United States 

Department of

Agriculture

Forest 

Service

PNW 

Research

Station

 March 2010

Record of Decision

EXF Thinning, Fuels Reduction, and 

Research Project

Pringle Falls Experimental Forest

Bend/Ft. Rock Ranger District, Deschutes National Forest

Deschutes County, Oregon

T. 20 S., R 9 E., Sections 28-33; T. 21 S., R. 9 E., Sections 4-6 

Willamette Meridian
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.
Record of Decision 

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................................ 1

PROJECT BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................... 1

DECISION AND RATIONALE............................................................................................................................... 3

REASONS FOR THE DECISION............................................................................................................................ 6

OTHER ALTERNATIVES ANALYZED .................................................................................................................. 11

THE ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE ..................................................................................... 12

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ................................................................................................................................... 12

CONSULTATION WITH GOVERNMENT AGENCIES AND TRIBES........................................................................ 12

LEGAL REQUIREMENTS AND POLICY............................................................................................................... 13

IMPLEMENTATION ......................................................................................................................................... 15

APPEAL RIGHTS .............................................................................................................................................. 16

CONTACT PERSONS / FURTHER INFORMATION.............................................................................................. 16

RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS ................................................................................................................................. 17

APPENDIX A ................................................................................................................................................... 19

Figure 1. Location of the EXF Project area.

Record of Decision

Page 1 of 28 

RECORD OF DECISION

EXF Thinning, Fuels Reduction, and Research Project

USDA Forest Service, Pringle Falls Experimental Forest

Bend/Ft. Rock Ranger District, Deschutes National Forest 

Deschutes County, Oregon 

Township 20 South, Range 9 East, Sections 28-33; Township 21 South, Range 9 East, Sections 4-6 

(Willamette Meridian)

Introduction

This Record of Decision (ROD) documents our decision and rationale for the selection of Alternative 

2, the preferred alternative described in the March 2010 Final Environmental Impact Statement for the 

EXF Thinning, Fuels Reduction, and Research Project. This project will address serious management 

issues within the Pringle Falls Experimental Forest, while also setting up an operational-scale research 

project that will improve our understanding of forest vegetation dynamics. The research will also 

produce information pertinent to fuels management, forest insect and disease issues, and over the long 

term address climate change issues.

In summary, this decision includes: 

• Thinning across 2,554 acres to reduce stand density; 

• Mechanical shrub treatment across 70-90% of the thinned units; 

• Prescribed underburning across 2,554 acres to reduce fuels; 

Associated actions include approximately one mile of temporary road construction, 35 miles of road 

maintenance, placement of a gate on the 4245 road, and two Forest Plan amendments. 

Project Background 

The Pringle Falls Experimental Forest is a diverse field laboratory within the Deschutes National 

Forest. It was the first experimental forest to be established in the Pacific Northwest in 1931, as a 

center for silviculture, forest management, and insect and disease research in ponderosa pine forests 

east of the Cascade Range. It is divided into two units: Lookout Mountain Unit and Pringle Falls 

Unit. The Lookout Mountain unit, where the current project is located, was added to the Experimental 

Forest in 1937. 

Within the Lookout Mountain unit is a relatively large block of closed-canopy forest which was 

established in 1845 following a stand-replacement fire. The 165-year old cohort of ponderosa pine has 

grown exceptionally well and it is known that within this portion of the western distribution of 

ponderosa pine, individual trees could survive for 600 years (Youngblood et al. 2004). However, the 

trees here have declined in radial growth over the past decade, and have structural characteristics that 

indicate they are at imminent risk of catastrophic loss to bark beetles and high risk of loss to wildfire. 
Record of Decision

Page 2 of 28

Given the condition of the Lookout Mountain unit and the fact that it is an Experimental Forest with a 

statutory mission1

There is a need to address the risk of a severe insect epidemic or catastrophic fire. The purpose 

of the project is to reduce stand densities and surface fuels in stands of ponderosa pine and mixed 

conifer plant associations dominated by ponderosa pine to maintain high growth rates and reduce 

susceptibility to catastrophic loss to insects, disease, or fire. Reducing risk of loss will protect longterm studies and keep large blocks of homogenous structure to maintain options for future research 

opportunities. 

 to provide places for forestry research and development, the stated purpose and 

need for the EXF project is twofold: 

Bark beetle hazard is gauged by tree stocking density. Cochran et al. (1994) used the stand density 

index concept to set stocking guidelines and an Upper Management Zone (UMZ) for sustaining 

healthy stand conditions. UMZs defined for plant associations on the Deschutes National Forest 

represent the level of stocking or relative density beyond which there is imminent risk of catastrophic 

loss of overstory trees to bark beetle. Tree density within the EXF project area is currently at a point 

where stands are from about 132 to 224% of the Upper Management Zone (UMZ) in stand density 

index. 

Stand health and bark beetle hazard can also be gauged from tree radial growth rates. Radial growth 

rates slower than 13 rings per inch indicate declining tree vigor and increasing susceptibility to 

successful insect attack. Growth rates sampled in the project area ranged from 14 to 38 rings per inch, 

averaging 27 rings per inch. This indicates trees are growing slower and are more susceptible to 

insect-caused mortality. Additionally, tree vigor is shown to be low in the project area by 

measurements of the live crown ratio (the percent of a tree’s height occupied by green branches). 

High stand densities coupled with low tree vigor and ongoing beetle-caused mortality are indicative of 

stands that are not sustainable. The purpose of thinning to the UMZ or below is to address this risk 

and improve or maintain the health and vigor of the overstory. 

In addition to the risk of bark beetle mortality, fuels pose a risk to losing the stand to a wildfire. Fuels 

in the project area would support moderate flame lengths on 21% of the area and high flame lengths 

on 29% of the area. In the event of a wildfire there is potential for a passive crown fire to occur under 

current fuel and stand conditions over about 46% of the project area. Passive crown fire can make 

suppression difficult, cause short and long-range spotting, and lead to crown fires. The purpose of 

reducing surface and ladder fuels, decreasing crown density, and maintaining the largest trees, is to 

address this risk and improve fire resilience across the project area. 

There is a need to provide operational scale research opportunities through a series of thinning 

and fuel reduction treatments applied across the landscape. This need comes generally from the 

establishment record for the Experimental Forest, and specifically from the study plan. The project 

will provide a platform for research addressed in the Pacific Northwest Research Station’s study plan 

titled “Vegetation Dynamics after Thinning and Fuels Reduction in Dry Forests.” The project is 

designed to address the following specific research questions: 

1. What set of fuel reduction treatments best accelerates the development of large trees while over 

the long-term reintroduces natural disturbance processes that provide greater ecosystem 

resiliency?

2. What is the long-term influence of climate change interacting with a set of fuel reduction 

treatments on vegetation dynamics and forest structure?

3. Can single cohort stands be readily converted to multi-cohort stands? 

 

1 Research and Development Authority: The Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Research Act of 1978 is the comprehensive 

statutory authority for planning and conducting ongoing forestry research and development (Forest Service Manual 4070.1).
Record of Decision

Page 3 of 28 

4. Do multi-cohort stands share the same risks of multiple, interacting stresses as single-cohort 

stands?

5. How does the dominant shrub, giant chinquapin, respond in the near term to a set of fuel 

reduction treatments? 

6. How does the residual stand structure resulting from a set of fuel reduction treatments interact 

locally and in the near-term with wind to cause additional structural changes?

Some of these research questions can be answered quickly. For example, research on giant chinquapin 

and post-treatment blowdown can be addressed within about five years. Questions about development 

of large trees and resiliency will require several decades (Appendix B p. 28). The resulting 

information from this study will be directly applicable to local forest management issues. For 

example, results of this research will provide mangers with scientifically sound data showing the 

effects of a range of tree densities on growth rates, mortality, and windthrow or how to restructure 

single-cohort stands to multi-cohort stands – information that can be directly applied to all or a portion 

of the 200,000 + acres of blackbark ponderosa pine stands on the Deschutes National Forest. 

This project will also serve as a foundation for additional studies. For example, there is interest in 

studies involving pine-associated wildlife.

The proposed action will further the mission of the Pacific Northwest Research Station. 

Decision and Rationale

It is our decision to select Alternative 2 in its entirety, including the associated connected actions, 

forest plan amendments, resource protection measures, and monitoring, described in the FEIS (pp. 17-

21, 26-32). 

