can be calculated based on 3% of outfitted customer

 revenue 

NOTE: A SERVICE DAY IS ANY DAY OR PORTION OF A DAY THAT SERVICES ARE PROVIDED ON 

NATIONAL FOREST LANDS.

Indicate fee calculation option desired: 

 (check one) 

Option 1: Flat rate/service day • 

Option 2: 3% of revenue • 

 

 Signature 
SAMPLE PERMITS Page E-14 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

PERIODIC PAYMENTS 

Fees are due and payable in advance, i.e., at theannual billing deadline of March 1. If the total 

fee is more than $500, a schedule of periodic payments may be arranged as follows: 

FEE DUE DATES 

$500.00 to $2500.00 50% on March 1

 50% on July 30 (mid point of operation) 

Greater than $2500.00 34% on March 1 

 33% on July 30 (of operating season) 

 33% on Sept 30 (of operating season) 

PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS 

A high quality professional outfitting and guide service is to be provided. The permittee is 

expected to set the example and standards for all users. Any permittee who casts a negative 

reflection on the permitted operation or the Forest Service will be held accountable through the 

performance evaluation process. Care must be taken to provide clients with a safe and enjoyable 

trip. 

Prior to and during each trip, the following items should be stressed in regard to minimum 

impact camping, day use, and river use: 

 1. Litter. 

 2. Sanitation. 

 3. Protection of natural and cultural resources. 

 4. Fire regulations and closures. 

 5. Fish and Game regulations. 

Powerboaters and floaters share the river resource, including the launch/take out sites. The river 

experiences of both will be enhanced if both parties treat each other with courtesy and respect. 

 

Don't forget:

 Slow down when passing camp areas and beached boats. 

 Allow the craft moving downstream the right-of-way. 

 Use caution at "blind" spots on the river. 

 Kayakers and swimmers are difficult to see. 

 Excessive speed is not safe. 

TRIP AUTHORIZATION 

This permit authorizes day use only. Overnight commercial camping, either on a watercraft on 

the river or on the river bar, is prohibited under the terms of this permit. 
SAMPLE PERMITS Page E-15 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

BOAT RAMP USE 

Boat ramps are sensitive locations that are prone to conflicts between users. Clear boat ramps as 

soon as possible. Ramps are to be used for putting boats into or removing them from the river, 

not for staging areas before the trip or tie-down areas after the trip. 

FOSTER BAR 

Foster Bar Boat Ramp can be especially crowded and requires special emphasis on use etiquette. 

Always leave one lane of the ramp open. Do not leave vehicles unattended on the gravel bar. 

After launching your boat, move away from the boat ramp to load passengers and gear. Boats 

not in use for more than one day should be removed from river mooring to the parking lot. The 

staging of trips on the boat ramp, either launching or taking out, is prohibited, as is the serving of 

food or any other activity other than putting in or taking out boats. 

 

FIREARMS 

Firearms carried by the permittee or client will be the direct responsibility of the permittee. Use 

of firearms in violation of State or Federal laws or regulations may result in suspension or 

revocation of this permit. 

 

SANITATION 

Use private and public toilet facilities where provided. At all other locations, use carry-out 

portable toilets. Do not abandon or bury fecal materials on the shore. Waste water should be 

disposed of in a waste water hole 100 feet or more from water sources. Do not use soap, 

detergents, or other pollutants in the river, regardless of their claims to be biodegradable. 

It is the permittee's responsibility to carry out all trash and garbage to an approved site. The 

permittee should inform passengers that litter includes cigarette butts, foil, matches, toothpicks, 

bread bag closures and other micro-trash items that people often do not consider to be important. 

CRAFT IDENTIFICATION 

Your MRP number must be placed above the waterline where it will be visible at all times. It is 

the permit holder’s responsibility to replace/repaint the numbers so they are legible and 

visible at all times, and in the case of multiple permit numbers on the boat, covering all numbers 

except the “OR” number and operative MRP number. 

SAFETY AND RESCUE 

Before each trip departs, the permittee will brief the passengers on the hazards associated with 

the trip (both on and off the water) as well as the necessary safety measures to be taken during 

the trip (i.e., the proper use of life jackets, etc.). Retrieval of damaged, wrecked, or 

inoperative craft, equipment, etc. is the responsibility of the permittee. 
SAMPLE PERMITS Page E-16 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

ASSIGNMENT, SUBLEASE, OR CONTRACTING FOR SERVICES 

The permittee may not assign or sublease any portion of the permit authorization or interest 

therein, directly or indirectly, voluntarily or involuntarily. Contracting for services may occur 

within closely defined circumstances in this section. 

Only bona fide employees who are compensated by the permittee for providing a service may 

guide trips in the absence of the permittee under the authorization granted to the permittee. In 

Oregon, such guides must be registered with the Oregon State Marine Board or be registered 

under the permittee with the OSMB. 

If necessary to supplement a permittee’s operation, contracting of services or equipment must be 

approved by the Authorized Officer in writing at least two weeks in advance of the trip. Such 

contracting (1) shall be booked, sold, and money collected by the permittee or permittee’s 

booking agent; neither booking, selling, nor money collecting may be undertaken by employees 

of the permittee, contractors, or employees of the contractors, (2) shall be with only another valid 

LMRP permittee of the Gold Beach Ranger District, and (3) shall not constitute more than half 

the employees, required equiment, or services for any one trip. The permit shall retain 

operational control of and legal responsibility for the permitted activity. 

Furthermore, employees of the permittee, contractors, and employees of the contractors must be 

registered with the Authorized Officer of the Gold Beach Ranger District by the permittee prior 

to beginning work, providing name, full current address, current and working telephone number, 

photocopy of OSMB registration, colors and types of craft used on the river, and Certificate of 

Insurance for the prescribed minimum amounts required by the U.S.Forest Service. Discovery of 

unregistered personnel may result in violation notices and repurcussions to the status of the 

permit. 

Limited and specific boat days on LMRP permits require close and timely tracking; the permittee 

must inform the Authorized Officer by providing use reports no later than weekly; reports are not 

necessary for weeks with no trips. In addition, all craft must clearly display the permittee’s MRP 

number in characters at least 2-1/2 inches tall; all other numbers except the “OR” number must 

be covered. 

Using a contractor to supplement needed guides or boats for a permittee’s legally scheduled trip 

should be a decidedly-rare occurrence. This process is not intended to aid or promote illegal 

practices, and instances of contracting will be investigated thoroughly prior to approval by the 

Authorised Officer. 

EXCLUSIONS 

The Special Use Permit does not create an exclusive right of use to the regulated area by the 

permittee. The permittee shall not interfere with other valid uses of the federal lands by other 

users. The United States reserves the right to use any part of the regulated area for any purpose. 
SAMPLE PERMITS Page E-17 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

PERMIT NONCOMPLIANCE 

A. MINOR VIOLATIONS 

Minor violations of the provisions of the Special Use Permit or Operating Plan may result in 

administrative action in regard to the permit. This will normally be handled by mail, telephone, 

or in person to inform the permittee and to correct the infraction to the satisfaction of the Forest 

Officer. Infractions will also be documented in the permittee's folder. Minor violations may 

result in permit suspension. Repeated minor violations may lead to revocation, or termination. 

B. MAJOR VIOLATIONS 

 

Major violations of the provisions of the Special Use Permit or the Operating Plan may result in 

administrative action on the permit and/or criminal/civil action through Federal Court. 

Major violations include, but are not limited to: convictions or diversions for assault or other 

violent crimes against both clients and non-clients, convictions or diversions for controlled 

substance felony violations, convictions or diversions for DUII operation of private or 

commercial vehicles or watercraft, convictions or diversions for private or commercial fish and 

game violations, convictions or diversions for violations of federal or state boating laws or any 

private or commercial at-fault boating accidents, and suspension or revocation of any state or 

federal outfitter/guide permits for cause. 

Major violations may result in permit suspension, revocation, or termination. 

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 

Each year the permittee will be evaluated by the Autherized Officer on overall performance in 

regard to permit and operating plan compliance, as well as public service. The primary objective 

of the Special Use Permit is to provide a service to the public, and comments from clients or 

other involved publics, both positive and negative, will be especially relevant. Comments, both 

positive and negative, will be examined by the Authorized Officer, and their validity will be 

reflected in theAuthorized Officer’s assessment of performance. Permits with Marginal and 

Unacceptable ratings will be documented on paper, and copies will be issued to the permittees 

and the permittee’s file. 

BOAT DAYS: DEFINITION AND USAGE 

A Boat Day is defined as one boat used for any part of one day. If the Holder fishes one type of 

use for any part of one day and another type of use for any part of the same day, it qualifies as 

one Boat Day for each use or 2 (or more) total Boat Days. 

 ` 

Permit Holder Signature Authorized Officer Signature 

 

Date Date 
SAMPLE PERMITS Page E-18 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

 2005 Operating Plan 

For 

Commercial Tour Boat Operations 

On the 

Gold Beach Ranger District 

Rogue River, Lobster Creek to Blossom Bar Rapid 

Permittee: 

Address: 

Phone Number: 

Fax Number: 

This plan will be reviewed annually and updated or revised as needed during the duration of 

the 1-year permit period, January 1, 2005, through December 31, 2005. It is part of the 

special use permit and describes mutually agreed upon stipulations pertinent to the conduct 

of operations authorized by the permit. 

OBJECTIVE 

This document’s purpose is to clarify requirements for operations conducted under 

authority of this permit and will provide directions for the full term of the permit. 

Modifications to this plan may be made as necessary to update or address and resolve any 

special issues that may arise during the term of the permit. 

INTRODUCTION 

Outfitter/Guide permits are issued for all commercial operations on the National Forest 

system including rivers. Restrictions on the maximum daily and weekly trip numbers are 

part of the conditions described on page one of the special use permit. 

LICENSES 

The permittee is responsible for compliance with all state, local and federal laws, rules and 

regulations applicable to the permitted activities. 

APPLICATION

Tour boat permittees holding tenure permits are asked to submit their applications for renewal at 

least one year prior to the permit termination date. Application forms and instructions will be sent 

to the outfitters well in advance of these dates.

INSURANCE

New permits will not be issued and operations authorized under an existing permit will not be 

allowed to continue until the Forest Service receives proper and current proof of insurance. This 

requirement may be satisfied by providing either an authenticated copy of the outfitter’s insurance 

policy or a Certificate of Insurance on the approved format with original signature of the authorized 

insurance representative. The name of the insured on the policy must be identical to the name or 

names given on the outfitter’s application including names of individuals and/or corporations. 

When coverage is not in force the permittee is in violation of the permit.
SAMPLE PERMITS Page E-19 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

Some insurance policies are not in force if life preservers are not provided and worn by passengers 

at all times during boating operations. Check your insurance policy and ensure that jackets are worn 

if this is a policy requirement. 

MANAGING AGENT

If a managing agent is hired, the permittee is required to furnish the Forest Service Representative 

with a notarized copy of the managing agent agreement. This document must clarify the specifics of 

the working relationships and limits of authority in permit matters such as correspondence, use 

reports, applications, etc. 

PERMITTEE REPRESENTATIVE

The following individual/s is/are designated to represent the permittee in contacts with the Forest 

Service concerning permit administration. 

NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE LIMITS OF AUTHORITY

 

1) 

2) 

FOREST SERVICE REPRESENTATIVE 

The Gold Beach District Ranger is the Forest Service Authorized Officer responsible for 

issuance and administration of permits. 

SERVICES AND RATES 

Each year the permittee will furnish the Authorized Officer with a copy of a current 

brochure and price list. The permittee should advise the Authorized Officer in advance of 

any changes in price or services. The Outfitter/Guide pre-season service estimate will be 

completed annually by January 15, to provide the Forest Service with information on which 

to base fee assessments and to approve itineraries. It will be considered the basic statement 

of yearly services to be offered and established rates should coincide with brochures and 

price lists. 

FEES 

Two options are available for determining annual use fess. Both require the pre-season 

service estimate, payment in advance of use, and a year-end reconciliation. For 5-year 

permits, the option selected will be used for the duration of the permit period. 

Fees for estimated use are due and payable in advance. The fee will be based on an estimate of the 

amount of total outfitter customer revenue expected during the full permit year based on the 

previous year’s actual revenues. In support of each yearly estimate, the permittee will furnish copies 

of accounting records for the previous season or a signed certificate that reflects total customer 

revenue and actual service days provided during the previous season. This documentation must be 

submitted annually by January 15. 
SAMPLE PERMITS Page E-20 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

OPTION 1 – Fee Schedule 

Under this option, the outfitter must estimate total revenues and total number of service days in 

each client charge category. These estimated revenues would be adjusted, using guidelines given 

below, for major pre and post trip transportation and lodging costs. The average revenue per 

service days is then calculated. Total fees due are then calculated using the following schedule. 

These fees may be adjusted to account for time spent on National Forest land or waters as shown in 

the guidelines given below. 

 Client 

 Charge Charge per Fee per 

 Category Service Day Service Day

 A $ 1.00 - 8.00 .25 

 B 8.01 - 20.00 .40 

 C 20.01 - 35.00 .80 

 D 35.01 - 50.00 1.30 

 E 50.01 - 75.00 1.90 

 F 75.01 - 100.00 2.60 

 G 100.01 - 125.00 3.40 

 H 125.01 - 150.00 4.10 

 I 150.01 - 175.00 4.90 

 J 175.01 - 200.00 5.60 

 K 200.01 - 250.00 6.75 

 L 250.01 - 300.00 8.25 

 M 300.01 - 400.00 10.00 

 N OVER $ 400 3% of adjusted service day 

 

 

 

OPTION 2 – 3% of Revenue 

Under this option, the outfitter’s fee will be calculated based upon three percent of outfitted 

customer revenue. The schedule in option 1 is not used. Adjustments are made using the same 

guidelines as in Option 1. 

I elect option number: 

 Signature 

OFF-FOREST USE DISCOUNTS: 

Fees will be discounted to recognize off Forest use. The following rates apply: 

 Percent of Total Time 

 On National Forest Lands 

 And Waters Fee Reduction 

 0 - 5% 80% 

 5 - 60% 40% 

 60 - 100% None 

 
SAMPLE PERMITS Page E-21 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

The holder must provide documentation of the duration of trips, such as itineraries, to 

support a request for a fee reduction based on use off National Forest System lands. This 

shall include a separate itinerary for each type of trip, (64 mile, 80 mile, and 104 mile). 

Include travel time from the bay to Lobster Creek, Lobster Creek to Watson Creek, and 

Watson Creek to Blossom Bar, also include time spent for lunch layovers, etc. 

When calculating fees, the discount will be applied to the Forest Service fee, not to the permittee’s 

revenue. 

PERIODIC PAYMENTS 

Fees are due and payable in advance. If the total fee is more than $500, a schedule of 

periodic payments may be arranged as follows: 

FEE DATE DUE

Greater than $500 up to $2500 - 50% in advance of use 

 - 50% on June 30 (midpoint of operation) 

Greater than $2500 - 34% in advance (April 30) 

 - 33% on July 30 (midpoint of operation) 

- 33% on September 30 (end of operation, same FY) 

CALCULATING FISCAL FEES AND RECONCILIATION 

At the end of each season, a comparison will be made between the actual number of service 

days used and those initially estimated and paid. If more use has occurred, the permittee 

will be billed for the additional use; this will be due and payable within 30 days. If less use 

has occurred, the permittee will receive a credit toward the next season’s fee assessment. 

The minimum fee for this use is $90.00, none of which will be refunded or applied against 

next season’s fees. 

If the permittee fails to utilize 70% or more of an assigned amount of use in any two years of a fiveyear permit period, the Authorized Forest Officer may reduce the holder’s amount of use after 

taking into consideration any extenuating circumstances. 

The requirement for submission of accounting records was covered earlier in this plan under 

“FEES”. Periodic audits of these records will be made in accordance with clause number VII. D. of 

the permit. 

REPORTING OF PASSENGERS AND BOAT TRIPS 

The Authorized Forest Officer will either provide a form (Actual Use Report) or agree to a 

form developed by the permittee for tracking the actual number of passengers and boat trips 

for the operating season. The number of passengers will be reported monthly, by trip class 

(64, 80, 104 mile trip), and by fee class (if using option 1 of the fee schedule). The number of 

boat trips will be reported by trip class (64, 80, 104 mile trip) on a daily basis. Actual use 

reports for passengers and boat trips are due January 15. 

NON-COMMERCIAL PASSENGERS

The permittee is authorized to carry non-commercial passengers at his discretion. The number of 

non-commercial passengers should appear on the Actual Use Report along with the number of 

commercial passengers. The purpose of these non-commercial trips does not need to be 

reported, however it should be recorded in a manner that this information could be made 

available upon request.
SAMPLE PERMITS Page E-22 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

NON-USE 

If all of a major part of the permit should go unused in any given year, the permittee and the 

Authorized Forest Officer will review the permittee’s situation jointly and the future status 

of the permit will be determined. The review will consider any extenuating circumstances 

such as high or low water conditions, fire closures, sickness, etc. Continued non-use may 

result in permit revocation. A permit may not be held for speculative purposes with little or 

no public service being provided. 

SALE 

If a permittee decides to sell his/her commercial tour boat business, he/she and the 

prospective buyer will meet with the Authorized Forest Officer prior to concluding the sale 

or applying for a new permit. The past operation of the business and planned future use 

will be discussed. A permit may or may not be transferred. This will be at the discretion of 

the Authorized Forest Officer. Information on procedures, needed documentation and 

qualification requirements will be provided at that time. A written copy of transfer/sale 

procedures will be mailed to the permittee upon request. 

PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS 

A high quality professional scenic tour service is to be provided. The permittee and his/her 

employees are expected to set the example and standards for all users. Keep in mind 

employees are the reflection of the permittee’s operation. Any employee who casts a 

negative reflection on the permitted operation or the Forest Service must be dealt with to the 

satisfaction of the Forest Service. Care will be taken to provide the passengers with a safe 

and enjoyable trip. In addition to guiding services, the permittee will also provide factual 

interpretive information about the area. 

Power boaters and floaters share the river resource. The river experiences of both will be enhanced 

if both parties treat each other with courtesy and respect. 

All craft moving downstream have the right-of-way. Avoid putting yourself or other parties in 

dangerous situations. The permit holder and boat operators are responsible for any damage caused 

by their wake. 

The feeding of fish and wildlife, especially black bear, is prohibited. 

A motorized round-trip is defined as one run upstream and one run downstream. Running the same 

rapid more than once upstream and once downstream is prohibited upstream of Foster Creek. The 

only exception to this rule will be if an emergency condition exists. Running rapids twice below 

Foster Creek should only occur when no other user groups are present. 

If 360-degree spins are done, they should occur when no other user groups are present. 

A haul back is defined as transporting persons back upstream after they have come downstream by 

floating or boating in the Wild Section of the Rogue River. Haul backs for float purposes and 

reasons other than emergencies are prohibited. 

CRAFT IDENTIFICATION 

All boats will be plainly marked with the name and/or representative symbol of the 

company that can be easily identified by someone standing on either riverbank. 
SAMPLE PERMITS Page E-23 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

BOAT NAME PASSENGER CAPACITY TRIP LENTH

Boat sizes must meet Forest Service limits for the sections of river used. 

DAILY TIMES OF OPERATION 

Times of tour boat operations between Agness and Blossom Bar will be agreed to in advance of 

operations and prior to March 15 of each year. Special charters may necessitate tour boat trips to 

be outside of specified times, and would be allowed. 

SAFETY AND RESCUE 

Tour boat operators should be briefed on the location of emergency landing strips and 

possible sites for helicopter rescue in case an emergency evacuation is needed. Incidents 

and accidents must be reported to the U.S. Coast Guard, Curry County Sheriff’s Office, and 

U.S. Forest Service per current regulations. Retrieval of damaged, wrecked or inoperative 

tour boats, equipment, etc. is the responsibility of the permittee. 

Each boat operated under the auspices of this special use permit must have the capability of safety 

and emergency communication with the Curry County Sheriff, the Gold Beach Ranger District and 

other motorized boats on the river. 

HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT

The permittee is required to manage hazardous materials and fuel and oil spills in accordance with 

Oregon Administrative Rules, Department of Environmental Quality, Chapter 340, Division 47 

“Regulations Pertaining To Oil Spills Into Public Waters”, and Oregon Administrative Rules, 

Chapter 340, Division 108 “Oil And Hazardous Material Spills and Releases”. 

SANITATION 

Use toilet facilities at those sites where they are provided. Wastewater should be disposed 

of in the toilet hole or a waste water hole 100 feet or more from water sources. Don’t use or 

dispose of soap, detergents, or other pollutants in the river. 

It is the permittee’s responsibility to carry out all trash and garbage to an approved site. Tour boat 

operators should inform their passengers that litter includes cigarette butts, gum wrappers, flip tops, 

and other items that many people often do not consider to be important. 

 

FIREARMS 

Firearms carried by the permittee, guests or employees will be the direct responsibility of 

the permittee. Misuse of firearms by the permittee, guests or employees, in violation of 

State or Federal laws or regulations may result in termination of this permit. 

PERMIT NONCOMPLIANCE 

A. MINOR VIOLATIONS 

These will be handled by mail, telephone, or on the river to inform the permittee/boat operator and 

to correct the infraction to the satisfaction of the Authorized Forest Officer. Infractions will also be 

documented in the performance evaluation and permittee’s file. Repetitious violations of this nature 

will result in adverse administrative action that may result in permit probation or suspension. 
SAMPLE PERMITS Page E-24 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

B. MAJOR VIOLATIONS 

Infractions involving a direct violation of the provisions of the special use permit or the operating 

plan will result in administrative action on the permit and/or criminal /civil action through Federal 

Court. Major violations will most likely result in permit suspension or revocation. 

 

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION 

Each year at the end of the operating season, the permittee will be evaluated on overall performance 

in regards to permit and operating plan compliance as well as public service. The primary objective 

of the special use permit is to provide a quality service to the public. If complaints are received 

about a permittee’s operation, the Forest Service will examine the operation to determine if the 

complaints are valid. If the complaints are found to be valid, this will be reflected in the 

Performance Evaluation. The Authorized Forest Officer will decide on the appropriate course of 

action. The Performance Evaluation is a part of this permit and operating plan and attached hereto 

as Exhibit I. 

ACCEPTED: 

 Permit Holder Date 

 

 

 

 JOHN BORTON Date 

 Gold Beach District Ranger 

 Siskiyou National Forest 

 Authorized Forest Officer 
FISHERIES Biological Evaluation Page F-1 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

Fisheries Biological Evaluation 

Special Use Permits for Outfitter and Guide Operations on the lower Rogue and 

Illinois River 

Gold Beach Ranger District 

APPENDIX F 

Prepared by James Simino, Zone Fisheries Biologist 

Date: March 18, 2005 

I. INTRODUCTION

Land management activities require a Biological Evaluation to be completed (FSM 2672.4). The 

Biological Evaluation process (FSM 2672.43) is intended to conduct and document activities 

necessary to ensure proposed management actions will not likely jeopardize the continued 

existence, cause adverse modification of habitat or reduce taking of individuals for: 

Klamath Mountain Province ESU Steelhead Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) 

Status: Not Warranted

Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List 

Southern Oregon and Northern California Coast ESU Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) 

Status: Threatened

Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List 

Southern Oregon and Northern California Coast ESU Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus 

tshawytscha) 

Status: Not Warranted

Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List 

Southern Oregon and California Coastal ESU Cutthroat Trout (Oncorhynchus clarki clarki) 

Status: Not Warranted

Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List 

II. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT 

The USDA Forest Service would reissue all 63 permits with the same term and conditions as the 

2000-2004 permits. 

