United States Department of Agriculture

Record of Decision 

Magone Project and Forest Plan 

Amendment #81 

Grant County, Oregon 

Forest Service Malheur National Forest Blue Mountain Ranger District May 2017 
In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights 

regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions 

participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, 

color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, 

disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance 

program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or 

activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint 

filing deadlines vary by program or incident. 

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information 

(e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible 

Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the 

Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available 

in languages other than English. 

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint 

Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any 

USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information 

requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your 

completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the 

Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; 

(2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: program.intake@usda.gov. 

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
Record of Decision 

i 

Table of Contents 

Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................1

Project Location ............................................................................................................................................2

Purpose and Need ..........................................................................................................................................2

Decision .........................................................................................................................................................3

Silviculture Treatments .............................................................................................................................6

Prescribed Burning and Unplanned Ignitions ...........................................................................................9

Road Activities ........................................................................................................................................ 10

Road Use, Road Maintenance, and Temporary Road Construction .................................................... 10

Road System Changes ......................................................................................................................... 11

Confirmation of Past Administratively Closed Roads ........................................................................ 12

Recreation Opportunity Developments ................................................................................................... 12

Trail Developments ............................................................................................................................. 12

Interpretive Signs ................................................................................................................................ 18

Boat Dock and Mooring ...................................................................................................................... 19

Magone Lake Restoration Activities ....................................................................................................... 19

Project Design Criteria ............................................................................................................................ 20

Monitoring .............................................................................................................................................. 20

Silviculture .......................................................................................................................................... 20

Botany ................................................................................................................................................. 20

Forest Plan Amendments ........................................................................................................................ 21

Dedicated Old Growth Unit Changes .................................................................................................. 21

Reduce Summer Range, Winter Range (Management Area 4A), and Wildlife Emphasis Area 

(Management Area 21) Cover below Malheur Forest Plan Standards ................................................ 22

Rationale for the Decision ........................................................................................................................... 22

Meeting the Purpose and Need for Action .............................................................................................. 23

Forest Structure, Composition, and Density ........................................................................................ 23

Fuel Loading ........................................................................................................................................ 23

Habitat for Fish and Wildlife Species ................................................................................................. 24

Roadless Area Characteristics in the Nipple Butte Inventoried Roadless Area .................................. 25

Social Values and Opportunities ......................................................................................................... 25

Consideration of Public and Other Agency Comments .......................................................................... 26

Consideration of Issues and Concerns .................................................................................................... 27

Road Closures and Decommissioning ................................................................................................. 27

Activities within the Nipple Butte Inventoried Roadless Area ........................................................... 27

Recreation developments ..................................................................................................................... 28

Level and effects of silviculture treatments ......................................................................................... 28

Forest Plan Amendments ..................................................................................................................... 28

Forest Plan Amendment Findings under the 2012 Planning Rule .......................................................... 29

Dedicated Old Growth Unit Changes .................................................................................................. 31

Reduce Summer Range, Winter Range, and Wildlife Emphasis Area (Management Area 21) Cover 

below Malheur Forest Plan Standards ................................................................................................. 38

Findings Required by Other Laws and Regulations................................................................................ 44

National Forest Management Act ........................................................................................................ 44

Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act ....................................................................................................... 44

Malheur Forest Plan, as Amended ....................................................................................................... 44

Clean Air Act ....................................................................................................................................... 45

Clean Water Act .................................................................................................................................. 45

Floodplains (Executive Order 11988) and Wetlands (Executive Order 11990) .................................. 45
Magone Project 

ii 

Endangered Species Act, Region 6 Sensitive Species, Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act, and Facilitation of Hunting Heritage and Wildlife Conservation (Executive Order 

13443) ................................................................................................................................................. 45

Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Executive Order 13186 ..................................................................... 46

National Historic Preservation Act ..................................................................................................... 46

Roadless Area Conservation Rule ....................................................................................................... 46

Roads Analysis .................................................................................................................................... 48

Environmental Justice and Civil Rights .............................................................................................. 49

Administrative Procedures Act and Grant County Plans .................................................................... 49

Other Required Findings and Disclosures .......................................................................................... 50

Alternatives Considered .............................................................................................................................. 50

Alternative 1 (No Action) ....................................................................................................................... 50

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) ............................................................................................................. 51

Alternative 3 ........................................................................................................................................... 53

Alternative 4 ........................................................................................................................................... 54

Environmentally Preferred Alternative ................................................................................................... 55

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study ............................................................... 56

Public Involvement and Consultation with Government Agencies and Tribes .......................................... 56

Collaboration .......................................................................................................................................... 56

Public Scoping ........................................................................................................................................ 57

Public Comment Period .......................................................................................................................... 57

Objection Period ..................................................................................................................................... 58

Tribal Government and State Historic Preservation Office Consultation .............................................. 58

Listed Species Consultation .................................................................................................................... 58

State and County Government ................................................................................................................ 58

Implementation ........................................................................................................................................... 59

Contact Information / Further Information ................................................................................................. 59

Responsible Official .................................................................................................................................... 60

References ................................................................................................................................................... 61

List of Tables 

Table 1. Summary of authorized activities ................................................................................................... 4

Table 2. Prescribed burn blocks .................................................................................................................. 10

Table 3. Hiking, bicycle, and horse trails ................................................................................................... 16

Table 4. Existing trails to un-designate ....................................................................................................... 17

Table 5. Comparison of existing dedicated old growth (DOGs) and replacement old growth (ROGs) with 

proposed changes, in relation to Malheur Forest Plan standards ........................................................ 21

Appendices 

Appendix A – Project Activity Tables 

Appendix B – Maps 

Appendix C – Project Design Criteria 

Appendix D – Review of Grant County Clerk’s Certification of County Initiative #12-57 
Record of Decision 

1 

Introduction 

The Magone Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) is incorporated by reference and 

documents and analyzes a proposal to apply silviculture treatments, prescribed burning and 

unplanned ignitions1

, road activities, recreation opportunity improvements, and Magone Lake 

restoration activities within the 27,000-acre2

 Magone project planning area3. Land treated within 

the 27,000 acres are those meeting criteria disclosed within the Magone FEIS; approximately 52 

percent of the project planning area will receive silvicultural treatments and up to 100 percent of 

the project planning area will be treated with prescribed burning (these areas overlap). 

This final record of decision (ROD) is based on a review of the Magone FEIS, specialist reports, 

and related scientific literature, the Malheur National Forest Land and Resource Management 

Plan (Malheur Forest Plan) (USDA Forest Service 1990a), as amended, and the response to public 

comments received during the February/March 2015 scoping period and the February/March 

2016 opportunity to comment on the Magone Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). The 

Magone FEIS is available for public review at the Malheur National Forest Supervisor’s 

Office/Blue Mountain Ranger District Office located in John Day, Oregon and on the Malheur 

National Forest’s website at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=44907. The project record 

is available upon request, and contains information considered in the analysis and decision. The 

project record includes the Malheur Forest Plan, specialist reports, and other applicable guidance, 

data, and information. 

The Magone project planning area is one of the planning areas identified for accelerated 

restoration on the Malheur National Forest. The project was developed in a collaborative setting 

with the Blue Mountains Forest Partners (BMFP), tribes, and public stakeholders (see the 

Magone FEIS chapter 1, Background and Public Involvement sections, pages 29 and 50-51). An 

interdisciplinary team gathered information at a watershed scale, and used that information to 

develop a suite of activities to improve resource resiliency, processes, and functions of the 

Magone project planning area. The team brought forward a variety of activities as potential 

actions that would move the planning area towards its desired future condition. 

I am using three tools to authorize restoration activities in the Magone project planning area in 

compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): the Magone FEIS and ROD, the 

2014 Aquatic Restoration Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact (DN/FONSI) 

and Environmental Assessment (EA), and a future allotment management plan. All project 

activities currently identified within the Magone Project were analyzed in the Magone FEIS to 

disclose the effects of these activities. The Aquatic Restoration Decision allows implementation 

of activities that are consistent with the 17 aquatic restoration categories described in that 

decision. Aquatic restoration projects to be authorized under the Aquatic Restoration Decision 

were considered as reasonably foreseeable future activities in the Magone FEIS, and the 

 

1

 Unplanned ignitions could be managed to achieve prescribed burning objectives in the Magone project 

planning area if they meet specific management criteria (e.g., weather outlook, management area 

designation, available containment lines, etc.) and resource objectives. 2

 Although the Magone project planning area is approximately 27,000 acres, the overall treatment area for 

underburning is 28,500 acres to allow for expanding prescribed fire boundaries to natural fuel breaks to 

increase firefighter safety and limit resource damage created by constructing new containment lines. 3

 The term project planning area is used to describe the overall area of consideration that was reviewed 

for the development of treatment needs and opportunities. Project areas are defined as the areas within the 

broader project planning area where activities are being proposed and will occur. 
Magone Project 

2 

cumulative effects of these activities were analyzed. For a general description of aquatic 

restoration activities that are foreseeable see Magone FEIS, pages 123-129. Implementation of 

these activities would be coordinated with implementation of activities authorized under this 

decision. The Forest is currently seeking, and is likely to receive, funding for these projects. The 

Magone Project ROD does not authorize range projects that influence allotment management 

plans. Decisions about allotment management planning will follow in subsequent NEPA at a later 

date. I am utilizing these three tools to implement landscape restoration activities within the 

Magone project planning area. 

Project Location 

The Magone Project is located on the Blue Mountain Ranger District within the Malheur National 

Forest. The project planning area is located in Grant County approximately seven miles north of 

the town of John Day, Oregon. The Magone project planning area encompasses approximately 

27,000 acres in the Grub Creek and East Fork Beech Creek subwatersheds that drain into the 

Upper John Day River. The main road access to the project planning area is via County Road 18 

off US Highway 26 from east of the project planning area and County Road 18 off US Highway 

395 from the west. See Magone ROD Appendix B – Project Maps, Map 1. 

The legal description for the project planning area is (township, range, and sections): 

 Township 11 South, Range 31 East, sections 25-29, 32-36; 

 T. 11 S., R. 32 E., sec. 30-32; 

 T. 12 S., R. 31 E., sec. 1-5, 8-12, 13-15, 17-24; 

 T. 12 S., R. 32 E., sec. 5-11, 15-20, Willamette Meridian. 

Purpose and Need 

The purpose and need for the Magone Project was developed by comparing the management 

objectives and desired conditions in the Malheur Forest Plan to the existing conditions in the 

project planning area related to forest resiliency and function. Where plan information was not 

explicit, best available science and local research were utilized in a collaborative setting with 

stakeholders. 

The overall purpose of this project is to restore forest resiliency by reestablishing and restoring 

forest structure and pattern, vegetation composition and diversity, and riparian communities to 

conditions that are more resilient to natural disturbance processes, including wildfire. Comparison 

of the existing and desired future condition indicates the specific needs to: 

 Restore forest structure, composition, and density toward more resistant and resilient 

vegetative conditions, given the historical fire regime. 

 Reduce the fuel loadings, including the density and horizontal and vertical connectivity 

of standing vegetation, surface fuels, and/or ladder fuels to restore characteristics of 

ecosystem composition and structure resilient to uncharacteristic wildfire effects within 

the project planning area, including the Nipple Butte IRA and wildland urban interface 

(WUI). Also, reduce fuels along County Road 18, County Road 32, Forest Service road 

(FSR) 36, FSR 3618, FSR 3640, FSR 3947, and FSR 3620, which are identified as 

escape corridors from Magone Lake in the Grant County Community Fire Protection 

Plan. 
Record of Decision 

3 

 Maintain or improve habitat for fish and wildlife species present in the project planning 

area. 

 Provide for a variety of social values and opportunities in the watershed, including 

availability of traditional use plants (including huckleberries), a variety of wood products 

(including merchantable sawtimber and post and poles), grazing, enhanced recreation 

experiences around Magone Lake, and forest management employment opportunities to 

help maintain and improve community stability and infrastructure, recreational 

opportunities, and a safe road system that moves toward current public access and 

resource management objectives. 

 Improve one or more of the nine roadless area characteristics (as defined by the 2001 

Roadless Area Conservation Rule) within the Nipple Butte IRA. 

See Magone FEIS (pages 31-47) for a full description of the Magone Project’s purpose and need, 

existing condition, and desired future condition. 

Decision 

This section of the final record of decision (ROD) documents my decision and rationale in the 

selection of management activities for the Magone Project described in the January 2017 Final 

Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) titled Magone Project. I am the responsible official for 

this project. The scope of my decision is limited to the specific silviculture and fuels treatments, 

prescribed burning, road activities, recreation opportunity developments, Magone Lake 

restoration activities, and forest plan amendments described in the Magone FEIS and this ROD. 

On a landscape scale, the project works toward meeting Malheur Forest Plan goals and objectives 

by moving forest stands toward the natural range of variability and restoring forest resiliency by 

reestablishing and restoring forest structure and pattern, and vegetation composition and diversity 

to conditions that are more resilient to natural disturbance processes. The decision I am making is 

for the site-specific Magone Project for the Magone project planning area. This decision does not 

preclude the need for future decisions to help meet the desired conditions for the Magone project 

planning area. 