Specifics of Decision

Table 1 lists each unit and what treatment will occur.

Table 1. Selected Alternative - Prescription for Treatment Units

Unit 

No. Acres Silviculture Prescription Basal Area to be Left Natural Fuels Prescription

11 118 Thin to 75% UMZ* 76 Mow/Underburn

12 192 Thin to 50% UMZ 51 Mow/Underburn

13 83 Thin to 75% UMZ w/ small 

openings 76 Mow/Underburn

14 194 Thin to UMZ 101 Mow/Underburn

15 64 No Treat remains at 138 No Treat

21 106 Thin to 75% UMZ w/ small 

openings 83 Mow/Underburn

22 206 Thin to 75% UMZ 83 Mow/Underburn

23 225 Thin to 50% UMZ 56 Mow/Underburn

24 196 Thin to UMZ 111 Mow/Underburn

25 108 No Treat remains at 174 No Treat

31 148 Thin to 50% UMZ 70 Mow/Underburn

32 164 Thin to UMZ 140 Mow/Underburn

33 335 Thin to 75% UMZ 105 Mow/Underburn

34 94 Thin to 75% UMZ w/ small 

openings 105 Mow/Underburn
Record of Decision

Page 4 of 28

35 109 No Treat remains at 184 No Treat

41 116 Thin to 50% UMZ 35 Mow/Underburn

42 160 Thin to UMZ 70 Mow/Underburn

43 70 Thin to 75% UMZ w/ small 

openings 53 Mow/Underburn

44 147 Thin to 75% UMZ 53 Mow/Underburn

45 61 No Treat remains at 154 No Treat

*UMZ = Upper Management Zone. 

The intensity of proposed thinning uses the Stand Density Index (SDI), which is a relative tree density 

measurement of each stand. At certain SDI the trees in a stand exhibit reduced vigor due to excessive 

density and bark beetle activity can be expected to increase dramatically. This SDI is called the upper 

management zone (UMZ). Where stands are denser than the UMZ, as in the case of Lookout 

Mountain, there is imminent risk of catastrophic loss of overstory trees to bark beetles. Treatments 

closer to UMZ (e.g. 75% of UMZ) leave more trees; those further from UMZ (e.g. 50% of UMZ) 

leave fewer trees. 

 Table 2. Selected Alternative - Summary of Treatments 

Thinning Type Acres

1- Thin to UMZ 714

2- Thin to 75% UMZ 806

3- Thin to 50% UMZ 681

4- Thin to 75% UMZ & Create 

small openings

353

Total 2,554

5- No Treat (Control Units) 342

Forest Plan Amendments: Our decision includes amendments to the Deschutes National Forest Land 

and Resource Management Plan. First, Interim Wildlife Standard 6.d from the Regional Forester’s 

Forest Plan Amendment #2 (the Eastside Screens) would not apply to the implementation of the EXF 

project in units east of the owl line where LOS is present. This will allow harvest within 

approximately 22 acres of LOS where one or more LOS stage within a PAG is currently below the 

historic range of variability. Secondly, Interim Wildlife Standard 6.d.2.a would not apply to the 

implementation of the EXF project east of the owl line in units 31, 34, 42, 43, and 44. This will allow 

harvest of trees > 21” DBH east of the owl line in those units. These amendments will allow 

consistent application of the prescriptions across all units, which is an important component of the 

research design (see FEIS p. 247-250). 

Thinning: Thinning will be conducted with ground-based machinery. For treatment types 1, 2, and 3 

thinning is from below: to reduce stand density by removing trees from the lower crown classes or 

smaller diameters to improve growth and overall forest health of trees in the upper crown classes or 

the larger trees. Larger trees are retained. Treatment type 4 (thin to 75% UMZ with small openings 

up to about 1⁄4 acre in size) will be a free thin across the entire diameter distribution to begin transition 

to an all-aged stand structure (i.e. multi-cohort). Target basal area and trees per acre are applied as an 

average across a unit. The target stand density index and basal area are based on the predominant 

plant association (see FEIS p. 19).
Record of Decision

Page 5 of 28 

For all treatment types, species preference for cutting is as follows: 1) lodgepole pine, 2) grand/white 

fir, 3) small-diameter ponderosa pine, 4) small-diameter mountain hemlock, 5) small diameter 

Douglas-fir. This preference is intended to be flexible, with the intent of moving towards greater 

resilience. As diameters increase, retention of trees having more vigor will be emphasized.

Slash and Smaller Material: Trees with commercial value (usually greater than 7” or 8” DBH) will be 

whole-tree yarded, with limbs and tops attached to the landings, thereby reducing the need for slash 

piling within the units. Tops and limbs will be utilized as biomass as market conditions allow, 

otherwise they will be burned at the landings. Smaller material (generally < 7” DBH) will be felled by 

hand and will also be utilized as biomass as market conditions allow. The material would be brought 

out to the landings on the existing skid trails and temporary roads. If it cannot be utilized, the lighter 

concentrations will be lopped and scattered and heavier concentrations grapple piled and burned. 

Assuming no market for smaller material, approximately 50 percent of the unit acres will have heavier 

concentrations of small material grapple piled and burned. This assumption is used in the analysis.

Mowing: Thinning and slash treatment will be followed by mechanical shrub treatment, also known 

as mowing. This involves the use of mechanized equipment to mow, cut, chop, grind or otherwise 

reduce shrub or ground fuel vertical structure to a height of about 8 inches. All units are planned for 

mowing and it is estimated that between 70 to 90 percent of each unit will actually be mowed because 

of the distribution of shrubs. 

Burning: Following thinning, slash treatment, and mowing, prescribed fire is planned for most areas. 

This is considered a landscape-scale burning operation where fire will be applied when conditions are 

conducive to meeting the burning objectives. 

Fire lines are used to control the fire during prescribed burning operations. Existing roads will be used 

as much as possible. Line construction will be necessary at the project perimeter, around control units, 

and around the plantation in the middle of the project area. Lines will be built with an ASV (a rubber 

tracked “All Surface Vehicle” commonly used to place fireline on slopes of less than 30%), and will 

be approximately 3 to 4 feet wide. Handline will be constructed where necessary, such as with steeper 

slopes and would be 1.5 to 2 feet wide. Approximately 12 miles of fireline will be created. Displaced 

topsoil and unburned woody debris would be redistributed over the firelines following prescribed 

burning activities. 

Connected Actions 

Temporary road construction: Harvest operations are expected to require approximately 1 mile of 

temporary road to be developed for access to units 11, 14, 21, and 23. Temporary roads are built to 

facilitate ground-based harvest systems for the purpose of removing forest products from a treated 

stand. These roads are short, averaging less than 0.2 miles. Temporary roads will be built to low 

specifications that would allow equipment access to landing sites. These temporary roads will be built 

on slopes less than 10 percent and will be constructed to the lowest possible standard capable of 

supporting log haul in order to minimize ground disturbance. These temp roads will be restored after 

use.

Road maintenance: Approximately 35 miles of existing roads in the project area will require 

maintenance prior to use for timber haul. Maintenance is blading and shaping of the roadbed and 

brush removal. 

Gating: A Forest Service gate will be placed on the 4245 road at the intersection of the 4240 and 4245 

roads. This will prevent public vehicle access on the main road through the Experimental Forest. The 

gate will be closed year-round. Access for administrative use and for research purposes will be 

provided. 
Record of Decision

Page 6 of 28

Danger tree removal: Federal and State of Oregon safety regulations require that danger trees along 

project area travel routes be felled prior to activities taking place. Roadside danger trees will be felled 

along these travel routes and where activity units border the road system. Felled danger trees will be 

left on the ground. 

Resource Protection Measures: This decision includes all resource protection measures described for 

Alternative 2 in the FEIS. These are listed in Appendix A of this ROD. 

Reasons for the Decision

Our decision to select Alternative 2 was made by considering how well the alternative meets the 

purpose and need, how the alternative responds to the issues, if public comments have been adequately 

considered, and what the likely environmental effects will be. In selecting Alternative 2, we carefully 

reviewed disclosures in Chapter 3 of the FEIS. The analysis discloses predicted environmental 

consequences of the actions, including effects to the northern spotted owl and other wildlife, benefits 

to forest health, reductions in wildfire risk, compliance with water and air quality regulations, and 

maintenance of soil productivity. Our conclusions are based on a review of the entire project record, 

which includes a thorough review of relevant scientific information, and a consideration of responsible 

opposing views. The following narratives go into detail on our reasons for the decision. 