Commercial Tour Boats

Two commercial tour boat companies would be offered three permits to operate jet boats on the 

Rogue River for scenic trips and to transport lodge guests. Three trip types would be permitted: 

Lobster Creek to either Snout Creek (Agness), Watson Creek (the beginning of the Wild Section 

on the lower Rogue), or to the pool below Blossom Bar Rapids (approximately 10 miles above 

Watson Creek in the Rogue Wild Section). 

Fishing Guides

Fifty-nine permits would be offered to fishing guides for trips on the lower Rogue and lower 

Illinois Rivers. Special use permits for outfitter/guides who held valid floating fishing trip 

permits for the Rogue River at the end of the 2003-2004 season would be authorized. 
FISHERIES Biological Evaluation Page F-2 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

The permits would allow guided floating fishing trips on the National Forest portion of the 

recreation and wild sections (MA-10) of the Wild and Scenic Rogue River from the confluence 

with Lobster Creek upstream to Blossom Bar. The permit would include the use of the river, 

river bars and roads necessary for access to the river. Only one guide would operate under each 

permit. Permits won’t be issued until the entire permit process is completed. The fishing season 

usually runs from throughout the entire year and is regulated by the Oregon Department of Fish 

and Wildlife. 

The existing special use permits expired on December 31, 2004. There is a need to allow some 

routine and historically permitted fishing guide activities to continue through the interim period 

until the ROD can be implemented. Livelihoods are at stake as is the seasonal economic stability 

of the town of Gold Beach, Oregon. Some fishing guides work the permitted sections of the 

lower Rogue and Illinois Rivers during the winter months. The jet boat tours do not begin 

operations until mid to late April. 

Three fishing guide permits would include additional uses. One permit would include livery 

service, scenic trips, and boat training trips from Lobster Creek to the pool below Blossom Bar 

Rapids. Another would include livery trips and scenic trips from Foster Bar to Agness. The 

third permit would include raft trips from Foster Bar to Agness. 

Commercial Lodge Boats

One permit would be issued to transport lodge guests from Foster Bar to Paradise Lodge. 

Docks

Three special use permits would be issued for docks in the Rogue River Wild Section at the 

Paradise, Half Moon Bar, and Clay Hill Lodges. 

III. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AREA 

Fish Habitat 

The dominant habitat feature in the watershed is the mainstem Rogue River, which provides 45 

miles of primarily migration habitat for fish. This is a major river, with a low stream gradient, a 

wide active channel and powerful winter streamflows. It flows through a narrow canyon from 

river mile (RM) 27 down to RM 17. Active floodplain development is minimal. Perched 

terraces are remnants of an older baseline. Downstream of RM 17, the river valley opens up, the 

gradient decreases further and extensive gravel bars form. Downstream of RM 5 tidal waters 

influence the flow. Large islands form and the river flows through multiple channels. These are 

important rearing and smolting habitat for salmon and trout. 

The region receives a high amount of precipitation between October and June and very little the 

remainder of the year. This results in a flow regime of extremes to which fish respond. During 

peak flows in late autumn, winter and spring the entire channel is submerged, with only the 

largest estuarine islands remaining. Further upstream only the inactive terraces are above water. 

To escape the force of the flow, fish hold on the margins of the channel, in submerged tributary 

mouths and in eddies behind boulders. 
FISHERIES Biological Evaluation Page F-3 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

Spawning is restricted to the tributaries, where streamflows are lower and do not wash away fish 

eggs incubating in gravel streambeds. During drought years when rain events occur later in than 

average years, spawning may occur in the mainstem Rogue. Access to tributaries during dry 

years is blocked as the tributaries flow subsurface through all the alluvial deposits at tributary 

confluences. 

By late summer the wetted channel is, in many places, reduced to only a fraction of the total 

channel width, revealing wide gravel bars as well as islands in the estuary. Exposed to the sun, 

mixed water temperatures rocket into the low 70s during late summer (see Temperature section), 

and fish hold in cooler water found at the bottom of deep pools and at the tributary mouths. 

During low flow conditions, the wetted channel is separated from the influences of forest 

riparian vegetation by bare rocks. Seasonal emergent rushes, willows and herbs line the channel 

margins. By mid-summer, mats of filamentous green algae have developed in shallow water and 

provide nutrients and structure for photosynthetic, invertebrate and amphibian organisms. 

Large wood is primarily absent from the mainstem channel. Powerful storm flow and a wide 

channel result in large wood being flushed downstream, out of the watershed. Structural habitat 

diversity is provided by boulders and bedrock outcrops. Deep pools and turbidity provide 

instream cover. In the lower 5 miles of the river, where islands disperse the force of the river, 

pockets of large wood accumulate at river bends. These are important rearing structures for 

juvenile and smolting salmonids. 

Illinois River 

The Illinois River is a large tributary of the Rogue River, which enters the Rogue River at 

Agness, OR. The Illinois River is a large river, with a low stream gradient, a confined active 

channel and powerful winter stream flows. It flows through a narrow bedrock canyon. Active 

floodplain development is minimal and restricted to the confluences with the larger tributaries. 

Perched terraces also occur near the tributaries and are remnants of an older baseline. The lower 

Illinois River flows through a steep canyon dominated by bedrock features. The river flows 

through the canyon that begins some 40 miles upstream near Eight Dollar Mountain. Long 

confined reaches transport sediment through during high flows, with some deposition along the 

outside of curves in the channel (USDA 2000). The majority of habitat throughout this section 

of the river identified in a fish survey from Collier Bar to Lawson Creek described the channel 

morphology (Reid, 2002) “varied between short boulder strewn rapids to long (some 

approximately 0.5 miles) bedrock canyons or gravel bottom pools. Large boulders were 

common in many of the pools, while in places...pool depths were estimated at 100 feet or more.” 

From the mouth of Nancy Creek downstream to the mouth of the Illinois River, the river valley 

widens. Within the channel, large depositional bars change size and shape with peak flow 

events, and the river meanders through these bars. Above the channel are alluvial terraces, 

including Oak Flat on the east bank. Most of these terraces were meadows prior to Euro 

American settlement, and are now used for pasture or other agricultural and residential use 

(USDA 2000). 
FISHERIES Biological Evaluation Page F-4 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

The region receives a high amount of precipitation between October and June and very little the 

remainder of the year. This results in a flow regime of extremes to which fish respond. During 

peak flows in late autumn, winter, and spring the entire channel is submerged. Only the inactive 

terraces are above water. To escape the force of the flow, fish hold on the margins of the 

channel, in submerged tributary mouths and in eddies behind boulders. Spawning is restricted to 

the tributaries, where stream flows are lower and do not wash away fish eggs incubating in 

gravel streambeds. 

By late summer, the river is reduced to only a fraction of the total channel width in many places, 

revealing wide gravel and cobble bars. Water temperatures rise into the 70s during late summer. 

Fish hold in cooler water found at the bottom of deep pools and at the tributary mouths to avoid 

the warmer temperatures. During low flow conditions, the river is separated from the influences 

of forest riparian vegetation by bare rocks. Seasonal emergent rushes, willows, and herbs line 

the channel margins. By mid-summer, mats of filamentous green algae have developed in 

shallow water and provide nutrients and structure for photosynthetic, invertebrate and amphibian 

organisms. 

Large wood is absent from the main channel. Powerful storm flow and a confined channel result 

in large wood being flushed downstream, out of the watershed. Structural habitat diversity is 

provided by boulders and bedrock outcrops. Deep pools and turbidity provide instream cover. 

During the summer, water temperatures in the Illinois exceed state standards. The salmonids that 

utilize the Illinois during these times are migrating upstream (adults) or downstream (smolts). 

The lower part of the Illinois River is a migration corridor for salmonid species. 

Fisheries

Coho Salmon 

Coho in the Rogue River are part of the Southern Oregon/Northern California ESU, which was 

listed as Threatened in 1997 under the federal Endangered Species Act by NMFS. The 

distribution of coho extends from the Elk River, Oregon, south to the Mattole River, California. 

The historic abundance of these coho ranged from 150,000 to 400,000 spawning fish. Today, the 

population is down to about 10,000 naturally produced adults. The Rogue River is one of the 

major remaining coho producing rivers in this ESU (NMFS, 1997). In the Rogue River, coho 

predominantly spawn and rear in the upper Rogue and the Illinois rivers. The upper Rogue 

population is mostly hatchery fish, most wild coho production is in the Illinois River tributaries. 

Below Agness, coho spawn in low numbers in the South Fork Lobster and in Silver Creek. Coho 

have also been seen in a tributary to Quosatana Creek. When coho populations were higher than 

present, a larger number of strays likely used the marginal habitat in lower Rogue River 

tributaries. 

Adult coho enter the Rogue River in August with spawning occurring in December through 

February. Eggs incubate in gravel streambeds until early February when the fry emerge. 

Juvenile fish stay in their natal streams for more than one year, congregating in the mediumsized streams (Lobster Creek and Quosatana Creek). Coho migrate out of the Rogue through 

June of their second year. Rogue River coho spend two years in the ocean before returning to 

spawn (Rivers 1991). Because juvenile coho spend a full year in mid-sized streams they depend 

on high-quality habitat features throughout that year. 
FISHERIES Biological Evaluation Page F-5 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

High-quality habitat is made up of cool water (<65oF), off-channel habitats to get out of high 

flows, large quantities of instream cover, and the presence of large woody material (LWM). 

High summer water temperatures (>65o F), little instream cover or slackwater areas to escape 

high flows in winter, and a general low-density of instream wood are habitat features of the midsized streams that do not promote coho production. These conditions are typical of mid-sized 

streams in the Coast Range of southern Oregon, where coho production is low. These conditions 

do not affect other salmonids to the degree that coho are affected. 

Fall Chinook 

Rogue River fall Chinook are part of the Southern Oregon and Northern California Coastal 

Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU). The range of this ESU is from Cape Blanco, Oregon, 

south to Klamath River, California. This ESU was proposed for listing as Threatened under the 

federal Endangered Species Act, but was determined by the National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NMFS) now NOAA Fisheries, not to warrant listing in September 1999. Fall Chinook salmon 

in the upper Rogue River were identified by NMFS, March 9, 1998, as the only relatively 

healthy population in the entire ESU. 

During the late 1980s, the combination of drought, stream habitat degradation, low ocean 

survival, and high ocean exploitation rates in the Klamath Management Zone resulted in a severe 

decline in Chinook populations in all of the Oregon coastal basins south of Elk River. River 

angling for Chinook in several southcoast basins, including the lower Rogue River, was closed 

during this time. Populations began to improve in 1991, with a sharp curtailment in ocean 

harvest coupled with the end of drought conditions by 1993 (ODFW 1997). 

Adult fall Chinook enter the Rogue River in August and disperse throughout the watershed to 

spawn as streamflow allows. Most fish spawn in tributaries to the Rogue, as the high winter 

flows in the winter tend to move much of the cobble substrate where the fish spawn, washing 

away redds. In unusually dry years fish will spawn in the mainstem as was seen in 2003. 

Spawning is usually completed by the end of December, after which all adult Chinook die. Fry 

emerge from the gravel in March and start migrating downstream almost immediately. 

Downstream migration peaks between the end of May and the middle of July but continues 

through the summer (ODFW 1997). During mild winters, some juveniles can stay in the river. 

In the spring of 1998, 123 one year-old Chinook were caught in the Lobster Creek juvenile 

migrant trap (ODFW, 1998). Chinook migrate out of tributary streams by mid-summer and do 

not overwinter there, avoiding both high summer water temperatures and high winter flows. 

After migrating out of freshwater, these Chinook will spend two or three years in the ocean 

before returning to spawn. 

Spring Chinook 

Rogue River fall Chinook are part of the Southern Oregon and Northern California Coastal 

Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU). The range of this ESU is from Cape Blanco, Oregon, 

south to Klamath River, California. This ESU was proposed for listing as Threatened under the 

federal Endangered Species Act, but was determined by NMFS, now NOAA Fisheries, not to 

warrant listing in September 1999. 
FISHERIES Biological Evaluation Page F-6 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

During the late 1980s, the combination of drought, stream habitat degradation, low ocean 

survival, and high ocean exploitation rates in the Klamath Management Zone resulted in a severe 

decline in Chinook populations in all of the Oregon coastal basins south of Elk River. River 

angling for Chinook in several southcoast basins, including the lower Rogue River, was closed 

during this time. Populations began to improve in 1991, with a sharp curtailment in ocean 

harvest coupled with the end of drought conditions by 1993 (ODFW 1997). 

Adult spring Chinook enter the river in mid-February. Adults remain in the lower Rogue until 

mid-July, on their migration to upstream spawning reaches. Spring Chinook spawn in the Upper 

Rogue River in September through mid-November. From July through September adult fish are 

located upstream of the analysis area. Juvenile spring Chinook salmon begin hatching midFebruary through mid-September. The juveniles can be found in the analysis area from April 

through September with limited presence in January, February, March, October and November. 

These fish rear within the Lower Rogue during this time. As water temperatures approach 70o F 

juveniles will hold over near tributary confluences where cooler water enters the main river. 

These thermal refugia are important to juveniles and adults both throughout the warm summer 

months. 

Winter Steelhead 

Winter steelhead in the Rogue River are part of the Klamath Mountains Province (KMP) ESU. 

This ESU was proposed as Threatened under the Endangered Species Act in 1996. However, in 

1998 the ESU was determined to not warrant such a listing, based on recovery efforts in the 

states of Oregon and California. The ESU extends from the Elk River in Oregon south to, and 

including, the Klamath River in California. The NMFS estimates the current abundance of this 

ESU to be 85,000 with an historic abundance of greater than 275,000 (NMFS, July 1996). The 

ODFW estimates that the population of winter steelhead in the Rogue River between 1970 and 

1987 averaged 44,000 adult spawners annually. The estimate for 1990-1996 is 55,000 adults, 

which indicates a positive trend in the population (RVCOG, 1997). 

Winter steelhead spawn in lower Rogue River tributaries. Steelhead have a more variable life 

history than coho or Chinook. They can spend one to several years rearing in freshwater and can 

survive reproduction to return to the ocean. In streams their sleek body proportions allow them 

to ascend steeper gradients and use smaller streams for spawning and rearing. They also roam 

more within a basin to locate suitable spawning habitat. Winter steelhead enter the Rogue River 

to spawn in November and spawning continues into April. Fry emerge from May to early July. 

Most steelhead will spend almost 2 full years rearing in tributaries before smolting and migrating 

to the ocean in the spring. After typically 2 years of ocean rearing they will return to spawn. A 

small percentage of the population will return to freshwater after only one year. These so-called 

“half-pounders” are sexually immature and will return to the ocean again before making a 

spawning run. 

Summer Steelhead 

The Rogue River produces the largest run of summer steelhead in Oregon, outside of the 

Columbia River system. The only other Oregon coastal streams that produce summer steelhead 

are the Hood, Siletz and North Umpqua Rivers. The Rogue River is unusual in that it supports 

three forms of Oncorhynchus mykiss sympatrically: resident rainbow trout, winter, and summer 

steelhead. 
FISHERIES Biological Evaluation Page F-7 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

Adult summer steelhead enter the Rogue River from the ocean between May and October. An 

early run, 10 percent of the population, enters in May, June or July. The late run, 90 percent of 

the population, enters in August, September or October. Adults hold in pools, completing sexual 

maturation, until they spawn in the winter (December through March). Fry emerge from gravel 

nests between April and June. Juveniles rear in tributary streams for two to four years before 

migrating to the ocean. Summer and winter steelhead have some overlap in time and space for 

egg laying and rearing activities. They are distinguished from each other mainly by the timing of 

their adult runs and the degree of gonad maturity upon entering freshwater. 

Unlike winter steelhead summer steelhead do not spawn or rear in the segment of the Rogue 

River below Agness, nor its tributaries. They are a middle and upper Rogue River fish, with 

important spawning and rearing grounds in tributaries including the Applegate River. 

Adult summer steelhead migrate upstream through the Rogue River between May and October. 

Pre-smolt juveniles migrate downstream from their natal streams to the estuary between April 

and June. 

Rogue River summer steelhead also exhibit an interesting, non-spawning migration known as the 

“half-pounder” run. Half-pounders are small, sexually immature steelhead 11 to 16 inches long. 

They return to freshwater with the late-running adults in August and September, after only three 

to four months in the ocean. Instead of migrating upstream to spawning tributaries, halfpounders stay in the lower and middle Rogue River mainstem over the winter, then return to the 

ocean in the spring. Half-pounder steelhead are found in the Rogue River below Agness during 

the autumn and winter. 

While 95 percent of summer steelhead exhibit the half-pounder migration pattern, it is not 

exclusive to them. Approximately 30 percent of the winter steelhead population in the Rogue 

River will also make a half-pounder run. The reason for the half-pounder run is not well 

understood. One theory is that these fish follow spawning spring Chinook into the rivers to take 

advantage of the large food resource provided by Chinook eggs. Another is that the halfpounders are escaping adverse ocean conditions. Other than the Rogue River, half-pounders are 

found only in the Klamath and Eel Rivers of Northern California. 

Summer steelhead use many of the same streams winter steelhead use for spawning and rearing 

but also spawn in smaller streams, often spawning in streams that dry up during the summer. 

Because summer steelhead are in freshwater as adults during the time of lowest flow and highest 

temperature, they require pockets of cool water. In the section of the Rogue River below 

Agness, summer steelhead will hold up in deep pools or at the mouths of tributaries that have 

cool water. Before the Lost Creek Dam was completed in the early 1970s, the summer water 

temperature of the mainstem Rogue River was two to three degrees warmer than the Illinois 

River, which enters immediately downstream of Agness. Summer steelhead would stay in the 

lower Illinois River until the Rogue River cooled in the fall, and then continue up the Rogue 

River. Now Lost Creek Dam reserves and releases cool water into the Rogue River, and summer 

water temperatures are usually cooler in the Rogue than the Illinois. As a result, summer 

steelhead no longer hold up in the Illinois River. 
FISHERIES Biological Evaluation Page F-8 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

Summer steelhead that spawn in the Rogue River system, especially in the middle Rogue, are the 

weakest population of the Klamath Mountains Province steelhead ESU. Census information 

collected at Huntley Park shows a 25 percent decrease in population size since the mid-1980s. 

Both summer and winter steelhead are propagated at Cole Rivers Hatchery and released into the 

Rogue River. Wild fish are not incorporated into the brood stock and little interaction between 

wild and hatchery stock is thought to occur on the spawning grounds. 

Anadromous Cutthroat Trout 

Both resident and anadromous cutthroat trout occur in the lower Rogue River. Multiple ageclasses of cutthroat are consistently present in coastal Oregon streams, and forces driving their 

complex life histories are poorly understood (ODFW, April 1997). Anadromous cutthroat 

usually rear in freshwater for two, three or four years before smolting. Yearling cutthroat appear 

to be displaced from prime habitat by other salmonid yearlings, probably because they emerge 

later and are, therefore, smaller. They commonly return to freshwater to overwinter without 

spawning. Females begin spawning at age 4 and can survive to spawn up to four or five times. 

Fish spawn in late winter and early spring (Trotter, 1997). 

Resident Trout 

Both rainbow and cutthroat trout occur in resident forms in the lower Rogue River. They occupy 

the uppermost reaches of most tributaries and commingle with the anadromous forms throughout 

the basin. 

IV. DISCUSSION OF EFFECTS OF PROJECT

The proposed project determination is May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect (NLAA) 

Southern Oregon/Northern California (SONC) coho, and Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) May be 

Adversely Affected (MAA) for the following reasons: 

• Individuals may be harassed as motorboats pass directly over or within 5 meters, causing 

a startle or avoidance response. This effect is likely to be short in duration. 

• Motorboat activity occurs during months when juvenile and adult coho are using the 

lower Rogue River as a migration corridor. 

• Juvenile coho migrate at night and rest in the stream margins during the day, and 

interactions with jetboats would be minimal. 

• Essential Fish Habitat will be affected, though the timing of channel maintenance does 

not coincide with when coho use this portion of the river. 

The Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-267), amended the Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries 

Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) to require federal agencies to 

consult with National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries (NOAA) on activities 

that may adversely affect “Essential Fish Habitat”. The Act defines EFH as “those waters and 

substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity” and includes 

all freshwater streams accessible to anadromous fish, marine waters, and intertidal habitats. 

Critical Habitat is identical to coho habitat protected under the Endangered Species Act. For the 

project area, this would be the lower Rogue River and the lower Illinois River. 
FISHERIES Biological Evaluation Page F-9 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

Table 1 summarizes effects on Threatened, Sensitive, and Salmonid Indicator Fish Species. 

Table 1: Effects on Threatened, Sensitive, and Salmonid Indicator Fish Species 

Species Status Salmonid Indicator 

Species 

Present within 

Project Area 

Effect 

Determination 

Coho Salmon Threatened No Yes NLAA 

Fall Chinook 

Salmon Sensitive (USFS) Yes Yes MIIH 

Spring Chinook Sensitive (USFS) Yes Yes MIIH 

Winter Steelhead 

Trout Sensitive (USFS) Yes Yes MIIH 

Summer Steelhead Sensitive (USFS) Yes Yes MIIH 

Coastal Cutthroat 

Trout Sensitive (USFS) Yes -Resident 

forms only Yes MIIH 

Essential Fish 

Habitat MAA 

LAA = Likely to Adversely Affect 

MIIH = May Impact Individuals and/or Habitat but not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or a loss of viability 

MAA= May Adversely Affect 

Alternative 1 

For a detailed description of the No Action Alternative refer to Chapter 2 of the Special Use 

Permits for Outfitter and Guide Operations on the Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Rivers Final 

Environmental Impact Statement. 

Direct Effects 

There would be no measurable direct negative impacts on fisheries in the Rogue and Illinois 

Rivers in the project area. The reduction in motorboat activity would reduce the motorboat 

traffic that fish are exposed to and would reduce the startle responses to motorboat traffic. 

However, the drift boat, raft, kayak, and private motorboat traffic would likely remain the same. 

The majority of coho juvenile migration occurs during night and early morning, between the 

hours of 2100-0400 hours in river systems in british Columbia (Macdonald 1960, Meehan and 

Siniff 1962, Mace 1983, Groot and Margolis 1991). Coho juveniles in the Rogue River likely 

utilize a similar diel migration pattern. Satterthwaite (1995) studied the effects of boat traffic on 

juvenile salmonids and showed that steelhead and Chinook juveniles responded more to drift 

boats or rafts passing overhead than to any other boat type on the Rogue River. Startle responses 

from float traffic would continue. Both motor boat and float traffic likely cause startle responses 

in individual coho, Chinook, steelhead, and cutthroat trout. Motorboat and float traffic may also 

cause startle responses in green sturgeon. 

Channel Maintenance

Channel maintenance may likely occur in portions of the lower Rogue downstream of the project 

area. The channel maintenance alters existing riffle habitat by converting it from shallow riffle 

habitat to deeper habitat type more like a run. The effects to fish habitat are likely only during 

low flow times. When the shallow riffle habitat is deeper this could change the macroinvertebrate community within the portion of the channel where maintenance occurs, though a 

shift in macroinvertebrate communities is not anticipated. 
FISHERIES Biological Evaluation Page F-10 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

Riffle habitat is where many macroinvertebrates (aquatic insects) reside. These insects drift into 

areas with slower velocity water, where fish are residing and are preyed upon by the fish. The 

amount of riffle habitat being converted to deeper run habitat is very small and likely has no 

detrimental effect throughout the entire lower Rogue River. The thalweg deepening may make it 

easier for larger fish, such as green sturgeon, to pass through these riffles during lower flow 

periods in the summer months. 

Willows will also be removed at two different locations during seasons when river flows do not 

remove the willows naturally. The location of willow removal will not create any measurable 

effect on water temperatures or shade and will have no effect on fish. 