Based on my review of the Magone FEIS, which includes three action alternatives and the no 

action alternative, I have decided to authorize a combination of the activities described in 

alternatives 2 and 3 as described below under each activity heading. This alternative will be 

referred to as alternative 3 (modified). This decision is within the scope of the effects analyzed in 

the Magone FEIS because the decision is within (i.e., less than) the maximum environmental 

impacts analyzed in alternative 3. Compared to alternative 3, there would be 0.4 miles fewer 

temporary roads constructed, fewer road system changes, 70 fewer miles of new trail 

construction, and one less trailhead constructed. The rationale for these changes is discussed in 

more detail by proposed action type. also considered the Silviculture; Fire, Fuels, and Air Quality; 

Soils; Watershed; Aquatic Resources; Wildlife; Botanical Resources; Range; Non-native Invasive 

Plants; Heritage; Recreation; Visuals; Economics; Roads; and Inventoried Roadless Areas and 

Other Undeveloped Lands reports; and other environmental documents located in the Magone 

project record when making my decision. 

In addition, the following modifications were made to this ROD between draft and final, based on 

input received during the 45-day objection filing period and objection resolution meetings: 

 Clarified that all biomass from the non-commercial juniper thinning treatments in the 

Nipple Butte IRA would remain on site and would not be removed with motorized 
Magone Project 

4 

equipment. In addition, all non-commercial juniper thinning in the Nipple Butte IRA 

would be done by hand using chainsaws. 

 Clarified that commercial thinning within existing plantations in the Nipple Butte IRA in 

units 755R, 766R, 776R, and 787R would be harvested as described in the Magone FEIS 

utilizing the existing road system; no temporary roads would be constructed. 

 Modified treatment for several commercial and non-commercial thinning units (151R, 

757R, 792R, and 799R) within the Nipple Butte IRA that are not located in plantations as 

follows: 

o Split the units into commercial and non-commercial thinning and noncommercial thinning only units. See ROD Appendix B – Maps, Map 2. 

o Inside the commercial and non-commercial thinning units: Remove all trees less 

than 21 inches diameter at breast height (DBH) within 1.5 times the dripline of 

all legacy trees. Outside the 1.5 times the dripline, implement the silvicultural 

prescription with a 16-inch DBH limit. 

o Inside the non-commercial thinning only units: Thin these areas utilizing the noncommercial methods described in the Magone FEIS. 

 Added more specific information on how comments from the Grant County Court were 

considered in the Public Involvement and Consultation with Government Agencies and 

Tribes, State and County Government section. 

 Correct the reference to the Grant County Natural Resource Plan and include the full 

judge’s text in the final ROD. 

 Clarify the project’s use of energy in the final ROD. 

 Added clarity about the ability to fund projects authorized under the Aquatic Restoration 

Decision. 

 Changed the Magone Lake Restoration Activities from a 2 to 3 phase approach for 

placing fish sticks and cribs in the lake. 

Table 1 provides a summary of the activities selected in this decision. 

Table 1. Summary of authorized activities 

Project activity Authorized activities Portion of authorized 

activities that would occur 

within the Nipple Butte 

Inventoried Roadless Area 

Silviculture treatments 14,144 acres, 353 units 3,919 acres 

Commercial harvest (included within 

silviculture treatment acres) 

7,135 acres, 163 units 275 acres 

Prescribed burning 28,500 acres (11,300 acres in the 

Nipple Butte IRA would be fall 

only planned ignitions) 

10,112 acres (1,405 acres 

spring or fall, and 8,707 

acres fall only underburning) 

Miles of temporary road construction 11.7 miles, 44 road segments 

Road maintenance for haul 98.2 miles, 104 road segments 

Closed roads temporarily opened for 

haul 

46.9 miles, 68 road segments 

Miles of new road closures 1.1 miles, 4 road segments 0.2 miles 

Miles of road decommissioning 0.3 miles, 1 road segment 

Miles of past administratively closed 

roads to be confirmed as closed 

8.34 miles, 12 road segments 

New trails 26.3 miles 7.2 miles of hiking/biking 

trails and 0.4 miles of hiking 

only trail 

Existing trails to un-designate 3.9 miles 
Record of Decision 

5 

Project activity Authorized activities Portion of authorized 

activities that would occur 

within the Nipple Butte 

Inventoried Roadless Area 

Accessible trail development Make existing trail from Magone 

campground to north end of lake 

accessible (approximately 0.2 

miles of trail improvement). 

Develop a new day use site on 

north side of lake (at the end of 

this trail improvement) with picnic 

table and interpretive sign. 

Trailhead developments Improve existing Nipple Butte, 

Lake Butte, and Tinker Creek 

trailheads. Construct new 

trailhead near the junction of FSR 

3618064 and 3618125 

(Prohibition trailhead). 

Interpretive signs Place interpretive signs: along 

Slide Trail about the slide the 

created Magone Lake; on east 

side of Magone Lake about the 

slide that created Magone Lake; 

at Four Corners about fire, 

heritage, range, and vegetation 

types in the area; and on north 

side of Magone Lake about 

beaver activity. 

Day use boat dock (southwest 

corner of lake) 

Modify existing to be more 

functional and with a more rustic 

appearance. 

Campground boat mooring 

(northwest corner of lake) 

Replace with handicap accessible 

boat mooring. 

Fish sticks Place 70-100 fish sticks in singles 

and clusters of 5-7 sticks of trees 

mostly 8-12 inches DBH. These 

will be added in phases 1 and 2 of 

the 3-phase approach and 

monitoring will be conducted 

between placements to ensure 

that project design criteria are 

followed. 

Fish cribs Place 15-20 fish cribs throughout 

lake. These will be placed in 

phase 3 of a 3-phase approach. 

Note on terminology used in this document – In an attempt to be open and transparent about 

the rationale for my decision, I would like to clarify some of the key terminology. Historically, 

treatments were described utilizing a set of terms describing very specific actions and purposes. 

“Commercial” treatments implied that we were treating the area for the sole purpose of gaining a 

commercial product. “Pre-commercial” or “non-commercial” treatments implied that during this 

entry, a commercial product would not be produced but at some later date a commercial product 

would result. Despite utilizing the new best available science to propose treating certain areas for 

reasons of forest ecology, long-term health, and resiliency, we have been slow in developing new 

terms to match our intent and have continued using the established terms. This has created 

misunderstandings regarding the reasons for the treatments and the social acceptance of such 

treatments. This has become very apparent in the Magone planning area. The Nipple Butte 
Magone Project 

6 

Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA) has treatments intended to bring the area back within its natural 

range of variability and to restore the resiliency of the landscape. These actions have been called 

“non-commercial thinning” due to the fact that they propose the cutting of typically smallerdiameter trees that have no commercial value; almost all of this material would be left on site 

except in a few areas that are located along existing roads in the IRA. It is not the intent to reenter 

these areas in the future to remove a commercial product. We are working to develop better terms 

for future projects, but for this document, all prescriptions that have “commercial” in their title 

should be understood as being done to restore landscape resiliency first. Even when commercial 

byproducts result from these actions, funds generated would be applied toward other restoration 

goals for the area. 

Silviculture Treatments 

My decision will authorize silvicultural treatments as described under alternative 3 in the Magone 

FEIS. This would produce an estimated 16 million board feet (MMBF) of commercial, noncommercial, post and pole, and biomass volume; approximately 7 to 10 MMBF of the total 16 

MMBF would be from commercial thinning. Please note that no trees ≥21 inches diameter at 

breast height (DBH) may be harvested as part of the Magone Project. The following silvicultural 

treatments will be implemented: 

Commercial and non-commercial thinning (5,805 acres, 140 units): This prescription will be 

implemented where the existing stand is overstocked to the point where tree vigor is declining, 

predisposing the stand to insect attack and uncharacteristic fire events that can occur due to 

buildup of fuels and crown density. 

In Warm Dry ponderosa pine stands, variable density thinning is generally to be applied from 

below. Smaller trees will be removed and larger trees retained. Leave patches will comprise 5 to 

15 percent of a unit, and openings will be created that are 1⁄4 to 2 acres in size to mimic historical 

fire patterns. A follow-up non-commercial thinning will occur where there are sufficient small 

trees remaining after commercial thinning. 

Past harvest and fire suppression activities have led to a shift in species composition compared 

with historical conditions. The Oregon Lumber Company owned and managed a majority of the 

property outside of the Nipple Butte IRA until the 1940s. Fires in the area have been suppressed, 

keeping most of them small. This has led to an abundance of ingrowth of young stands that are 

denser than what would have occurred naturally. Thinning activities will remove species that 

would historically have been a smaller percentage of these stands, and allow the pine and larch 

components to start filling their previous niche. 

An important aspect of thinning throughout the project planning area is to reduce fuel loading 

along major routes of travel to and around the Magone Lake recreational area. There are also 

approximately 27 miles of common boundary with private land in the project planning area, so 

thinning stocking levels to a point where crown fires will be less likely could prevent large fires 

from spreading quickly between ownership boundaries. 

 Mountain mahogany and bitterbrush: Some commercial and non-commercial thinning 

units have existing populations of mountain mahogany and bitterbrush. Thinning the 

competing conifer encroachment will help release these browse species. 

 Aspen: Some commercial and non-commercial thinning units have existing populations 

of aspen. Conifers that have encroached into the aspen stands and are competing with the 

aspen will be thinned to release the aspen. 
Record of Decision 

7 

Commercial and non-commercial thinning, leave stand denser (816 acres, 15 units): Some 

commercial thinning in areas of importance for elk will be thinned to a heavier stocking level for 

cover retention. Openings of 1⁄4 to 2 acres would be created to encourage growth of forage 

species. Treatment will be similar to the commercial and non-commercial thinning, except the 

total basal area remaining will be approximately 90 square feet to the acre, as compared with 40 

to 60 square feet to the acre being left with most other thinning treatments. 

Commercial and non-commercial thinning, with re-designation from dedicated old growth 

(DOG) to replacement old growth (ROG) (223 acres, 4 units): These stands currently do not 

have old growth characteristics as described in the Malheur Forest Plan. These stands will be redesignated as replacement old growth and will be treated the same as described under the 

commercial and non-commercial thinning silvicultural treatment. Proposed activities will help 

develop old growth characteristics within these stands. 

Post and pole removal (291 acres, 4 units): In Warm Dry areas of lodgepole pine, grand fir, and 

ponderosa pine, the prescription will thin from below, removing posts and poles (smaller diameter 

trees) that are currently competing with older ponderosa pine in the stands. 

Non-commercial thinning (5,953 acres, 178 units): The objectives of non-commercial thinning 

are to reduce ladder fuels and to increase growth and vigor of remaining trees. The prescriptions 

for non-commercial thinning will favor a mix of early seral and late seral trees to promote the 

desired future species composition of the stands. 

Non-commercial thinning consists of treating non-merchantable sized trees (1 foot tall to 11 

inches diameter at breast height [DBH]) that do not meet commercial tree standards through 

manual and mechanical methods. Excess slash not utilized for products such as biomass and pole 

material, or not used in stream enhancement projects, will be hand piled and burned. Noncommercial thinning may occur in areas that are also commercially thinned as described above. 

These units include juniper removal treatment units with shallow soils (primarily in the Nipple 

Butte IRA); the following slash treatment description will be followed after thinning activities are 

complete: 

1. Piling of thinning slash will take place until 7 to 10 tons per acre of slash remain in the 

treatment unit. 

2. Piles will primarily be constructed from material in the zero to 8 inch size class on the 

large end. 

3. Tree boles, tree tops, and remaining limbs making up the 7 to 10 tons per acre of residual 

slash will be distributed in the unit to assist with slope stability. 

4. Scattered slash remaining in the treatment unit will be no more than 24 inches above 

ground level. 

5. Slash piles will meet normal piling standards (6 feet by 6 feet by 5 feet) with some larger 

piles being constructed for wildlife habitat enhancement; approximately 1 to 2 larger 

piles will be left in each treatment unit and no larger piles may be left if there are fuel 

loading concerns. These larger piles will not be burned. 

6. To the extent practicable, piles will be placed so as to minimize damage to ground cover, 

especially living plants. This will help protect highly-erodible soils. 

7. To the extent practicable, piles will be burned under conditions that will limit the 

likelihood of the pile being 100 percent consumed. This will help protect highly-erodible 

soils. 
Magone Project 

8 

Non-commercial thinning, with designation as ROG (1,039 acres, 5 units): Stands designated 

as ROG have some old growth characteristics. Proposed activities will help develop old growth 

characteristics within the stands. Treatments in theses stands will be the same as described under 

non-commercial thinning. 

Conifer reduction in aspen stands (17 acres, 7 units): Seven aspen stands of various sizes have 

been identified for restoration treatments comprising approximately 18 acres. Individual units are 

listed in Magone ROD Appendix A – Project Activity Tables. See also Magone ROD Appendix B, 

Map 3. Three actions are proposed to protect aspen stands and improve aspen regeneration and 

vigor: 1) thin conifer trees that have grown into aspen stands to reduce competition for light and 

water, 2) construct fences around aspen stands to reduce grazing pressures from livestock and 

wildlife, and 3) underburn in the aspen stands that are in or next to a prescribed burning unit. 

Conifers will be felled up to within 150 feet of aspen suckers to encourage expansion of the 

stands. Conifers felled within riparian habitat conservation areas (RHCAs) will be felled into 

streams where feasible, left within the RHCA, or transported off-site for watershed restoration 

projects. Some trees cut from aspen stands that are outside of RHCAs and within commercial 

thinning units could be harvested as merchantable logs. Some conifers will be girdled and left as 

snags. Smaller diameter trees and slash will be hand piled and burned or left to provide a 

protective barrier from livestock and wildlife grazing. Encroaching lodgepole pine will be felled 

and may be used to construct buck and pole fences around aspen stands. The thinning and fencing 

will be done on a larger area than the existing stands, with the objective to expand the current 

stands. 