 Response of Alternative 2 to the Purpose and Need

There is a need to address the risk of a severe insect epidemic or catastrophic fire. 

The FEIS explains that the trees in the Lookout Mountain Unit have grown to a point where they are 

so close together that they are growing slower, are less vigorous, and are susceptible to bark beetlecaused mortality (FEIS pp. 85-87). Losing a large portion of the Experimental Forest to bark beetles 

is not acceptable because it is an important component of the Experimental Forest network where there 

are ongoing long-term research projects and the potential for future research.

The analysis shows that all of the units will benefit from thinning by moving them to or below the 

upper management zone (UMZ). Live crown ratios and diameter growth will improve. Tree vigor 

will improve, and the larger residual trees will be better able to quickly respond to the increased 

availability of nutrients and water following density reduction. Stands with the greatest density 

reduction will remain below the stand density index, therefore not at risk of density-related beetle 

mortality, for as much as 150 years (FEIS p. 93).

The project area, dominated by ponderosa pine, is at a point where the density and fuels conditions are 

such that, under summer weather conditions, a wildfire would produce moderate to high flame lengths 

and a potential for passive crown fire (FEIS pp. 103-105). Mowing and underburning will reduce 

fuels across the thinned units. The analysis shows that Alternative 2 would substantially change 

expected fire behavior to a point where a wildfire could be attacked directly and contained at a small 

size (FEIS pp. 113-116). This would protect valuable research and allow the large trees to continue to 

grow.

There is a need to provide operational scale research opportunities through a series of thinning and 

fuel reduction treatments applied across the landscape. 

The project will further the mission of the Pacific Northwest Research Station’s Managing 

Disturbance Regimes Research, Development, and Application Program. Full implementation of the 

Study Plan “Forest Dynamics after Thinning and Fuel Reduction in Dry Forests” will allow for 

important research questions to be addressed in the Experimental Forest in a statistically valid manner. 

The different thinning prescriptions described in Table 1, p. 2-3 of this ROD, are divided among four 

treatment blocks with relatively homogeneous elevation, aspect, and plant association. The post-
Record of Decision

Page 7 of 28 

treatment comparisons will test the hypotheses outlined in the Study Plan (FEIS p. 5, and FEIS 

Appendix B pp. 22-25). 

Research results will be directly applicable to local Forest managers and managers across the range of 

ponderosa pine in the west, such as how to restructure single-cohort ponderosa pine stands into multicohort stands. The research will also provide managers with scientifically sound data showing the 

effects of a range of tree densities on growth rates, mortality, and windthrow. This information will be 

particularly relevant to management of the 200,000+ acres of second-growth black bark pine on the 

Deschutes National Forest (FEIS p. 3, FEIS Appendix F p. 3-4).

 Response of Alternative 2 to the Key Issues

In response to the Proposed Action, and based on feedback from the public, the Interdisciplinary Team 

identified one key issue which was used to develop Alternative 3: 

Key Issue #1: Northern Spotted Owl 

The EXF project area is on the easternmost edge of the range of the spotted owl (see Figure A-3). 

Within the range of the spotted owl, the project area lies primarily within the Administratively

Withdrawn (AWD) allocation but also includes a portion of the Sheridan Late Successional Reserve 

(LSR) (see FEIS pp. 8, 11-12). 

The selected alternative includes thinning and fuels reduction within 211 acres of spotted owl NRF 

habitat within the AWD allocation (Table 3); however, there is no Critical Habitat within the project 

area, and the selected alternative does not enter any spotted owl home range (FEIS p. 8, 46, 56).

Table 3. Acres of Spotted Owl NRF Habitat Treated with Selected Alternative

Northwest Forest 

Plan Allocation

Acres of 

Allocation within 

the Selected 

Alternative Units

Amount of Spotted 

Owl NRF Habitat 

within Units

Amount of 

Spotted Owl 

Home Range 

within Units

Spotted Owl 

Critical Habitat 

within Proposed 

Action Units

Sheridan Late 

Successional 

Reserve

161 0 0 0 

Administratively 

Withdrawn 2,623 211 0 0 

A total of 250 acres of spotted owl NRF habitat occurs within the project area. The Forest Service 

reviewed the areas of NRF habitat in the field (Biological Assessment and FEIS Appendix E), which 

shows that the patches of spotted owl NRF habitat within the project area currently have greater 

foraging and dispersal quality than nesting because it lacks large Douglas-fir trees and has sparse 

canopy closure. Thinning in combination with fuel treatments will reduce canopy closure and reduce 

the multi-storied aspect of suitable habitat so that it no longer functions as nesting habitat, but may 

continue to be used for foraging and dispersal. This will occur on 211 acres, all within the AWD 

allocation. Effects of heavier thinning are more pronounced because more basal area is removed. 

Treatments may also reduce the foraging opportunities for the prey of northern spotted owls. 

Most of the stands mapped as NRF habitat within the project area do not contain old, decadent 

Douglas-fir with cavities, which are present at most spotted owl nest sites on the Deschutes National 

Forest. It is not likely that the ponderosa pine/white fir stands would provide the nesting component 

presently or in the future. The Biological Opinion states that although the project will remove suitable 

habitat for spotted owls, it will likely promote forest stand resiliency to insects, disease, and fire. 

Ponderosa pine is the predominant tree species within the project area and will likely benefit from 

proposed stand density reductions that lessen physiological stresses. 
Record of Decision

Page 8 of 28

Dispersal habitat is also affected by the reduction in canopy closure and where thinning is the heaviest, 

the stands will no longer meet dispersal guidelines (FEIS p. 65); however, dispersal habitat will 

remain throughout the watershed. 

The selected alternative will thin and treat fuels across 161 acres of the Sheridan Late Successional 

Reserve (Table 3). The current condition of that area is unsustainable (FEIS p. 83) and so 

management activities are clearly needed to reduce the risk of losing the overstory to bark beetles or 

fire. Based on public comments on the Draft EIS, we believe it is important to make clear that this 

portion of the LSR does not currently provide NRF habitat for the northern spotted owl, provides only 

39 acres of dispersal habitat, and minimally provides habitat for other LSR indicator species (FEIS p. 

59). The thinning and fuels reduction activities that will take place within the LSR follow

recommendations in the LSR Assessment and will improve the health of the stand and promote habitat 

conditions (specifically large trees) for common wildlife indicator species in the area (pileated 

woodpecker, northern goshawk, white-headed woodpecker, and flammulated owl). This project will 

provide for better habitat protection for 30 to 55 years and it will not prevent the LSR from playing an 

effective role in maintaining the objectives for which it was established (FEIS p. 67).

We considered how each Alternative addresses the spotted owl issue. Alternative 3 would avoid 

thinning and fuels reduction on 211 of NRF habitat. The consequences of treating within spotted owl 

NRF habitat were assessed and we consulted with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, asking them for 

a Biological Opinion. Their opinion is that Alternative 2 would not likely jeopardize the continued 

existence of the spotted owl. The amount and location of the NRF and dispersal habitat that will be 

treated will not significantly affect connectivity between Late Successional Reserves or the ability of 

reserves to support conservation and recovery of the spotted owl as planned through the Northwest 

Forest Plan. The NRF habitat does not currently provide the nesting component for spotted owls 

because of the lack or large Douglas-fir; but Alternative 2 will promote the continued development of 

large trees in the project area. 

Alternative 3 (no treatment in NRF and no treatment in LSR) would be risking the loss of the 

overstory trees to bark beetles. Alternative 3 addressed the issue of spotted owls by not treating in 

these areas, but the analysis shows that it would not substantially benefit spotted owls. Additionally, 

under Alternative 2, we will have the ability to study the response for each of the four thinning types, 

as well as control units. We find that Alternative 2 is the best course of action for the Experimental 

Forest by maintaining tree growth rates, reducing the threat of mortality from insects, and reducing 

fuels in this ponderosa pine-dominated forest. 