Indirect Effects 

Boat traffic may become more concentrated in the Rogue River from the estuary to the mouth of 

Lobster Creek. This section of the river is important to juvenile salmonids. The estuary is where 

the salmon smolts finish the process of being able to process salt water after living in freshwater, 

an important stage in their development. Juvenile salmonids reside in the estuary from March 

through November, depending on the species and the run. Heavier boat use would have a 

negative effect on juvenile salmonids. The increase in boat encounters would increase the 

likelihood of a fish being startled in the area of river below the analysis area. 

Dock removal would have minimal effects on fish. 

Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative effects of projects in the Rogue River and Illinois basins are expected to be 

minimal. There are several projects planned within the Rogue River drainage upstream of Grave 

Creek on Bureau of Land Management and National Forest lands. In the Illinois River basin 

there are a few projects planned for the future. Two major projects are the Illinois River Trail 

Reconstruction and Biscuit Fire Salvage. These projects are required to meet the Northwest 

Forest Plan Aquatic Conservation Strategy. To meet this strategy projects cannot degrade fish 

habitat, therefore these projects will not affect fish or fish habitat in the Rogue or Illinois rivers. 

Motor boat activity would continue throughout the lower Rogue, and boat traffic is likely to 

increase over time as more people use the Rogue River for recreation and fishing. The increased 

traffic in the river will increase the probability of boat traffic creating startle or behavioral 

responses in fish. 

Refer to Summary of Cumulative Effects, Chapter 4, FEIS. 

Alternative 2 

For a detailed description of Alternative 2 refer to Chapter 2 of the Special Use Permits for 

Outfitter and Guide Operations on the Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Rivers Final 

Environmental Impact Statement. 

Direct Effects 

The permitted boat use would cause startle or avoidance responses in fish as boats passed within 

5 meters of fish in the lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Rivers (Sattherthwaite 1995). The 

majority of coho juvenile migration occurs during night and early morning, between the hours of 

2100-0400 hours in river systems in british Columbia (Macdonald 1960, Meehan and Siniff 

1962, Mace 1983, Groot and Margolis 1991). Coho juveniles in the Rogue River likely utilize a 

similar diel migration pattern. Boat-fish collisions are unlikely because of this startle response. 
FISHERIES Biological Evaluation Page F-11 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

The lodge docks would not affect fish or fish habitat, as they are not disturbing spawning or 

rearing habitat in the river. The total number of permitted fishing guide trips for the project area 

is 394 year round trips in the Wild Section, 57 trips allowed during the winter in the Wild 

Section, 17, 293 trips allowed in the section from Lobster Creek to Watson Creek, and 4380 

permitted in the Illinois River. 

Table 2. Permitted tour boat use throughout the analysis area by month 

for Alternative 2. 

 

Month Maximum 

Trips per Day 

Maximum 

Trips per 

Month 

January 4 32 

February 4 32 

March 4 32 

April 4 32 

May 16 496 

June (1-15) 16 * 

June (15-30) 28 660 

July 28 868 

August 28 868 

September 16 480 

October 16 496 

November 4 32 

December 4 32 

Total Yearly 

Permitted 4,244#

Total Lodge 

Boat Trips 

Permitted 

365 

 *Number of total trips was combined with the second half of 

June 

# Total number of trips per year may not equal total numbers 

per month due to changes in the season due to Labor Day. 

Channel Maintenance

Channel maintenance would occur at 45 different sites throughout the lower Rogue River. The 

effects to fish habitat are similar to those mentioned in Alternative 1. There are 44 prop wash 

locations where maintenance can occur. However the maximum number of sites modified in a 

single year is 15. The average amount of habitat modified in these 15 locations is 26,250 square 

feet of habitat throughout the lower Rogue River and deepen the channel up to 1.5 feet 

maximum. 

The Illahee Island site modifies anywhere from 583 square feet to 873 square feet. The amount 

of riffle habitat in the lower Rogue (from Watson Creek to the mouth) is unknown, but if you 

assume that 50% of available habitat within the lower Rogue is riffle habitat, that would be 

17,952,000 square feet of riffle habitat (35 miles from mouth to confluence with Watson Creek 

multiplied by 5280 feet per mile and multiplied by 125 feet average width of the river all divided 

by 2 for 50% of available habitat). The overall percentage of riffle habitat modified in the lower 

Rogue River for channel maintenance is 0.23%. The effects of the maintenance occurring at the 

different locations is still likely to be minimal, as the overall amount of riffle habitat being 

altered throughout the lower Rogue River is expected to be small. The thalweg deepening may 

make it easier for larger fish, such as green sturgeon, to pass through these riffles during lower 

flow periods in the summer months. 
FISHERIES Biological Evaluation Page F-12 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

Willows will also be removed at two different locations during seasons when river flows do not 

remove the willows naturally. The location of willow removal will not create any measurable 

effect on water temperatures or shade and will have no effect on fish. 

Indirect Effects 

Startle responses may push fish out of thermal refugia or out of feeding and rearing areas. The 

fish must expend extra energy to move out of the area as they are startled. The amount of energy 

expended is minimal. As fish move, they may become more visible to predators. Startle 

responses will likely occur in predatory fish as well. In addition, private motorboat activity from 

the mouth of the Rogue to Lobster Creek continues, but the overall use would be less 

concentrated than in the No Action Alternative. 

Motorboats and oar boats (rafts, kayaks, and drift boats) cause either a startle response 

(motorboats) or an avoidance response. Both responses can cause an increase in cortisol in fish. 

(Cortisol indicates stress in fish). A study of jet boat effects on juvenile salmonids in the Rogue 

River (Satterthwaite 1995) concluded that cortisol did not differ significantly throughout the day 

in river sections with motorboat traffic compared to days when motorboats didn’t travel that 

section. 

The months of heaviest motorboat traffic are July through September. During these months, 

most of the fish using the lower Rogue River are juvenile Chinook, juvenile steelhead, adult fall 

Chinook, adult coho, and summer steelhead. The effects of boat traffic on adults and juveniles 

during this time period are expected to be mainly startle responses. Fish will move quickly to 

avoid the boats as they pass over. These effects are only anticipated if boats pass within 5 meters 

of a fish. Anything beyond 5 meters does not cause a response, probably due to acclimation of 

fish to motorboat traffic. Another part of this study looked at predation of juvenile salmonids by 

northern pikeminnow. An increase in juvenile salmonid predation was not found in conjunction 

with commercial tour boat traffic. 

When juvenile and adult fish are moving through the Rogue River canyon section (Grave Creek 

to Agness), the fish use tributary confluences as resting areas. These areas typically have 

infusions of colder water from the tributaries. Reid (2002) found that jet boat wakes increased 

the average temperatures in these refugia by 0.24oF, with little effect on salmonids. Jet boat 

traffic (tour boat and jet sled) did not elicit a startle response in juvenile Chinook holding in 

these thermal refugia. The physiological effects of jet boat activity on migrating salmonids in 

the lower Rogue River found in the thermal refugia was determined to be minor. A 

bioenergetics model was used to calculate the effect of the increase in temperature on fish 

physiology. The minor increase in temperature over time would not affect the ability of a fish to 

survive where boat activity and warm water temperatures were present. 

A preliminary 2003 study found that jet boat traffic had no effect on green sturgeon in the Rogue 

River. Adult green sturgeon were monitored using radio telemetry over a 24 hour period. No 

movements were recorded during times when motorboats passed over tagged individuals 

(Wildlife Conservation Society unpublished data). 

Cumulative Effects 

Same as Alternative 1. 
FISHERIES Biological Evaluation Page F-13 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

Alternative 3 

For a detailed description of Alternative 3 refer to Chapter 2 of the Special Use Permits for 

Outfitter and Guide Operations on the Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Rivers Final 

Environmental Impact Statement. 

Table 3. Permitted tour boat use throughout the analysis area by month 

for Alternative 3. 

 

Month Maximum 

Trips per Day 

Maximum 

Trips per 

Month 

January 4 32 

February 4 32 

March 4 32 

April 4 32 

May 16 496 

June (1-15) 16 * 

June (15-30) 28 660 

July 28 868 

August 28 868 

September 16 480 

October 16 496 

November 4 32 

December 4 32 

Total Yearly 

Permitted 3516#

Total Lodge 

Boat Trips 

Permitted 

261 

 *Number of total trips was combined with the second half of 

June 

# Total number of trips per year may not equal total numbers 

per month due to changes in the season due to Labor Day. 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Same as Alternative 2. Reductions in use would not reduce the impacts of motorboat activity 

overall as boat activity would still occur throughout the lower Rogue River. The average number 

of trips per day and per month would not change. However, once the number of trips per year 

was met, no more trips are allowed. The total number of permitted fishing guide trips for the 

project area is 307 year round trips in the Wild Section, 57 trips allowed during the winter in the 

Wild Section, 17, 293 trips allowed in the section from Lobster Creek to Watson Creek, and 

4380 permitted in the Illinois River. This reduction in tour boats traffic in the Wild Section 

would reduce the probability of startle or behavioral responses occurring in the analysis area. 

Cumulative Effects 

Same as Alternative 1. 

Alternative 4 

For a detailed description of Alternative 4 refer to Chapter 2 of the Special Use Permits for 

Outfitter and Guide Operations on the Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Rivers Final 

Environmental Impact Statement. 
FISHERIES Biological Evaluation Page F-14 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

Table 3. Permitted tour boat use throughout the analysis area by month 

for Alternative 4. 

 

Month Maximum 

Trips per Day 

Maximum 

Trips per 

Month 

January 4 32 

February 4 32 

March 4 32 

April 4 32 

May 16 496 

June (1-15) 16 * 

June (15-30) 28 660 

July 28 868 

August 28 868 

September 16 480 

October 16 496 

November 4 32 

December 4 32 

Total Yearly 

Permitted 3363#

Total Lodge 

Boat Trips 

Permitted 

246 

 *Number of total trips was combined with the second half of 

June 

# Total number of trips per year may not equal total numbers 

per month due to changes in the season due to Labor Day. 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Same as Alternative 2. Reductions in use would not reduce the impacts of motorboat activity 

overall as boat activity would still occur throughout the lower Rogue River. This alternative 

would reduce the total number of trips by the tour boats to 3,363 trips per year though number of 

trips allowed per month would not change unless the yearly quota was met. The total number of 

permitted fishing guide trips for the project area are 220 year round trips in the Wild Section, 34 

trips allowed during the winter in the Wild Section, 17, 293 trips allowed in the section from 

Lobster Creek to Watson Creek, and 4380 permitted in the Illinois River. This reduction in tou 

boats traffic in the Wild Section would reduce the probability of startle or behavioral responses 

occurring in the analysis area. 

Cumulative Effects 

Same as Alternative 1. 

Alternative 5 

For a detailed description of Alternative 5 refer to Chapter 2 of the Special Use Permits for 

Outfitter and Guide Operations on the Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Rivers Final 

Environmental Impact Statement. 
FISHERIES Biological Evaluation Page F-15 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

Table 4. Permitted tour boat use throughout the analysis area by month 

for Alternative 5. 

 

Month Maximum 

Trips per Day 

Maximum 

Trips per 

Month 

January 4 32 

February 4 32 

March 4 32 

April 4 32 

May 16 496 

June (1-15) 16 * 

June (15-30) 28 660 

July 28 868 

August 28 868 

September 16 480 

October 16 496 

November 4 32 

December 4 32 

Total Yearly 

Permitted 1999#

Total Lodge 

Boat Trips 

Permitted 

246 

 *Number of total trips was combined with the second half of 

June 

# Total number of trips per year may not equal total numbers 

per month due to changes in the season due to Labor Day. 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Same as Alternative 2. Reductions in use would not reduce the impacts of motorboat activity 

overall as boat activity would still occur throughout the lower Rogue River. This alternative 

would reduce the total number of trips by the tour boats to 1999 trips per year though number of 

trips allowed per month would not change unless the yearly quota was met. The total numbers of 

permitted fishing guide trips for the project area are 165 year round trips in the Wild Section, 23 

trips allowed during the winter in the Wild Section, 1326 trips allowed in the section from 

Lobster Creek to Watson Creek, and 38 permitted in the Illinois River. This reduction in tour 

boat and fishing guide boat traffic throughout the analysis area would greatly reduce the 

probability of startle or behavioral responses occurring in the analysis area. 

Cumulative Effects 

Same as Alternative 1. 

Alternative 6 

For a detailed description of Alternative 6 refer to Chapter 2 of the Special Use Permits for 

Outfitter and Guide Operations on the Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Rivers Final 

Environmental Impact Statement. 
FISHERIES Biological Evaluation Page F-16 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

Table 5. Permitted tour boat use throughout the analysis area by month 

for Alternative 5. 

 

Month Maximum 

Trips per Day 

Maximum 

Trips per 

Month 

January 4 32 

February 4 32 

March 4 32 

April 4 32 

May 16 496 

June (1-15) 16 * 

June (15-30) 28 660 

July 28 868 

August 28 868 

September 16 480 

October 16 496 

November 4 32 

December 4 32 

Total Yearly 

Permitted 1201#

Total Lodge 

Boat Trips 

Permitted 

130 

 *Number of total trips was combined with the second half of 

June 

# Total number of trips per year may not equal total numbers 

per month due to changes in the season due to Labor Day. 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Same as Alternative 2. Reductions in use would not reduce the impacts of motorboat activity 

overall as boat activity would still occur throughout the lower Rogue River. This alternative 

would reduce the total number of trips by the tour boats to 1,201 trips per year though number of 

trips allowed per month would not change unless the yearly quota was met. The total number of 

permitted fishing guide trips for the project area are 394 year round trips in the Wild Section, 57 

trips allowed during the winter in the Wild Section, 17, 293 trips allowed in the section from 

Lobster Creek to Watson Creek, and 4380 permitted in the Illinois River. This reduction in tour 

boats traffic in the Wild Section would reduce the probability of startle or behavioral responses 

occurring in the project area.

Cumulative Effects 

Same as Alternative 1. 
FISHERIES Biological Evaluation Page F-17 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

V. DETERMINATION OF EFFECTS 

ESA and MSA listed species, Critical Habitat, and Essential Fish Habitat: The proposal meets 

the project design criteria for the programmatic activity category of Miscellaneous Special Use 

Permits and Leases. The effects for this activity category have been previously assessed and 

found to not likely adversely affect SO/NC coho salmon or their critical habitat or Essential Fish 

Habitat for SO/NC coho salmon and SO/NCC Chinook salmon. Essential fish habitat will be 

modified. The timing of modification does not affect migration or rearing habitat. The 

macroinvertebrate communities will likely be unaffected. The effects for this activity category 

have been previously assessed and determined to may adversely affect Essential Fish Habitat 

(EFH). 

Sensitive species: The project May Impact Individuals or Habitat, But Will Not Likely 

Contribute to a Trend Towards Federal Listing or Cause a Loss of Viability to the Population or 

Species (MIIH). The likelihood of a sensitive species being harmed from this action is possible 

but highly unlikely. Fish may be startled by the boats but it is unlikely to cause any harm to an 

individual. 

Conservation Recommendations for Essential Fish Habitat (EHF): The mitigation 

measures, together with the Northwest Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines would adequately 

minimize the type, frequency, duration, timing, and intensity of potential adverse effects to EFH. 

Adequate conservation measures were incorporated into the proposal to protect EFH. Therefore, 

no further conservation measures are recommended. 

Name of Biologist /s/ James Simino Date February 4, 2005 
FISHERIES Biological Evaluation Page F-18 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

DICHOTOMOUS KEY FOR MAKING SECTION 7 

DETERMINATION OF EFFECTS 

Name and location of action: Rogue River Fishing Guides Special Use Permits 

Section 7 Watershed: Rogue River

5th Field HUC: Rogue River 

Species Considered: ESA: Coho

MSA: Coho, Chinook 

1. Are there any proposed/listed anadromous salmonids and/or proposed/designated critical habitat 

in the watershed or downstream from the watershed? 

NO.................................................................................................................................No effect 

YES.............................................................................................................May affect, go to 21

2. Will the Alternative 2(s) have any effect whatsoever1 on the species and/or critical habitat? 

NO............................................................................................................................... No Effect 

YES ................................................................................................................................Go to 3

 3. Does the Alternative 2(s) have the potential to hinder attainment of relevant properly 

functioning indicators (from checklist)? 

NO...................................................................................................................................Go to 4

YES .................................................................................................. Likely to adversely affect

2

4. Does the Alternative 2(s) have the potential to result in "take"3

 of proposed/listed anadromous 

salmonids or destruction/ adverse modification of proposed/designated critical habitat? 

A. There is a negligible (extremely low) probability of take of proposed/listed anadromous 

salmonids or destruction/adverse modification of proposed/designated critical habitat. 

.....................................................................................................Not likely to adversely affect

B. There is more than a negligible probability of take of proposed/listed anadromous salmonids 

or destruction/adverse modification of proposed/designated critical habitat .............................. 

.............................................................................................................Likely to adversely affect 

 1

"Any effect whatsoever” includes small effects, effects that are unlikely to occur, and beneficial effects, i.e. a “no effect” 

determination is only appropriate if the Alternative 2 will literally have no effect whatsoever on the species and/or critical habitat, not a small 

effect, an effect that is unlikely to occur, or a beneficial effect. 

2

Document expected incidental take on reverse side of this key. 

3

"Take" - The ESA (Section 3) defines take as "to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, trap, capture, collect or attempt to engage 

in any such conduct". The USFWS further defines "harm" as "significant habitat modification or degradation that results in death or injury to 

listed species by significantly impairing behavioral patterns such as breeding, feeding, or sheltering", and "harass" as "actions that create the 

likelihood of injury to listed species to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns which include, but are not limited to, 

breeding, feeding or sheltering". 
WILDLIFE BE Page G-1 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

APPENDIX G 

Rogue and Illinois Rivers Special Use Permit 

Wildlife Biological Evaluation 

Written by: Michael Miller, Biological Science Technician 

Rolando Mendez-Treneman, Zone Biologist 

Reviewed by: David Clayton, Forest Wildlife Biologist /s/ David Clayton 

Introduction

It is Forest Service policy, as directed by section 7 of the Endangered Species Act 1973 (as 

amended), to protect the habitat of listed threatened, endangered, proposed and sensitive species 

from adverse modification or destruction, as well as to protect individual organisms from harm 

or harassment as appropriate (FSM 2670.3). This Biological Evaluation is prepared for the 

Rogue and Illinois Rivers Special Use Permits project, which is authorized, funded, and 

conducted on the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, Gold Beach Ranger District. The 

purpose of this evaluation is to determine and document the potential effects that the proposed 

activity will have on any Endangered, Threatened, Proposed, or Sensitive wildlife species (FSM 

2672.4, including R-6 Supplement 41). A second objective of this evaluation is to ensure these 

species receive full consideration in the decision-making process, to maintain species viability 

and meet defined recovery goals. 

The Biological Evaluation process (FSM 2672.43) provides a description of office analysis/field 

work done, and mitigation activities necessary to ensure proposed management actions will not 

likely jeopardize the continued viability of: 

A. Species listed or proposed to be listed as endangered (E) or threatened (T) by the USDI 

Fish and Wildlife Service. 

B. Species listed as sensitive (S) by the Regional Forester, USDA Forest Service Region 6 

(USDA 2004) 

The Biological Evaluation process consists of five steps: 

1. Pre-field review of existing information (includes aerial photo and habitat map 

interpretation, as well as WILDOBS, FAUNA and other species sighting/survey 

record searches). 

2. Field reconnaissance of the project area. 

3. Determination of whether local populations of endangered, threatened, proposed, or 

sensitive species will be affected by the project. 

4. Analysis of the significance of project effects on local and total populations of listed 

species. 

5. If step 4 cannot be completed due to lack of information, a biological investigation is 

conducted to complete the analysis of significance. 

Each Proposed, Endangered, Threatened, and Sensitive species, potentially occurring on the 

Gold Beach Ranger District, is evaluated based on the steps outlined above. If a proposed 

activity is likely to “affect” species listed as Endangered, Threatened, or Proposed under the 

Endangered Species Act, consultation or conferencing with the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) 

is required. 
WILDLIFE BE Page G-2 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

The Forest Service has completed consultation for this project under the programmatic 

consultation for “Formal and informal consultation on activities that may affect listed species in 

the Rogue River Basin for fiscal year 2004 through fiscal year (FY) 2008 (log # 1-14-03-F-511) 

(FWS 2003). Applicable project design criteria (PDC) identified in BO# 1-14-03-F-511 were 

used. 

PROPOSED ACTIVITIES

The actions proposed are re-issuance of special use permits that allow alternative levels of 

commercial use by people with powerboats on the Rogue River between the mouth of Lobster 

Creek and Blossom Bar and the Illinois River between its mouth and the mouth of Nancy Creek. 

Permits are also proposed to allow the replacement of two existing docks (Paradise and Half 

Moon Lodge) and the replacement of a dock that was once present at Clay Hill Lodge. Willow 

cutting is proposed at 5 locations to improve boater safety. Rogue River channel maintenance 

(authorized by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Oregon Dept. of State Lands) is required 

at approximately 16 riffles to allow tour boats and other power boats to navigate the river from 

its mouth to Watson Creek. Issuance of these special use permits affect the amount of powerboat 

use, number of docks, amount of channel maintenance and associated human uses on or adjacent 

to these rivers. The area of potential impacts on the Rogue River is from its mouth, where tour 

boat trips begin, up to the pool below Blossom Bar Rapids which is at river mile 48.4. 

SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Habitat impacts from powerboats are apparently limited to the water and the shoreline. Habitat 

impacts from associated human uses are generally limited to the riparian area (within about 300’ 

of the water). Therefore, analysis of potential effects focuses on this vicinity and defines this as 

the project area. Noise disturbance to individuals could extend beyond 300’. 

Cumulative effects analysis considered potential direct and indirect effects from activities listed 

in the FEIS Table 24. Direct and indirect effects from powerboat use and associated human uses, 

in combination with other potential effects to riparian habitat from other activities, such as 

rafting, camping, and private powerboats, would not change the effects determination for 

riparian habitats or species of concern (threatened, endangered, sensitive, buffer species, 

management indictor or neo-tropical migrant focal species in any alternative. 

The list of PETS species occurring on the Gold Beach Ranger District was reviewed in regards to 

potential effects on any of these species by project activities. Table 1 displays the process and 

which of the steps were necessary to complete the impact evaluation for each wildlife species 

considered. For those species where a potential conflict is identified, species-specific 

discussions are included in the Discussion section of this document. 
WILDLIFE BE Page G-3 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

Table 1: The Biological Evaluation process for animal species that may occur on the Gold Beach 

Ranger District is summarized for the Rogue and Illinois Rivers Special Use Permit Project 

Area. If no habitat is present, then species will not be described in detail in the Discussion 

Risk Assessment 

Rogue & Illinois Rivers Analysis Area Determination of Effects 

Pre-Field 

Review 

Field 

Reconnaissance 

Conflict 

Determination 

Analysis of Significance 

Wildlife Species 

Existing 

Sighting 

/Habitat? 

Species/Habitat 

(Documented or 

Suspected) 

Present? 

Potential 

Conflict? 