When prescribed burning is implemented in the project planning area, underburning will be 

allowed to back into some aspen stands. The underburning of an aspen stand will only occur if 

that stand is associated with a proposed prescribed burning unit and after it has been fenced to 

exclude browsing of the new suckers. Aspen stands will be enhanced by prescribed burning, 

which will stimulate new growth of aspen trees. 

Biomass removal (up to 10,392 acres): Many units proposed for silvicultural treatments 

described above might have enough small diameter material to be considered for biomass 

utilization. The potential for biomass removal is analyzed for all treatment units (excluding those 

in the Nipple Butte IRA that do not have existing road access). Biomass can be defined as pieces 

that are not large enough to have commercial sawlog value. Biomass removal from any specific 

unit will follow the guidelines of the designated prescription. This material may be used for pulp 

chips, co-generation of electricity, commercial fuel pellets, post and poles, and other nontraditional uses. This material may be removed during logging operations, by hand, or with small 

equipment such as all-terrain/utility-terrain vehicles, small excavators, or forwarders. For the 

most part, existing woody material on the ground is not suitable for biomass utilization and will 

be left on site for nutrient input to the soil, or will be piled and burned if in excessive amounts. 

Efforts will be made to stimulate local markets by utilizing woody biomass generated by this 

project rather than disposing of it by burning. Utilization is limited by the marginal economics of 

the products to areas accessible by ground-based skidding. 

Harvest Systems/Activity Fuels Treatments: Cut trees will be yarded to landing zones via 

tractor or skyline depending on topography. Skid trails, skyline corridors, and landing locations 

up to 1 to 2 acres in size will be determined before logging, and are subject to approval by the 

sale administrator. In landing zones, the vegetation will be cleared for equipment to prepare, deck, 

and load trees for hauling. No landing zones will be located within RHCAs. The areas proposed 
Record of Decision 

9 

for commercial thinning (7,165 acres, 163 units) will be yarded via tractor, skyline, or a 

combination as follows: 

 Tractor – 5,631 acres, 131 units 

 Skyline – 305 acres, 8 units 

 Tractor and skyline – 1,229 acres, 24 units 

Harvest systems and associated fuel treatments will occur as follows: 

 Whole tree yarding and/or cut to length, grapple piling and/or hand piling, and pile 

burning* – 7,165 acres, 163 units 

 Grapple piling and/or hand piling with pile burning – 3,249 acres, 104 units 

 Hand piling with pile burning only – 3,733 acres, 82 units 

*Units that are commercially treated will have the option to be either whole tree yarded or cut to 

length, and either grapple piled or hand piled. In order to move toward performance-based 

contracting, the contractor, with Forest Service oversight, will be allowed to determine the most 

appropriate logging method and fuels treatment to meet contract specifications (e.g., design 

criteria such as soil compaction or tons per acre of fuel left). 

See Magone ROD Appendix A – Project Activity Tables and Magone ROD Appendix B – Maps, 

Map 2. 

Prescribed Burning and Unplanned Ignitions 

Prescribed burning and unplanned ignitions are authorized as described in alternative 3 in the 

Magone FEIS. Prescribed fire will be used in both mechanically-treated and untreated stands as 

fire is re-introduced into the project planning area. Treated stands will see a combination of 

burning piled material and underburning. Stands not being mechanically treated will be managed 

primarily with the use of prescribed burning. As conditions and stand characteristics allow, 

unplanned ignitions within the planning area will be used to meet the objectives of prescribed 

burning. 

 Underburning up to 28,500 acres. This includes approximately 1,400 acres outside of the 

project planning area boundary. Expanding these prescribed fire boundaries to natural 

fuel breaks increases firefighter safety and limits resource damage created by 

constructing new containment lines. 

o Prescribed burning will be conducted primarily in the spring or fall on up to 

17,200 acres. However, the effects of climate change could create environmental 

conditions suitable for prescribed burning during the winter or summer as well. 

The exception will be burn blocks 6 and 7 where planned ignitions are likely to 

only occur in the fall on 11,300 acres (Table 2). 

o Up to 9,600 acres of underburning will be within designated wildland-urban 

interface. This includes 300 acres outside the project planning area boundary. 

 Pile burning in silviculture treatments units will include up to approximately 13,400 

acres. Acres that will be pile burned are also included in (i.e., overlap with) the total 

underburning acres. 

Unplanned ignitions could be managed to achieve prescribed burning objectives in the Magone 

project planning area if they meet specific management criteria (e.g., weather outlook, 

management area designation, available containment lines, etc.) and resource objectives. 
Magone Project 

10 

Table 2 shows the acreages for the burn blocks. See Magone ROD Appendix B – Maps, Map 3 to 

view location of the various burn blocks in the Magone project planning area. 

Table 2. Prescribed burn blocks 

Burn block Acres Season of planned ignitions* 

Block 1 1,400 acres Winter, spring, summer, or fall 

Block 2 7,400 acres Winter, spring, summer, or fall 

Block 3 2,700 acres Winter, spring, summer, or fall 

Block 4 1,000 acres Winter, spring, summer, or fall 

Block 5 3,600 acres Winter, spring, summer, or fall 

Block 6 6,300 acres Fall only 

Block 7 4,900 acres Fall only 

Block 8 1,200 acres Winter, spring, summer, or fall 

Total 28,500 acres *unplanned ignitions can be used any season

Road Activities 

Roads will be utilized in the project planning area to provide access for treatment activities. 

General road maintenance, temporary road construction, temporary opening of closed roads for 

log haul, closing of currently open roads, and the decommissioning of roads are authorized. 

Temporary road construction and temporarily opening closed roads will occur to provide 

adequate access for harvest and fuel reduction treatments. See Magone ROD Appendix B – Maps, 

Maps 2 and 4. 

Road Use, Road Maintenance, and Temporary Road Construction 

Road use, road maintenance, and temporary road construction are authorized as described in 

alternative 3 of the Magone FEIS, except for two temporary road segments (Temp 2 and 29) 

totaling 0.4 miles that are being dropped in this decision. 

Road maintenance for haul (98.2 miles, 104 road segments) will occur on maintenance level 1 

or 2 roads to provide safe access and adequate drainage. The following work is classified as 

maintenance: blading and shaping the roadbed, reshaping drain dips or grade sags, reshaping 

waterbars/cross ditches, spot rocking in the roadbed, brushing and removing danger trees, 

removing snow, minor realigning of road junctions, cleaning culverts, seeding, removing excess 

material from the roadbed, placing fill material in ruts in the road, and installation of minor 

drainage features. Some county roads will also be used for haul. 

Closed roads to be temporarily opened for haul (46.9 miles, 68 road segments): These roads 

will be temporarily opened for log haul, and then closed at the completion of the project. The 

closure will remain consistent with the intent of the original closure. Basic custodial maintenance 

will be performed to maintain adequate drainage and allow for future access. Their mileage is 

included above under road maintenance. 

Temporary road construction (11.7 miles, 44 road segments) will be necessary to access 

several timber harvest units. Temporary roads will be rehabilitated after use. Rehabilitation will 

eliminate future use of the road with the objective of restoring hydrological function. Temporary 

roads will be restored by some combination of the following to ensure that the road has adequate 

drainage and ground cover to prevent erosion, soil productivity is restored, the road is no longer 

drivable, and the road is not highly visible after approximately five years: 
Record of Decision 

11 

 Waterbarring as needed to restore natural drainage patterns. 

 Recontouring slopes (removing cut and fill slopes) and pulling berms from the edge of 

the road back onto the road. 

 Subsoiling (loosening) compact soils in a “J” pattern to a depth of approximately 16 

inches (unless prevented by bedrock or rock content of soils). 

 Planting or seeding disturbed areas with genetically appropriate native species that 

naturally occur in the project planning area to achieve a minimum of 35 percent ground 

cover. 

 Placing slash, boulders, and logs on the roadbed (where available). 

 Disguising the entrance with pieces of cull logs, tops of cut trees, rocks, or other natural 

debris to prevent vehicle use. 

There will be no construction of temporary roads outside the project planning area. 

Use of private roads to access silviculture units: There are several roads where easements exist 

or may be needed through private land to access and implement this project. 

See Magone ROD Appendix B – Maps, Map 2. 

Rock Pit Material Sources 

As analyzed under all three action alternatives in the Magone FEIS, some roads may require rock 

for spot-rocking wet areas. Rock pit material sources are located at, but not limited to: 

 Hog Creek: FSR 3940794 – Township 11 South, Range 31 East, Section 32, NW/NE 

 Huckleberry Borrow: FSR 3946085 – Township 11 South, Range 31 East, Section 8, 

NE/NW 

 Keeney Meadows: FSR 3940590 – Township 11 South, Range 31 East, Section 17, 

SE/SE 

 Forty Day: FSR 3945196 – Township 11 South, Range 31 East, Section 19, SE/NW 

Road System Changes 

Road system changes are authorized as described in alternative 2 of the Magone FEIS, except for 

Forest Service Roads (FSR) 1800760 (1 mile) and 3618125 (0.4 miles) would be maintained as 

open to maintain access to dispersed recreation sites and other recreational opportunities. 

Road decommissioning (0.3 miles, 1 road segment): FSR 1800933 is a currently open road that 

is not needed for future management and is proposed for decommissioning. There is no evidence 

of a designed roadway past the dispersed campsite. The segment of this road past the dispersed 

campsite will be permanently removed from the Forest transportation system. This road will be 

allowed to continue to naturally re-vegetate itself, with no on-the-ground work proposed. 

Close currently open roads (maintenance level [ML] 2 to ML 1) (1.1 miles, 4 road segments): 

Closure of roads desired to be kept on the system will occur, but road use will be limited to 

infrequent management and other permitted activities. Two of these road segments (0.8 miles) are 

already effectively closed on the ground. Closure of the other two roads (0.3 miles) may be by a 

physical barrier or gate, and by regulation. Basic custodial maintenance will be performed for 

future resource access, to prevent damage. Closed roads are to be left in a stable hydrologic state 

and are to be periodically maintained. 
Magone Project 

12 

See Magone ROD Appendix A – Project Activity Tables and Magone ROD Appendix B – Maps, 

Map 4. 

There are no known RS2477 claims for any roads proposed for access changes in the Magone 

project planning area. 

Confirmation of Past Administratively Closed Roads 

Within the Magone project planning area, there are road segments identified in the road system 

database as closed by previous administrative actions. These road segments, identified as ML 1, 

are included in this project so they can be documented as closed through a NEPA process. The 

existing conditions of these road segments were found to be currently overgrown with natural 

vegetation; physically blocked with a gate or earthen berm; the road prism is no longer visible; or 

the road prism has no physical closure barrier present. The Magone interdisciplinary team 

analyzed each road segment to determine its current use and future access need for the public and 

administration. Through this analysis, approximately 8.34 miles of road are proposed for official 

closure and long-term storage for future use and are listed in ROD Appendix A – Project Activity 

Tables. 

Recreation Opportunity Developments 

Trail Developments 

This decision authorizes a modified version of the alternative 3 trail system, with 70 miles fewer 

trails than described under that alternative, and with no OHV use designated on FSR 36 to Four 

Corners. Trails miles were reduced to minimize impacts to the Nipple Butte IRA and range 

permittee allotment management. Livestock management is strictly regulated due to the presence 

of the threatened steelhead and their critical habitat. The Malheur National Forest follows the 

grazing standards as listed in the Biological Opinion and Letters of Concurrence written by 

National Marine Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In order to achieve 

successful livestock management in accordance with the current regulations, livestock are pushed 

and drawn to the ridgetops, away from the critical habitat and sensitive areas. Many of the trails 

proposed under alternative 3 were in the same locations used by livestock away from critical 

habitat streams. As such, it was expected that usage of those trails would likely decrease the 

Forest’s ability to use grazing strategies that encourage effective management of livestock away 

from steelhead critical habitat (see Magone FEIS, Range section, pages 517-525). 

The objective of new trail developments is to meet the current public needs for a more broad 

recreation experience while on the Malheur National Forest, by creating and maintaining a variety 

of trail systems in the Magone project planning area. 

The expanded trail system would be centered on the Magone Lake developed area, which would 

be a starting point for campers and day-use visitors. There are several connecting trail options to 

provide for longer hikes, varied returns, and a more broad recreation experience. Development 

will include extending existing bicycle trails on currently closed roads and utilizing some open 

roads, as well as constructing new trails primarily for the purpose of connecting the trails that 

follow roads. The aim is to create worthy destinations and loop opportunities. All of the trails will 

be single-track bicycle and hiker trails, with measures such as trees or boulders placed to prevent 

any off-highway vehicle (OHV) and passenger car use. 
Record of Decision 

13 

Extensions to the existing hiker trails will be constructed to enhance the recreational opportunities 

for Magone Lake visitors. They will provide for longer hikes with loop opportunities, 

interpretation of Magone’s history and ecology, and access to an overlook area with views to 

Magone Lake, the Vinegar Hill-Indian Rock Scenic Area, the Strawberry Mountain Range, and 

the Aldrich Mountains. 