 Consideration of Public Comment

In making this decision we thoroughly considered the comments received during the 45-day comment 

period. Appendix F of the Final EIS details the consideration and response to public comments. 

Conflicting opinions and points of view about the best use of National Forest System lands are not 

unique to this project, and our reasoning here will not resolve these issues for everyone. We recognize 

that some groups that reviewed the project were fervently opposed to commercial-size thinning in the 

project area; however, we feel that this decision does the best job of reducing risk to the Experimental 

Forest from insects and wildfire, and makes the best use of the Experimental Forest according to the 

purpose for which it was established.

Some respondents were approving of the project and supportive of the risk reduction as well as the 

research component. For example, the Deschutes County Forester expressed support for Alternative 2 

because the fuels reduction work will meet standards and recommendations from the area’s 

Community Wildfire Protection Plan. Also, the Environmental Protection Agency expressed support 

for the project as a means to address the risk of severe insect epidemic or catastrophic fire, and as an 

opportunity to study forest dynamics after thinning and fuels reduction in dry forests. The EPA stated 
Record of Decision

Page 9 of 28 

appreciation that the long-term influence of climate change will be considered within the context of 

the study. 

Some organizations expressed concerns that the Forest Service has not relied on scientific information 

in describing the need for the project, in developing the proposed action and study plan, and in 

predicting the environmental effects of implementing the project. We find that the claims of 

inadequately utilizing scientific information are unwarranted. The basis for the need to reduce stand 

density in the project area is grounded in a large body of science. Observations and measurements 

taken in the field evidence the risk to the area from bark beetles and current fuel conditions (see FEIS 

p. 85-89, 102-106, 110-112, Appendix B). Comments are responded to in Appendix F and some of 

the information has been brought forward into Chapter 1 to provide a clearer picture of the direct link 

between the current condition and the need for action (FEIS pp. 4-5). 

Our interdisciplinary team, including the lead researcher for the study plan, has reviewed documents 

that were provided during the comment period as either cited references or simply copies of research, 

articles, opinion pieces, and more. Many documents are referenced to support a claim that thinning is 

not necessary to reduce the risk of fire or that thinning will exacerbate the risk of fire (FEIS Appendix 

F, pp. 18-22). However, there is ample evidence in the FEIS that several components of the project 

will reduce the risk of fire. First, the thinning will be conducted with whole tree yarding – a method 

that leaves less slash in the forest because the thinned trees are all brought to the landing with the 

limbs and tops attached. Second, small material that is felled will also be used as biomass as markets 

allow; also resulting in less slash in the forest. Third, thinning is followed by mowing and then by 

application of prescribed fire which will reduce surface fuels. The literature supports the conclusions 

that this combination of thinning followed by mowing and burning will appreciably reduce the 

expected fire behavior to a level that will be easier to control and has less torching (FEIS p. 107-108). 

Some comments also gave the impression that reviewers of the DEIS were concerned that the Forest 

Service is proposing to remove commercial-size trees for the sole purpose of fuels reduction. Even a 

cursory review of the FEIS makes clear the need for density reduction. Reducing the number of trees 

within the treatment units will make the residual stand more resilient because more nutrients and water 

are available to the trees. We expect the residual trees to respond with improved diameter growth and 

better live crown ratios (FEIS p. 89-91). Beetle-related tree mortality will not be a concern in these 

stands for 30 to 150 years, depending on the level of thinning (FEIS p. 93). 

Research has been part of the Forest Service mission since the agency's inception in 1905. Research 

and Development in the USDA Forest Service works at the forefront of science to improve the health 

and use of our Nation's forests and grasslands, and the Pringle Falls Experimental Forest is a key 

component to the Experimental Forest network. As Director of the Pacific Northwest Research 

Station and Supervisor of the Deschutes National Forest, we have confidence in the abilities and 

expertise of our scientists and experts and we look forward to realizing the results of the study and 

applying the new information to future forest management efforts. We believe that the research 

conducted under the approved Study Plan will provide important information for forest managers in 

the short term, and that Alternative 2 will help to assure that the Pringle Falls Experimental Forest will 

continue to provide a field laboratory for research by addressing management issues over the long 

term. 

We also considered many comments related to climate change. The tools for estimating carbon and 

sequestration are not fully developed and meaningful thresholds have not been adopted by the agency 

to weight project-related effects. Further, the scale of this project would likely be immeasurable when 

considered at a global scale. The EXF project provides a unique opportunity to explore vegetation 

dynamics under a changing climate (FEIS p. 245) and this will provide insights into the effects of 

climate change at the community scale, providing managers much needed information on the 
Record of Decision

Page 10 of 28

restructuring of plant composition as a result of regional climate interacting with legacies of past 

management. These insights will inform management options to better incorporate these changes. 

 Other Resource Issues and Public Concerns

We considered the suggestions for changing the focus of the Experimental Forest from a place of 

research into silvicultural practices to a place where natural processes are observed and studied. Some

argued that the value of the area is higher if unmanaged. We disagree because our best science tells us 

that the trees in the Lookout Mountain unit will succumb to extensive mortality from bark beetles, and 

we have evidence of the value that field research conducted on a live growing forest can provide. We 

find that it is unacceptable to defer management in the Lookout Mountain unit because this 

Experimental Forest is for the purpose of studying the ponderosa pine-dominated ecosystem. It is 

important to note that the Forest Service not only has a system of Experimental Forests where active 

management is the focus of research, but also has a system of Research Natural Areas (RNAs). RNAs 

are managed to maintain the natural features for which they were established, and to maintain natural 

processes. Non-manipulative research and monitoring activities are encouraged in RNAs and can be 

compared with manipulative studies conducted in other similar ecoregions. There are five RNAs on 

the Deschutes National Forest, including one within the Pringle Falls Experimental Forest (FEIS pp. 2, 

35).

 Soils: Impacts of project activities to the area’s soil resource was thoroughly analyzed (FEIS pp. 

201-225). Most vehicle activity, with the exception of mechanical harvesters, will be restricted or 

confined to the existing road network, building the early 1970s to facilitate the kinds of research and 

management activities as proposed in Alternative 2. Physical disturbance from temporary roads, 

landings, and skid trails will affect soil productivity through compaction. Restricting machinery to

designated skid trails will minimize the area affected. Project design features and management 

requirements, such as avoiding steep slopes, will also minimize or avoid adverse soil effects. 

Following subsoiling, the project area will be within detrimental soil condition limits set by Forest 

Plan standards.

Wildlife Habitat: Impacts to Regional Forester’s sensitive species have been carefully analyzed in the 

FEIS (pp. 126-144). Two sensitive species will be beneficially impacted by the project: Habitat for 

the white-headed woodpecker and the Lewis woodpecker is already present and will improve over 

time. For the Pacific fisher and the Johnson’s hairstreak, the project May Impact Individuals or 

Habitat, but would not likely Contribute to a Trend Towards Federal Listing. For all other sensitive 

species there will be No Impact. When habitat for a Management Indicator Species, Birds of 

Conservation Concern, and Landbird Focal Species was present, the effects of the project were 

evaluated. Some species will likely benefit because the quality of the habitat improves or more is 

available, while some species will likely experience at least short-term declines in habitat quality or 

availability (FEIS pp. 143-200). These trade-offs often result from forest management. We believe 

the beneficial impacts outweigh the negative impacts because large ponderosa pine structure will be 

developed, which is below the HRV compared to them id-seral structural stage (FEIS p. 83). 

 Water Quality / Hydrology: Because there is no surface water or riparian areas within the project 

area, there will be no effect to water, riparian vegetation, or fisheries (FEIS pp. 226-230). The FEIS 

also discussed the potential for impacts to the Fall River, which is over one mile away, and found that 

there is no potential for effects to the hydrology of that stream. 

 Climate Change: The Lookout Mountain Unit offers a unique opportunity for studying vegetation 

dynamics under a changing climate regime (FEIS p. 244). Public comments concerning carbon 

storage have been addressed (Appendix F). 

 Botanical Resources: No threatened or endangered botanical species are present in the project area. 

For one sensitive fungal species, the project May Impact Individuals or Habitat, but will not likely 
Record of Decision

Page 11 of 28 

contribute to a trend towards federal listing (FEIS p. 238). No other sensitive or rare and uncommon 

species will be impacted. 