Without 

Mitigation 

With FWS 

PDC/ 

Mitigation 

Federally Endangered, Threatened Or Proposed Species 

Bald Eagle Habitat Species D Yes NLAA NLAA 

Marbled Murrelet Habitat Species D Yes NLAA NLAA 

Marbled Murrelet 

Critical Habitat 

Habitat 

(20 ac.) Habitat No NE NE 

Northern Spotted Owl Habitat Species D Yes NLAA NLAA 

Northern Spotted Owl 

Critical Habitat 

Habitat 

(320 ac.) Habitat No NE NE 

Brown Pelican Habitat Species D No NE NE 

Steller Sea-lion Habitat Species D No NE NE 

Forest Service Region 6 Sensitive Species

Peregrine Falcon Habitat Species D Yes MIIH MIIH 

Pacific Shrew Habitat Habitat Yes MIIH MIH 

Pacific Pallid Bat Habitat Habitat Yes MIIH MIIH 

Pacific Fringe-tailed 

Bat Habitat Habitat Yes MIIH MIIH 

Wolverine Habitat Habitat Yes MIIH MIIH 

Fisher Habitat Habitat Yes MIIH MIIH 

Northwestern Pond 

Turtle No Species D Yes MIIH MIIH 

Common Kingsnake Habitat Species D Yes MIIH MIIH 

Black Salamander Outside 

Known Range No No NI NI 

California Slender 

Salamander 

Outside 

Known Range No No NI NI 

Del Norte Salamander Sighting Species D Yes MIIH MIIH 

Siskiyou Mountain 

Salamander 

 Outside 

Known Range No No NI NI 

Southern Torrent 

Salamander Sighting Species D Yes MIIH MIIH 

Foothill Yellow-legged 

Frog Habitat Species D Yes MIIH MIIH 

Threatened and Endangered Species : NE = No Effect, BE = Beneficial Effect, NLAA = May Affect, Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect, LAA = May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect, CHU = Critical Habitat Unit

Sensitive Species: NI = No Impact, BI = Beneficial Impact, MIIH = May Impact Individuals or Habitat, but will not likely contribute to 

a trend towards Federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species, WIFV = Will Impact Individuals or Habitat with a 

consequence that the action may contribute to a trend towards Federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species
WILDLIFE BE Page G-4 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

Proposed, Endangered, or Threatened Species 

Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) 

Status: Federal – Threatened 

References: Anthony (1989), Anthony, et al. (1982), Dillingham (1997), Garrett et al. (1993), 

Johnsgard (1990), Stahlmaster (1987), Isaacs, F.B., and R.G. Anthony (2004), USDI Fish and 

Wildlife Services (1986, 1999a), USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management 

(2003), USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (2003). 

Bald eagles were listed as Endangered in Oregon and elsewhere by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS) in 1967, down listed to Threatened status in 1995, and proposed for delisting 

in 1999. 

Oregon and Washington are key locations for wintering bald eagles and support approximately 

25 percent of wintering bald eagles in the contiguous United States. Wintering sites are typically 

near concentrated food sources, such as anadromous fish runs, high waterfowl concentrations, or 

mammalian carrion. Winter roost sites offer protection from inclement weather and are 

characterized by more favorable microclimate. 

Most bald eagles nest within 0.6 to 1.2 miles of aquatic foraging areas, typically a lake, reservoir, 

large river, or coastal estuary. Bald eagles require an abundant food supply of mostly fish, 

waterfowl, small mammals, and carrion, but the specific diet may vary by season and location. 

Suitable bald eagle winter roosting, foraging, and nesting habitat exists in the project area and 

eagles are sighted regularly. The project area has year-round use by bald eagles and there are two 

known nest locations (Libby Creek and Watson Creek) adjacent to the project area. Bald eagle 

breeding season can start as early as January 1 and may extend until August 31 each year. 

Reproduction success at these two sites is similar to what is occurring in the rest of the State 

(Isaacs, F.B., and R.G. Anthony, 2004). 

The current Biological Assessment (USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land 

Management, 2003) states, “Bald eagles are fairly tolerant of human activity, but high level noise 

or disturbance can dissuade them from important breeding areas or winter roost sites, particularly 

during early nesting season. Individual pairs have widely variable responses to disturbance. 

Some eagles choose to nest in areas of high recreational use or urban development and 

consistently and successfully reproduce, while other pairs are more sensitive to disturbance and 

would be adversely impacted by the same type of activity”. Bald Eagles on the Rogue River are 

occasionally (< 5-10% of the time) flushed by powerboats or rafts (personnel communications 

with Tom Hawkins, Forest Service raft and powerboat operator). However, most of the time 

they are very tolerant of human activities. For example, on 2 February 2005 Tom Hawkins 

observed a fishing guide fishing a stretch of water over and over (float through and then power 

upstream and then float through again) directly below a perched bald eagle. The bald eagle 

stayed perched as the guide continued fishing and as he passed by in the Forest Service 

powerboat Dillingham (unpublished, 1997) reported that bald eagles in the Rogue River corridor 

showed desensitization to motorboat noise. 

Direct Effects 

The most likely avenues for impact on this species relate to displacement resulting from noise 

and presence disturbance from people, power boats, rafts and vehicles. . These disturbances 

have not been associated with nesting failures in the project area. 
WILDLIFE BE Page G-5 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

Indirect Effects 

Prey reduction would occur as a result of sport fishing associated with the proposed action, along 

with private non-guided fishing. The reduced prey availability would necessitate that an eagle 

expend additional energy to locate replacement food. The abundance in quantity and variety of 

fish is considered very high and not significantly altered by the proposed action. Vehicles for 

pulling and/or carrying motorized boats create additional noise and presence contributing to the 

potential for noise disturbance as well as desensitizing potential. Actual disturbance is likely to 

be infrequent. Additional traffic resulting from the proposed activity is not expected to result in 

measurable effects. 

Cumulative Effects 

Disturbance from private residences, businesses, roads, powerboats, rafts, and people have been 

occurring in the project area for decades and is expected to continue at some level with or 

without the proposed action. Bald eagles are a key attraction in the Rogue and people are likely 

to take extra measures to look at an eagle closer and for a longer period of time than other 

wildlife. . Development of the harvested private land adjacent to the Libby Creek bald eagle nest 

site began in 2004 and is expected to continue. The Libby Creek bald eagles fledged two young 

in 2004. 

For the Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Rivers Special Use Permits (all alternatives), the project 

is consistent with Project Design Criteria (USDA, 2003): 

• No known bald eagle nest trees, perch trees, or roost trees will be cut, or modified to 

preclude function. 

• No suitable habitat is being removed within 0.25 miles of nest or roost sites. 

• No potential eagle perches within 0.5 mile of nests or roosts are being cut. 

Work or other activities above ambient noise levels that cause disturbance, including helicopter 

use, logging, and construction would not take place within 0.25 mile (approximately 400 m) of 

active nests/roosts (not line of site) or within 0.5 mile (approximately 800 m) line-of-site from 

nests/roosts during periods of eagle use. 

No blasting is proposed. As noted in the Forest’s biological assessment, bald eagles are among 

the most tolerant of the raptor species to disturbance, even in heavily used recreational areas, as 

evidenced by successful reproduction, site tenacity, and increasing number of sites during the 

last 20 years. 

The BE for “Outfitter Guides and Tour Boats on the Rogue River” (USDA Forest Service 1999) 

discloses no aversion to jet boat activity, including fish catching while jet boats were present. 

Observations of eagle response to boat activity are that the eagles usually are tolerant, ignoring 

human presence, and remain perched. Disturbance to nest sites from activities occurring on the 

Rogue River has not been documented. The structure and function of nesting, roosting, and 

wintering habitat are not impacted by the alternatives. There is the possibility of boat activity 

noise or proximity to result in the temporary displacement of a perched bald eagle. The proposed 

action warrants a may affect, not likely to adversely affect determination on the bald eagle. The 

action alternatives differ in their potential for impacts primarily as a function of commercial boat 

use level; the greater the boat activity (e.g., Alternative 2), the greater the potential for impacts. 

The no action alternative is considered a may affect, not likely to adversely affect determination 

for marbled murrelets because non-commercial private motor boating, rafting, hiking and 

camping will still occur. The remaining alternatives have a reduced potential for impacts 

compared to Alternative 2. Negative effects are highly unlikely and immeasurable.
WILDLIFE BE Page G-6 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) 

Status: Federal – Threatened 

References: Csuti, et al. (1997), Dillingham (1997), Dillingham et al. (1995), Hamer (1995a, 

1995b, 1998), Long (1997), Long and Ralph (1998), Marshall (1998), Paton (1990), USDA 

Forest Service and USDI-Burea of Land Management (1994), USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 

(1992b, 1997), USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management (2003), USDI Fish 

and Wildlife Service (2003). 

Due to nesting habitat loss and poor reproductive success, USFWS listed the marbled murrelet as 

threatened in 1992. 

The marbled murrelet is a small seabird found from Alaska to California. It spends most of its 

life at sea, but nests in almost exclusively in mature or old-growth conifer trees with large mosscovered branches. Other nesting area characteristics include multi-layered canopies, low 

elevation, and close proximity to water. The breeding season (egg laying, incubation, and 

fledging) for marbled murrelets in Oregon begins in late April and extends to the end of 

September. 

In the Pacific Northwest, murrelets have been found up to 53 miles inland. No murrelets were 

detected more than 32 miles from the ocean on the Siskiyou National Forest, although surveys 

had been conducted up to 47 miles inland. Sixteen, of the 857 murrelet detections on the Forest, 

occurred in the Project area below Agness. No murrelets have been detected above Agness. 

Suitable nesting habitat occurs in the project area above Lobster Creek. 

There is the possibility of displacement resulting from noise and presence disturbance of people, 

power boats, rafts and vehicles. The adverse effects of disturbance may lead to nest 

abandonment by adults, reduced nest attentiveness (leading to increased vulnerability of 

predation), aborted feeding visits, premature fledging, and avoidance of otherwise suitable 

habitat (Hamer, 1998). However, many bird species, including murrelets, can habituate to 

relatively high disturbance levels. In their summary of all information concerning murrelet 

disturbance, Long and Ralph reported that “[Marbled] murrelets appeared generally undisturbed 

by passing vehicles, or sharp or prolonged loud noise” and “overall, it appears that marbled 

murrelets are not easily disrupted from nesting attempts by human disturbance except when 

confronted at or very near the nest itself”. 

The large conifer trees used as nesting habitat for this species in the project area is located above 

the high waterline between Lobster Creek and Agness. 

Indirect Effects 

Vehicles for pulling and/or carrying motorized and non-motorized boats create additional noise 

and presence contributing to the potential for noise disturbance as well as desensitizing potential. 

Actual disturbance is likely to be infrequent. Additional traffic resulting from the proposed 

activity is not expected to result in measurable effects as these are a relatively small fraction of 

the total vehicle activity in the project area. 

Cumulative Effects 

Disturbance from private residences, businesses, roads, powerboats, rafts, and people have been 

occurring in the project area for decades and is expected to continue at some level with or 

without the proposed action. . 

The likelihood of impacts resulting from noise level similar to ambient conditions is considered 

low and negative effects are highly unlikely and immeasurable. 
WILDLIFE BE Page G-7 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

The cumulative effects of all projects in the Rogue River and Illinois basins are expected to be 

minimal for the Murrelet. These projects are consistent with Project Design Criteria (USDI Fish 

and Wildlife Service, 2003), therefore these projects will not affect murrelets in the lower Rogue 

or lower Illinois River corridor. 

Critical Habitat 

Marbled murrelet critical habitat was designated in 1996 and corresponded primarily to areas 

designated as Late-Successional Reserve in the Northwest Forest Plan (USDA, 1994, USDI, 

1996). About 20 acres of this project is within critical habitat. One channel maintenance site 

(Coffee Pot) occurs in marbled murrelet critical habitat. Late-successional habitat occurs above 

the high waterline and will not be affected. The proposed activities do not modify critical habitat 

constituent elements or impair its function. The proposed action is considered no effect, on 

marbled murrelet critical habitat. 

The Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Rivers Special Use Permits FEIS (all alternatives) the 

project is consistent with Project Design Criteria (PDC): 

• No removal or degradation of suitable habitat is proposed precluding the requirement for 

surveys to protocol. 

• Litter prevention and control methods are incorporated into the permits. 

• No heavy smoke production is associated with the proposal. 

• No blasting is involved. 

The PDC regarding noise levels above non-motorized activity baseline levels merits further 

discussion which follows. The project area is open to non-commercial boat (motorized and nonmotorized) activity which occurs on a year-round basis. As such, the river is a “road” normally 

open to public traffic. This river “road” has its own normal, baseline noise levels, which is 

considered to approximate that noise level resulting from public, small motorboat activity which 

generates noise levels similar to the non-tour boats. As such, noise levels resulting from the 

proposed action are not considered significantly different from ambient conditions in the project 

area. Field sampling of boat activity during 2001 showed that the duration of noise levels being 

above ambient conditions have a range of 1.8 - 4.3 minutes with an average of 3.0 (sd=1.0, 

n=10). 

Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) 

Status: Federal –Threatened 

References: Anthony, et al (2004), Courtney, et al (2004), Dillingham (1997), Forsman (1982), 

Thomas, et al. (1990), USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (1990), USDA Forest Service and USDI 

Bureau of Land Management (2003), USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (2003). 

The northern spotted owl was listed as Threatened by USFWS in June 1990. The project area 

contains breeding and foraging habitat for northern spotted owls. Northern spotted owls use oldgrowth forests almost exclusively and rarely use clearcuts or young forest plantations. If young 

stands are used, they typically contain remnant large trees. Where timber harvest has occurred, 

spotted owls are usually found in remaining old-growth and mature forest patches. Habitat 

features associated with spotted owl use include multi-layered canopies, relatively high canopy 

closure, large diameter trees, and many snags and logs. These stand features are related to 

requirements for feeding, nesting, and roosting. Spotted owls most commonly nest in tree 

cavities or on platforms created by debris or mistletoe infections between March 1 and June 30. 
WILDLIFE BE Page G-8 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

A report that summarized the demography of the spotted owls throughout its range was released 

in September of 2004 (Anthony et al. 2004). The report showed a decline of approximately 4.1 

percent across the range of the owl and showed significant declines of populations in some areas, 

in particular Washington State and northern Oregon. Only four study areas within the range of 

the spotted owl did not show evidence of spotted owl declines. In southern Oregon, three study 

areas did not show declines and appeared to have relatively stable or increasing populations. 

Also in 2004, the FWS conducted a status review of the spotted owl across its range which 

summarized the biology, ecology, habitat associations and trends, as well as current and potential 

threats to the species (Courtney et al. 2004. They found that habitat loss, the primary reason for 

listing of the spotted owl, had declined significantly across the range. However, there was some 

concern as to the potential lag effects to spotted owl populations from past timber harvest. The 

greatest amount of habitat loss due to timber harvest had occurred in the Oregon Klamath and 

Cascade provinces. The three major operational threats they identified were timber harvest, 

catastrophic wildfire, and barred owls. Potential threats included effects associated with West 

Nile Virus, and Sudden Oak Death. 

Barred owls have increased in SW Oregon but not to the extent of other areas within the range of 

the spotted owl. In the south Cascades demographic study area, there has been an increase of 

barred owls and they occupy up to 20 percent of historic or known spotted owl sites within that 

study area. However, there are far less barred owls known for SW Oregon than other areas in the 

northern portion of the range and the spotted owl survival is stable in that study area as well as in 

the Klamath demographic study area (Anthony et al. 2004). 

There have been recent large fires in SW Oregon, in particular the Biscuit and the Timbered 

Rock fires, which have significantly reduced NRF within the province. However, analysis 

conducted on the effects of the Biscuit Fire using recent work by Zabel et al. (2003) showed that 

of the 49 owl pairs affected by the fire, it was likely that only seven were no longer extant. In 

addition, of the 15 spotted owl pairs affected by the Timbered Rock Fire, 11 of those pairs 

continue to occupy their historic activity centers even thought they were subject to varying 

degrees of fire severity. There is uncertainty as to how spotted owls respond to fire in SW 

Oregon and research is currently being conducted in an attempt to answer that question. 

The two other new threats of Sudden Oak Death and West Nile Virus are thought to be 

potentially severe, however it is unknown when and to what extent these threats may become 

risks for the spotted owl. 

Timber harvest on Forest Service lands within the Project area is not allowed. Barred owls are 

present in the Project area. Sudden Oak Death has not been reported in the Project area. West 

Nile Virus has been reported in Oregon. 

Suitable owl habitat does occur in the project area. Eleven spotted owl territories overlap into 

the project area. Of these, the closest known activity center to the Rogue River is 700ft. 

Dillingham (1997) reported that northern spotted owls in the Rogue River corridor show 

desensitization to motorboat noise. 

The Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Rivers Special Use Permits FEIS (all alternatives) the 

project is consistent with Project Design Criteria (PDC) (Table 2): 
WILDLIFE BE Page G-9 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

• No removal or degradation of suitable habitat is proposed precluding the requirement for 

surveys to protocol. 

• Work activities (such as tree felling, yarding, road construction, hauling on roads not 

generally used by the public, blasting) that produce loud noises above ambient levels, will not 

occur within specific distances (see table below) of any nest site or activity center of known pairs 

and resident singles between March 1 and June 30. 

• No heavy smoke production is associated with the proposal. 

• No blasting is involved. 

Table 2. Prescribed distances for spotted owl seasonal restrictions from the current Biological 

Opinion (FWS log #1-15-03-F-511). 

Type of Activity – for Spotted Owl Zone of Restricted Operation 

Blast of more that 2 pounds of explosives 1 mile 

Blast of 2 pounds or less of explosives 120 yards 

Impact pile driver, jackhammer, or rock drill 60 yards 

Helicopter or single-engine airplane 120 yards 

Chainsaws (hazard trees, timber harvest, etc.) 65 yards 

Heavy Equipment 35 yards 

The PDC regarding noise levels above non-motorized activity baseline levels is discussed in the 

Bald Eagle section. 

Direct Effects 

The late-successional habitat used by this species for nesting, roosting and foraging occurs above 

the high waterline between Lobster Creek, and Brushy Bar. There is the unlikely possibility of 

displacement resulting from noise and presence of people, power boats, rafts and vehicles. 

Indirect Effects 

Vehicles for pulling and/or carrying motorized boats create additional noise and presence 

contributing to the potential for disturbance as well as to desensitizing potential. Additional 

traffic resulting from the proposed activity is not expected to result in measurable effects as these 

are a relatively small fraction of the total vehicle activity in the project area. 

Cumulative Effects 

Disturbance from private residences, businesses, roads, powerboats, rafts, and people have been 

occurring in the project area for decades and is expected to continue at some level with or 

without the proposed action. 
WILDLIFE BE Page G-10 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

The Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Rivers Special Use Permits would result in no more than a 

negligible probability of affecting the northern spotted owl. The alternatives differ in their 

potential for impacts primarily as a function of use level; the greater the boat activity (e.g., 

Alternative 2), the greater the potential for impacts. Negative effects are highly unlikely and 

immeasurable. 

Critical Habitat 

Northern spotted owl critical habitat was designated in 1992 (USDI, 1992a).. Approximately 320 

acres of designated critical habitat occurs in the project area from Waters Creek to Billings 

Creek. One channel maintenance site (Illahe Island/Allen’s Alley) occurs in northern spotted 

owl critical habitat (OR-67). Two willow cutting sites (Foster and Watson Creek Rapids) occur 

in northern spotted owl critical habitat. Late-successional habitat occurs above the high 

waterline and will not be affected. The proposed activities do not modify critical habitat 

constituent elements or impair its function. The proposed action is considered no effect, on 

northern spotted owl critical habitat. 

Brown Pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis) 

Status: Federal – Endangered 

References: Marshal et al. (2003), USDI Fish and Wildlife Services (2005) 

The Brown pelican was first listed in 1970. It is currently designated as endangered within its 

entire range, except U.S. Atlantic coast, FL, and AL. This species occurs in California, Oregon, 

Washington, Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Central and South 

America. The subspecies that occurs in Oregon is the California Brown Pelican (P. o. 

californium). The entire California Brown Pelican population was estimated to be 50,000-

51,000 breeding pairs in 2002. The Brown pelican is a coastal marine species that rarely occurs 

inland or far offshore. 

Non breeding adult and subadult birds usually begin to arrive in Oregon during April. 

Postbreeding adults arrive during May and June: juveniles during July and August. Peak 

numbers occur in August and September. The return migration southward usually begins in 

November. 

Brown pelicans feed near shore in the ocean as well as the mouth of the Rogue River. They feed 

mainly on fish, with the northern anchovy being the primary species consumed. They roost on 

sandy shores and off shore rocks. 

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects 

Both tour boat companies launch their trips from the estuary. Brown pelicans are transitory to 

the project area, there are no significant roosts within the project area and they do not breed 

within the project area. Because of the ongoing activities in the estuary, tour boat impacts are 

discountable and produce no additional effects to the brown pelican. The effects determination 

for this species is No Effect. 

Steller (Northern) Sea-Lion (Eumetopias jubatus) 

Status: Federal – Threatened 

References: USDI Fish and Wildlife Services (2005), Verts and Carraway (1998) 
WILDLIFE BE Page G-11 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

The Steller sea-lion was listed in 1990 as threatened in California, Oregon, Washington, and 

Alaska, except the population segment that occurs west of 1440 W. Longitude was listed as 

endangered. The species occurs around the North Pacific Ocean rim from Japan, through the 

Aleutian Islands and Bering Sea, and south along the west coast of North America to Channel 

Islands, California. They eat a variety of fishes and invertebrates 

Pyramid Rock, located on the Rogue River Reef, is one of the primary rookeries used by Steller 

sea-lions along the Oregon coast. Steller sea-lion presence in the Rogue River estuary (below 

RM 5) is the highest in June or July where they prey on lamprey, salmonids and other fish. 

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects 

Both tour boat companies launch their trips from the estuary. Steller sea-lions are transitory to 

the project area, there are no haul-outs within the project area and they do not breed within the 

project area. Because of the ongoing activities in the estuary, tour boat impacts are discountable 

and produce no additional effects to the brown pelican. The effects determination for this 

species is No Effect. 

Forest Service Region 6 Sensitive Species 

American Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum) 

Status: USDA Forest Service – Sensitive 

References: Johnsgard (1990), USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (1999a) 

The American peregrine falcon was identified as an endangered species in the 1970s and then 

delisted in 1999. Peregrine falcons are typically associated with cliffs, which serve as nesting 

and perching sites. Nest site criteria include ledges, potholes, and small caves that are near water, 

inaccessible to mammalian predators, and offer protection from rain and snow, and heat and 

cold. Peregrine falcons feed almost exclusively on birds. 

Peregrines forage within the project area. Two nest sites occur adjacent to the project area with 

the closest one being 3,000 ft from the Rogue River. 

Direct Effects 

The two known nest sites are located outside the project area. There is the unlikely possibility of 

displacement of foraging peregrines or its prey species resulting from noise and presence of 

people, power boats, rafts and vehicles. Monitoring of peregrine falcon in the Rogue River 

corridor indicates de-sensitization to river boat noise, hence the low likelihood of actual 

disturbance or measurable effect on reproduction (Pagel, 1988; Dillingham, 1997). Direct 

observations of bird behavior during jet boat races showed no apparent disruption to peregrine 

falcon behavior. 

Indirect Effects 

Vehicles for pulling and/or carrying motorized boats create additional noise and presence 

contributing to the potential for noise disturbance as well as to desensitizing potential. Greater 

boat activity (e.g., Alternative 2) could result in greater potential for impacts. The no action 

alternative is considered a MIIH because non-commercial private motor boating, rafting, hiking 

and camping will still occur.. The remaining alternatives have a reduced potential for impacts 

compared to Alternative 2. Negative effects are highly unlikely and immeasurable. 
WILDLIFE BE Page G-12 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

Cumulative Effects 

Disturbance from private residences, businesses, roads, powerboats, rafts, and people have been 

occurring in the project area for decades and is expected to continue at some level with or 

without the proposed action. 

California Wolverine (Gulo gulo)

Status: USDA Forest Service – Sensitive 

References: Csuti et al. (1997), Hornocker (1981), Maser (1998), Ruggiero et al (1994), Yocum 

(1973). 