The new portions of bicycle trails will be constructed to meet single-track mountain biking trail 

standards, as specified by the International Mountain Biking Association (IMBA). These are 

defined by IMBA’s fundamental elements of a sustainable trail, which does not harm the 

environment, meets the needs of visitors, has small maintenance costs, and minimizes conflicts 

between different user groups. The trail building principles that will be used include creating 

rolling contour trails, which are characterized by gentle grade reversals, out-sloped tread, 

avoiding the fall-line, and avoiding flat “seats,” where trails would become puddles. In order to 

meet the fundamental elements and trail building principles described above, some flexibility in 

layout will be allowed, but the trail will stay within 50 feet to either side of this document’s 

mapped course. Before construction, trail layout will be marked with pin flags. The layout would 

be inspected by Forest Service employees for compliance with the Magone FEIS and ROD. Trails 

will be built both by hand and by a trail dozer, which is a narrow tilt-blade skid steer. Trails will 

be constructed with a 3 foot wide base. After construction, vegetation will be allowed to grow 

back in along the edges. The trails will be maintained at a width of 18 inches. At fence crossings, 

either gates or bicycle cattle guards will be used. Where gates are used, signage will be put up to 

instruct trail users to close the gate behind them. Signs will be put up for trail users at all road 

crossings to let them know they are about to cross a road. On the primary roads, which receive the 

heaviest vehicle traffic volume, signs will be put up for drivers alerting them to look for bikers 

and/or hikers crossing the road. At water crossings, log stringer trail bridges will be built by 

laying hewn log stringers over sills. For smaller crossings, single log stringers will be used. For 

larger water crossings, double log stringers with deck planks will be used. Trail crossings in MidColumbia River steelhead critical habitat will follow the PDCs described in Magone ROD 

Appendix C – Project Design Criteria. 

Bicycle trail construction, maintenance, funding, and organization of such activities will be done 

primarily by a local Grant County bicycle group, or other recreational group through a formal 

agreement. All the proposed trails will be designed as bicycle/hiker or hiker only, with motorized 

access prohibited. Engineering controls and education will be used foremost to prevent OHVs 

from accessing these trails; different uses (e.g., hiking, biking, OHV use) require different trail 

design and OHV use of a trail designed for hiking/biking would cause resource damage. Signage 

will be placed at trailheads to indicate the allowed modes of travel on the trails. Trail design 

techniques such as routing trails between large trees or logs, and using bicycle-width cattle guards 

at fence crossings will be used to discourage OHV use of the trails. The trails will not be designed 

for equestrian use, but will not disallow it except for on the hiker-only trails. Multiple-use trail 

etiquette information will be provided at trailheads. Motorized access will continue to be allowed 

on the existing general purpose Nipple Butte trail. 

The Behind Magone loop will be a new 1.0 mile loop on closed FSR 3618299 and FSR 

3618297, which will be connected with 0.3 miles of new construction, creating a loop opportunity 

off of the Behind Magone trail for families camping at Magone Lake Campground and other 

visitors. 

Behind Magone trail (closed FSR 3618245). The existing access point on FSR 3618 will be 

decommissioned (along with 0.7 miles of currently designated trail) to utilize the existing parking 
Magone Project 

14 

area for the Lake Butte trail (#B-5037) on the north side of FSR 3620 at the existing dispersed 

campsite. In addition, 0.6 miles of new trail construction will occur to connect the Behind 

Magone trail to the Lake Butte trail (FSR 3618 would need to be crossed). This will create 

superior loop opportunities and scenic destinations, including views of Magone Lake from a 

ridgetop. It will also create a destination trail system. The Behind Magone trail will also be linked 

to the Magone Lake trail through 0.9 miles of new trail construction. The Magone Lake trail will 

be extended to the southeast from the northeast most point of the trail, as well as two locations on 

the south end, to link to the Behind Magone trail. This will create a loop back to the boat ramp 

area. The total length of the Behind Magone trail will be 3.0 miles. A portion of the Magone Lake 

trail (from the boat ramp to the connection point near the outflow bridge) will be designated as 

bicycle trail (and improved for such use) in order to provide a loop connection opportunity for 

bicyclists using the Behind Magone trail. Signage will be placed just passed the junction to 

inform the public to not ride on the Magone Lake trail (the trail around the lake). 

East Fork Beech Creek Trail is a modified version of alternative 3, combined from segments of 

the East Fork Beech Creek, East Fork Beech Creek Cut-off, and Shortcut trails described in the 

Magone FEIS; these trails were altered to focus most new trail construction (and its impacts) to 

one range pasture. This trail is a 1.9 miles of new construction trail that provides a loop off of the 

Tinker Creek Loop. It crosses East Fork Beech Creek, FSR 36, and FSR 3600544. 

The Forest View trail is a 1.7 mile trail that is both new construction and on an existing road. It 

is a loop off of the Behind Magone trail, intended to create a loop extension, primarily for family 

recreationists coming over from the campground. It begins on FSR 3618263 for 0.4 miles near 

where the proposed new construction segment of the Behind Magone trail connects to the existing 

trail location. The Forest View trail traverses the slope on the west side of Tinker Creek canyon. 

The Lake Butte trail (#B-5037) would be extended 3.5 miles, and 3.2 miles of trail would be undesignated. The un-designated mileage would be the portion of trail that goes over FSR 1800243 

north of FSR 1800362, traverses County Road 18, and goes over FSR 1800279. (The portion of 

trail from the junction of FSR 1800296 going west to the Nipple Butte trail and from the junction 

of Lake Butte trail with FSR 1800279 would remain co-designated as a trail.) The route would 

then start at FSR 3618243, following FSR 3618362 to its end, and then follow a newly 

constructed trail for 1.4 miles up to Lake Butte where it will tie in with the Nipple Butte Trail. 

The total length of the Lake Butte trail when finished would be 3.5 miles. 

For the Low Slope trail, 0.4 miles of FSR 3620629 will be designated as a bicycle trail. It will 

provide excellent scenery and, along with the northern part of Round Top trail, create a loop 

opportunity for the Lake Butte route. 

The Magone Connector trail is a 0.2 mile new construction trail that provides a shortcut 

connection of the Magone Lake trail to the Behind Magone trail. It is intended to provide 

additional loop opportunities primarily for family users coming over from the campground. 

The Magone Slide trail (hiking only) is an addition to an existing trail that will extend to the 

north, looping around the top of the slide and back down to the beginning. This trail extension 

will create a longer hiking opportunity for campers and other Magone visitors, will provide for 

loop opportunities, and will traverse the overlook area with views over the slide, as well as views 

to Magone Lake, the Vinegar Hill-Indian Rock Scenic Area, the Strawberry Mountain Range, and 

the Aldrich Mountains. This trail extension (1.4 miles) will have an interpretive sign describing 

the history of the slide and a primitive bench placed at the top of the slide overlook, vastly 

improving the destination qualities of this hike. 
Record of Decision 

15 

The North Magone Connector trail is a 0.1 mile trail that connects the Behind Magone trail to 

the Magone Lake trail at the northeast corner of the lake. It will provide an opportunity for an 

expanded hiking loop. 

The Outer Loop trail is a 1.2 mile new construction trail that will provide another loop 

opportunity by connecting the Behind Magone Loop trail to the new construction segment of the 

Behind Magone trail. The Outer Loop trail will allow trail users to go further south on the Behind 

Magone trail complex without getting too far away from the Magone Lake Recreation area. 

Porcupine Trail is a 2.3 mile trail that starts near the Magone Campground at the junction of 

FSR 3618 and FSR 3618064, traveling on FSR 3618064 for 1.2 miles on FSR 3618064. The trail 

then travels east with 1.1 miles of new trail construction (0.8 miles of which are in the Nipple 

Butte IRA) into the Nipple Butte IRA to connect to FSR 1800760. 

The Prohibition Loop is a 1.3 mile road on trail loop off of the Porcupine Trail that traverses 

FSR 3618064. It is intended to provide an additional small loop opportunity for hikers and bikers. 

Round Top trail is a modified version of alternative 3, combined from segments of the Round 

Top and Central Connector trails described in the Magone FEIS; these trails were altered to focus 

most new trail construction (and its impacts) to one range pasture. This trail is a 3.7 mile (new 

construction) trail that goes through the central portion of the Magone project planning area. It 

starts at the junction of the Tinker Creek Trail, FSR 3618, and FSR 3620. The trail then winds its 

way south until it crosses FSR 3600663. It then works its way east and then south, crossing FSR 

3600663 again before connecting to the Tinker Creek Loop. 

The Tinker Creek Loop is a 4.4 mile loop off of the Round Top trail that traverses roads as well 

as new construction. It begins at the Round Top trail about 0.7 miles down the Round Top trail 

south of FSR 3620, where it meets the end of FSR 3620714. The trail follows FSR 3620714 to its 

junction with FSR 3600697, which it traverses to the south end of the road. It then continues on in 

new construction counter-clockwise and loops back to the north and joins FSR 3600697 again 

just west of its junction with FSR 3600663. 

Tinker Creek Trail is a 1.7 mile trail beginning at the junction of FSR 3618, FSR 3620, and the 

Round Top trail. It travels north on FSR 3620646, then west and south on FSR 1800311 until it 

connects into the Lake Butte trail. The Low Slope trail also connects into this trail approximately 

0.4 miles from its junction with FSR 3620. 

See Table 3 for the authorized trail’s construction phase, total length, miles of new trail 

construction, miles of trail to be co-designated on existing roads, and designation of user type. 
Magone Project 

16 

Table 3. Hiking, bicycle, and horse trails 

Trail Construction 

phase 

Total length 

(miles) 

Miles of new 

trail 

construction 

Miles of trail 

co-designated 

on existing 

road 

Trail 

designation 

Behind Magone Loop 1 1.0 0.3 0.7 Bicycle, foot, 

horse 

Behind Magone trail 1 1.5 1.5 0 Bicycle, foot, 

horse 

(except on 

the 0.7 miles 

connecting 

the Magone 

Lake and 

Outer Loop 

trails) 

East Fork Beech 

Creek trail 

3 1.9 1.9 0 Bicycle, foot, 

horse 

Forest View trail 1 1.7 1.3 0.4 Bicycle, foot, 

horse 

Lake Butte trail 1 3.5 1.4 2.1 Bicycle, foot, 

horse 

Low Slope trail N/A 0.4 0 0.4 Bicycle, foot, 

horse 

Magone Connector 

trail 

1 0.2 0.2 0 Foot 

Magone Slide trail 1 1.4 1.4 0 Foot 

North Magone 

Connector trail 

1 0.1 0.1 0 Foot 

Outer Loop trail 1 1.2 1.2 0 Bicycle, foot, 

horse 

Porcupine trail 2 2.3 1.1 1.2 Bicycle, foot, 

horse 

Prohibition Loop N/A 1.3 0 1.3 Bicycle, foot, 

horse 

Round Top trail 3 3.7 3.7 0 Bicycle, foot, 

horse 

Tinker Creek trail N/A 1.7 0.1 1.6 Bicycle, foot, 

horse 

Tinker Creek Loop 3 4.4 3.0 1.4 Bicycle, foot, 

horse 

Total 26.3 17.2 9.1

Trail construction will be authorized in three construction phases. Phase 1 trails may be 

constructed after this decision is signed. Between phases 1 and 2, then phases 2 and 3, the 

following conditions must be met before the next phase of trail construction is authorized by the 

Forest Supervisor: 

 Trail construction followed the project design criteria in Magone ROD Appendix C – 

Project Design Criteria. 

o Measure: Project design criteria were followed. 
Record of Decision 

17 

o Responsible person(s): recreation planner, botanist, invasive plant specialist, 

rangeland management specialist, soils scientist, hydrologist, and fisheries 

biologist (these are all of the specialists with project design criteria prescribed for 

trail construction). 

 Trail construction and use are having minimal impact to allotment management. 

o Measure: increase in range fences left open and “hot spots” in riparian areas from 

livestock being pushed down from trail areas to riparian areas. 

o Responsible person: recreation planner, rangeland management specialist. 

Several trails in the Magone project planning area will be un-designated (Table 4). 

Table 4. Existing trails to un-designate 

Trail Total length (miles) 

Trail on FSR 3618245 0.7 

Trail on FSR 1800243, County Road 18, and FSR 1800279 3.2 

Total 3.9

The purpose of un-designating the above listed trails on roads is to re-route the trails off of roads 

where the trail shares use with vehicular traffic, to improve safety and enhance recreational 

experiences. 

The Behind Magone trail follows FSR 3618245. Currently, there is no developed trailhead for the 

trail. The start of the trail is on a tight turn of FSR 3618 where it junctions with FSR 3618245. 

Passing motorists see only a gated road with a “closed” sign. There is parking space for one 

vehicle in front of the gate. Reaching this spot requires traversing FSR 3618, which is the paved 

primary access road to the Magone Lake Recreation Area, and poses a safety risk to 

recreationalist due to vehicular traffic. The solution is to move the start of the trail and build new 

trail that ties in with the road portion about 0.7 miles in. The first 0.7 miles of FSR 3618245 that 

are currently part of the Behind Magone trail would no longer be needed, and would thus be undesignated. The new start location will be directly across FSR 3618 from the Tinker Creek 

trailhead, which is the start of the Lake Butte trail. This will allow ample parking for those 

wanting to use the Behind Magone trail, with only the need to cross FSR 3618, rather than 

traveling on it. For those coming from the campground, the distance of travel needed on FSR 

3618 will be greatly reduced. Moreover, it would eliminate the need to be on the curvy stretch of 

the road where blind corners create a safety issue. 

As with the Behind Magone trail, the Lake Butte trail goes over roads (FSR 1800243 and County 

Road 18), presenting the same safety issue of mixing recreational use with vehicular traffic This 

problem can be solved by moving the Lake Butte trail over onto an alternate closed road, and 

constructing a new trail segment that would connect to Lake Butte and the Lake Butte trailhead. 