 Economics: Implementation of thinning will be through timber sales followed by slash treatments, 

mowing, and burning. The expected output is approximately 28 million board feet of timber. Jobs 

associated with implementation that will be created or maintained number approximately 268 (FEIS p. 

242). We feel this is an important contribution to the region’s economy.

Other Alternatives Analyzed

In addition to the selected Alternative 2, two additional alternatives were analyzed in detail. They 

include Alternative 1 the no action and Alternative 3. Additional alternatives include those considered 

in the FEIS and “dropped from detailed consideration” (FEIS, pp. 35-37).

Alternative 1 (No Action) 

The purpose of the No Action alternative is to allow management to continue at the current level. 

Current and ongoing research activities would continue but would be at an increasing risk of loss from 

disturbance from wildfire and bark beetle outbreak; custodial activity would continue, such as routine 

maintenance of roads. Response to environmental emergencies, such as suppressing a wildfire, would 

continue. There would be no additional thinning or fuels treatments; the study plan would not be 

implemented; and the proposed research would not be undertaken. 

Expected consequences of the No Action include: Tree growth rates and tree vigor will remain low or 

continue to decrease; density-caused tree mortality will increase; development of small and mediumsized trees into large trees will be retarded; large tree numbers will increase slowly and then decrease 

because of pine beetle mortality (FEIS p. 88-89). There is currently an unacceptable risk of passive 

crown fire over nearly half of the project area and the fuel conditions could create passive crown fire 

(FEIS p. 103). Current and ongoing research activities would continue but would be at an increasing 

risk of loss from disturbance from wildfire and bark beetle outbreak. 

This alternative was not selected because as stated previously, the Experimental Forest is of great 

value to the Forest Service and the public. It is important that the purpose and need be met with this 

project, and the No Action does nothing to meet the purpose and need. 

Alternative 3

Alternative 3 was designed to address the key issue around impacts to spotted owl habitat. To that 

end, 211 acres of field-verified NRF habitat located within the Administratively Withdrawn (AWD)

allocation would not have been treated under this alternative. Also, because Late Successional 

Reserves help provide the dispersal network for spotted owls across their range, Alternative 3 also 

would have deferred 161 acres of treatment within the Sheridan LSR. Under Alternative 3, a total of 

2,182 acres would receive the same treatments described for Alternative 2.

Alternative 3 would still thin a portion of the Lookout Mountain Unit, but it would break up the units 

and nearly eliminate one entire replicate (see FEIS p. 25). The untreated areas would remain at risk to 

insects and wildfire. The FEIS points out that the NRF habitat that would be avoided in this 

alternative is not likely to produce high quality habitat (p. 62). The Biological Opinion from the US 

Fish and Wildlife Service states that Alternative 2 is unlikely to affect the reproductive success of owls 

that may forage in the area (B.O. p. 50) and that the habitat modification will not significantly affect 

connectivity between LSRs or the ability of reserves to support conservation and recovery of the 

spotted owl as planned through the Northwest Forest Plan. For these reasons, we are not inclined to 

select Alternative 3, which will not provide any significant benefit to the spotted owl but does render 

the proposed research design incomplete. Alternative 3 does not fully meet the purpose and need for 

action described in the FEIS (p. 4-5) and was therefore not selected. 
Record of Decision

Page 12 of 28

The Environmentally Preferable Alternative

Under the National Environmental Policy Act, the agency is required to identify the environmentally 

preferable alternative (40 CFR 1505.2(b)). This is interpreted to mean the alternative that would cause 

the least damage to the biological and physical components of the environment, and which bests 

protects, preserves, and enhances, historic, cultural, and natural resources (Council on Environmental 

Quality, Forty Most Asked Question Concerning CEQ’s National Environmental Policy Act 

Regulations, 46 Federal Register 18026). Factors considered in identifying this alternative include: (1) 

fulfilling the responsibility of this generation as trustee of the environment for future generations, (2) 

providing for a productive and aesthetically pleasing environment, (3) attaining the widest range of 

beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, (4) preserving important natural components 

of the environment, including biodiversity, (5) balancing population needs and resource use, and (6) 

enhancing the quality of renewable resources. An agency may discuss preferences among alternatives 

based on relevant factors, including economic and technical considerations and statutory missions {40 

CFR 1505.2(b)}. 

We have determined that the environmentally-preferable alternative is Alternative 2, the proposed 

action. Alternative 2 treats more area within the Experimental Forest with thinning, mowing, and 

underburning that will be more fire and insect resilient. Alternative 2 also does the best job of meeting 

the statutory mission of the Experimental Forest by reducing the risk of losing a large portion of it to 

fire or insects, and incorporating important research into the design of risk-reduction activities. 

Public Involvement

Preparation of the FEIS followed the procedures outlined at 40 CFR 1501.7, 40 CFR 1503, and 36 

CFR 215. The FEIS describes scoping efforts and the public comment period (p. 6). Field trips were 

offered to the public on two occasions (August 2008 and July 2009). Additionally, the project was the 

subject of a field trip during the “Creating Stand-Level Prescriptions to Integrate Ecological & Fuel 

management Objectives for Dry Forests of the Eastern Cascade Range” workshop in October 2009. 

The public comment period is addressed further in Chapter 4. Comments received were carefully 

reviewed and substantive comments are responded to individually in Appendix F. Some comments 

led to changes from the Draft EIS to the Final EIS.

Consultation with Government Agencies and Tribes

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was consulted during project planning. A Biological Assessment 

was submitted and formal consultation according to the Endangered Species Act was requested on 

August 31, 2009. The Service provided a Biological Opinion on January 4, 2010. Following their 

review of the current status of the spotted owl, the environmental baseline for the action area, the 

effects of the proposed action and the cumulative effects, it is the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service’s biological opinion that the EXF Project is not likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of the spotted owl. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reached a no jeopardy 

determination for the EXF Project for the following reasons: 

1) The Northwest Forest Plan provides a well-distributed set of reserves which protect suitable 

habitat across the range of the spotted owl. Suitable spotted owl habitat proposed for 

removal in the EXF project area is within the Administratively Withdrawn land allocation 

under the NWFP, which were intended to provide demographic support for spotted owls and 

provide for connectivity and dispersal between larger blocks of habitat in LSRs. The NWFP 

recognized the need for silvicultural management in the Eastern Oregon Cascades Province 

for the purpose of reducing the risk of stand-replacing fires. The EXF Project is consistent 
Record of Decision

Page 13 of 28 

with management guidelines within the NWFP in that a key purpose of the project is to 

improve the forest resiliency to large-scale disturbance events such as insect, disease, and 

fire that will lead to loss of late-successional forest across the landscape. The amount and 

location of the nesting, roosting, foraging and dispersal habitat proposed for removal in the 

EXF project will not significantly affect connectivity between LSRs or the ability of 

reserves to support conservation and recovery of the spotted owl as planned through the 

NWFP.

2) All spotted owl suitable habitat within the project area has been surveyed to protocol and all 

sites of occupation have been documented. No suitable habitat will be removed within 

spotted owl home ranges or core areas within the EXF project area. (Biological Opinion, 

pp. 51-52).

The Draft EIS was filed with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for review pursuant to 40 

CFR 1506.9. The EPA’s reviewing official wrote on November 2, 2009: 

“As a participant on the Deschutes Provincial Advisory Committee (PAC), EPA has had the 

opportunity to survey other ongoing research efforts on the Pringle Falls Experimental Forest. 

This forest is an important natural laboratory that is serving to enhance our understanding of the 

role of natural and human-caused disturbances as agents of change in ponderosa pine, lodgepole 

pine and mixed conifer forests, and the degree to which they can be effectively managed to 

achieve or sustain desired ecological conditions. We are supportive of the proposed project, both 

as a means to address the risk of severe insect epidemic or catastrophic fire, and as an opportunity 

to study forest dynamics after thinning and fuels reduction in dry forests. Although a small 

component, we are appreciative that the long-term influence of climate change will be considered 

within the context of the study. As climate changes, so may the way in which fuel reduction 

treatments affect vegetation dynamics and forest structure. Research such as this can help to 

build our understanding and inform future management.” 

The following Tribal governments were notified of the project proposal: Confederated Tribes of the 

Warm Springs, Burns Paiute Tribe, and the Klamath Tribes. These Tribal governments did not 

express any concerns about the project. 