Wolverines are rare in Oregon and typically found in the Cascade Mountains. They are solitary 

animals with large home ranges, sometimes several hundred square miles. Yocum concluded 

from sighting records that the wolverine was becoming established in the western Siskiyou 

Mountains of Del Norte County, California. Wolverines typically avoid areas used regularly by 

humans. Wolverines are commonly associated with open forests at high elevation and in alpine 

areas, though it may be that the high elevation areas simply had the lowest level of human 

activity. Wolverines are opportunistic omnivores in summer and scavengers in winter; they prey 

on a variety of smaller animals, but large mammal carrion is an import food source all year. 

There are no recorded sightings of wolverine for the Gold Beach Ranger District. Numerous 

roads exist within the project area and human disturbance is common. The adjacent wilderness 

provides suitable habitat. The high level of human activity in much of the project area indicates 

poor habitat quality and a low likelihood of wolverine activity. 

Direct Effects 

Though the proposed action does not include habitat alteration, the action alternatives occur at a 

time of year when this species could be present in the project area. This species is very unlikely 

to be present. The species avoids human contact and is seemingly sensitive to human activity 

(i.e., noise). Numerous roads exist within the project area and human activity is common. Noise 

generated by motorized boats may decrease habitat suitability or quality with the result of a 

decreased likelihood of habitat use. 

The Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Rivers Special Use Permits (all alternatives) is considered 

“May Impact Individuals and/or Habitat but not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss 

of viability” for the California wolverine. The alternatives differ in their potential for impacts 

primarily as a function of use level; the greater the boat activity (e.g., Alternative 2), the greater 

the potential for impacts 

Indirect Effects

Additional traffic generated by vehicles pulling and/or carrying commercial boats is not expected 

to result in measurable disturbance, as these are a relatively small fraction of total vehicle 

activity in the project area. This additional traffic also results in increased collision potential, but 

this is also not likely to be large enough to have a measurable effect. 

Cumulative Effects 

Disturbance from private residences, businesses, roads, motorboats, rafts, and people has been 

occurring in the project area for decades and is expected to continue at some level with or 

without commercial boating. 
WILDLIFE BE Page G-13 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

The cumulative effects of projects in the Rogue River and Illinois basins are expected to be 

minimal. These projects are consistent with LRMP Standards and Guidelines and Management 

Requirements, therefore these projects will not have a cumulative effect on these species in the 

lower Rogue or lower Illinois River corridor. 

Pacific Fisher (Martes pennanti) 

Status: USDA Forest Service – Sensitive 

References: Csuti, et al. (1997), Maser (1998), Maser, et al. (1981), Ruggiero, et al. (1994). 

Pacific fishers are rare in Oregon and typically only found in the southwest and northeast 

quarters of the state. The preferred habitat is coniferous forests; although deciduous forests may 

be used in portions of the range. Fishers may use clearcuts, but more commonly they avoid areas 

with no overhead cover. Natal and maternal dens are typically large cavities in living or dead 

trees. During winter, temporary dens may be found in snow, brush piles, and under logs or roots. 

Resting areas are predominantly in closed canopy stands in large trees, snags, or logs. Suitable 

habitat for fishers exists in the project area, but no fishers have been observed. 

Direct Effects 

Though the proposed action does not include habitat alteration, the action alternatives occur at a 

time of year when this species could be present in the project area. This species are unlikely to be 

present. Noise generated by motorized boats may decrease habitat suitability or quality with the 

result of a decreased likelihood of habitat use. 

Motorized traffic, terrestrial support and/or aquatic, already occurs and is projected to continue 

to occur with or without the proposed activities 

The Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Rivers Special Use Permits (all alternatives) is considered 

“May Impact Individuals and/or Habitat but not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss 

of viability” for the Pacific fisher. The alternatives differ in their potential for impacts primarily 

as a function of use level; the greater the boat activity (e.g., Alternative 2), the greater the 

potential for impacts. 

Indirect Effects

Additional traffic generated by vehicles pulling and/or carrying commercial boats is not expected 

to result in measurable disturbance, as these are a relatively small fraction of total vehicle 

activity in the project area. This additional traffic also results in increased collision potential, but 

this is also not likely to be large enough to have a measurable effect. 

Cumulative Effects 

Disturbance from private residences, businesses, roads, motorboats, rafts, and people has been 

occurring in the project area for decades and is expected to continue at some level with or 

without commercial boating. 

The cumulative effects of projects in the Rogue River and Illinois basins are expected to be 

minimal. These projects are consistent with LRMP Standards and Guidelines and Management 

Requirements, therefore these projects will not have a cumulative effect on these species in the 

lower Rogue or lower Illinois River corridor. 
WILDLIFE BE Page G-14 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

Pacific Fringe-tailed Bat (Myotis thysanodes) 

Status: USDA Forest Service – Sensitive 

References: Csuti, et al. (1997), Maser (1998), Maser, et al. (1981) 

The Pacific fringe-tailed bat is rare in Oregon, but is most common to southwest Oregon. Little 

is known about its habitat, but it is known to use caves, mines, rock crevices, and buildings for 

day and night roosts. Preferred habitat seems to be forested and riparian areas. The fringe-tailed 

bat is sensitive to human disturbance. There are no recorded Pacific fringe-tailed bat sightings in 

the WILDOBS database within the project area, however there are bridges, rock outcrops, snags, 

and or buildings present and suitable for roosting. 

Direct Effects 

The proposed activities do not modify bat habitat and is sufficiently removed from known roost, 

nursery, and/or hibernation sites so as not to pose an impact. The twilight period of bat activity 

overlaps with some of boating activity, creating an unlikely collision potential. 

The Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Rivers Special Use Permits (all alternatives) is considered 

“May Impact Individuals and/or Habitat but not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss 

of viability” for the Pacific fringe-tailed bat. The alternatives differ in their potential for impacts 

primarily as a function of use level; the greater the boat activity (e.g., Alternative 2), the greater 

the potential for impacts. 

Indirect Effects

Additional traffic generated by vehicles pulling and/or carrying commercial boats is not expected 

to result in measurable disturbance, as these are a relatively small fraction of total vehicle 

activity in the project area. This additional traffic also results in increased collision potential, but 

this is also not likely to be large enough to have a measurable effect. 

Cumulative Effects 

Disturbance from private residences, businesses, roads, motorboats, rafts, and people has been 

occurring in the project area for decades and is expected to continue at some level with or 

without commercial boating. The cumulative effects of projects in the Rogue River and Illinois 

basins are expected to be minimal. These projects are consistent with LRMP Standards and 

Guidelines and Management Requirements, therefore these projects will not have a cumulative 

effect on this species in the lower Rogue or lower Illinois River corridor. 

Pacific Pallid Bat (Antrozous pallidus pacificus) 

Status: USDA Forest Service – Sensitive 

References: Csuti, et al. (1997), Maser (1998). 

In Oregon, the pallid bat is found east of the Cascade Mountains and in the Siskiyou Mountain 

region of southwest Oregon. The pallid bat is most often found in arid regions where desert 

vegetation predominates but can also be found in open ponderosa pine and oak forests. Daytime 

roosts include caves, undersides of bridges, and cracks in rocks, hollow trees, snags, buildings, 

and mines. Nighttime roosts include open shelters easily accessible by flight such as open 

buildings, porches, undersides of bridges, and mines. The Pacific Pallid Bat is intolerant of 

disturbance and readily abandons roosts. 
WILDLIFE BE Page G-15 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

The Northwest Forest Plan does require protection of caves, mines, abandoned wooded bridges, 

and buildings that are used as roost sites for bats. Bat monitoring conducted at Quosatana 

Campground, Agness Guard Station, and Coon Rock Bridge during the summers of 2002 and 

2003 yielded no detections of these species. This same monitoring found a moderate abundance 

of activity and the identification of a California bat (Myotis californicus) nursery colony in one 

of the utility service buildings at Quosatana Campground. The nursery colony is located about 

150 yards from the Rogue River. 

Direct Effects 

The proposed activities do not modify bat habitat and is sufficiently removed from known roost, 

nursery, and/or hibernation sites so as not to pose an impact. The twilight period of bat activity 

overlaps with some of boating activity, creating an unlikely collision potential. 

The Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Rivers Special Use Permits (all alternatives) is considered 

“May Impact Individuals and/or Habitat but not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or a loss 

of viability” for the Pacific pallid bat. The alternatives differ in their potential for impacts 

primarily as a function of use level; the greater the boat activity (e.g., Alternative 2), the greater 

the potential for impacts. 

Indirect Effects

Additional traffic generated by vehicles pulling and/or carrying commercial boats is not expected 

to result in measurable disturbance, as these are a relatively small fraction of total vehicle 

activity in the project area. This additional traffic also results in increased collision potential, but 

this is also not likely to be large enough to have a measurable effect. 

Cumulative Effects 

Disturbance from private residences, businesses, roads, motorboats, rafts, and people has been 

occurring in the project area for decades and is expected to continue at some level with or 

without commercial boating. The cumulative effects of projects in the Rogue River and Illinois 

basins are expected to be minimal. These projects are consistent with LRMP Standards and 

Guidelines and Management Requirements, therefore these projects will not have a cumulative 

effect on this species in the lower Rogue or lower Illinois River corridor. 

Pacific Shrew (Sorex pacificus.) 

Status: USDA Forest Service - Sensitive 

Pacific shrews are typically found in wet areas along small forest streams interspersed with down 

wood and marshy patches or around down wood in moist forests away from streams and 

wetlands (Maser 1998). Pacific shrews are not typically associated with conifer forests, but 

prefer alder/salmonberry riparian areas and skunk cabbage marshes (Csuti et al. 1997). Though 

no Pacific shrew sighting records were located for the project area, field reconnaissance indicates 

suitable habitat within project area riparian areas. 

Direct Effects 

Though the proposed action does not include habitat alteration, the proposed action occurs at a 

time of year when this species could be present in the project area. There exists the unlikely 

possibility that during boat loading and/or unloading activity at other than a ramp or dock, e.g. 

person leaves boat to play and land a fish, that an individual shrew could be stepped on or 

directly impacted by the boat. 
WILDLIFE BE Page G-16 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

Indirect Effects 

Additional traffic generated by vehicles pulling and/or carrying commercial boats is not expected 

to result in increased road kill potential, but this is not likely to be large enough to have a 

measurable effect. 

Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative effects of projects in the Rogue River and Illinois basins are expected to be 

minimal. These projects are consistent with LRMP Standards and Guidelines and Management 

Requirements, therefore these projects will not have a cumulative effect on this species in the 

lower Rogue or lower Illinois River corridor. 

Del Norte Salamander (Plethodon elongatus) 

Status: USDA Forest Service - Sensitive 

Habitat for Del Norte salamanders includes coniferous and deciduous forests with rocks and logs 

(Cockran and Thomas 1996). This species is most closely associated with rocks or talus slopes 

within forests (Csuti et al. 1997) and may also be found in partially-decayed logs or under forest 

litter in coastal areas (Cockran and Thomas 1996). Del Norte salamanders are common, 

abundant, and widely distributed across the Forest with 611 sightings. There are 2 sightings in 

the project area. 

Direct Effects 

Del Norte salamander habitat occurs above the high water line. Downed wood used as firewood 

could impact habitat quality. However, that effect is unlikely to have any measurable impacts to 

the species 

Indirect Effects

Additional traffic generated by vehicles pulling and/or carrying commercial boats is not expected 

to result in increased road kill potential, but this is not likely to be large enough to have a 

measurable effect. 

Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative effects of projects in the Rogue River and Illinois basins are expected to be 

minimal. These projects are consistent with LRMP Standards and Guidelines and Management 

Requirements, therefore these projects will not have a cumulative effect on this species in the 

lower Rogue or lower Illinois River corridor. 

Siskiyou Mountains Salamander (P. stormi) 

Status: USDA Forest Service - Sensitive 

The Siskiyou Mountains salamander is primarily a California species and is only found in the 

Siskiyou Mountains of southern Oregon and northern California (Cockran and Thomas 1996). 

This species is associated with habitat similar to that of the Del Norte salamander. Gold Beach 

Ranger District is outside the known Siskiyou Mountains salamander distribution. No Siskiyou 

Mountains salamanders have been found during surveys on the Gold Beach Ranger District. 

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects 

The proposal is considered No Impact on Siskiyou Mountains salamander because the project is 

outside the known range of this species.
WILDLIFE BE Page G-17 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

Black Salamander (Aneides flavipunctatus) 

Status: USDA Forest Service - Sensitive 

The black salamander is also a primarily California species and is only found in the Siskiyou 

Mountains of southern Oregon near the California border (Cockran and Thomas 1996). The 

project area is outside the known black salamander distribution. Potential habitat for the black 

salamander occurs in the project area but no black salamanders have been found during surveys 

on the Gold Beach Ranger District. 

Direct, Indirect and Cumulative Effects 

The proposal is considered No Impact on black salamander because the project is outside the 

known range of this species 

Southern Torrent Salamander (Rhyacotriton variegates) 

Status: USDA Forest Service - Sensitive 

Torrent salamanders are sensitive to desiccation and changes in water temperature., so they are 

rarely found far from cold water (Cockran and Thomas 1996). Typical torrent salamander habitat 

includes cold and clear springs, seeps, headwater streams, and waterfall splash zones (Cockran 

and Thomas 1996). Metamorphosed individuals and adults may be found in moist forests near 

flowing water foraging for food. Larvae and adults are commonly found in gravel or under 

cobbles in clear flowing or seeping water (Cockran and Thomas 1996). Eggs are laid singly, 

loosely, and unattached during the spring in rock crevices where cold water will flow around 

them. Southern torrent salamander habitat exists within the project area; southern torrent 

salamanders are commonly seen along streams in the Gold Beach Ranger District. Three records 

of southern torrent salamander activity adjacent to the project area were located. 

Direct Effects 

Southern torrent salamander utilized cool headwater streams and springs. They are unlikely 

inhabitants below the high water line in the Rogue or Illinois Rivers. People walking in this 

habitat could injure an individual, however this is extremely unlikely. 

Indirect Effects 

No impacts are anticipated as this species is highly aquatic and restricted to very small and cool 

headwater stream and seeps. This type of habitat is not expected to be affected by the proposed 

action and it is unlikely that these animals would ever be found outside of this habitat 

Cumulative Effects 

Disturbance from private residences, businesses, roads, motorboats, rafts, and people has been 

occurring in the project area for decades and is expected to continue at some level with or 

without commercial boating. 

The cumulative effects of projects in the Rogue River and Illinois basins are expected to be 

minimal. These projects are consistent with LRMP Standards and Guidelines and Management 

Requirements, therefore these projects will not have a cumulative effect on these species in the 

lower Rogue or lower Illinois River corridor. 
WILDLIFE BE Page G-18 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

Foothill Yellow-legged Frog (Rana boylii) 

Status: USDA Forest Service - Sensitive 

The foothill yellow-legged frog lives in or near streams with rocky or gravel substrates (Cockran 

and Thomas 1996). Streams with sandy or muddy bottoms are occasionally used, as well as 

moist, rocky outcrops (Nussbaum et al. 1983). Adults commonly live among sedge clumps at the 

edges of deep pools, cobbles on the bottom of pools, or in bedrock at the main stream channel 

edge (Cockran and Thomas, 1996). Eggs are deposited during late spring or early summer in 

clusters attached to rocks on the bottom or edges of streams and tadpoles live in pools for three 

to four months before metamorphosing into adults (Cockran and Thomas 1996). 

Foothill yellow-legged frog has been detected at 40 locations (Chetco, Elk, Illinois, Pistol, Rogue 

and Winchuck watersheds) within the Siskiyou National Forest. Two sighting occur in the 

project area. 

Direct Effects 

Powerboat wave action may dislodge eggs, egg masses, and/or tadpole/juvenile amphibians and 

deposit them on shore where they become subject to desiccation or predation. There exists the 

unlikely possibility that during boat loading and/or unloading activity at other than a ramp or 

dock (e.g., person leaves boat to play and land a fish), that an individual animal could be stepped 

on or directly impacted by the boat. The Forest Service will conduct surveys for yellow-legged 

frog oviposition sites in 2005 on the Lower Rogue River and if sites are found, will monitor 

those sites to determine if powerboats have adverse impacts to egg masses and tadpoles. 

Indirect Effects 

No indirect impacts are anticipated as this species is highly aquatic and they are unlikely to be 

impacted by increased road use or vehicle travel. 

Cumulative Effects 

There are no known foothill yellow-legged frog sightings where channel maintenance may 

occur. There is unsurveyed suitable habitat at these locations. Foothill yellow-legged frog eggs 

and tadpoles could be destroyed. Juvenile and adult frogs could be temporarily displaced 

Potential effects from private residences, businesses, roads, powerboats, rafts, channel 

maintenance, boater safety willow cutting, docks, and people have been occurring in the project 

area for decades and are expected to continue at some level with or without the proposed action. 

The cumulative effects of projects in the Rogue River and Illinois basins are expected to be 

minimal. These projects are consistent with LRMP Standards and Guidelines and Management 

Requirements, therefore these projects will not have a cumulative effect on these species in the 

lower Rogue or lower Illinois River corridor. 

Common Kingsnake (Lampropeltis getula) 

Status: USDA Forest Service - Sensitive 

In Oregon, the common kingsnake is thought to be most closely associated with moist river 

valleys with thick riparian vegetation (Storm et al. 1995). The common kingsnake is widely 

distributed throughout the southern United States but is only known in Curry, Douglas, Jackson, 

and Josephine Counties in Oregon. Two of the 15 records of common kingsnake on the Forest 

are within the project area. 
Direct Effects 

No habitat modification is proposed in areas likely to be used by the common kingsnake. There 

exists the unlikely possibility that during boat loading and/or unloading activity at other than a 

ramp or dock, e.g. person leaves boat to play and land a fish, that an individual animal could be 

stepped on or directly impacted by the boat. 

Indirect Effects 

Down wood removed for firewood could reduce the amount of available cover for the common 

kingsnake. Vehicles for pulling and/or carrying boats could collide with common kingsnake as it 

moves across a road, however these activities are unlikely to have a measurable effect to the 

species. 

Cumulative Effects 

Disturbance from private residences, businesses, roads, motorboats, rafts, and people has been 

occurring in the project area for decades and is expected to continue at some level with or 

without commercial boating. Impacts on individual common kingsnake are expected to be very 

small in scale and immeasurable. 

The cumulative effects of projects in the Rogue River and Illinois basins are expected to be 

minimal. These projects are consistent with LRMP Standards and Guidelines and Management 

Requirements, therefore these projects will not have a cumulative effect on these species in the 

lower Rogue or lower Illinois River corridor. 

Northwestern Pond Turtle (Clemmys marmorata m.) 

Status: USDA Forest Service - Sensitive 

Habitat 

The (north) western pond turtle (WPT) inhabits marshes, ponds, lakes, reservoirs, sloughs, and 

slow moving portions of creeks and rivers (Storm et al. 1995). Pond turtles seem to prefer areas 

that have refugia such as undercut banks, 

submerged vegetation, rocks, logs, or mud 

(Storm et al. 1995). Areas with basking sites for 

thermoregulation, such as rocks, logs, or 

emergent vegetation are also preferred. Partially 

submerged logs, vegetation mats, mud banks, 

rocks, and tree branches offer areas for sunning 

(Stebbins 1985). 

Figure 1: One type of western pond turtle

habitat, the willow-pedestal sedge shoreline. 

The project area offers suitable year-round 

habitat for the species and WPTs are common in 

the project area. Two habitats, both most 

prominent along the Rogue River north bank, 

seem to have the vast majority of turtle riverine 

activity. The first can be characterized as a 

willow (Salix sp.) - pedestal sedge (Carex sp.) 

shoreline where summer river flow is relatively 

constant, resulting in a close proximity of 

foraging, basking, and resting habitat, and 

security cover. 

WILDLIFE BE Page G-19 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits
Willow and sedge stem and root clumps provide structural complexity used by turtle prey (small 

aquatic invertebrates) and are used for security cover by turtles. The sedge has a unique growth 

form in which its roots are clumped (“stub footed”) and often hanging over the shoreline. WPT 

are often seen at the base of these sedge clumps. Peninsular and island rocks are regularly used 

for basking. Water more than 3 feet deep offers escape cover whenever threatening conditions 

prevail 

The second dominant habitat condition (Figure 10) in the shallow shoreline water zone (0.5 to 2 

feet deep) of slow moving, warmer water. The river bed within the geologic Riddle Formation is 

nearly vertical in places and differential erosion results in undulating backwater embayments. 

These embayments provide structural diversity which, in turn, provides turtle foraging, basking, 

resting, and probably rearing habitat. The embayments contain ridges upon which little to no 

vegetation grows. Between the ridges there are pools with a sand-silt floor where vegetation, 

such as curly-leaf pondweed, grows and where algae often accumulate in mid to late summer. 

The European pondweed (Potamegeton crispus) growth form is dense, wide spreading, and 

flexible, resulting in effective hiding cover for turtles and possible heat sinks in which water is 

further warmed and retained. Pondweed roots in the riverbed and extends dense stems through 

the water column and often up to the surface. WPT have been observed taking refuge in 

pondweed patches to avoid being captured. 

Holland (1994) found that juvenile WPT use the same habitat as adults, though it is likely 

juveniles will seek microhabitats which afford greater security cover, warmer water temperatures 

to facilitate growth, and greater food abundance. 

Holland (1994) describes nest site attributes, 

which include compact soils and alluvium

with higher amounts of clay or silt and a 

smaller proportion of sand. Nest sites 

generally occur on S, SW, or SE aspects and 

on slopes greater than 25 degrees. Nest site 

distance to water averages 161 feet above the 

average high-water line. Nest sites have not 

been located in the project area but are likely 

to be present. 

WILDLIFE BE Page G-20 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

ection.

on.

as

al

WPT distribution within the project area is 

uneven. At least 95% of the WPT sightings 

have been in the Wild Rogue Section and 

upper half of the Recreational Rogue S

The turtle distribution indicates habitat 

differences which are suspected to be positively correlated with the geologic Riddle Formati

Using the 2002-2003 average population estimate, Adult/juvenile ratios are, under normal 

circumstances, quite variable (Holland 1994) and would generally consist of 55 to 70 percent 

adults. The project area shows an adult- biased population structure (98 percent adults). The 

reason for this is unknown. Predation and or disease associated with introduced species, such

bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana) and red-eared slider (Pseudemys scripta), might play a substanti

role in juvenile mortality. WPT wintering sites also found in the project area. 

Figure 2: Second habitat type, shallow

shoreline water zone slow moving water 
MONITORING 

Monitoring data results from systematic surveys and opportunistic detections. Systematic 

surveys are conducted specifically for the purpose of detecting WPT activity. Opportunistic 

detections occur when a WPT is observed and reported while a person is conducting other 

business. Systematic commenced in 2001 and have through 2003 (Galea 2001, 2002, 2003). 

The portion of the river monitored with systematic surveys has varied each year (Table 3) though 

the techniques and personnel involved have been similar. 

Table 3: Western pond turtle detection methods and areas for the Rogue River Special Use Permits 

project area

YEAR SURVEY TYPE ROUTE

2001 Systematic Foster Bar to Blossom Bar

2002 Systematic Foster Bar to Blossom Bar;

Grave Creek to Foster Bar (downstream float survey) 

2003 Systematic Foster Bar to Blossom Bar;

Grave Creek to Cougar Lane (downstream float survey) 

YEARLY Opportunistic Varies but often Quosatana boat ramp to Blossom Bar 

Table 4 summarizes WPT detections for the same 12 mile portion of the river, Blossom Bar to 

Foster Bar, monitored each year. The variability in the results shown in Table 4 may be due to 

such factors as differences in sampling conditions (weather), sampling dates, and sample size. 

As sample size has increased, the WPT per mile value has decreased. With sufficient sampling, 

normal levels of variation should become evident. The larger a sample size, the more probable 

variation in weather conditions. 