As a part of that change, some of the road segments that currently comprise the Lake Butte trail 

will not be needed, and would thus be un-designated. These segments include the portion of FSR 

1800243 north of its junction with FSR 3618362, a segment of County Road 18, and FSR 

1800279. 

Accessible Trail Development 

The accessible trail development is authorized as described in both alternatives 2 and 3 in the 

Magone FEIS. 
Magone Project 

18 

The portion of trail from the inlet bridge at Lake Creek to the northeast end will be designed to 

meet accessibility standards. The surface would be changed from dirt to bituminous surface with 

a wider width meeting accessibility standards. A picnic table will be placed adjacent to the trail 

and an interpretive sign will be installed. 

Trailhead Developments 

Trailhead developments are authorized as described in alternative 3 in the Magone FEIS, except 

for the trailhead proposed at Four Corners, which will not be needed due to the trails dropped 

from alternative 3 in this decision. 

Nipple Butte trailhead: For the Nipple Butte trail (#346) on the west end, road access needs to 

have the ruts removed and the roadbed leveled out and gravel placed. Directional signage to the 

trailhead will be installed on FSR 3947. At the trailhead, the parking area (for several vehicles) 

needs to be more defined with boulders, and the parking lot graveled. A sign will be installed at 

the trailhead. 

The Lake Butte trailhead on the east end needs better directional signage on County Road 18 

and on FSR 1800279. 

Tinker Creek trailhead: The trailhead for B-5037 Lake Butte trail needs better directional 

signage placed on FSR 3618 and at the trailhead. The existing dispersed campsite will be 

converted to parking for several vehicles for the B-5037 Lake Butte trail. The trailhead will be 

rustic in nature with a trailhead sign, some leveling and gravel placement, and boulders to 

delineate the parking area. 

Trailhead near junction of FSR 3618064 and 3618125 (Prohibition Trailhead): The site is an 

existing dispersed camping area that will be used as the parking area for four vehicles. This site 

will be rustic in nature with a trailhead sign, some leveling, and gravel placement. Boulders if 

needed will be placed to delineate the parking area. 

Interpretive Signs 

Interpretive signs are authorized as described in both alternatives 2 and 3 in the Magone FEIS. 

This proposal includes placing interpretive signs that convey the natural history of Magone Lake, 

along with information about fire ecology, heritage, grazing, vegetation, and wildlife to integrate 

these many aspects of the project planning area together for forest visitors. The interpretation 

sites will be located at Four Corners and within the Magone Lake recreation area. The site at Four 

Corners will have a sign with interpretive panels, while the Magone Lake Recreation Area signs 

will be located at the new Slide trail overlook, along the Magone Lake trail where the slide is 

visible and along the trail at the northeast corner of the lake. 

 Along Slide Trail: the sign content will be about the slide that created Magone Lake. 

 East side of Magone Lake (at the location where the landslide is in view): the sign 

content will be about the slide that created Magone Lake. 

 Four Corners: the sign content will be about the role of fire, the area’s cultural heritage, 

the importance of the area to grazing, and the vegetation types in the area. 

 North side of Magone Lake: the sign content will be about the beaver activity that occurs 

around the lake. 
Record of Decision 

19 

Boat Dock and Mooring 

The day use boat dock and campground boat mooring are authorized as described in all action 

alternatives in the Magone FEIS, except for the fishing dock on the east side of the lake which is 

dropped in this decision due to concerns about impacts to the eastern shoreline and maintenance. 

Day Use Boat Dock 

The existing floating boat dock will be improved by adding a boardwalk on the west side of the 

existing floating dock that will be anchored on both ends allowing for high water movement and 

easier boat launching. The aluminum railing will either be replaced or made more rustic in 

appearance to fit the natural landscape in color and texture of material. 

Campground Boat Mooring 

The existing boat mooring will be replaced with a new boat mooring that would accommodate 

two to three boats. The new boat mooring will be located approximately 100 to 200 feet 

southwest of the existing boat mooring location. This will get the new mooring into deeper water 

for boats. The purpose of this dock will be to allow campers to dock their boats overnight or 

while not in use and avoid having to pull the boat onto shore and causing shoreline damage. This 

new dock will also provide campers with an alternative to repeatedly loading and unloading their 

watercraft from the boat launch (reducing congestion at boat launch). 

Magone Lake Restoration Activities 

The Magone Lake restoration activities are authorized as described in alternative 3 in the Magone 

FEIS. 

Fish sticks and fish cribs will be placed in Magone Lake to increase near shore habitat complexity 

for fish, provide cover and habitat for bait fish and aquatic insects, provide cover for beaver 

which currently are present on the lake, and provide nesting sites for waterfowl. These structures 

will also increase shoreline fishing opportunities. 

 Fish Sticks (70 to 100 in singles and clusters of 5 to 7 trees placed throughout 

Magone Lake) – 5 to 7 trees (mostly 8 to 12 inches DBH) with 50 foot distance between 

groups. Groups will be cabled together with 1⁄4 inch cable. These trees will come from 

units adjacent to Magone Lake. 

 Fish Sticks Option 2 Design: to avoid using cable, 3 to 5 trees with rootwads attached 

will be placed on top of the ice using equipment. Trees will be pushed onto the ice, not 

carried whole (equipment would stay off of ice). Rootwads function as anchors keeping 

the group of trees in place. The group will be capped with a larger tree placed on top 

parallel to the shoreline. Limbs will be placed to interlock with each bole. 

 Fish Cribs (15 to 20 placed throughout Magone Lake) – Fish cribs will be built on the 

ice during winter by volunteers, partners, contractors, and Forest Service personnel. The 

cribs will have a minimum of 5 feet of water over the top of them (which will avoid 

creating navigational hazards for boaters); most fish cribs will be sunk to a depth of 10 to 

15 feet. All material with the exception of rock ballasts and fasteners will be 

biodegradable. The dimensions of the fish cribs will be approximately 8 feet long by 8 

feet wide. Branches and limbs from thinning adjacent to the lake will not be piled onsite 

for burning, but used to fill the interior of the cribs, with rock ballasts piled on top. 

Fish sticks and cribs will be authorized in three implementation phases. During phase 1 up to 50 

fish sticks may be placed in Magone Lake after this decision is signed. During phase 2 up to 50 
Magone Project 

20 

fish sticks may be placed in Magone Lake, and during phase 3 fish cribs may be placed in 

Magone Lake. Between each of the phases, the following conditions must be met before the next 

phase of placing fish sticks or cribs is authorized by the Forest Supervisor: 

 Fish stick placement followed the project design criteria in Magone ROD Appendix C – 

Project Design Criteria. 

o Measure: Project design criteria were followed. 

o Responsible person(s): fisheries biologist and hydrologist. 

Project Design Criteria 

See Magone ROD Appendix C – Project Design Criteria for project design criteria that will be 

implemented as part of this decision. All practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental 

harm from the alternative selected have been adopted. 

Monitoring 

Silviculture 

Monitoring for forest vegetation will include monitoring for timber harvest, non-commercial 

treatments, regeneration, and prescribed burning. Monitoring for commercial harvest includes 

monitoring the timber marking completed by Forest Service marking crews to ensure proper 

leave tree composition and density are maintained. This will be conducted via silviculture 

personnel measuring variable radius plots for select units and through BMFP monitoring field 

trips to analyze the variable density prescriptions. It also includes monitoring of any Designation 

by Prescription harvesting completed by contractors that may take place for the 10-year 

Stewardship Contract to ensure silvicultural objectives are met and contract specifications are 

followed. Monitoring of non-commercial treatments includes monitoring contract compliance for 

non-commercial thinning, fuels treatments, biomass removal, and/or post and pole removal, as 

well as monitoring Forest Service crews who complete this work to ensure silvicultural objectives 

are met. Prescribed burning would be visually monitored to ensure that widespread mortality 

levels do not exceed mortality limits as described in the silviculture prescription directly after 

burning. Mortality will also be assessed several years after burning to determine trends in 

mortality and the apparent causes of those trends. 

Botany 

Project design criteria should provide sufficient protection to sensitive plant populations and 

potential habitat in the project planning area. However, implementation monitoring is 

recommended for some sensitive plant populations for this project. This would include site visits 

to populations during and after project implementation. This monitoring would help to ensure that 

project design criteria are followed, and that they are effective in preventing negative effects to 

sensitive plant populations and sensitive plant habitat. It would also allow an opportunity to 

confirm that the assumptions used for development of the project design criteria are correct. For 

example, a revisit to areas buffered a certain distance from activities would confirm if the 

distance is sufficient to prevent blow down, or unacceptable changes in hydrology or sunlight. 
Record of Decision 

21 

Forest Plan Amendments 

Dedicated Old Growth Unit Changes 

The proposed forest plan amendment will change Management Area (MA) 13 boundaries for 

existing areas to ensure the best possible old growth stands are incorporated, and delineate 

boundaries for new areas within the project planning area to bring the total acres up to Malheur 

Forest Plan standards, with a net gain of ROG acres. My decision will result in adjustments and 

additions to DOGs and ROGs to meet MA13 standards. 

This forest plan amendment will expand the MA13 network to better attain the 900-acre home 

ranges recommended by Bull and Holthousen (1993) for pileated woodpeckers in those DOGs 

designated for pileated woodpeckers. Approximately 1,215 acres will officially be added to the 

MA13 network. 

It is important to note that management areas (including MA13) overlap, and when a specific 

segment of land falls under the goals of several management areas, the acres are assigned to the 

higher priority management area (i.e., more restrictive standards and guidelines) (USDA Forest 

Service 1990a, page IV-46). In other words, the changes to MA13 either overlay other 

management areas when the MA13 designation is expanded, and “uncover” other management 

areas when the MA13 designation is removed. 

DOGs will decrease by approximately 263 acres and ROGs will increase by 1,478 acres. The 

decrease in DOG acres will be from reallocating some DOG acres to ROGs. See Table 5 and 

ROD Appendix B – Maps, Map 6 for the proposed locations of DOGs and ROGs. 

Table 5. Comparison of existing dedicated old growth (DOGs) and replacement old growth (ROGs) 

with proposed changes, in relation to Malheur Forest Plan standards 

Old growth management areas Minimum 

MA13 acre 

requirements 

Existing acres 

in the project 

planning area 

Adjusted (proposed) 

acres for alternatives 

2, 3, and 4 

DOG 03259 (259) Pine Marten (MM) 160 293 249 

03259 Replacement area (ROG) 80 0 88 

DOG 03515 (515) Pine Marten (MM) 160 434 230 

03515 Replacement area (ROG) 80 0 266 

DOG 03114 (114) Pileated Woodpecker 

(PW) 

300 341 405 

03114 Replacement area (ROG) 150 0 355 

DOG 03115 (115) Pileated Woodpecker 

(PW) 

300 327 315 

03115 Replacement area (ROG) 150 0 470 

DOG 03119 (119) Pileated Woodpecker 

(PW) 

300 403 336 

03119 Replacement area (ROG) 150 0 299 
Magone Project 

22 

Reduce Summer Range, Winter Range (Management Area 4A), and 

Wildlife Emphasis Area (Management Area 21) Cover below 

Malheur Forest Plan Standards 

An amendment is proposed to Forest-wide standard 28 (USDA Forest Service 1990a, page IV-28) 

to reduce summer range satisfactory cover in the Grub Creek subwatershed below the Malheur 

Forest Plan standard of 12 percent. My decision will temporarily reduce satisfactory cover from 

the existing 31.8 to 8.2 percent (a 23.6 percent reduction, 3.8 percent below the standard). 

An amendment is proposed to Management Area 4A, Standard 4 (USDA Forest Service 1990a, 

page IV-70) to reduce winter range satisfactory cover below the Malheur Forest Plan standard of 

10 percent and total cover in the Grub Creek subwatershed below the standard of 25 percent. My 

decision will temporarily reduce satisfactory cover from the existing 29.5 to 3.3 percent (a 26.2 

percent reduction, 6.7 percent below the standard) and total cover from the existing 87.4 to 17.1 

percent (a 70.3 percent reduction, 7.9 percent below the standard) in the Grub Creek 

subwatershed. 

An amendment is proposed to Management Area 21, Standard 4 (USDA Forest Service 1990a, 

page IV-131 to IV-132) to reduce satisfactory cover below the Malheur Forest Plan standard of 20 

percent and total cover in the Nipple Butte WEA below the standard of 40 percent. My decision 

will temporarily reduce satisfactory cover from the existing 46.8 to 16.6 percent (a 30.2 percent 

reduction, 3.4 percent below the standard) and total cover from the existing 70.6 to 39.3 percent 

(a 31.3 percent reduction, 0.7 percent below the standard). 

The cover amendments will apply only for the duration of, and for those actions proposed in, the 

site-specific Magone Project. 

Rationale for the Decision 

Public input throughout the planning process was used to help shape the project from the start by 

defining the purpose and need for action and then by developing the action alternatives. 

Throughout the planning process, multiple collaborative meetings and fieldtrips, three public 

meetings, and numerous other meetings and fieldtrips were held. 

Scoping comments from the public on the initial proposed action helped me identify key issues 

that I used to modify alternative 2 (proposed action) and develop alternatives 3 and 4. In addition, 

thirteen alternatives were considered but eliminated from detailed study. The rationale for 

eliminating these alternatives can be found in the Magone FEIS, pages 80-84. 