Legal Requirements and Policy

In reviewing the FEIS and actions associated with Alternative 2, we have concluded that our decision 

is consistent with the following laws and requirements: 

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

NEPA establishes the format and content requirements of environmental analysis and documentation

as well as requirements for public involvement and disclosure. The entire process of preparing this 

environmental impact statement was undertaken to comply with NEPA. 

The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) 

We find this decision to be consistent with the long term management objectives as discussed in the 

Deschutes National Forest Plan as amended, except as discussed below. All other Forest Plan 

direction, including from the Regional Forester’s Forest Plan Amendment #2 (Eastside Screens) and 

the Northwest Forest Plan has been adhered to and incorporated into the project’s design. Appendix C 

of the FEIS provides an assessment of the project’s relationship to Forest-wide and management area 

standards and guidelines of the Forest Plan. 

Deschutes Forest Plan Amendments: Some aspects of the selected alternative are not consistent with 

direction in the Regional Forester’s Forest Plan Amendment #2 (Eastside Screens). In order to 
Record of Decision

Page 14 of 28

implement Alternative 2, two amendments are necessary. These amendments are described previously 

on page 3 of this ROD. Based on the analysis in the FEIS (p. 247-250), we find these amendments 

take place on a very small fraction of eastside forest and are non-significant. These amendments will

not have an impact on the goals and objectives for the Forest Plan and they provide for activities that 

contribute to meeting the Experimental Forest management area objectives. All other aspects of the 

selected alternative is consistent with the direction in the Eastside Screens where it applies.

The EXF project is consistent with the NWFP Research standard (C-4) because it is located within the 

Experimental Forest allocation which was established for the purpose of research activities (FEIS 

Appendix C p. 3). 

The Northwest Forest Plan allows research activities to occur within LSRs following an assessment of 

consistency with LSR objectives (C-18). The Sheridan Mountain LSR Assessment (LSRA), as 

approved in 1997 by the Regional Ecosystem Office, supports thinning and fuels reduction to reduce 

risks. Analysis in the FEIS shows that the proposed activities are consistent with those management 

recommendations (pp. 66-67). 

The EXF project area contains no surface water and no riparian areas and is not located within a key 

watershed. Analysis shows that while accomplishing project objectives, none of the activities in the 

selected alternative would prevent attainment of the aquatic conservation strategy objectives at the 

watershed level or at the project level (FEIS p. 229-230). We have determined that the project is 

consistent with the Aquatic Conservation Strategy.

We find this decision to be consistent with the 2001 Record of Decision and Standards and Guidelines 

for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measures 

Standards and Guidelines. Specifically we considered the fact that no habitat was present within the 

Northwest Forest Plan area for Crater Lake tightcoil, Great gray owl, or Cypripedium montanum. W 

also considered the finding that no species sites are known in the project area that would require 

management, but don’t require pre-disturbance surveys.

We find the selected alternative to be consistent with the requirements of the National Forest 

Management Act implementing regulations; specifically: 

Silvicultural Practices

In Alternative 2, there is no timber harvest on lands classified as unsuitable for timber production. 

Alternative 2 is consistent with 36 CFR 219.27(c)(1). 

Vegetative Manipulation/Management Requirements

Alternative 2 is consistent with the seven management requirements from 36 CFR 219.27 and the 

vegetation requirements from 36 CFR 219.27(b).

The Preservation of American Antiquities Act of June 1906 and the National Historic 

Preservation Act: The Oregon State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO)

A cultural resource inventory has been completed for the project area. On June 09, 2006, the 

Deschutes National Forest completed the “Project Review for Heritage Resources under the Terms of 

the 2004 Programmatic Agreement” with the Oregon State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). The 

activities in the selected alternative have been designed to have no effect to cultural resource sites 

through both protection and avoidance. A finding of Historic Properties Avoided has been made for 

this project. The project is compliant with the SHPO regulations.

The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended

Biological Assessment and Biological Evaluations were prepared to document the possible effects of 

the proposed activities to endangered and threatened species within the project area. Appropriate 

coordination, conferencing, and consultation with USFWS have been completed (See previous section 
Record of Decision

Page 15 of 28 

of this document titled Consultation with Government Agencies). The selected alternative is 

determined to “May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect” the threatened northern spotted owl. As 

stated on the previous page, a Biological Opinion was provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

The Service’s biological opinion is that the EXF Project is not likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of the spotted owl (FEIS p. 256 and Appendix F). It has been determined that 

implementation of all of the proposed activities will have no effect to any threatened or endangered 

fish or plant species and would have either no impact on any sensitive wildlife species or associated 

habitat or may impact individuals or habitat but not cause a trend toward federal listing (FEIS pp. 128-

144, 226-227, 239). 

The Clean Water Act, 1982 and 303(d) 

The selected alternative will comply with the Clean Water Act. This Act establishes a nondegradation policy for all federally proposed projects. Because there are no permanent or seasonal 

streams within or adjacent to the project area, and because there is no potential for rain or snowmelt to 

provide runoff directly into a permanent water source, the selected alternative meets anti-degradation 

standards (FEIS p. 227).

The Clean Air Act

The selected alternative will comply with the Clean Air Act. The Act prescribes air quality to be 

regulated by each individual state. The Forest Service will follow directions of the Oregon State 

Forester in conducting prescribed burning in order to achieve strict compliance with all aspects of the 

Clean Air Act and adherence to the Oregon Smoke Management Plan (FEIS p. 246).

Civil Rights and Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898 on environmental justice requires federal agencies to identify and address any 

disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority and low 

income populations. The analysis focuses on potential effects from the project to minority 

populations, disabled persons, and low-income groups. 

After evaluating the discussion in the FEIS, page 252, we have determined that there would be no 

discernable impacts from any of the alternatives on Native Americans, women, other minorities, or the 

Civil Rights of any American citizen.

Implementation

Implementation will likely begin in the spring of 2011. We reviewed the FEIS and associated 

appendices and believe there is adequate information within these documents to provide a reasoned 

choice of action. We are fully aware of adverse effects that cannot be avoided and believe the risks 

are outweighed by the benefits. Implementing the selected alternative will cause no unacceptable 

cumulative impact to any resource. 

Minor changes may be needed during implementation to better meet on-site resource management and 

protection objectives. In determining whether and what kind of further NEPA action is required, we

will consider the criteria to supplement an existing Environmental Impact Statement in 40 CFR 

1502.9(c) and FSH 1909.15, sec. 18, and in particular, whether the proposed change is a substantial 

change to the intent of the Selected Alternative as planned and already approved, and whether the 

change is relevant to environmental concerns. Connected or interrelated proposed changes regarding 

particular areas or specific activities will be considered together in making this determination. The 

cumulative impacts of these changes will also be considered.

Minor adjustments to unit boundaries may be needed during final layout for resource protection, to 

improve logging system efficiency, and to better meet the intent of our decision. Many of these minor 
Record of Decision

Page 16 of 28

changes will not present sufficient potential impacts to require any specific documentation or action to 

comply with applicable laws.

Appeal Rights

This decision is subject to appeal pursuant to 36 CFR 215. The 45-day appeal period begins the day 

following the date the legal notice of this decision is published in The Bulletin, Bend, Oregon. Only 

individuals or organizations that submitted comments during the 45-day comment period, which ran 

from September 15, 2009 to November 2, 2009, may appeal. Notices of appeal must meet the 

requirements of 36 CFR 215.14. Appeals can be submitted in several forms, but must be received by 

the Appeal Deciding Officer, Regional Forester, within 45 days from the date of publication of notice 

of the decision in The Bulletin, Bend, OR. Appeals may be: 

1) Mailed to: Appeal Deciding Officer, Pacific Northwest Region, USDA Forest Service, Attn. 