Table 4: Western pond turtle survey results for the 12 mile Rogue River section between 

Blossom Bar and Foster Bar

YEAR AVG. # OF WPT 

DETECTED (Std.Dev.) 

SAMPLE 

SIZE (days) 

DATE 

RANGE 

WPT 

PER MI. 

2001 17.5 (2.4) 4 8/3 - 9/5 9.8 

2002 10.3 (3.9) 6 7/15 - 9/25 5.8 

2003 5 (5.0) 20 4/17 - 9/13 2.8 

2001: Baseline monitoring of the WPT was initiated with a population and nest site survey from

Blossom Bar to Foster Bar. Thirty-three (33) WPT were captured and marked. One of the 33 

WPT captured was a hatchling between Clay Hill Lodge and Clay Hill rapids. A population size 

of 127 total WPT (106 adults plus an estimated 21 subadults) The adult to subadult ratio was 

91.5 to 8.5. A detection ratio of basking WPT of 15.1 was calculated. This survey indicated 

clumped, relatively low densities of turtles along this portion of the river, compared to other 

large river systems. The report suggested three several factors which may be causing the 

apparently low densities, (1) generally poor habitat conditions, (2) a lack of nesting habitat, (3) 

high predation. 

WILDLIFE BE Page G-21 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits
WILDLIFE BE Page G-22 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

2002: Thirty-four (34) miles of the Rogue River extending from Grave Creek downstream to 

Foster Bar, were surveyed for WPT. A population size of 136 WPT (113 adults plus an 

estimated 23 subadults) was calculated. Seven WPT were hand captured and none had been 

previously marked. As observed in 2001, WPT clumping reoccurred. Sites where WPT had 

been detected in 2001 were also in use during 2002. The Biscuit Fire of 2002 prevented the 

more extensive monitoring that was planned. 

2003: Forty-one (41) miles of the Rogue River extending from Grave Creek downstream to 

Agness were surveyed for WPT. This rendered a reliable count of 146 WPTs (Mendez-T. 2003) 

resulting from twenty-seven opportunity searches. Average WPT detections per search was 5.4 

(Standard Deviation = 6.2, Range = 0- 28). WPT movement between their wintering and 

summer grounds along the Rogue River was documented in 2003. WPT activity tended to be 

located in the same areas as in previous sightings. 

Six sub-adult turtles were observed in 2003: four above and two below Blossom Bar. The 

limited number of observations affirms the difficulty in detecting sub-adult and juvenile WPT. 

The presence of the sub-adults indicates reproduction in both the motorized and non-motorized 

portions of the river. a). A single sub-adult turtle sighting at Lone Tree Creek is the furthest 

downstream on the Rogue River that has a record of WPT. This location is in the Recreation 

Section of the river, and receives both motorized and non-motorized activity during the spring to 

fall period. b). A single Clayhill Lodge sighting was made in the Wild Section of the river. The 

Clayhill Lodge area also receives both motorized and non-motorized traffic. The sub-adult 

detection site includes a sandy beach area with easy access to the river. Cleared and/or trampled 

vegetation indicates human use, i.e. lunch stops, camping. This area also seems suitable at least 

as a pathway for turtles leaving or returning to the river during nesting and/or wintering phases. 

c). Four WPT sub-sightings occurred in the vicinity of Corral Creek and Battle Bar. This area is 

in the primarily non-motorized section above Blossom Bar, and is a popular camping and lunch 

stop. The greater number of sub-adult WPT sightings here indicates a high likelihood of nearby 

nesting. 

Project area monitoring in 2004 has documented pond turtle terrestrial activity on March 11th 

and 24th, and riverine activity April 7th through 9th. The March 11th observation was of two 

adult female WPTs, radio-tagged in 2003, at their wintering sites. The wintering sites are located 

between Foster Bar and Lone Tree Creek, both on the north side of the Rogue River, on National 

Forest System (NFS) land. The most upstream of the two sites (150.663 MHZ), in the vicinity of 

Illahe Campground, is located about 55 feet away from the river’s edge within a former river ten 

foot high soil-gravel bank that demarcates the transition between the upslope 30-60 year old 

Douglas-fir forest, and the downslope grass-forb-shrub-young-conifer community of a frequently 

(<30 year cycle) flooded bench. The second wintering site, 150.683 MHZ, is about 110 feet east 

of Lone Tree and about 450 feet from the Rogue River’s edge. Both turtles were observed above 

ground during monitoring on March 11, 2004. The March 24, 2004 sighting was of an adult 

male located close to a private residence, in the vicinity of Billing’s Creek, and about 1400 feet 

from the Rogue River. Three WPT were observed on April 8th and two on April 9th shoreline 

and or within the Rogue River. One of the three individuals of April 8th was detected in an area 

(Solitude Bar) with no prior documented activity. 
Figure 3: Percent western pond turtle seasonal activity in the project area. 

WPTurtle Seasonal Activity

MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB

SUMMERING, 

AQUATIC

WINTERING, TERRESTRIAL

MATING,

TERRESTRIAL

NESTING,

TERRESTRIAL

EMERGENCE,

TERRESTRIAL

MIGRATION

MIGRATION,

AQUATIC to

TERRESTRIAL

Figure 3 generalizes the percent of WPT activity within the project area over a calendar year. 

Each histogram bar represents a month. The bar height is a relative measure, in comparison to 

the other months, of the likelihood of a person seeing a WPT on the ground surface during that 

month. For example, the “WINTER, TERRESTRIAL” period has the shortest bars, indicating 

that even though this period covers 33 percent of the year, it has the least likelihood of a WPT 

being detected above ground. Conversely, the “SUMMERING, AQUATIC” period, 17 percent 

of the year, has the greatest likelihood for a WPT to be detected above ground. The only 

absolute part of the histogram is that WPT are present year-round in the project area. 

Direct Effects 

The proposed activities occur at a time of year when this species is along the shore and/or in the 

river and subject to impact. The most likely avenues for measurable impact on this species relate 

to direct collision between boat and turtle, as well as splashing of basking turtles by the wake of 

passing motor boats. Larger boats that are plowing, versus on-plane, have a greater potential of 

generating larger wakes. Furthermore, the larger wakes have high energy levels with a resultant 

increased potential of physically displacing turtles and/or displacing vegetative cover. Physical 

collision between boat and turtle could result in serious turtle injuries. Monitoring turtle 

populations in this river system during 2002 and 2003, including the direct observation and/or 

handling of 148 individuals, resulted in no detectable evidence of boat-turtle collisions. Turtles 

that were examined commonly showed signs of attempted depredation (e.g., tooth scrapes and 

indentations). 

A second likely pathway for direct impact to WPT is involuntary displacement. In Riverhawks v. 

Zepeda, Dr. Holland (2003) declared, “motorized watercraft can interfere with normal foraging, 

basking, movement, reproductive and other behaviors for all age and size classes of WPT. 

Second, motorized watercraft can interfere with normal development of eggs in gravid females 

by altering basking behavior, altering basking site selection and/or deep body temperatures by 

wave action, and/or creating noise that disturbs them.” The noise or presence of a boat or boats 

could cause WPT to abandon its location and take cover. 

WILDLIFE BE Page G-23 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits
WILDLIFE BE Page G-24 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

After two years of monitoring, WPT are seldom seen (less than five percent of the time) leaving 

their post when a motorized boat approaches or passes. As observed by District personnel, nonmotorized boat activity has generated at least as much, if not more, involuntary displacement as 

motorized boat activity. 

The limited degree of evasive action may be explained by desensitization (Holland, 1994) though 

each event is unique to individual WPT and particular circumstances (e.g., the proximity of a 

boat to a WPT). As observed, most turtles are tolerant of motorized boat traffic, though the 

circumstances around each event varied. Generally, the closer a boat is to a WPT and the greater 

the wake caused by the boat, the greater the likelihood of involuntary displacement. Wakes 

resulting from motorized boat traffic could negatively affect microhabitat for hatchling and 

juvenile WPT (Holland, 2003). Riverine areas used by WPT are subjected to significantly greater 

disturbance forces each winter. These winter storm flows control WPT habitat: shorelines, 

vegetation, pools, floor composition, basking sites, and other areas. Wakes caused by from the 

proposed action could result in micro-scale impacts on habitat during any one season, but thus 

far the change has been immeasurable. The effects determination for the WPT is “May Impact 

Individuals or Habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards Federal listing or cause a 

loss of viability to the population or species (MIIH). 

Indirect Effects 

Habitat degradation can result when shoreline vegetation is lost due to trampling, excavation, 

soil loss, and undercut bank collapse from human activity (e.g., boat take-out, lunch spots, 

camping) and/or boat-generated wave action. Water quality degradation may occur as a result of 

pollutants from internal combustion engines or other chemicals lost from motor boats or rafts. 

Litter accumulation from human activity along shorelines attracts animals, such as bear, raccoon, 

or gray fox, which could prey on these species. Vehicles for pulling and/or carrying boats could 

collide with WPT as it moved across a road. 

Cumulative Effects 

Motorized and non-motorized boat traffic, terrestrial or aquatic, already occurs and is expected to 

continue to occur with or without the proposed action. Impacts from vehicles, terrestrial and/or 

aquatic, may have the same type of impacts on WPT as those associated with the proposed 

activities. At times, District personnel have observed recreationists on rafts and/or kayaks 

purposely maneuver their craft to more closely observe or touch WPT. 

All but one channel maintenance site (Illahe Island/Allen’s Alley) occurs below where western 

pond turtles have been observed in the project area. Western pond turtle are present near the 

mouth of Billings Creek which is approximately 1000 feet downstream from the channel 

maintenance site. If a western pond turtle were to move to the shore line where channel 

maintenance is occurring, they could be temporarily displaced. 

The potential for impacts is proportional to the amount of boat activity. For WPT, there is the 

additional variance to potential impacts that is related to the seasons of activity. Boat activity that 

occurs between April and September has a greater likelihood of causing WPT impacts than if 

conducted outside this period when the species are less likely to be in the river or on the river’s 

edge. Impacts on individual WPT and/or their habitat are expected to be very small in scale and 

immeasurable. The proposed action neither fragments the population nor creates a barrier to 

movement 
WILDLIFE BE Page G-25 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

Management Indicator Species 

Table 6 below identifies Management Indicator Species and their habitat represented in the 

project area. Only those species not already evaluated, in this FEIS or in the Wildlife Biological 

Evaluation for this project, are included. 

Table 5: Wildlife management indicator species and the habitat represented for the project area.

Species Habitat Represented 

Osprey Habitat corridors along large creeks and rivers 

Pileated woodpecker, pine marten Mature forest 

Woodpeckers Snags (standing dead trees) 

Black-tailed deer, Roosevelt elk Early successional forest stages 

Osprey 

Ospreys (Pandion haliaetus) are commonly observed in the project area. Ospreys arrive during 

early spring (March), nest, and then leave for wintering grounds by October. Their primary diet 

includes fish and eels, which they hunt while in flight. Foraging and nesting occur in the project 

area; district monitoring between 1992 and 2004 has shown an increase in active territories from 

33 to 54 and an increase in the number of young produced from 33 to 75. 

Direct Effects 

There is the unlikely possibility of boat activity noise resulting displacement or disturbance of a 

roost or nest site. It is also unlikely that a collision between a foraging osprey and motorized boat 

could occur. Motorized boat activity could disrupt foraging behavior by causing osprey to feed 

elsewhere at locations not occupied by motorized boats, and/or by distraction which results in 

“missed” prey captures. No removal of habitat, nest or roosting trees, is proposed for 

modification by the action alternatives 

Indirect Effects 

Smaller fish injured during angling by people could become easier prey for osprey. Smaller fish 

that are removed by people would no longer be available as osprey food. 

Cumulative Effects 

Fishing and motorized boat activities already occur and are projected to continue to occur with or 

without the proposed action. Impacts from these activities are likely to have the same type of 

impacts on osprey as those associated with the proposed action. 

Pileated Woodpecker and Marten 

Pileated woodpecker and marten are mature forest habitat associated species. 

Direct Effects 

There is the unlikely possibility of boat activity noise resulting in displacement or disturbance. 

Removal of down wood and small snags for firewood could reduce foraging habitat for pileated 

wood pecker or cover for the marten or its prey. 

Indirect Effects 

Vehicles for pulling and/or carrying motorized boats create additional noise and pose the risk of 

collision. The presence and activity of these vehicles contributes to the potential for noise 

disturbance as well as the potential for desensitizing of animals to human activity. A lowered 

habitat quality situation is promoted by continued human activity.
WILDLIFE BE Page G-26 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

Cumulative Effects 

The action alternatives do not propose to directly remove snag habitat. However, snag habitat is 

likely to be removed as needed for public safety in proximity to campgrounds which are used for 

overnight stays by recreationists and/or for boat launching. Human presence and/or noise activity 

could degrade habitat quality resulting in decreased use and/or reduced reproductive 

effectiveness. 

Woodpeckers 

The woodpecker group includes acorn, black-backed, downy, hairy, Lewis’, and white-headed 

woodpeckers, as well as northern flickers and red-breasted sapsuckers. White-headed and 

black-backed woodpeckers are unlikely inhabitants of the analysis area as white headed 

woodpeckers are high elevation species and flammulated owls are a pine forest associated 

species. 

Direct Effects 

There is the unlikely possibility of boat activity noise resulting in displacement or disturbance. 

Removal of down wood and small snags for firewood could reduce foraging habitat for 

woodpeckers. 

Indirect Effects 

Vehicles for pulling and/or carrying motorized boats create additional noise and pose the risk of 

collision. The presence and activity of these vehicles contributes to the potential for noise 

disturbance as well as the potential for desensitizing of animals to human activity. A lowered 

habitat quality situation is promoted by continued human activity. 

Cumulative Effects 

The action alternatives do not propose to directly remove snag habitat. However, snag habitat is 

likely to be removed as needed for public safety in proximity to campgrounds which are used for 

overnight stays by recreationists and/or for boat launching. Human presence and/or noise activity 

could degrade habitat quality resulting in decreased use and/or reduced reproductive 

effectiveness. 

Blacktail Deer and Roosevelt Elk 

Black-tailed deer and Roosevelt elk do occur in the project area. Deer are commonly sighted 

along the Rogue and Illinois Rivers. Elk populations in the project are stable, while black - 

tailed deer populations are showing a downward trend due to loss of early seral habitat and other 

factors including disease, parasites and predation 

Direct Effects 

A small amount of foraging habitat may be impacted. There is the unlikely possibility of boat 

activity noise resulting in displacement or disturbance. . 

Indirect Effects 

Vehicles for pulling and/or carrying motorized boats create additional noise and pose the risk of 

collision. The presence and activity of these vehicles contributes to the potential for noise 

disturbance as well as the potential for desensitizing of animals to human activity. 

Cumulative Effects for all Management Indicator Species 

Human presence and/or noise could degrade habitat quality due to disturbance resulting in 

decreased use and/or reduced reproductive effectiveness.
WILDLIFE BE Page G-27 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

Disturbance from private residences, businesses, roads, motorboats, rafts, and people has been 

occurring in the project area for decades and is expected to continue at some level with or 

without commercial boating. 

The cumulative effects of all projects in the Rogue River and Illinois basins are expected to be 

minimal to these species. These projects are consistent with LRMP Standards and Guidelines and 

Management Requirements, therefore these projects will not have a cumulative effect on these 

species in the lower Rogue or lower Illinois River corridor. 

Protection Buffer Species 

The Record of Decision “To Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation Measure 

Standards and Guidelines in Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning 

documents within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl” (USDA Forest Service and USDI 

Bureau of Land Management 2004) (Survey and Manage ROD) removed many species from the 

Survey and Manage requirements. Standard and Guidelines for certain cavity nesting birds, 

Canada Lynx, and some bat roosts remained. Species potentially in the project area include 

white-headed and black-backed woodpeckers, flammulated owl which require large (>20 

inches), and bats that use caves, mines, and abandoned wooden bridges and buildings. Whiteheaded and black-backed woodpeckers and flammulated owl are unlikely inhabitants of the 

analysis area as white headed woodpeckers are high elevation species and flammulated owls are 

a pine forest associated species. Townsend’s big-eared bat has been observed at one location in 

the project area. 

Direct Effects 

White-headed and black-backed woodpeckers and flammulated owl: Large snags are not 

expected to be impacted by the proposed activities. There is the unlikely possibility of boat 

activity noise resulting in displacement or disturbance. Removal of down wood and small snags 

for firewood could reduce foraging habitat for woodpeckers. 

Bats: The proposed activities does not modify bat habitat and is sufficiently removed from 

known roost, nursery, and/or hibernation sites so as not to pose an impact. The twilight period of 

bat activity overlaps with some boating activity, creating an unlikely collision potential. 

Indirect Effects 

Vehicles for pulling and/or carrying boats pose the risk of collision. 

Cumulative Effects 

Motorized traffic, terrestrial support and/or aquatic, already occurs and is projected to continue 

to occur with or without the proposed action. 

The action alternatives do not propose to directly remove snag habitat. However, snag habitat is 

likely to be removed as needed for public safety in proximity to campgrounds which are used for 

overnight stays by recreationists and/or for boat launching. Human presence and/or noise activity 

could degrade habitat quality resulting in decreased use and/or reduced reproductive 

effectiveness. 

The Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Rivers Special Use Permits (all alternatives) is considered 

“May have negative effect to some individuals or some habitat but effect is minimal” for the 

white-headed and black-backed woodpeckers, flammulated owl, fringed myotis, long-eared 

myotis, long-legged myotis; silver-haired bat, pallid bat, and Townsend’s big-eared bats. The 

alternatives differ in their potential for impacts primarily as a function of use level; the greater 

the boat activity (e.g., Alternative 2), the greater the potential for impacts.
WILDLIFE BE Page G-28 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

Neo-Tropical Migrant Birds 

As per the Partners In Flight Bird Conservation Plan for Oregon and Washington (2000), “... if 

you provide all of the habitats to some degree over some landscape, then you will probably be 

taking care of most if not all of the landbirds in that habitat. The conservation emphasis is on 

ecosystems, habitats, and habitat conditions, not species.” Priority bird species for varying 

habitats in the project area are summarized in Table 6. 

Bird conservation objectives are tied to focal species that represent habitat attributes and/or 

ecological functions of various forest age classes. For example, Vaux’s Swifts use large snags in 

old-growth systems, olive-sided flycatchers use residual canopy trees in early seral stages, and 

hermit warblers use the closed canopy in young to mature-aged forests. These habitats and their 

attributes, in certain quantities and combinations, should be maintained on landscapes in a 

shifting mosaic of conditions. Portions of the project area provide for nesting, dispersal, 

foraging, and cover for variety of bird species. 

Table 6: Partners in Flight focal bird species by habitat within the project area. 

Habitat Condition Attribute Bird species 

Coniferous forest Old-growth / Mature Large snags Vaux’s swift, pileated woodpecker 

Coniferous forest Old-growth / Mature 

Large trees; 

conifer cones; 

mid-story tree layers 

Brown creeper; 

red crossbill; varied thrush 

Coniferous forest Mature / Young 

Varied canopy closure; 

deciduous canopy 

understory; 

complex forest floor 

Hermit warbler; Hammond’s flycatcher; 

Pacific-slope flycatcher; 

Wilson’s warbler; winter wren 

Coniferous forest Young / Pole Deciduous canopy Black-throated gray warbler 

Coniferous forest Pole Deciduous subcanopy 

/ understory Hutton’s vireo 

Coniferous forest Early-seral 

Residual canopy trees, 

snags, 

deciduous 

vegetation; 

nectar-producing 

plants 

Olive-sided flycatcher 

western bluebird; 

orange-crowned warbler; 

rufous hummingbird 

Coniferous forest Unique Mineral spring Band-tailed pigeon 

Oak woodlands 

(including nonforested prairie) 

California quail, western screech-owl, 

Nutall’s woodpecker, oak titmouse, 

wrentit, California thrasher, blackchinned sparrow. 

All of the action alternatives have the potential impact of noise disturbance and/or direct 

physical impact. Disturbance could result from human presence and/or noise generation which 

would cause animals to take evasive action, flight, resulting in decreased effectiveness at 

courting, nesting, foraging, and/or resting. Direct collision between vehicles, used for 

transporting motorized boats as well as people, and songbirds has a moderate likelihood of 

occurring. The likelihood of collision is considered moderate because of the high level of 

abundance of neo-tropical birds in the project area. Habitat modification is not proposed by any 

of the action alternatives.
WILDLIFE BE Page G-29 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

The Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Rivers Special Use Permits (all alternatives) is 

considered may impact individuals and/or habitat but not likely to cause a trend to federal 

listing or a loss of viability for neo-tropical birds. The alternatives differ in their potential for 

impacts primarily as a function of use level; the greater the boat activity (e.g., Alternative 2), 

the greater the potential for impacts. 

Channel Maintenance 

The Endangered brown pelican utilizes habitat below where channel maintenance occurs, 

therefore there will be No Effect to brown pelicans. Because of the ongoing activities in the 

estuary, channel maintenance impacts are discountable and produce no additional effects to the 

Steller sea-lion. The effects determination for Steller sea-lion is No Effect. 

One channel maintenance site (Illahe Island/Allen’s Alley) occurs in northern spotted owl 

critical habitat. One channel maintenance site (Coffee Pot) occurs in marbled murrelet critical 

habitat. Late-successional habitat occurs above the high waterline at these locations and will 

not be affected by channel maintenance. Channel maintenance will have No Effect to Northern 

spotted owl or marbled murrelet critical habitat. 

Channel maintenance effects to the bald eagle, northern spotted owl and marbled murrelet are 

not likely to adversely affect these species, similarly to the powerboat effects discussed earlier. 

All but one channel maintenance site (Illahe Island/Allen’s Alley) occurs below where western 

pond turtles have been observed in the project area. Western pond turtle are present near the 

mouth of Billings Creek which is approximately 1000 feet downstream from the channel 

maintenance site. If a western pond turtle were to move to the shore line where channel 

maintenance is occurring, they could be temporarily displaced. Channel maintenance is a 

MIIH for the pond turtle. 

There are no known foothill yellow-legged frog sightings where channel maintenance may 

occur. There is unsurveyed suitable habitat at these locations. Foothill yellow-legged frog 

eggs and tadpoles could be destroyed. Juvenile and adult frogs could be temporarily displaced. 

Channel maintenance is a MIIH for the frog because the impacted area is limited to a small 

portion of the suitable habitat within the project area; the species occurs at other locations in 

the project area, watershed and Forest; this activity has been occurring in the project area for 

decades and the species is reproducing. 

The remaining sensitive, protection buffer, management indicator and neo-tropical migratory 

bird species that occur outside the water channel may be directly affected by disturbance and 

the very small amount of vegetation alteration (<1 acre). Channel maintenance is a MIIH for 

these species because the impacted area is limited to a very small portion of the project area, 

watershed and Forest. 

References Cited 

Anthony, R.G., E.D. Forsman, A.B. Franklin, D.R. Anderson, K.P. Burnham, G.C. White, C.J. 

Schwarz, J. Nichols, J.E. Hines, G.S. Olson, S.H. Ackers, S. Andrews, B.L. Biswell, P.C. Carlson, L.V. 

Diller, K.M. Dugger, K.E. Fehring, T.L. Fleming, R.P. Gerhardt, S.A. Gremel, R.J. Gutiérrez, P.J. 

Happe, D.R. Herter, J.M. Higley, R.B. Horn, L.L. Irwin, P.J. Loschl, J.A. Reid, and S.G. Sovern. 2004. 

Status and trends in demography of northern spotted owls, 1985-2003. Final Report to the Interagency 

Regional Monitoring Program, Portland, Oregon. September 2004. 179pp. 
WILDLIFE BE Page G-30 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

Corkran C.C. and C.T. Thomas. 1996. Amphibians of Oregon, Washington and British Columbia: a 

field identification guide. Lone Pine Publishing, Edmonton, Alberta. 