In making my decision for the Magone Project I evaluated all of the environmental consequences 

of the alternatives considered and the vast amount of science referenced in the analysis. I 

considered how each alternative meets the stated purpose and need for action and complies with 

applicable laws, regulations, and policies. I also considered the range of public input received on 

the project throughout the planning process. 

In making my decision I have tried to balance multiple views and needs to create a landscape that 

is more resilient to existing and future disturbance processes, including the Nipple Butte IRA. In 

my decision I have considered the social values and opportunities that are important to the local 

community, such as wood products and diverse opportunities for recreation. This is a summary of 

my decision and thought process that went into making this decision. 
Record of Decision 

23 

Meeting the Purpose and Need for Action 

Forest Structure, Composition, and Density 

The Malheur National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, as amended by the Eastside 

Screens, provides the basis for actively addressing restoration toward the historical range of 

variability and moving the area toward a more resistant and resilient landscape. Currently, values 

and features associated with and adjacent to the project planning area such as dispersed recreation 

sites, old growth management areas, wildlife habitat, riparian corridors, scenic views, and the 

Nipple Butte Inventoried Roadless Area are susceptible to wide-scale disturbance. The purpose of 

silvicultural treatments is to shift the forest structure, composition, and density toward historical 

conditions. The need for increasing resistance and resilience applies to all plant association 

groups in the project planning area. 

I have selected alternative 3 (modified) because it best addresses the need to restore forest 

structure, composition, and density toward more resilient vegetation conditions. Alternative 3 

(modified) includes approximately 14,147 acres of silviculture treatments. 

With silviculture treatments stand structure will shift, with the proportion of young forest 

structure decreasing and the proportion of old forest structure increasing over a 40-year period. In 

the short-term, old forest single stratum (OFSS) will increase for every PAG, bringing it within or 

above the historical range of variability (HRV) for every plant association group (PAG) except 

Hot Dry Upland Forest. Within treated areas, old trees will be more vigorous and resilient to 

disturbances. 

Tree species compositions will be retained or moved toward desired conditions for the landscape. 

For all PAGs the proportion of early seral species in each stand mechanically treated will 

increase, while the proportion of late seral species will decrease. Stands currently dominated by 

ponderosa pine will continue to be dominated by ponderosa pine, and stands currently dominated 

by grand fir and Douglas-fir will have a lower proportion of these less fire tolerant species. Late 

seral species in these stands will be located in more moist areas and will be more aligned with 

their historical abundance. 

A measure of stand density is stand density index (SDI). After treatment, approximately 46 

percent of the Magone project planning area will be within or below the management zone, an 

increase of approximately 32 percent. Reductions in stand densities will improve the overall stand 

health, tree growth, and resistance to mortality from insects and disease. 

I considered alternative 2 (proposed action) and alternative 4 when making my decision. I 

selected alternative 3 (modified) because it increased the proportion of the project planning area 

within or below the management zone the most with an increase of 32 percent (alternative 2 

increased this by 23 percent and alternative 4 by 17 percent) and it removes late seral species 

from more acres while still providing for LOS at or above HRV into the future (following the 

Eastside Screens). 

Fuel Loading 

Prescribed burning (28,500 acres) and silviculture treatments will “reduce the fuel loading by 

reducing the density of standing vegetation, surface fuels, and/or ladder fuels.” Of the 27,000 acre 

project planning area, approximately 52 percent of the area will be mechanically treated to reduce 

or maintain fire behavior and severity. Up to 100 percent of the project planning area will be 
Magone Project 

24 

treated with underburning; underburning will be at varying intensities across the landscape 

depending on the objectives and prescription. These treatments will break up the continuity of 

hazardous fuels across the project planning area. Fuels will be reduced along County Road 18, 

County Road 32, Forest Service road (FSR) 36, FSR 3618, FSR 3640, FSR 3947, and FSR 3620, 

which are identified as escape corridor from Magone Lake in the Grant County Community Fire 

Protection Plan (Magone FEIS, page 31). 

I considered alternative 2 (proposed action) and alternative 4 when making my decision. I 

selected alternative 3 (modified) because it includes the most reduction in fuels from silvicultural 

treatments and prescribed burning, while taking into consideration concerns and impacts to 

allotment grazing and Mid-Columbia River (MCR) steelhead. Alternative 3 (modified) limits 

prescribed burning in the IRA to fall only planned ignitions, which responds to concerns about 

grass recovery after burning within these grazing allotments, and avoids effects to MCR steelhead 

during spawning season. 

Habitat for Fish and Wildlife Species 

Silviculture treatments, prescribed burning, road changes, and aquatic restoration projects are 

designed to increase habitat quality for fish and wildlife species within the Magone project 

planning area. Wildlife enhancement projects include: aspen treatments that thin conifers, and 

fence stands to promote aspen suckering; non-commercial thinning and juniper cutting to increase 

forage and promote winter browse species such as bitterbrush and mountain mahogany; 

increasing Management Area 13 (MA13) boundaries to bring these areas up to forest plan 

standards; and commercial/non-commercial thinning associated with the re-designation of 

Dedicated Old Growth (DOG) and Replacement Old Growth (ROG) stands to move them 

towards old forest structure in the future. Activities that improve fish and wildlife habitat also 

include road closures and decommissioning inside and outside of the RHCAs (following the 

Malheur Forest Plan and PACFISH standards and guidelines). 

I considered alternative 2 (proposed action) and alternative 4 when making my decision for the 

preferred alternative. I selected alternative 3 (modified) for silviculture and fuels treatments, a 

modified alternative 2 for roads, and a modified alternative 3 for trails considering the impacts to 

fish and wildlife habitat. Many aspects of all three action alternatives are the same for fish and 

wildlife habitat, such as proposing a forest plan amendment to adjust old growth boundaries, 

retaining all snags except danger trees, allowing fire to back into DOGs, ROGs, and PWFAs 

during prescribed burning, and decommissioning 0.3 miles of road within RHCAs. Alternative 3 

(modified) also requires a forest plan amendment to reduce Summer Range, Winter Range, and 

Wildlife Emphasis Area (MA21) cover below Malheur Forest Plan standards, as does alternative 

2; alternative 4 does not require any cover amendments. Much of the thinning that necessitates a 

forest plan amendment includes juniper removal and non-commercial thinning to remove trees 

that are competing with winter browse species and will increase the quantity and quality of 

wildlife habitat. Alternative 3 (modified) also includes commercial/non-commercial thinning with 

re-designation from DOG to ROG to promote the development of old forest structure, and noncommercial thinning with designation of ROG to decrease stand density and ladder fuels that 

increase fire hazard. Alternatives 2 and 4 include similar treatments, although less acres than 

alternative 3 (modified). 
Record of Decision 

25 

Roadless Area Characteristics in the Nipple Butte Inventoried 

Roadless Area 

The purpose of proposing treatments in the Nipple Butte IRA is to “improve one or more of the 

nine roadless area characteristics (as defined by the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule) 

within the Nipple Butte IRA.” See Magone FEIS, pages 31 and 36-40. 

I have decided to authorize 275 acres of commercial and non-commercial thinning, 2,897 acres of 

non-commercial thinning, 746 acres of non-commercial thinning with designation as 

Replacement Old Growth (ROG), 0.6 acres of conifer reduction in aspen stands, up to 10,112 

acres of prescribed burning (1,405 acres spring and fall burning and 8,707 acres fall only 

burning), and 0.2 miles of road closures (changing from maintenance level 2 to 1). 

I selected the silviculture treatments and prescribed burning analyzed in alternative 3 because the 

cutting, sale, and removal of this material would maintain or improve this roadless area 

characteristic (§ 294.11): 

 Habitat for threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate, and sensitive species and 

for those species dependent on large, undisturbed areas of land – Project activities 

will improve habitat for Mid-Columbia River steelhead (threatened species), MidColumbia River steelhead Critical Habitat, and Westslope cutthroat trout (Region 6 

Sensitive species) by increasing instream flows as a result of juniper thinning. In 

addition, project activities will provide a greater amount of forage and browse for Rocky 

Mountain elk and mule deer. Elk are a Malheur Forest Plan management indicator species 

that tend to utilize areas providing security habitat (see FEIS chapter 3, Wildlife section). 

It is important to also note that the majority of the material cut within the Nipple Butte IRA will 

not be sold or removed; most will be either cut and left in place, scattered, or pile burned to 

reduce fuel loading, used for woody debris placement in nearby streams, or placed on highly 

erodible soils to reduce the potential for erosion (see Magone FEIS, page 56-57). Alternatives 2 

and 4 would not improve habitat for threatened and Region 6 Sensitive species as much because 

instream flows and forage would not be increased. 

Social Values and Opportunities 

My decision will provide for a variety of social values and opportunities in the watershed, 

including: availability of traditional use plants (e.g., huckleberries), a variety of wood products 

(including post and pole) and forest management employment opportunities to help maintain 

community stability and infrastructure, grazing, recreational opportunities and enhanced 

recreational experiences around Magone Lake, and a road system that moves toward current 

public access and resource management objectives. Specifically: 

Traditional use plants (e.g., huckleberries) will be enhanced where they occur in the project 

planning area (Magone FEIS, page 531). 

The project will generate approximately 16 million board feet of commercial, non-commercial, 

post and pole, and biomass volume; approximately 7 to 10 MMBF of the total 16 MMBF would 

be from commercial thinning. The economic analysis estimates that the selected alternative would 

generate $4,580,008 in direct, indirect, and induced local income; and would support 164 total 

jobs over the next two years. This is greater than either alternative 2 (12 MMBF; $2,987,505 in 

direct, indirect, and induced local income; and 107 total jobs over the next two years) or 4 (9 
Magone Project 

26 

MMBF; $2,275,992 in direct, indirect, and induced local income; and 82 total jobs over the next 

two years) (Magone FEIS, pages 175-178). Employment opportunities will also be provided with 

non-commercial thinning, fuel treatments, prescribed burning, and aquatic restoration. Much of 

this work will be completed through contracts. 

Additional biomass material may be removed from most silviculture treatment units (up to 10,392 

acres), following the guidelines for the designated silviculture prescription of the unit. This is 

greater than either alternative 2 (up to 8,159 acres of biomass removal) or 4 (up to 5,505 acres of 

biomass removal) (Magone FEIS, page 70). 

Approximately 292 acres are designated for post and pole removal. This is slightly less than the 

378 acres identified in alternative 2, and slightly more than the 251 acres identified in alternative 

4 (Magone FEIS, page 70). 

Silvicultural treatments and prescribed burning will increase forage production by reducing 

conifer density in stands, reducing ground fuel loadings that restrict livestock movement, and 

increasing transitory range forage. Alternatives 2 and 4 would also provide this, although to a 

lesser extent due to fewer acres being proposed for treatment (Magone FEIS, pages 521-523). 

Recreation opportunities will be enhanced through constructing and designating 26.3 miles of 

new trail, improving of two existing trailheads, developing one new trailhead, placing interpretive 

signs at four locations, improving the existing day use boat dock, and replacing the campground 

boat mooring. This is less than what was proposed in alternatives 2 and 3 in the Magone FEIS, 

and more than what was proposed in alternative 4 (Magone FEIS, pages 54-79). However, as 

stated elsewhere in this document my decision balances the objective of providing more 

recreational opportunities with reducing impacts to the Nipple Butte IRA, range permittee 

allotment management, impacts to threatened steelhead and their critical habitat, and wildlife. 

The road system would be updated to close several roads that are causing water quality issues 

(0.3 miles), change the maintenance level from 2 to 1 of two roads that are already effectively 

closed on the ground (0.8 miles), and take one road out of the Infra road system database that is 

already effectively decommissioned on the ground (0.3 miles). This is less than what was 

proposed in the Magone FEIS for alternative 2 (2.5 miles of road closures and 0.3 miles of road 

decommissioning) and more than what was proposed under alternatives 3 and 4 (0.3 miles of road 

closures and 0.3 miles of road decommissioning) (Magone FEIS, pages 54-79). 

Consideration of Public and Other Agency Comments 

This project was developed utilizing a collaborative process with Blue Mountains Forest Partners 

collaborative, public open houses, as well as standard public scoping and comment periods. All 

comments were considered during the development of this project. A summary of the comments 

that were received on the Magone Project and my responses to those comments can be found in 

Magone DEIS Appendix D – Scoping Report and Magone FEIS Appendix D – Public Comment 

Report. The original comment letters and all other comments received are included in the project 

record. 

Comments received during the formal scoping period in February/March 2015 were used to 

modify the proposed action and develop alternatives that were included in the Magone DEIS. The 

comment period for Magone DEIS ended on March 21, 2016. I considered these comments when 

making my decision, and I find that the selected alternative responds to the issues and concerns 

that were brought forward by the public and other agencies. 
Record of Decision 

27 

Consideration of Issues and Concerns 

Issues were generated internally, by the interdisciplinary team, and externally through public 

comments. Involvement of interested individuals, businesses, organizations, county, state, federal 

agencies, and local tribes provided important information for defining the issues, concerns, 

mitigations, and treatment options for the Magone Project. Significant issues were identified 

during scoping period and were carefully considered during project development. It is important 

to me to show the public how I considered their comments, and how those comments made a 

difference in my decision. The major issues identified in the comments received during the 

scoping and 45-day comment periods are summarized below. 