1570 Appeals, PO Box 3623, Portland, OR 97208-3623; 

2) Emailed to: appeals-pacificnorthwest-regional-office@fs.fed.us. Please put APPEAL and the 

project name in the subject line. Electronic appeals must be submitted as part of an actual e-mail 

message, or as an attachment in Microsoft Word (.doc), rich text format (.rtf), or portable 

document format (.pdf) only. E-mails submitted to addresses other than the ones listed above or in 

formats other than those listed above or containing viruses will be rejected. It is the responsibility 

of the appellant to confirm receipt of appeals submitted by electronic mail. For electronically 

mailed appeals, the sender should normally receive an automated electronic acknowledgement 

from the agency as confirmation of receipt. If the sender does not receive an automated 

acknowledgement of the receipt of the appeal, it is the sender’s responsibility to ensure timely 

receipt by other means;

3) Delivered to: Pacific Northwest Regional Office, 333 S.W. First Avenue, Robert Duncan Plaza 

Building, Portland, Oregon 97204-3440 between 7:45 AM and 4:30 PM, Monday through Friday 

except legal holidays; or

4) Faxed to: Regional Forester, Attn: 1570 APPEALS at (503) 808-2255.

Contact Persons / Further Information

Project records are on file at the Bend/Ft. Rock Ranger District office. The Final EIS is also available 

on the internet at http://www.fs.fed.us/r6/centraloregon/projects/units/bendrock/index.shtml. 

For additional information concerning the specific activities authorized with this decision, you may 

contact: 

Beth Peer Shane Jeffries

Environmental Coordinator District Ranger

Bend/Ft. Rock Ranger District Bend-Ft. Rock Ranger District

1230 NE Third St. Suite A-262 1230 NE Third St., Suite A-262 

Bend, OR 97701 Bend, OR 97701 

(541) 383-4769 (541) 383-4760 
Record of Decision

Page 17 of 28 

Responsible Officials 

The Director of the Pacific Northwest Research Station and the Supervisor of the Deschutes National 

Forest are the officials responsible for deciding the type and extent of management activities in the 

EXF project area.

 /s/ John Allen _March 15, 2010___ 

JOHN ALLEN Date

Forest Supervisor

Deschutes National Forest

__/s/ Cynthia West (for)_______ __March 15, 2010___ 

BOV EAV Date

Director

Pacific Northwest Research Station
Record of Decision

Page 18 of 28

 

 Figure A-1: Alternative 2 Treatment Units, Temp Roads, and Gate Location 
Record of Decision

Page 19 of 28 

APPENDIX A 

Resource Protection Measures

We have decided to implement all resource protection measures described for Alternative 2 in the 

FEIS and we are confident that these measures will adequately prevent adverse effects for the 

following reasons: 1) the selected measures are practices we have used successfully in the past and 2) 

they are based on current research (e.g., the snag management approach). These measures will be 

implemented through project design and layout, contract specifications, contract administration, and 

monitoring by Forest Service officers. 

Purpose Comments

To protect existing research installations from project activities 

1. No direct ignition of prescribed fire within a 120-foot buffer around plots 

within the Levels of Growing Stock study area. Areas to avoid will be 

flagged. Units: 24, 41, 42 

Tree height buffer 

used in previous 

projects.

To ensure prescribed fire activities are implemented appropriately

2. Conduct prescribed fire in compliance with National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality regulations and 

restrictions, and under the Oregon Smoke Management Plan regulations and 

restrictions.

Federal and state 

regulation.

3. Prescribed burning will be conducted under favorable smoke dispersal 

conditions, to avoid impacts to urban areas and Class I airsheds. Inversion 

conditions, which would increase the potential for smoke pooling in valleys 

and drainages, would be avoided during burning operations. 

Federal and state 

regulation.

To protect soil

4. In all proposed activity areas, locations for new yarding and transportation 

systems would be designated prior to logging operations. This includes all 

log landings, and primary (main) skid trail networks. 

LRMP SL-1 & SL-3; 

Timber Management 

BMP T-11, T-14 & 

T-16 

5. Surface Drainage on Temporary Roads – minimize the erosive effects of 

concentrated water through the proper design and construction of temporary 

roads. 

Road BMP R-7 

6. Road Maintenance – conduct regular preventive maintenance to avoid 

deterioration of the road surface and minimize the effects of soil.

Road BMP R-18, R19

Prescribed Burn Operations

7. A burn plan addressing compliance with all applicable LRMP standards and 

guidelines and Best Management Practices will be completed before the 

initiation of prescribed fire treatments in planned activity areas. Prescribed 

burn plans need to include soil moisture guidelines to minimize the risk of 

intense fire and adverse impacts to the soil resource. 

LRMP SL-1 & SL-3; 

Timber BMP T-2, T3 & T-13; 

Fuels Management 

BMP F-2, F-3 
Record of Decision

Page 20 of 28

Coarse Woody Debris/Down Wood

8. Retain adequate supplies of coarse woody debris (greater than 3-inches in 

diameter) to provide organic matter reservoirs for nutrient cycling following 

the completion of all project activities. It is recommended that a minimum 

of 5 to 10 tons per acre of CWD be retained on Ponderosa Pine sites, and 10 

to 15 tons of CWD per acre should be retained on mixed conifer and 

lodgepole pine sites to help maintain long-term site productivity. These 

amounts are less than the recommended levels for wildlife habitat objectives.

LRMP SL-1 

Maintaining Duff Layer 

9. Strive to maintain fine organic matter (organic materials less than 3-inches in 

diameter; commonly referred to as the duff layer) over at least 65 percent of 

an activity area (pertains to both harvesting and post-harvest operations). If 

the potential natural plant community (i.e., site) is not capable of producing 

fine organic matter over 65 percent of the area, adjust minimum amounts to 

reflect potential vegetation site capabilities.

LRMP SL-6; 

Fuels Management 

BMP F-2; 

Timber Management 

BMP T-13

Minimize the extent of new soil disturbance from mechanical treatments

10. Implement appropriate design elements for avoiding or reducing detrimental 

soil impacts from project activities. Options include using some or all of 

the following: 

 Use existing log landings and skid trail networks (whenever 

possible) or designate locations for new skid trails and log landings.

 Maintain spacing of 100 to 150 feet for all primary (main) skid trail 

routes, except where converging at landings. Closer spacing due to 

complex terrain must be approved in advance by the Timber Sale 

Administrator. Main skid trails spaced an average of 100 feet apart 

limit soil impacts to 11 % of the unit area. For the larger activity 

areas (greater than 40 acres) that can accommodate wider spacing 

distances, it is recommended that distance between main skid trials 

be increased to an average of 150 feet to reduce the amount of 

detrimentally disturbed soil to 7 percent of the unit area (Froehlich, 

1981, Garland, 1983). This would reduce the amount of surface area 

where restoration treatments, such as subsoiling, would be required 

to mitigate impacts to achieve soil management objectives. 

 Restrict grapple skidders to designated areas (i.e., roads, landings, 

designated skid trails) at all times, and limit the amount of traffic 

from other specialized equipment off designated areas. The use of 

harvester machines will be authorized to make no more than two 

equipment passes on any site-specific area to accumulate materials.

 Avoid equipment operations during times of the year when soils are 

extremely dry and subject to excessive soil displacement.

 Avoid equipment operations during periods of high soil moisture, as 

evidenced by equipment tracks that sink deeper than during dry or 
Record of Decision

Page 21 of 28 

frozen conditions.

 Operate equipment over frozen ground or a sufficient amount of 

compacted snow to protect mineral soil. Equipment operations 

should be discontinued when frozen ground begins to thaw or when 

there is too little compacted snow and equipment begins to cause 

soil puddling damage (rutting). 

11. Prevent additional soil impacts in random locations of activity areas, 

between skid trails and away from landings, by machine piling and burning 

logging slash on existing roads and logging facilities that already have 

detrimental soil conditions.

12. Restrict mechanical disturbance to existing roads and skid trails at all times 

on portions of activity areas that contain slopes greater than 30 percent. 

Prohibit any new development of temporary roads and/or designated skid 

trails on sensitive soils with steep slopes. Require operators to winch logs to 

skidders with at least 75 feet of bull line. Hand felled trees shall be 

directionally felled toward pre-approved skid trails, and the leading end of 

logs shall be suspended while skidding. Exceptions for areas that make up 

less than 10 percent of an activity area would be subject to Forest Service 

approval. On slopes steeper than 30 percent, existing skid trails (used by the 

purchaser) shall be reclaimed by applying appropriate rehabilitation 

treatments (see Mitigation below). 

The following activity areas are proposed for mechanical treatment and 

contain slopes over 30 percent:

Alternative 2: Units 11, 12, 14, 22, 23, 24, 32, and 41. 