Courtney, S.P., J.A. Blakesley, R.E. Bigley, M.L. Cody, J.P. Dumbacher, R.C. Fleischer, A.B. Franklin, 

J.F. Franklin, R.J. Gutiérrez, J.M. Marzluff, L. Sztukowski. 2004. Scientific evaluation of the status of 

the northern spotted owl. Sustainable Ecosystems Institute. Portland, Oregon. September 2004. 

Hamer, T. E. and S. K. Nelson. 1998. Effects of disturbance on nesting marbled murrelets: summary of 

preliminary results. 

Isaacs, F.B., and R.G. Anthony, 2004, Bald eagle nest locations and history of use in Oregon and the 

Washington portion of the Columbia River Recovery Zone, 1971 through 2004. Oregon Cooperative 

Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon, USA. 

Long, L.L. and C.J. Ralph, 1997. Effects of human disturbance on nesting marbled murrelets, alcids, 

and other seabirds. Unpublished Report. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Southwest Research Station, Arcata, California. 29pp. 

Marshal, D.B., M.G. Hunter, and A.L. Contreras, Eds., 2003, Birds of Oregon: A General Reference. 

Oregon State University Press, Corvallis, OR. 768 Pp. 

Storm, R.M., et al. 1995. Reptiles of Washington and Oregon, Seattle Audubon Society, Seattle, 

Washington. 

USDA Forest Service, 2004. Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List (Region 6) letter dated July 

21, 2004. http://www.or.blm.gov/ISSSP/

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management, 2003. Rogue River/South Coast 

Biological Assessment: FY 04-08 Activities that may affect listed species in the Rogue River/South 

Coast Province for Medford District, Bureau of Land Management, Rogue River and Siskiyou National 

Forests, 11 July 2003., Medford, Oregon 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, 2003. Formal and informal consultation on activities that may affect 

listed species in the Rogue River Basin for fiscal year 2004 through fiscal year 2008 (1-14-03-F-511). 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Roseburg Field Office, Roseburg, Oregon. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, 2005. Species profile. http://ecos.fw.gov/species_profile 

USDI, U.S. Geologic Survey, 2005, USGS Water Resources of Oregon, Rogue River Near Agness, OR. 

http://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/or/nwis/dv/?site_no=14372300

Verts, B. J. and Carraway, 1998. Land Mammals of Oregon. University of California Press, Berkeley 

and Los Angeles, California. 

Zabel, C. J., J.R. Dunk, H.B. Stauffer, L.M. Roberts, B.S. Mulder, and A. Wright. 2003. Northern 

spotted owl habitat models for research and management application in California (USA). Ecological 

Applications 13(4):1027-1040. 
BOTANICAL BE Page H-1 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

APPENDIX H 

BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION 

FOR SENSITIVE PLANT SPECIES 

AND 

SUPPLEMENTARY BOTANICAL REPORT 

FOR

Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, Lichens, Fungi, 

Noxious Weeds, 

And Site Restoration

FOR THE 

Rogue River Special Use Permits 

Gold Beach Ranger District 

Rogue-Siskiyou National Forest 

PREPARED BY: ____Jenifer Hutchinson_____ DATE:______3/28/05__________

Jenifer Hutchinson 

Zone Botanist 
BOTANICAL BE Page H-2 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

I. Introduction 

A. Purpose: 

The purpose of this biological evaluation (BE) is to review the Rogue River Special Use 

Permits in sufficient detail as to determine whether the proposed action will result in a trend 

toward Federal listing of any sensitive plant species listed in Attachment A. 

B. Description of the Situation and Proposal 

 Commercial operations on the lower Rogue River from Blossom Bar to Lobster Creek 

are administered by the Rogue-Siskiyou National Forest. Commercial operators include: guided 

fishing trips, scenic tours, half-day float trips, and the transport of guests to the lodges in the wild 

section of the Rogue River. These commercial operations require special use permits by USFS 

policy (Forest Manual 2700). There is a need to respond to those permittees that want to continue 

their existing special use permits that expire on December 31, 2004 and April 30, 2006. As a 

connected action there is also a need to respond to owners of the three commercial lodges in the 

Wild and Scenic portion of the Rogue River and issue or reissue special use permits for the boat 

docks at those properties. 

Alternatives: 

1. No Action: The existing special use permits would not be reissued when they expire. 

Affects use on the wild section of the river only. Non-commercial boats would be 

allowed on the wild section. 

2. Proposed Action: Previous special use permits would be reissued under old terms. 

Permits for existing docks at Paradise and Half Moon Bars would be renewed. Clayhill 

would be offered a permit to replace a dock that was previously at that location. 

3. Reissue the previous special use permits, but exclude commercial boats from the wild 

section on Sundays and Mondays. Special use permits for the docks are the same as 

Alternative 2. 

4. Reissue the previous special use permits but cap the average of the two highest years 

(2000-2004) in the wild section, plus 25% on case by case basis. Special use permits for 

the docks at Paradise and Half Moon are the same as Alternative 2. A permit for a 

replacement dock at Clay Hill would not be offered. 

5. Reissue the previous special use permits but cap the average of the two highest years 

(2000-2004) in all sections, plus 25% on case by case basis. Special use permits for the 

docks are the same as Alternative 2. 

6. Reissue the previous special use permits but cap the average of the two lowest years 

(2000-2004) for commercial tour boats and commercial transport of lodge guests. Terms 

for livery, training, scenic, raft trips, and fishing guides would be the same as Alternative 

2. Special use permits for the docks are the same as Alternative 2. 

 C. Plant Species of Concern 

 Current management direction mandates the conservation for several categories of rare 

plants on the Siskiyou National Forest. The Endangered Species Act mandates protection of 

federally listed Threatened and Endangered species. Sensitive species are protected by USDA 

Forest Service regulations and manual direction. No federally listed Threatened, Endangered, or 

proposed plants, nor suitable habitat are known to occur in the project area. 
BOTANICAL BE Page H-3 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

The potential of the proposed project area to support suitable habitat for sensitive plant 

species was determined by pre-field analysis of soils and topographic maps, knowledge of 

sensitive plant species range, distribution, and habitat characteristics; and review of the district’s 

sensitive plant files. Field surveys subsequently verify the suitability of the habitat. 

All known records of vascular and nonvascular plant species as well as sensitive plants 

and noxious weeds occurring on the Gold Beach Ranger District were reviewed in regards to 

potential effects on any of these species by project activities. 

The most recent plant surveys along the Rogue River occurred July 20-24, 2004. The 

focus was aquatic and riparian noxious weed species, with supplemental surveys for the sensitive 

lichen species Usnea longissima and the sensitive plant species Scirpus pendulus. Scirpus 

pendulus was found near Lookout Rock above Blossom Bar, and at Brushy Bar. No Usnea 

longissima was found in the immediate riparian corridor. Noxious weed species found in the 

riparian corridor included: Centaurea pratensis, Centaurea solsitialis, Cirsium arvense, Cirsium 

vulgare, Cytisus scoparius, Gensita monspessulana, Brachypodium sylvaticum, and Lythrum 

salicaria. 

II. Current Management Direction 

A. Desired Future Condition and Land Allocations (see LRMP 4 87-90) 

The Siskiyou National Forest Land and Resources Management Plan (LRMP) desired 

future condition (DFC) is to maintain seral stages of terrestrial and aquatic plant associations to 

insure an even distribution of native vegetation and plant communities. Plant life inhabiting this 

ecosystem will continue to flourish. The goal is to protect, preserve, and enhance the botanical 

features of this area. "Every effort should be made to protect botanical resources and their 

habitat, especially sensitive plant species" (LRMP). Siskiyou NF LRMP allocates additional NF 

land area to General Forest, Partial Retention Visual, and Riparian Reserves. 

B. Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines for Sensitive Plants (see LRMP 4 26-27, 33). 

Standards and guidelines applicable at the project level are: 

 1. Monitor the effects of management activities on sensitive plants. If monitoring results 

show a decline in species viability, alter management strategy.

2. Analyze the potential effects of all ground disturbing projects on sensitive plants and 

their habitat. Mitigate project effects to avoid a decline in species viability at the Forest 

level.

3. Map, record, and protect essential habitat for known and sensitive plant species. Species 

management guides should be prepared to address the effects of land management 

activities on local populations of sensitive species at a broader scale, and to identify 

opportunities to enhance and develop habitat. 

 
BOTANICAL BE Page H-4 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

III. Existing Environment 

 For information on special habitats, vegetation, and soils see Rogue River Watershed 

Analysis Marial to Agness and Rogue River below Agness Watershed Analysis, available 

through the Gold Beach Ranger District of the Siskiyou National Forest. 

A. Area - Habitats 

The Rogue River corridor from Blossom Bar to Lobster Creek is botanically diverse 

stretch of river. Habitats for plants include steep slopes with exposed rock outcrops, arid rocky 

benches, springs and seeps, creeks, gravel bars, forested benches, and the river itself. Plants that 

live in rock crevices along the river include the brilliant red California fushcia, stonecrops, ferns, 

and Siskiyou daisy. Rocky seeps are home to drooping bulrush, monkey flowers, ferns, many 

types of sedge and other rushes. Waterfalls and creek confluences provide habitat for monkey 

flowers and stream orchid and many shrubs. Arid rock benches support wild onions, brodiaea, 

wild iris, annual and perennial grasses. White and black oaks, madrone, myrtle, and Douglas-fir 

are the trees most commonly encountered on old benches along the Rogue river. The forests are 

generally dry mesic to xeric. Shrubs on benches and slopes along the river include poison oak, 

honeysuckle, hazel, wild grape, currants, evergreen huckleberry, salal, and occasionally 

California smilax. 

Disturbance related habitats

Plants are frequently washed downstream with silt and sand during high water. Some of 

the plants that wash downstream and re-establish are natives such as willows. Other plants that 

wash downstream and establish in freshly deposited silt as well as on gravel bars are noxious 

weeds, such as purple loosestrife and meadow knapweed. Flooding can carry seeds as well as 

plant parts downstream. Noxious weeds such as meadow knapweed, yellow star thistle, French 

broom, Scotch broom, and Spanish broom are able to thrive in areas with frequent disturbance 

and nutrient rich soils that flooding can create. Native species such as willows and alder can also 

thrive in frequently disturbed habitats. Sensitive species such as Leach’s brodiaea require 

openings that disturbances such as fire, landslides and scouring can create. Pillar sedge, a large 

green tuft of “grass” atop a dark ‘pillar’ made of roots, grows among rocks in the river. Pillar 

sedge appears to be relatively impervious to the dynamic flows of the Rogue and is likely 

unaffected by the wake created by jet boat traffic. 

Lightening-caused fire is another natural component of Rogue River ecology (Rogue 

River Watershed Analysis Marial to Agness Iteration 1.0, 1999). Fire, like other natural 

disturbances creates habitat for disturbance-loving plant species by removing competition for 

light, water and nutrients. Fire is important in increasing nitrogen availability, which promotes 

plant growth. Root sprouting species such as madrone can grow around 6 inches in two weeks 

following intense fire events. Plants such as Leach’s brodiaea and wild onion are able to survive 

fire provided fire occurs after plants become dormant, which is late summer to midwinter. 

Human related disturbance and transport of plant materials

Humans were part of Rogue River ecology long before the advent of northern European 

settlement (Rogue River Watershed Analysis Marial to Agness Iteration 1.0, 1999). Old mines 

and homesteads are reminders of the extent and duration of northern European settlement along 

the Rogue. Some non-native plants such as asparagus and sweet pea most likely were planted by 

homesteaders. Other plants such as teasel, orchard grass, and bull thistle probably arrived with 

livestock. Occasionally, escaped houseplants such as fiery orange Crocosmia wash downstream 

and lodge in the banks above the water.
BOTANICAL BE Page H-5 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

Humans are a well known vector for seed dispersal and it is likely that present day 

rafters, fishermen, and hikers transport seeds from one campsite to the next. The wake from jet 

boats may possibly dislodge plants such as purple loosestrife and these plants may reattach 

downstream, but it is unlikely the wave action caused by jet boats is as effective at moving 

purple loosestrife as are seasonal high water events. 

Human caused fires also have an impact on vegetation. However, from 1991 through 

2003 the numbers of human caused fires along the river were few and originated from 

abandoned campfires (Mel Wann, 2004). 

B. Species Accounts 

The following sensitive plants are considered as having potential habitat and/or presence 

within the active areas of the proposed project: 

Sensitive Species (see A Guide to Rare Plants of the Siskiyou NF, 2000, GB district records of 

sensitive plants and the Jepson Manual Higher Plants of California 1993) 

Dermatocarpon luridum 

Streamside stippleback is an aquatic lichen found on rocks in seepy terraces, slopes and riparian 

edges with alder, Douglas-fir, western hemlock, and maple. Streamside stippleback has not been 

found along the Rogue River. It is well adapted to the effects of moving water and would not be 

affected by any of the proposed activities. 

Erigeron cervinus 

Siskiyou daisy grows in rocky places or crevices on solid rock, especially along stream banks at 

low elevations near seeps or vernally wet spots. The sites are above the level of the wake created 

by jet boats. 

Leucogaster citrinus 

This false truffle is found in association with the roots of white fir, lodgepole pine, alpine fir, 

white pine, Douglas-fir, and western hemlock and is endemic to the Pacific northwest. The sites 

are above the level of the wake created by jet boats. 

Scirpus pendulus 

Drooping bulrush grows in marshes wet meadows, river terraces and ditches. There are three 

known sites on the Gold Beach RD – two of which are on rocky terraces within the flood zone of 

the Rogue River between Blossom Bar and Brushy Bar. The sites are above the level of the wake 

created by jet boats. 

Scirpus subterminalis 

Water clubrush grows in quiet relatively shallow water, typically in lakes, ponds and marshes. 

There are no known sites of water clubrush on the Rogue River. 

Trillium angustipetalum 

Siskiyou trillium is found in coniferous forest, woodland, and chaparral at low to moderately 

high elevations. There are occurrences of Siskiyou trillium on benches above the Rogue River. 

The sites are well above the level of the wake created by jet boats. 
BOTANICAL BE Page H-6 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

Triteleia hendersonii var. leachiae 

Leach’s brodiaea is found on wooded or open slopes, brush, forest and open meadows. It is 

found on slopes above the Rogue River. The sites are above the level of the wake created by jet 

boats. 

Usnea longissima 

Tinsel or beard lichen is found on the branches of old growth Douglas-fir and on oaks in open 

areas associated with streams and rivers. There is one known site along the Rogue River and 

potential habitat in oak flats above the Rogue River. The species is considered rare in Curry, 

Josephine counties in Oregon and rare in California (Lichens of the PNW and ROD 2000). The 

site is above the level of the wake created by jet boats. 

Wolffia borealis 

Dotted water-meal grows in fresh water in areas with less than 3000 ft.elevation. There are no 

known sites of dotted water-meal on the Siskiyou National Forest. 

Wolffia columbiana 

Columbia water-meal is free-floating in quiet water. There are no known sites of Columbia 

water-meal on the Siskiyou National Forest. 

Other species of concern (See the Jepson Manual 1993 and GB District sensitive plant records) 

Adiantum jordanii 

California maidenhair is found on shaded hillsides with moist woods. It is found near the Illinois 

and Rogue Rivers, but is otherwise uncommon on the Gold Beach RD. The sites are above the 

level of the wake created by jet boats. 

Carex nudata 

Pillar sedge is found along the banks of, and in, the Rogue River. It grows in large clumps with 

a pillar like base of roots that is normally exposed and is found throughout Oregon and in 

northern California. This plant grows within the area potentially affected by the wake of jet 

boats. 

Smilax californica 

California smilax is found along stream banks in coniferous forest. There are a number of 

occurrences on forested terraces along the Rogue River. It is uncommon on the Gold Beach RD 

outside of the Rogue River Corridor. The sites are above the level of the wake created by jet 

boats. 
BOTANICAL BE Page H-7 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

IV. Effects Of Proposed Project 

Determinations of effect in this EIS are based on existing information and field surveys 

for noxious weeds, riparian vegetation, and sensitive plants conducted May 30 to June 2 2002 

and September 23-26, 2002 (Declaration of Maria Ulloa in the United States District Court for 

the District of Oregon: Riverhawks; Northwest Rafters Association; Klamath-Siskiyou 

Wildlands Center v. Gilbert Zepeda, District Ranger, Gold Beach Ranger District; Ann Veneman 

Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture Civil No. 01-3035-AA). Additional surveys for 

noxious weeds, drooping bulrush and tinsel lichen were conducted July 19-24, 2004. 

No sensitive plants were found or are known from the immediate edge of, or in the Rogue 

River at the water levels that occur during boating season. Drooping bulrush is found on rocks 

above the water level near Brushy Bar and is probably affected by seasonal flooding, as it occurs 

above the summer waterline. The aquatic plants, Columbia and dotted water-meal have not been 

found on the Siskiyou National Forest. The water-meals require calm water. The only potential 

habitat would be in protected sloughs, which would not be affected by boat traffic and somewhat 

protected from seasonal water level fluctuations. Streamside stippleback, as mentioned above, is 

well adapted to the effects of moving water and would not be adversely affected by the wake of 

jet boats, or other motorized boat traffic. There are no known populations or habitat for sensitive 

plants in the vicinity of the docks. There will be no effects to known sensitive plant populations 

as a result of implementation of any of the alternatives. 

Channel maintenance will not impact any sensitive plants or habitat because the activities 

associated with channel maintenance are confined to the channels in the river, with the exception 

of cutting willows to remove blind spots along the river and the maintenance done at Illahe 

Island. Willow cutting will not affect sensitive plants or sensitive plant habitat. Willows that are 

cut will resprout. At Illahe Island a cat is driven from near Billings Creek along the edge of the 

river to the maintenance site where it is then used to move sand and gravel out of the channel 

onto the island. Willows are buried, but resprout readily. There are no known sensitive plants 

sites in the area the cat is driven. Mitigation for ground disturbance caused by the cat along the 

bank is spreading native grass straw and native seed over tracks. See Noxious Weed Section for 

mitigations to prevent the spread of noxious weeds and for guidelines for restoration. 

Direct and indirect effects 

Direct negative effects There are no known sensitive plant sites on the river banks. No 

direct negative effects to any sensitive species are anticipated from this project for any of the 

alternatives. Indirect effects to sensitive plant species could result from seasonal fluctuations in 

water levels. Speed and force of the river at flood stage cause both erosion and soil deposits 

(Rood, et al. 2003) which is conducive to the spread of noxious weeds as well as providing new 

habitats for sensitive plants. The amount of disturbance caused by season fluctuations in water 

levels is highly variable from year to year, so it is difficult to gauge the magnitude of its effects 

on the spread of noxious weeds or creation of new plant habitats. The wake of jet boats was not 

observed to have any direct or indirect effects on displacement of riparian or aquatic plants 

during the July 19-24, 2004 float trip. 
BOTANICAL BE Page H-8 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

Cumulative Effects 

Throughout their existing range, occurrences of sensitive plants have been impacted to 

varying degrees by past management activities such as fire suppression, timber harvest, road and 

landing construction. Natural events such as wild fire and landslides have also contributed to 

changes in habitat and loss of sensitive plants. The intensity and duration of these impacts has 

varied considerably and has not been tabulated, but given the magnitude of these actions over the 

past 150 years of human intervention, it is likely that some plants have been destroyed and some 

populations extirpated. Other projects within the Rogue River corridor were considered and 

cumulative effects for all alternatives of this proposal are not considered to be of sufficient 

magnitude to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability for the sensitive plant 

species listed in Attachment A. 

 B. Compliance With Management Direction 

 This Biological Evaluation has documented the completion of the steps outlined in the 

Regional Office directive in the 2670 section of the Forest Service Manual and Siskiyou National 

Forest LRMP direction for management of sensitive plants, including the Aquatic Conservation 

Strategy. 

V. Determinations 

The Rogue River Special Use Permits will not significantly impact individuals, or 

habitat. The proposed project is not likely to contribute to a trend towards federal listing or cause 

loss of viability to sensitive species. 

VI. Management Recommendations 

Measures that would minimize impacts to vegetation resources: 

• Clean all equipment and vehicles prior to entry onto USFS land. 

• Avoid parking equipment in wet areas at Oak Flat. The wet areas at Oak Flat are 

habitat for Scirpus pendulus. 

• Revegetate using local native seed and transplants. 

• If bulbs or plants are dug up during construction, replant in adjacent undisturbed 

areas.

These recommendations are consistent with Forest Service policy to “Develop and 

implement management practices to ensure that species do not become threatened or endangered 

because of Forest Service Actions” (FSM 2670.33). 

VIII. Literature Cited 

Hickman, James C. 1993. The Jepson Manual Higher Plants of California. University of 

California Press. Berkeley, CA. 1,400 pp. 

Mullens, L. 2000. A Guide to Rare Plants of the Siskiyou National Forest. USDA Forest Service. 

Grants Pass, Oregon. 

Oregon Natural Heritage Program Data Base. 1997. Portland, Oregon. 

USDA Forest Service. 1989. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Land and Resource 

Management Plan (LRMP), Siskiyou National Forest. Siskiyou National Forest, Grants Pass. 
BOTANICAL BE Page H-9 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

USDA Forest Service. 1991. Forest Service Manual: wildlife, fish, and sensitive plant 

management (Section 2670), WO Amendment 2600-91-3, effective 5/31/91. 

USDA Forest Service. 1995. Forest Service Manual: Series 2000 - National Forest Resource 

Management, WO Amendment 2000-95-5, effective 11/29/95 - Noxious Weed Management. 

USDA/USDI. 1994a. Final supplemental environmental impact statement on management of 

habitat for late-successional and old growth forest related species within the range of the 

northern spotted owl. Forest Service/Bureau of Land Management. Portland, Oregon. 

USDA/USDI. 1994b. Record of decision for amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land 

Management planning documents within the range of the northern spotted owl. Forest 

Service/Bureau of Land Management. Portland, Oregon. 

USDA Forest Service. 1978- 2000. Sensitive and endemic plant records and plant survey records 

on file at Gold Beach RD, Gold Beach, Oregon. 

USDA Forest Service. 2000. Rogue River Below Agness Watershed Analysis. Gold Beach 

Ranger District. Gold Beach, OR. 

USDA Forest Service. 1999. Rogue River Watershed Analysis Marial to Agness. Gold Beach 

Ranger District. Gold Beach, OR. 

IX. Attachments 

Attachment A: 

Sensitive plant species known or suspected to occur on the west side of the 

Siskiyou portion of the Rogue-Siskiyou National Forest, potential effects of 

proposed project on sensitive plant species, and rationale for determination of no 

effect. 

Attachment B: 

Supplemental botanical report for noxious weeds, and site restoration. 
BOTANICAL BE Page H-10 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

Attachment A: Sensitive vascular plant species known or suspected to occur on the Westside of the Siskiyou 

National Forest, potential effects of proposed project on sensitive plant species, and rationale for determination of 

effects. 

Species Potential 

Effects 

Habitat Rationale for 

Determination of 

Effects 

Adiantum jordanii NI Shaded hillsides and moist woods. 

Elevations less than 3600 feet. 

Not detected during 

surveys. 

Arabis 

macdonaldiana* 

No Effect On barren to shrub covered shallow rocky 

serpentine soil and Jeffrey pine woodlands 

at 500 to 4000 ft elevation. 

Not suitable habitat. Not 

detected during surveys. 

Arctostaphylos 

hispidula 

NI Dry rocky ridges and gravelly soils, often 

on serpentine. Shrub communities or 

sparse forest in often growing with A. 

columbiana 

Not detected during 

surveys. 

Bensoniella oregana NI Relatively deep soils in moist meadows, 

and along streamside, 3000-5000 ft. 