Road Closures and Decommissioning 

Comments on proposed road activities included requests for fewer road closures and 

decommissioning and requests for no additional road construction. The Malheur National Forest 

Roads Analysis Report (Travel Analysis), dated December 2004, was used as a guideline for the 

interdisciplinary team to analyze all the roads in the project planning area and make 

recommendations on potential road activities based on field checks and road conditions surveys 

that were completed on each road in the project planning area. A project-level travel analysis was 

completed for the Magone Project. 

The roads to be closed or decommissioned are those causing water quality issues to watershed 

and riparian areas, are remnant roads in the IRA, or are naturally closing on their own. I tried to 

balance the needs of the public to maintain suitable access to recreation sites, hunting, and 

firewood cutting, while meeting the goals of the Malheur Forest Plan and laws such as the Clean 

Water Act and Endangered Species Act. 

Activities within the Nipple Butte Inventoried Roadless Area 

Several commenters raised concerns with activities proposed in the inventoried roadless area 

(IRA), including trail building and silviculture and fuels treatments. Each of these activities was a 

key (or significant) issue used to develop alternatives during the project planning process, and 

was presented as an alternative with different levels of treatment within the Nipple Butte IRA. 

In response to comments concerning the creation of trails within the IRA, fewer miles of trail will 

be authorized for construction in the IRA, and trail construction will take place as part of a 

secondary phase of trail building to ensure coordination with partners and adherence to project 

design criteria. Trail developments will improve hiking and bicycling opportunities in the thumb 

of the IRA with a small distance of new trail construction (2.4 miles); these trails are located on 

the northeastern edge of the Nipple Butte IRA provide connections between other trails outside of 

the IRA. This construction will slightly increase the opportunity to enjoy semi-primitive, nonmotorized recreational experiences in the long-term, while having a smaller impact on the visual 

landscape and wildlife habitat in the short-term. 

Mechanical and non-mechanial treatments in the IRA, in addition to prescribed burning to treat 

fuel loadings, will affect the semi-primitive classes of recreation in the short-term by increasing 

human presence and activity during the time of proposed treatments. Silviculture and fuels 

treatments will improve elk habitat in the long-term by opening the forest canopy, promoting 

regeneration, promoting vigor, and expanding grass and browse species, in addition to increasing 

forage and enhancing upland shrubs. 
Magone Project 

28 

See Magone FEIS chapter 3, Impacts to the Nipple Butte Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA) 

section for more detail on impacts to the roadless characteristics. 

Recreation developments 

Comments received concerning recreation developments in the Magone Project area included 

preferences regarding trail creation and ideas for recreation improvements or changes around 

Magone Lake. Commenters expressed preferences for more miles of trail creation, fewer miles of 

trail creation, and different types of trail construction, as well as ideas for improving or adding to 

boat docks and day use areas at Magone Lake. 

My decision reflects an effort to meet the recreation needs of both the local public and those who 

wish to travel to the area for recreation purposes. Trail development will increase hiking and 

bicycling opportunities in and around Magone Lake recreation area and were designed to create 

smaller loop opportunities desirable to bicycling groups, and more accessible access at Magone 

Lake. Trails will be constructed with a phased approach that will ensure coordination with 

affected parties and compliance with project design criteria. The day use boat dock will be 

improved and the campground boat mooring will be replaced to provide better access to boaters 

on Magone Lake. 

Level and effects of silviculture treatments 

Public comments were submitted related to the level and effects of silviculture treatments. 

Comments ranged from expressing preferences for more commercial treatments and the harvest 

of trees greater than 21 inches, to preferences for no commercial harvest. The overall purpose of 

the project includes the need to restore forest structure, composition, and density toward more 

resistant and resilient vegetative conditions and to provide for a variety of social values including 

wood products. Silviculture treatments are required to meet the purpose and needs of the project, 

but we found that an amendment to harvest trees greater than 21 inches was not necessary to the 

success of the project in this area. 

The authorized silviculture treatments will best meet the purpose and need of the project while 

taking into account public comments and concerns. The selected treatments have the highest 

percent change of structural stage in relation to the historical range of variability, percentage 

change of a lowest rate above the management zone, and some of highest percentages within the 

management zone by plant association group (PAG), as defined by maximum stand density index, 

which will result in a more resistant and resilient forest in the long-term. These treatments will 

also provide the greatest estimated volume, viability of harvest, economic efficiency, income, and 

employment opportunities (Magone FEIS, pages 175-178). 

Forest Plan Amendments 

Public comments were submitted related to forest plan amendments proposed to the Malheur 

Forest Plan. The regulation at 36 CFR 219.13 allows for forest plans to be amended during 

project planning in order to keep plans current or respond to changing conditions. In addition, the 

Malheur Forest Plan Forest-wide standard #3 states that “If it is determined during project 

analysis that the best way to meet the management area goals of the Forest Plan conflicts with a 

Forest Plan standard, the Forest Supervisor may approve a non-significant amendment to that 

standard for that project; such exceptions and the rationale must be described in the project’s 

documentation. These changes shall be considered an amendment to the forest plan and will be 

implemented only after appropriate public notification and satisfactory completion of all National 

Environmental Policy Act procedures” (USDA Forest Service 1990a, page IV-25). 
Record of Decision 

29 

The proposed changes to old growth boundaries follow Malheur Forest Plan direction to 

inventory and validate all old growth areas during project planning, and correct previously 

dedicated old growth unit designations that are not meeting management requirements (USDA 

Forest Service 1990a, page IV-105, standard #4). This allows DOGs and ROGs to be designated 

to provide old forest structure for wildlife species dependent on that habitat across the landscape 

of the Malheur National Forest through time. Validation of these management areas provides the 

flexibility to move and designate DOGs in areas where old growth forest structure and 

composition currently exist, and ROGs in areas where it would potentially exist in the future. 

A forest plan amendment to reduce cover in the Grub Creek subwatershed’s summer and winter 

range and the Nipple Butte Wildlife Emphasis Area is needed to authorize proposed silviculture 

and fuels treatments. The proposed treatments are designed to help move the Grub Creek 

subwatershed and Nipple Butte WEA toward the historical range of variability given the 

historical fire regime. Historically, the Grub Creek subwatershed and Nipple Butte WEA, as well 

as most of the Malheur National Forest, burned frequently (every 10 to 20 years) with low 

severity wildfire (Schmidt et al. 2002, Johnston 2016). This disturbance regime typically kept 

most lower elevation forested areas in open woodland, shrubland, and grassland conditions with 

canopy closures too low to support satisfactory or marginal cover as it is defined by the Malheur 

Forest Plan. Over the past century, a wetter climate coupled with fire suppression and grazing, has 

allowed for the regeneration and encroachment of ponderosa pine and western juniper in the Hot 

Dry and Warm Dry forests of the Grub Creek subwatershed and Nipple Butte WEA. The 

Silviculture section shows that the more open structural stages (e.g., old forest single stratum and 

stand initiation) in the Hot Dry and Warm Dry plant association groups are currently much lower 

than the historical range of variability. Due to the encroachment of ponderosa pine and juniper, 

canopy closures are currently high enough to meet satisfactory and marginal cover requirements, 

as defined by the Malheur Forest Plan. However, stands are overstocked and are at a higher risk 

to beetle infestation and severe wildfire. Ponderosa pine and juniper are also competing for 

limited water supplies and shading out bunchgrasses, mountain mahogany, and bitterbrush that 

are valuable forage and browse species, changing the composition of these stands. Current cover 

levels are likely not sustainable. 

Forest Plan Amendment Findings under the 2012 Planning 

Rule 

I prepared these project-specific forest plan amendments under the 2012 Planning Rule, which 

has different provisions than the 1982 Planning Rule under which the existing Malheur Forest 

Plan was developed. Although the existing plan is not changed, the exceptions that these 

amendments allow to the current plan’s cover standards for summer range, big-game winter 

range, and the Nipple Butte Wildlife Emphasis area, and changes to the MA13 Old Growth 

system, must be evaluated based on the 2012 Planning Rule. 

As explained below, these amendments comply with the procedural provisions of the 2012 

Planning Rule and all the directly related substantive requirements in sections 219.8 through 

219.11 of the 2012 Planning Rule (36 CFR Part 219). 

These procedural provisions and how these forest plan amendments comply are detailed below: 

 Using the best available scientific information to inform the planning process (§ 219.3) – 

The Magone FEIS uses the best available scientific information to inform the planning 

process for the forest plan amendments. 
Magone Project 

30 

o The best available scientific information used for the cover amendments includes 

the stand exams (2000-2001, 2010, 2012, and 2014) in the Magone project 

planning area, modeling results from Forest Vegetation Simulator, Oregon 

Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (ODFW) yearly inventories of Rocky 

Mountain elk in the Northside Wildlife Management Unit (which the Magone 

project planning area lies within), comparison of the 1939 aerial photographs and 

2012 NAIP imagery (Magone FEIS, pages 140-141, 397-399, and 583). 

Modeling results from Forest Vegetation Simulator which show that cover levels 

in the Hot Dry and Warm Dry sites may not be sustainable (Magone FEIS, pages 

36-40, 46-47, 202, 216, 446, and 570-571). ODFW’s Rocky Mountain elk 

inventories show that elk populations are at or above population management 

objectives, have been increasing since 2010; this indicates elk populations have 

not been negatively affected by past forest plan amendments that reduce cover 

below standards and similar population trends (stable and increasing) are 

expected to continue with the proposed cover amendments (Magone FEIS, pages 

573 and 582). The 1939 aerial photographs and 2012 NAIP imagery visually 

show the expansion of cover in the Nipple Butte WEA (Magone FEIS, page 583 

and Magone FEIS Appendix B – Maps, Maps 38 and 39). 

o The best available scientific information used for the MA13 amendment includes 

stand exams, modeling results from Forest Vegetation Simulator, and field 

checking of current and proposed MA13 areas for old growth conditions. The 

stand exams and modeling results from Forest Vegetation Simulator helped 

identify which stands are on old forest structural stages. Field checking was used 

to confirm the stand structural stages and old growth characteristics on the 

ground (Magone FEIS, pages 141, 397-398, and 456-458). 

o The information described is the best available scientific information because the 

data collected is collected within the Magone project planning area. 

o The Magone Project was developed in a collaborative manner; the Blue 

Mountains Forest Partners (BMFP) provided science liaisons which shared 

current science and developing science. The interdisciplinary team (IDT) utilized 

this “best available science” provided by the BMFP to aid in the development of 

alternatives and disclosing of effects. 

 Providing opportunities for public participation (§ 219.4) – Opportunities for public 

participation were provided during the scoping and 45-day comment periods (Magone 

FEIS, pages 50-51). Outreach included interested individuals and entities at local, 

regional, and national levels; private landowners whose lands are adjacent to the planning 

area; other federal agencies, states, counties, and local governments, affected federally 

recognized Indian Tribes; and the local collaborative group (Magone FEIS, pages 29, 50-

51, and 591-593). In addition, the Forest hosted three public open houses, three public 

fieldtrips held in conjunction with the BMFP, a presentation of the project to the Grant 

County Court, and numerous (>10) stakeholder interactions and adjacent landowners 

discussions occurred regarding the project. The scoping document, DEIS, and draft 

specialist reports were made available on the Forest’s webpage and included 

opportunities to comment through the online Comment Analysis and Response 

Application (CARA). The project was coordinated with other public planning efforts 

(Magone FEIS, pages 29, 50-51, and 591-593; Magone FEIS Appendix D – Public 

Comment Report; and Magone DEIS Appendix D – Scoping Report). 

 The plan amendment process (§ 219.13) – As the responsible official I have the discretion 

to determine whether and how to amend the Malheur Forest Plan. My decision includes 
Record of Decision 

31 

changes to specific plan components for this project planning area and the specific 

activities proposed. These plan amendments are based on a preliminary identification of 

the need to change the plan (Magone FEIS, pages 42-47). The analysis prepared in the 

Magone FEIS for the project serves as the documentation of the need to change the 

Malheur Forest Plan. The plan amendment process included opportunities for public 

participation (see discussion above) and included public notification (see discussion 

below). The plan amendment follows Forest Service NEPA procedures (Magone FEIS, 

pages 564-584 and Magone ROD, pages 57 and 59). 

 Including specific information in a decision document (§ 219.14) – My rationale for 

approving these plan amendments are documented in the “Rationale for the Decision” 

section (see below). I have provided an explanation of how the plan components meet the 

sustainability requirements of § 219.8 through § 219.11 in the section below, along with a 

statement of how the plan amendment applies to the project. As I stated earlier, the best 

available scientific information, including project-specific data, was used to inform 

planning (see above). The effective date of the plan amendment is documented below, 

along with information on where the planning records are posted online or available 

through other means for the Magone Project (and include documents that support the 

analytical conclusions made and alternatives considered throughout the planning 

process). 

 Giving public notice (§ 219.16) – Comments were invited on the plan amendment during 

scoping and on the DEIS. Since this plan amendment is approved in a decision document 

approving a project and the amendment applies only to the project, the notification 

requirements of 36 CFR part 218, subpart A, applies instead of this section (36 CFR 

219.16(b)). A 30-day public scoping period was provided starting on February 11, 2015, 

with publication of a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an environmental impact 

statement in the Federal Register. A 45-day public comment period was provided starting 

on February 5, 2016 with publication of a Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Magone 

Project DEIS in the Federal Register (see Federal Register Vol. 81, No. 24, Friday, 

February 5, 2016). Public notifications were posted online and the Blue Mountain Eagle 

newspaper (the newspaper of record). 