13. Reclaim all temporary roads and some of the log landings and primary 

(main) skid trails by applying appropriate rehabilitation treatments in activity 

areas where detrimental soil conditions are expected to exceed the Regional 

Policy guidelines. Decommission (obliterate) logging facilities that will not 

be needed for future management. Options for mitigating the effects of 

project activities include the use of subsoiling equipment to loosen 

compacted soils on log landings and designated skid trails, redistributing 

humus-enriched topsoil in areas of soil displacement damage, and pulling 

available slash and woody materials over the treated surface to establish 

effective ground cover protection. 

Reclaim all temporary roads and some of the logging facilities in portions of 

the following activity areas: 

Alternative 2 Units: 13, 14, 21, 22, 23, 24, 31, 32, 33, 34, 41, 42, 43, and 

44.

14. Under both action alternatives, reclaim all machine-built fire lines by 

redistributing displaced topsoil and unburned woody debris over the 

disturbed surface. 

Wildlife
Record of Decision

Page 22 of 28

Spotted Owl

 To prevent disturbance to nesting birds during breeding season 

15. Should a new spotted owl nest site or activity center be discovered during 

project implementation, disruptive work activities will not take place and 

consultation would be re-initiated.

Programmatic BA 

Project Design Criteria

16. Prescribed fire managers need to use smoke management forecasts in order 

to minimize smoke entering into the Three Trappers Butte home range and 

to ensure that dissipation would be adequate. 

Programmatic BA 

Project Design Criteria

Raptors

To prevent disturbance to nesting birds during breeding season

17. Any active raptor nest stands found during management activities will be 

protected from disturbing activities within 1⁄4 mile of the nest by 

restricting site disturbing operations during the following periods: 

Sharp-shinned hawk April 15 – August 31

Northern goshawk March 1 – August 31 

Red-tailed hawk March 1 – August 31 

Osprey April 1 – August 31

Great-grey owl March 1 – June 30

LRMP WL-3, WL-33, 

WL-28.

18. The goshawk nest site in Unit 15 will require a seasonal restriction on 

disturbing operations during the period of March 1 – August 31. 

Units 12, 13, 14, 15.

Snags

19. All existing snags would remain except where snags must be felled for 

roads, log landings, or occupational safety (including safety during logging 

and burning operations). Timber Sale Administrators would design 

harvest operations to avoid snags by locating skid trails and landings away 

from them, where possible. If snags need to be felled, they are to be 

retained for down wood. Felled snags may be moved off roads and 

landings, but not removed from the site. 

To Prevent the Introduction and Spread of Invasive Plants

20. Use clean-equipment contract clauses (local and regional) to minimize risk 

of introduction and spread of invasive plant species by contractors, for 

actions that operate outside the limits of the road prism (i.e. bulldozers, 

skidders, other logging equipment) prior to entering National Forest 

System Lands.

LRMP standard 

(Invasive Plant ROD 

2005) 

21. Any fill materials should be gathered only at weed-free quarries or other 

weed-free source sites.

LRMP standard 

(Invasive Plant ROD 

2005) 

22. Minimize soil disturbance and retain native vegetation, in and around Standard prevention 
Record of Decision

Page 23 of 28 

project activity areas, to the extent possible consistent with project 

objectives.

practice

To Preserve Visual Quality 

The following design features apply to Units 21 and 22, which lie adjacent to the Scenic Views Management Area 

(Partial Retention Foreground), just to the west of the EXF project boundary.

23. Design fuel and vegetation units to minimize ground disturbance and 

damage to vegetation in units adjacent to partial retention foreground areas 

(first 150 feet of western boundary). 

These measures will 

ensure the scenery 

management 

objectives for views

from nearby 

recreation sites, such 

as Crane Prairie 

Reservoir are met by 

minimizing visual 

changes at the 

boundary. 

24. Flush cut stumps to less than 6 inches in height within the first 150 feet of 

western boundary in units adjacent to partial retention foreground areas.

25. Clean-up activities in units adjacent to partial retention foreground areas, 

including landings, skid trails, and slash piles, should be completed within 

two years post-treatment.

26. Locate slash piles for burning in units that will minimize scorching 

adjacent to partial retention foreground areas. Limit live crown scorch to 

< 1/3 tree height. Locate grapple piles on logging facilities. 

27. Remove visible flagging when unit activities are completed.

To Protect Cultural Resources

28. Coordinate with District Archaeologist during implementation so that 

project activities avoid the known cultural resource site.

Avoidance per Regional 

Programmatic 

Agreement

29. In the event that previously unknown sites or artifacts are found during 

project implementation, they will be flagged and operations in the area 

avoided until an archaeologist is consulted

Monitoring Common to Both Action Alternatives

Large Tree/ Snag/ Log Retention

This monitoring is proposed in order to assess the validity of some assumptions made about effects of 

prescribed fire on large live ponderosa pine, snag, and logs. There has been considerable discussions 

as to the effects of thinning, prescribed burning and the combination on the ultimate creation or 

removal of these stand elements; most recently in Harrod et al. (2009) showing large tree mortality 

(snag creation), and loss of existing snags (falling over to become logs) occurring most often in a 

combination thinning and prescribed burning (spring burning) treatment. 

Although past local practices have not shown this type of direct correlation, there is the opportunity 

under this project to gather local data on this topic. In 2007, pre-treatment plots were established that 

recorded the number, species, and size (diameter) of the live trees, snags and logs within the project 

area. These same plots would be examined post-treatments to determine large tree, snag and log 

retention. 

Monitoring Element: Number, species, and size of individual trees, snags, and logs on tenth of an 

acres plots established within the various treatment blocks.
Record of Decision

Page 24 of 28

Type of Monitoring: Implementation Monitoring/Validation Monitoring 

Methods/Thresholds: Stand exam procedures used during the establishment and data gathering pretreatment. Comparisons of data would then be made. 

Frequency/Duration/Required action: Once after the completion of all treatments. 

Responsibility: Silviculturist, Wildlife Biologist, Fuels Planner

Unintended OHV Use

This monitoring is proposed in order to assess the potential that creation of firelines and temporary 

roads would attract OHV use post-project implementation. Although the temporary roads would be 

obliterated, and fire lines will be somewhat disguised by pulling brush over them, the “footprint” of 

these roads, as well as the ASV-created firelines would remain possibly attracting OHV use in the 

particular area that it is not currently occurring.

Monitoring Element: Presence/absence of OHV evidence (e.g. tire tracks, newly churned soil)

Type of Monitoring: Implementation Monitoring

Methods/Thresholds: Visual examination of firelines and temporary roads post-project 

implementation. Evidence of use may warrant signage and patrol to ensure compliance with Access 

and Travel Management Plan, and Experimental Forest goals and objectives.

Frequency/Duration/Required action: Two to three years after the completion of all treatments. 

Responsibility: Roads Manager, Recreation/OHV specialist, Wildlife Biologist, Fuels Planner.

Soils

Monitoring is proposed to ensure the selected alternative, including mitigation measures, are properly 

implemented on the ground as designed and achieve the desired results. 

Soil Quality Objective: To determine if post-project subsoiling mitigation was effectively 

accomplished and reduced the extent of detrimentally compacted soil in a representative sample of EIS 

Units. 

Monitoring Elements: Surface area treated on temporary roads and primary logging facilities. 

Area of Consideration: Individual activity areas (EIS Units).

Suggested Methodology: Combination of visual survey and shovel probing. 

Invasive Plants / Noxious Weeds

Monitoring is proposed to ensure the selected alternative, including mitigation measures are properly 

implemented on the ground for the prevention of invasive plant introduction into an area that currently 

has none. To determine if prevention measures have effectively prevented introduction of invasive 

plant species during project implementation.

Monitoring Elements: Presence of invasive plants or noxious weeds. 

Area of Consideration: Individual activity area (EIS units), landings, roads used for hauling or 

equipment movement. 

Suggested Methodology: Visual survey. Inspect activity areas and travel routes annually during field 

season.
Record of Decision

Page 25 of 28 

 Figure A-2. Deschutes Forest Plan Management Areas
Record of Decision

Page 26 of 28

 Figure A-3. Northwest Forest Plan Land Allocations.
Record of Decision

Page 27 of 28 

Figure A-4. Project Area in Relation to the Sheridan Late Successional Reserve.
Record of Decision

Page 28 of 28