Upper slope sites and ridge saddles with 

northerly aspects. 

Not detected during 

surveys. 

Carex gigas 

(C. scabriuscula) 

NI Wet serpentine above 2800 ft to 5000 ft. 

Grows in open, sunny sites with little 

cover. In wettest sites, often associated 

with CYCA4, DACA5 and RHOC. In 

drier sites often with PIJE. Habitat often 

appears dry by flowering time. 

Not detected during 

surveys. 

Clintonia andrewsiana NI Redwood forests, in deep soil on flats, 

gentle slopes, alluvial bottoms or terraces. 

Known only from 

southernmost coastal 

portion of Curry County 

Cypripedium 

fasciculatum 

NI Open coniferous forest, sometimes with 

Pacific dogwood on north facing slopes 

and elevations 1000-3500 ft. 

Not detected during 

surveys. 

Draba howellii NI North facing rock crevices, above 4000 ft Not detected during 

surveys. 

Ericameria 

arborescens 

NI Dry foothills, woodlands, open forest 

chaparral, 1200-2700 ft). 

 Not detected during 

surveys. Has only been 

found near Snaketooth 

Butte, south of the 

Chetco River. 

Erigeron cervinus NI In rocky places or crevices on solid rock. 

Also in open areas, medium to high 

elevations and sometimes glaciated areas. 

Stream banks at lower elevations, usually 

near seeps or vernally wet areas. 

Not detected during 

surveys. 

Eriogonum lobbii NI Gravelly ridges and talus slopes at 

moderate to high elevations. Not generally 

found on serpentine soils. 

Habitat not present in 

project area. 

Erythronium howellii NI In open woods, often on serpentine soils 

or in ecotonal areas. 

Not detected during 

surveys. 

Frasera umpquaensis NI In open woods, or at edges of meadows. 

In mid to upper elevation true fir 

dominated forests or mixed conifer forests 

(4000-6000 ft) generally in partial shade 

or openings. 

 Habitat not present in 

project area. 
BOTANICAL BE Page H-11 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

Attachment A: vascular plant species, continued 

Species Potential 

Effects 

Habitat Rationale for 

Determination of 

Effects 

Fritillaria glauca NI Gravelly serpentine slopes and ridges. Habitat not present in 

project area. 

Gentiana setigera NI Serpentine wet meadows and bogs, seeps 

on slopes at low elevations. 

Not detected during 

surveys. 

Hazardia whitneyi 

var. discoidea 

NI Rocky open coniferous forest slopes 

3000-7000 ft. 

 Habitat not present in 

project area. ONHP list 4 

Iliamna latibracteata NI Moist sites, stream sides in coniferous 

forests. Often in open or partial shade, 

disturbed ground. Elevation 300-4000 ft. 

Not detected during 

surveys. 

Lewisia cotyledon 

var. purdyi 

NI Granitic or serpentine rock outcrops, full 

sun or partial shade at elevations between 

2000 and 4000 ft. 

Not detected during 

surveys. ONHP list 4 

Lilium kelloggii NI Dry woods, gaps and roadsides in 

coniferous forests, redwood forests or 

brush-fields below 3500 ft 

Not detected during 

surveys. Known only 

from south of Brookings. 

Microseris howellii NI Narrow endemic known only from the 

Illinois River Valley on serpentine. Kept 

on list because we have potential habitat. 

Not detected during 

surveys. Known only 

from the Illinois Valley. 

Monardella purpurea NI Rocky open slopes on serpentine soils, 

1400-4000 ft 

Not detected during 

surveys. 

Polystichum 

californicum 

NI Creek banks and canyons in redwood and 

mixed evergreen forests, rocky open 

slopes to 1000 ft 

Habitat not suitable. Not 

detected during surveys. 

Salix delnortensis NI Streambeds, stream-banks, and gullies on 

serpentine. Habitat may be dry in 

summer. Low elevations to 1500 ft. 

Not detected during 

surveys. 

Saxifragopsis 

fragarioides 

NI Rocky crevices, 4500 to 9000 ft Habitat not present in 

project area. 

Scirpus pendulus NI Marshes and wet meadows, river terraces, 

ditches. 2500 to 3000 ft 

 Habitat not present in 

project area. 

Scirpus subterminalis NI Quiet relatively shallow water. Lakes, 

ponds, marshes. 

Habitat not present in 

project area. 

Sidalcea malachroides NI Woodlands and clearings along the coast 

below 2000 ft. 

Not detected during 

surveys. 

Sidalcea malvaeflora 

ssp. patula 

NI Coastal. Open woodlands, openings 

within mixed forests, meadows, or grassy 

places at low elevations. Often 

serpentine. 

Not detected during 

surveys. 

Streptanthus howellii NI Dry rocky serpentine slopes in open 

conifer/ hardwood forests from 1000 to 

4500 ft. 

No suitable habitat. Not 

detected during surveys. 

Trillium 

angustipetalum 

(T. kurabayashii) 

NI Coniferous forest, woodland, and 

chaparral at low to moderately high 

elevations. 

 Not detected during 

surveys. 

Triteleia hendersonii 

var. leachiae 

NI Wooded or open slopes, brush, forest and 

meadow ridges. 

Not detected during 

surveys. Not habitat. 
BOTANICAL BE Page H-12 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

Attachment A: vascular plant species, continued 

Species Potential 

Effects 

Habitat Rationale for 

Determination of 

Effects 

Triteleia laxa NI Coastal. Sunny places at low to mid 

elevations. Open forests, woodlands, and 

grasslands. 

Only one historical 

documented occurrence 

Harbor in Curry County, 

Viola primulifolia 

ssp. occidentalis 

NI Serpentine Darlingtonia fens at lower 

elevations 

Not detected during 

surveys. 

Wolffia borealis NI Freshwater, less than 3000 ft This species has not been 

recorded for Curry or 

Coos Counties. 

Wolffia columbiana NI Free floating in quiet water. This species has not been 

recorded for Curry or 

Coos Counties. 

Attachment A: Nonvascular plant species 

Species SM 

Cat 

type Effects Habitat Rationale for Determination of 

effects 

Chaenotheca 

subroscida 

E L NI Usually in shaded moist situations, 

esp. close to the base of trunks. On 

old THPL, PIEN trunks, 

decorticated stumps and dry twigs 

of Picea under canopy. 

Pre-disturbance surveys for this 

species are not required. No 

known sites exist in the project 

area. 

Cudonia 

monticola 

B F NI On Picea spp. Needles and 

coniferous debris. Fruits in late 

summer to autumn. 

Pre-disturbance surveys for this 

species are not required. No 

known sites exist in the project 

area. Habitat not present in 

project area. 

Dermatocarpon 

luridum 

E L NI Fresh water aquatic. Seepy 

terraces, slopes and riparian edges 

with ALRU, PSME, TSHE, and 

Acer spp. and on granite rocks 

along stream edges. 

Pre-disturbance surveys for this 

species are not required. No 

known sites exist in the project 

area. Habitat would not be 

affected by proposed activities. 

Encalypta 

brevicolla var. 

crumiana 

(Former S&M)

B B NI On soil in shaded crevices in 

igneous rocks, along ridge tops 

with frequent fog penetration. 

Pre-disturbance surveys for this 

species are not required. No 

known sites exist in the project 

area. 

Heterodermia 

leucomelos 

(Former S&M)

 L NI Occurs on large PISI on windswept 

forested headlands. Also in coastal 

redwood forests, low coastal scrub. 

Conifers in hyper-maritime 

localities. 

No known sites exist in the 

project area. Project area does not 

contain appropriate habitat. 
BOTANICAL BE Page H-13 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

Attachment A: Nonvascular plant species 

Species SM 

Cat 

type Effects Habitat Rationale for Determination of 

effects 

Leptogium 

brebissonii 

(Former S&M)

 L NI Maritime and ocean-influenced 

locations. On PISI, Salix on 

stabilized dunes. Found on Powers 

RD on Malus sp. near McGribble 

meadow. 

No known sites exist in the 

project area. Habitat would not be 

affected by proposed activities. 

Leptogium 

burnetiae var.

hirsutum 

E L NI Over bark of deciduous trees and 

shrubs and occasionally on Picea, 

in deciduous or spruce/deciduous 

forests. 

Pre-disturbance surveys for this 

species are not required. No 

known sites exist in the project 

area. No suitable habitat in 

project area. 

Leptogium 

cyanescens 

A L NI On bark of Alnus, Salix, Picea, 

rotten logs and rocks. 

Not detected during surveys. 

Leucogaster 

citrinus 

B F NI Found in association with the roots 

of Abies concolor, A. lasiocarpa, 

Pinus contorta, P. monticola, 

Pseudotsuga menziesii and Tsuga 

heterophylla from 280-2000 ft. 

Fruits August through November. 

Pre-disturbance surveys for this 

species are not required. No 

known sites exist in the project 

area. 

Mycena 

monticola 

(Former S&M)

B F NI In conifer forests above 1000 ft, 

esp. with Pinus spp. And usually 

found in gregarious caespitose 

clusters in duff. Fruits August 

through November and in March. 

Pre-disturbance surveys for this 

species are not required. No 

known sites exist in the project 

area. 

Pannaria 

rubiginosa 

E L NI Moist lowland habitats, largest 

populations for OR and WA in 

coastal thickets of old shrubs on 

wet deflation plains. 

Pre-disturbance surveys for this 

species are not required. No 

known sites exist in the project 

area. 

Peltigera 

neckeri 

(Former S&M)

 L NI Low elevation moist forests on 

soil, moss, rocks, logs, and tree 

bases. 

Not detected during surveys for 

USNLON. Habitat will not be 

impacted by project. 

Peltigera 

pacifica 

E L NI Low elevation moist forests on 

soil, moss, rocks, logs, and tree 

bases. 

Pre-disturbance surveys for this 

species are not required. No 

known sites exist in the project 

area. 

Ramalina 

pollinaria 

(Former S&M)

E L NI Low elevation swamps, often with 

Picea on bark and wood. 

Pre-disturbance surveys for this 

species are not required. No 

known sites exist in the project 

area. 

Teloschistes 

flavicans (OR 

only)

A L NI Forested headlands with old 

PISI/TSHE stands growing on PISI 

and hooker's willow. Closest 

known site is Cape Blanco. 

No known sites exist in the 

project area. No suspected habitat 

within the project area. 

Usnea 

longissima 

A/F L NI Coast Range on deciduous trees 

and shrubs as well as PSME. Often 

in or near riparian settings or on 

ridge tops above rivers. 

Not detected during surveys. 
BOTANICAL BE Page H-14 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

* Arabis macdonaldiana is listed as federally endangered. 

Siskiyou (SIS): D= documented, S= suspected. 

Determination of Effects 

FS Sensitive: 

NI = no impact 

MIIH = May impact individuals or habitat, but will not likely contribute to a trend towards federal listing, or cause a 

loss of viability to the population or species 

WIFV = Will impact individuals or habitat with a consequence that the action may contribute to a trend towards 

federal listing or cause a loss of viability to the population or species 

 BI = beneficial impact 

Former Survey and Manage Category (SM Cat) 

A = Rare, pre-disturbance surveys practical 

B = Rare, pre-disturbance surveys not practical 

C = Uncommon, pre-disturbance surveys practical 

D = Uncommon, pre-disturbance surveys not practical or not necessary 

E = Rare, status undetermined 

F = Uncommon or concern for persistence 

 = unknown, status undetermined 

Nonvascular Types: L = lichen, B = bryophyte, F = fungi

Attachment B 

Supplemental botanical report for noxious weeds, and site restoration 

Definition of a Noxious Weed: 

Those plant species designated as noxious weeds by the Secretary of Agriculture or by 

the responsible State official. Noxious weeds generally possess one or more of the following 

characteristics: aggressive and difficult to manage, poisonous, toxic, parasitic, a carrier or host 

of a serious insect or disease, or being native or new to or not common to the United States or 

parts thereof. 

Further management direction on this subject is given in the LRMP under forest-wide 

standards and guidelines item 12-6: "Control of noxious weeds should be accomplished in 

cooperation with state, county, and private organizations through Weed Control Districts or 

Coordinated Resource Management Agreements. Preventive management is critical to an 

effective control program." 

Current Management Direction for noxious weeds as stated in the Forest Service Manual 

2080, Amendment No. 2000-95-5, effective November 29, 1995 includes the following: 

1. For projects having moderate to high risk of introducing or spreading noxious weeds, 

the project decision document must identify noxious weed control measures that must 

be undertaken during project implementation. 

2. Use contract and permit clauses to prevent the introduction or spread of noxious weeds 

by contractors and permittees. For example, where determined to be appropriate, use 

clauses requiring contractors or permittees to clean their equipment prior to entering 

National Forest System lands. 

Policy: When any ground disturbing action or activity is proposed, determine the risk of 

 introducing or spreading noxious weeds associated with proposed action. 
BOTANICAL BE Page H-15 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

District Rangers are responsible for:

1. Determining the risk of noxious weeds introduction or spread as part of NEPA process 

for 

 proposed actions, especially for ground disturbing and site altering activities. 

2. Enforcing closure or prohibition orders issued under 36 CFR parts 261.50 (a) and 

261.58 (t) 

 and enforcing contract specifications intended to prevent and control the spread of 

noxious 

 weeds. 

 3. Ensuring that the contracts and permits contain appropriate clauses concerning the 

 prevention or spread of noxious weeds. 

Site Account: 

Direct and Indirect Effects: Existing noxious weed populations at Clay Hill include: 

purple loosestrife, Scotch broom, yellow star thistle, and meadow knapweed. Ground disturbance 

while installing the Clay Hill Dock or removing the Clay Hill Dock for seasonal flooding will 

not cause subsequent spread of noxious weed seeds if mitigations for noxious weeds are 

followed. Existing populations of noxious weeds at Foster Bar include: Scotch broom, fennel, 

teasel, and yellow star thistle. Ground disturbance while installing or removing the Foster Bar 

Dock for seasonal high water events will not cause subsequent spread of noxious weed seeds if 

mitigations for noxious weeds are followed. Noxious weed populations are present in the vicinity 

of Paradise and Half Moon Lodges, but are not adjacent to or affected by the docks or removal of 

docks for winter flooding. 

Channel Maintenance at Illahe Island causes some ground disturbance when the cat is 

moved from the Billings Creek area to the maintenance site. This disturbance is mitigated 

through using native grass seed and straw on the tracks after work is completed. The cat is 

washed prior to entering the forest as per mitigations below. 

Cumulative Effects: Existing noxious weeds found on the gravel bars between Marial and 

Lobster Creek include: fennel, yellow star thistle, meadow knapweed, bull thistle, Canada thistle, 

teasel, purple loosestrife, as well as French, Scotch, and Spanish brooms. Noxious weeds 

compete with native plant species for habitat niches. Purple loose strife, which grows on gravel 

bars in the Rogue River between Marial and Lobster Creek, may possibly spread through stem 

and root fragments that are dislodged during high water events. It is unlikely that jet boats cause 

wake with the power sufficient to dislodge or break purple loose strife stems or roots. Human 

travel through river corridors may increase the risk of spreading noxious weeds within the 

riparian corridor. This travel may be along trails or via boats and rafts. This travel has been a part 

of the Rogue River corridor prior to settlement. Jet boat traffic may distribute some people 

upstream, but overall has little effect on other forms of travel along the corridor, or subsequent 

spread of noxious weeds. 

Considering the other projects in the Rogue River Corridor, the cumulative effects of 

building boat docks included in all alternatives are not likely to spread existing noxious weed 

populations during placement and/or seasonal removal for high water events, if mitigations for 

noxious weeds are followed. 
BOTANICAL BE Page H-16 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

Considering the other projects in the Rogue River Corridor, the cumulative effects of 

building boat docks included in all alternatives and the cumulative effects of moving the cat to 

Illahe Island for channel maintenance are not likely to spread existing noxious weed populations 

during placement and/or seasonal removal for high water events, if mitigations for noxious 

weeds are followed. 

Mitigations to prevent the spread of Noxious Weeds along the Rogue River Corridor 

• Avoid parking equipment or docks on existing populations of noxious weeds. 

• Avoid driving through noxious weed populations at Clay Hill and Foster Bar while 

moving docks or the cat for channel maintenance at Illahe Island. 

• Treat weed sites through pulling up plants and mark weed locations with flagging or 

more permanent markers prior to constructing docks or moving the cat to Illahe Island. 

• Treat weed sites through pulling up plants and mark weed locations with flagging prior to 

moving docks for high water events. 

• Avoid pulling boats up onto gravel bars in the vicinity of noxious weed populations. 

• Provide information on noxious weeds to commercial boat operators. 

Plant Materials for Restoration & Erosion Control 

Current Management Direction

USDA Forest Service Region 6 policy on the use of native vegetative materials on National 

Forests (6/30/94) is: 

To the extent practicable, seeds and plants used in erosion control, fire rehabilitation, 

riparian restoration, forage enhancement, and other vegetation projects shall originate 

from genetically local sources of native plants.

Guidelines for implementing this policy are summarized as follows: 

• Prescriptions for use of plant materials must be developed by knowledgeable plant 

resource specialists. 

• All revegetation facets must be evaluated early in the planning process for Forest 

projects, including soil stockpiling, mechanical methods of erosion control, and both 

natural and artificial regeneration alternatives. 

• Promote natural regeneration, or use mechanical means to stabilize soil so that native 

plants can become reestablished. Alternatively, collect seed as near to the site as 

possible. 

• Use commercially sold natives only if collected from within the same ecological section 

(National Hierarchy of Ecological Stands) or geographic subdivisions as mapped at the 

district level in your analysis area. 
BOTANICAL BE Page H-17 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

• Use healthy, pest-free, properly cared for materials whether collected or purchased. In 

order to comply with Region 6 policy, prescriptions for seeding should be developed 

prior to project implementation so that collection of local seeds, if needed, can be 

accomplished during the previous field season. 

Further management direction on this subject is given in the LRMP under standards and 

guidelines for construction and reconstruction of roads section 11-2: Item 2 and 4. 

Working References for Supplemental Botanical Report 

Castellano, M.A., J. E. Smith, T. O’Dell, E. Cázares and S. Nugent. 1999. Handbook to Strategy 1 Fungal 

Species in the Northwest Forest Plan. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 

General Technical Report PNW-GTR-476. 

Christy, J. A. and D. H. Wagner. 1996. Guide for the identification of rare, threatened or sensitive 

bryophytes in the range of the northern spotted owl, western Washington, western Oregon and 

northwestern California. USDI-Bureau of Land Management, Eugene District; USDA-Forest Service, 

Siuslaw National Forest; The Nature Conservancy; and The Northwest Botanical Institute. 

Conrad, H. S. and P. L. Redfearn, Jr. 1979. How to Know the Mosses and Liverworts, 2nd Edition. Wm. 

C. Brown Company Publishers. Dubuque, Iowa. 

Hickman, J. C., Editor. 1993. The Jepson Manual. University of California Press. Berkeley, California. 

Hitchcock, C. L. and A. Cronquist. 1973. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. University of Washington Press. 

Seattle, Washington. 

Lawton, E. 1971. Moss Flora of the Pacific Northwest. The Hattori Botanical Laboratory. Nichinan, 

Japan. 

McCune, B. and L. Geiser. 1997. Macrolichens of the Pacific Northwest. Oregon State University Press. 

Corvallis, Oregon. 

USDA-Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 1989. Land and Resource Management Plan, Siskiyou 

National Forest. Siskiyou National Forest, Grants Pass. 

USDA Forest Service. 1995. Forest Service Manual: Series 2000 - National Forest Resource 

Management, WO Amendment 2000-95-5, effective 11/29/95 - Noxious Weed Management. 

USDA-Forest Service/USDI-Bureau of Land Management. 1994. Record of Decision for Amendments to 

Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern 

Spotted Owl, Standards and Guidelines for Management of Habitat for Late-Successional and OldGrowth Forest Related Species Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl. 

USDA-Forest Service/USDI-Bureau of Land Management. 2001. Record of Decision and Standards and 

Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer and other Mitigation Measures 

Standards and Guidelines. 
AIR QUALITY Page I-1 

Lower Rogue and Lower Illinois Special Use Permits

APPENDIX I 

POWERBOAT EMMISSIONS GENERATED DAILY, BY ALTERNATIVE 

(HC=Hydrocarbons, NOx= Oxides of Nitrogen) 

(03/28/05) 

TOUR BOATS (269kw x 3) 

Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 

 

Round Trip 

Time (hrs) HC (g) NOx (g) HC (g) NOx (g) HC (g) NOx (g) HC (g) NOx (g) HC (g) NOx (g) 

L to A & W 0.66 30013 22190 27882 20615 27882 20615 13941 10308 8709 6439

Trips Daily 8.03 8.03 7.46 7.46 7.46 7.46 3.73 3.73 2.33 2.33

L to B 2 40774 30146 24464 18088 19821 14655 19821 14655 10873 8039

Trips Daily 3.6 3.6 2.16 2.16 1.75 1.75 1.75 1.75 0.96 0.96

TOTAL 70786 52337 52347 38703 47703 35270 33762 24962 19582 14478

Formula for HC- [(807kW x 75% load factor) x 9.36 g/kW-h] x round trip hours x trips/day 

Formula for NOx- [(807kW x 75% load factor) x 6.92 g/kW-h] x round trip hours x trips/day 

 

FISHING GUIDES- ALL (269kw x 1) 

Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 

 

Round Trip 

Time (hrs) HC (g) NOx (g) HC (g) NOx (g) HC (g) NOx (g) HC (g) NOx (g) HC (g) NOx (g) 

L to W 1.33 118897 87881 118897 87881 118897 87881 9105 6730 118897 87881

Trips Daily 47.4 47.4 47.4 47.4 47.4 47.4 3.63 3.63 47.4 47.4

Wild Section 0.66 1344 994 1046 773 560 414 560 414 1344 994

Trips Daily 1.08 1.08 0.84 0.84 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 1.08 1.08

Wild Section- w 0.66 199 147 199 147 75 55 75 55 199 147

Trips Daily * 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.16 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.06 0.16 0.16

TOTAL 120441 89021 120142 88801 119532 88350 9740 7199 120441 89021

Formula for HC- [(269kW x 75% load factor) x 9.36 g/kW-h] x round trip hours x trips/day 

Formula for NOx- [(269kW x 75% load factor) x 6.92 g/kW-h] x round trip hours x trips/day 

* Winter trips pro-rated over entire year (number of trips allowed x 0.5) 

 

LOWER ILLINOIS FISHING GUIDES (269kw x 1) 

Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 

 

Round Trip 

Time (hrs) HC (g) NOx (g) HC (g) NOx (g) HC (g) NOx (g) HC (g) NOx (g) HC (g) NOx (g) 

RR to NANCY cr 0.5 11316 8364 11316 8364 11316 8364 94 70 849 627

Trips Daily 12 12 12 12 12 12 0.1 0.1 0.9 0.9

TOTAL 11316 8364 11316 8364 11316 8364 94 70 849 627

 

COMMERCIAL TRANSPORT OF LODGE GUESTS (269kw x 2) 

Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 

 

Round Trip 

Time (hrs) HC (g) NOx (g) HC (g) NOx (g) HC (g) NOx (g) HC (g) NOx (g) HC (g) NOx (g) 

F.B. to P.L. 0.85 3206 2370 2308 1706 2148 1588 2148 1588 1154 853

Trips Daily 1 1 0.72 0.72 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.36 0.36

TOTAL 3206 2370 2308 1706 2148 1588 2148 1588 1154 853

 

ALL POWER BOAT USE 

Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt 6 

 HC (g) NOx (g) HC (g) NOx (g) HC (g) NOx (g) HC (g) NOx (g) HC (g) NOx (g) 

TOTALS BY ALT 205749 152092 186113 137574 180699 133571 45744 33819 142025 104980