 Setting the effective date for amendments (§ 219.17) – In accordance with 36 CFR 

219.17(a)(3) a plan amendment that applies to only one specific project or activity is 

effective on the date the project may be implemented in accordance with administrative 

review regulations at 36 CFR part 218.(see 36 CFR Part 218.12 Timing of project 

decision). The effective date for amendments addressed in the Magone Project will 

correspond to the date of the signing of the Magone Project ROD. 

 Providing an objection opportunity (subpart B) – A 45-day objection filing period will be 

provided on the FEIS and ROD (see 36 CFR Part 218.26 Objection time periods), per 36 

CFR 219.59(b) which states that “when a plan amendment is approved in a decision 

document approving a project or activity and the amendment applies only to the project 

or activity, the administrative review process of 36 CFR part 215 or part 218, subpart A, 

applies instead of the objection process established in this subpart.” 

Dedicated Old Growth Unit Changes 

Scope, Scale, and Purpose of the Amendment 

I have determined the scope and scale of this amendment based on what is necessary for the 

project to meet its purpose and need. The overall purpose of the Magone Project is to restore 

forest resiliency by reestablishing and restoring forest structure and pattern, vegetation 
Magone Project 

32 

composition and diversity, and riparian communities to conditions that are more resilient to 

natural disturbance processes, including wildfire (see the Purpose and Need section for a full 

description). 

It is necessary to amend the Malheur Forest Plan to address MA13 standards 4 through 8 which 

provide direction to inventory, validate, and correct dedicated old growth unit designations at the 

project level to counter deterioration of old growth and designate replacement old growth areas. 

The Malheur Forest Plan provides direction to utilize the interdisciplinary process to develop 

recommendations for boundary adjustments, or unit relocation, in conjunction with the timber 

sale planning process. This provides for an iterative process where dedicated and replacement old 

growth areas (MA13 designation) can be corrected over time in response to changing conditions 

on the ground (USDA Forest Service 1990a, pages IV-105 to IV-106). 

The dedicated old growth areas (DOGs) identified in the Magone project planning area do not all 

exhibit old growth characteristics. MA13 changes will shift some DOG acres to replacement old 

growth (ROGs) areas, allowing treatments that will promote increased growth and resiliency for 

desired species, and move the stand toward late and old structure forest. Existing DOGs in the 

Magone project planning area will decrease by approximately 263 acres (those acres determined 

to not contain the characteristics necessary for old growth dependent species after field 

verification), however 1,478 acres of ROGs will be gained (those acres added to provide the 

greatest opportunity for developing old growth characteristics with this entry) for a net increase of 

1,215 acres of MA13 acres (Magone FEIS, pages 43-46, 68-69, 456-462, and 566-569). These 

changes are site-specific in nature to the associated stands that were initially designated, these 

changes involve minor alterations of stand boundaries to include better old growth habitat. 

Changes to MA13 follow the specifications for meeting habitat requirements for pileated 

woodpecker and pine marten provided in the Malheur Forest Plan FEIS, Appendix G which 

include criteria for stand type, size, and distribution (USDA Forest Service 1990b, pages G-16 to 

G-24). See Magone FEIS chapter 1, Need for Amending the Malheur Forest Plan section for more 

detail. 

The Malheur Forest Plan, as amended, programmatically guides all natural resource management 

activities and establishes management standards and land allocations for the Malheur National 

Forest. The Magone Project MA13 amendment is a site-specific amendment following the 

Malheur Forest Plan’s direction to inventory, validate, and correct all old growth areas utilizing an 

interdisciplinary process. Old growth areas across the Malheur National Forest have been 

inventoried and evaluated at the project planning level for the past 26 years following the current 

Malheur Forest Plan, this allows for site-specific analysis and response to changing conditions 

(e.g., wildfire and stand deterioration) to designate MA13 where it currently existing for DOGs 

and where it is on the path to developing into ROGs (i.e., DOGs and ROGs may be shifted as 

needed throughout the life of the 1990 Malheur Forest Plan in response to changing conditions on 

the ground). Since the MA13 amendment is following the Malheur Forest Plan’s direction it will 

not alter the other multiple-use goals and objectives for long-term land management on the 

Malheur National Forest. 

It is important to note that management areas (including MA13) overlap, and when a specific 

segment of land falls under the goals of several management areas, the acres are assigned to the 

higher priority management area (i.e., more restrictive standards and guidelines) (USDA Forest 

Service 1990a, page IV-46). In other words, the changes to MA13 either overlay other 

management areas when the MA13 designation is expanded, and “uncover” other management 

areas when the MA13 designation is removed. 
Record of Decision 

33 

This amendment will meet MA13 standards and will result in changes to MA13 within the 

Magone project planning area (see Magone FEIS chapters 1 and 2 for more detail). This 

amendment applies to this project only and no standards or guidelines will be changed or 

modified. The proposed changes to MA13 will remain in place until a future inventory or 

validation indicates these dedicated old growth designations are no longer meeting management 

requirements (as per the current Malheur Forest Plan’s direction). In the event of catastrophic 

damage or deterioration these designations may be changed using an interdisciplinary process in 

the future (see Malheur Forest Plan MA13 standards 4-8 on pages IV-105 and IV-106). 

Directly Applicable Substantive Requirements of 36 CFR 219.8 through 219.11 

I have reviewed the following specific substantive rule requirements contained in rule sections 

219.8 through 219.11 and determined which requirements directly apply to this amendment. For 

each substantive requirement that applies, I have examined the effects of the amendment and 

concluded that those effects are not contrary to these requirements. My rationale is as follows: 

The Malheur Forest Plan provides direction to inventory and validate all old growth areas during 

project planning, and correct previously dedicated old growth unit designations that are not 

meeting management requirements (USDA Forest Service 1990a, MA13 standards 4-8, pages IV105 to IV-106). This allows DOGs and ROGs to be designated to provide old forest structure for 

wildlife species dependent on that habitat across the landscape of the Malheur National Forest 

through time (36 CFR § 219.8(a)(1)(ii)). Validation of these management areas provides the 

flexibility to move and designate DOGs in areas where old growth forest structure and 

composition currently exist, and ROGs in areas where it will potentially exist in the future. This 

promotes old forest structure and composition through time, and allows planning to be responsive 

to changes in stand structure and composition in a dynamic landscape driven by stand succession, 

drought, wildfire, insect and disease activity, or other ecological processes (36 CFR § 

219.8(a)(1)(iv) and § 219.10(a)(8)). Changes to MA13 for the Magone Project include: 

 DOG 03115 will be relocated to more suitable old growth habitat for pileated 

woodpeckers. 

 New ROGs will be designated for DOGs 03114, 03115, 03119, 03259, 03259, and 03515 

to provide replacement old growth habitat to counter possible catastrophic damage or 

probable deterioration of dedicated old growth, as directed by the Malheur Forest Plan 

(USDA Forest Service 1990a, MA13 standards 4-8, pages IV-105 to IV-106). 

 There will be minor changes along the boundaries of DOGs 03114, 03115, 03259, and 

03515 to adjust MA13 to actual old growth stand boundaries. 

The goals of MA13 are to “Provide “suitable” habitat for old growth dependent wildlife species, 

ecosystem diversity, and preservation of aesthetic qualities” (USDA Forest Service 1990a, page 

IV-105) (36 CFR § 219.9(a)(1) and § 219.9(a)(2)). DOGs are designed to provide habitat for 

pileated woodpecker, pine marten, and three-toed woodpecker, which are Malheur Forest Plan 

Management Indicator Species (USDA Forest Service 1990a, pages IV-32 and IV-105) (36 CFR 

§ 219.9(a)(2)(i)). ROGs are designed to provide replacement habitat for these species in the 

future. Although MA13 are specifically designed to provide habitat for these three species, old 

forest structure and composition provides habitat for many other wildlife species as well. These 

species are commonly enjoyed and used by the public for trapping (pine marten) and observing 

(pileated woodpecker and three-toed woodpecker), as well as many other activities (36 CFR § 

219.10(a)(5)). Wildlife connectivity corridors are also proposed under the Magone Project to 

serve as connectivity between DOGs, ROGs, and other late and old structure (LOS) stands. These 
Magone Project 

34 

corridors allow for the dispersal and movement of wildlife species that use and are dependent on 

old forest structure. 

Changes to MA13 boundaries will have direct impacts to aesthetic values, fish and wildlife 

species, and habitat and habitat connectivity (36 CFR § 219.10(a)(1)). These impacts are 

addressed in the Magone FEIS. Specifically: 

 Aesthetic values related to MA13 are provided through stands with large trees and old 

forest characteristics (see Magone FEIS chapter 3, Visuals section). 

 MA13 provides nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat for pileated woodpeckers and 

three-toed woodpeckers, and denning, foraging, and dispersal habitat for pine marten. See 

Magone FEIS chapter 3, wildlife section related to Management Indicator Species for old 

growth (pileated woodpecker, pine marten, and three-toed woodpecker). 

 MA13 provides habitat for pileated woodpeckers, pine marten, three-toed woodpeckers, 

and other old growth dependent species, and contributes to the habitat connectivity of 

MA13, late and old structure (LOS) stands, and the wildlife connectivity corridors that 

connect them. See Magone FEIS chapter 3, Wildlife section related to the Old Growth 

Network and Connectivity Corridors. 

While most sections of 219.8 through 219.11 at least indirectly relate to a given forest plan 

amendment (because of the interrelated nature of natural resource), only some directly relate to 

the MA13 amendment. See Magone FEIS Appendix E for a rationale for why other provisions of 

36 CFR 219.8 through 219.11 do not apply. 

See Magone FEIS chapter 3, Evaluation of Forest Plan Amendments section, pages 564-584. 

Meeting the Specific Substantive Requirements of 36 CFR 219.8 through 219.11 

and Effects of the Forest Plan Amendment 

Based on these substantive requirements, I have concluded that the MA13 amendment has met 

and its effects are not contrary to any of the directly related substantive requirement of rule 

sections 219.8 through 219.11 as follows: 

36 CFR § 219.8(a)(1)(ii) Contributions of the plan area to ecological conditions within the 

broader landscape influenced by the plan area. – The old growth amendment will meet the 

requirement of § 219.8(a)(1)(ii) because the amendment allows DOGs and ROGs to be 

designated to provide old forest structure for wildlife species dependent on that habitat across the 

landscape of the Malheur National Forest through time. Old growth areas are inventoried and 

validated during project planning to correct previously dedicated old growth unit designations 

that are no longer meeting management requirements (USDA Forest Service 1990a, MA13 

standards 4-8, pages IV-105 to IV-106). Following this forest plan direction the contribution of 

this plan area within the broader landscape is addressed through the process outlined in the 

Malheur Forest Plan. 

In summary the effects of the MA13 amendment will be to provide 3,026 acres of dedicated old 

growth habitat within the Magone project planning area, a 1,215-acre increase in MA13. This 

would contribute to the dedicated old growth habitat across the Malheur National Forest. 

I have reviewed the effects analysis of the MA13 amendment in the Magone FEIS chapter 3, and 

found that the effects are not contrary to § 219.8(a)(1)(ii) because MA13 will continue to 

contribute to the ecological conditions within the broader landscape influenced by the plan area. 
Record of Decision 

35 

36 CFR § 219.8(a)(1)(iv) System drivers, including dominant ecological processes, disturbance 

regimes, and stressors, such as natural succession, wildland fire, invasive species, and climate 

change; and the ability of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems on the plan area to adapt to 

change. – The old growth amendment will meet the requirement of § 219.8(a)(1)(iv) because 

changes to DOG and ROGs are proposed to designate this management area in locations 

providing actual old growth habitat or are on the path to becoming old growth for the species they 

are designated for based on natural succession. This is in response to changes in stands over time 

(e.g., natural succession and wildland fire). As described above: 

 DOG 03115 will be relocated to more suitable old growth habitat for pileated 

woodpeckers. 

 New ROGs will be designated for DOGs 03114, 03115, 03119, 03259, 03515, and 03259 

to provide replacement old growth habitat to counter possible catastrophic damage (e.g., 

uncharacteristic wildfire) or probable deterioration of dedicated old growth, as directed 

by the Malheur Forest Plan (USDA Forest Service 1990a, MA13 standards 4-8, pages IV105 to IV-106). 

 There will be minor changes along the boundaries of DOGs 03114, 03115, 03259, and 

03515 to adjust the MA13 designation to actual old growth stand boundaries. 

 These changes provide for resiliency to the “system drivers” within the created MA13 

network as intended by 36 CFR 219. Without these changes the process and function of 

the MA13 network would be less adaptable to change resulting from the “system 

drivers.” 

See Magone FEIS chapter 3, Wildlife and Level and Effects of Silviculture sections for more 

detail. 

In summary the effects of the MA13 amendment are to change MA13 designations to locate 

MA13 in areas that currently provide old growth habitat or are on the path to providing old 

growth habitat. 

I have reviewed the effects analysis of the MA13 amendment in the Magone FEIS chapter 3, and 

found that the effects are not contrary to § 219.8(a)(1)(iv) because changes to MA13 are being 

responsive to system drivers. In particular, natural succession by designating MA13 in areas that 

currently provide old growth habitat or are on the path to providing old growth habitat. 

36 CFR § 219.9(a)(1) Ecosystem integrity. – The old growth amendment will meet the 

requirement of § 219.9(a)(1) because changing old growth boundaries follows Malheur Forest 

Plan direction to inventory and validate all old growth areas, and correct previously dedicated old 

growth unit designations that are not meeting management requirements (USDA Forest Service 

1990a, MA13 standards 4-8, pages IV-105 to IV-106). This allows for DOGs and ROGs to be 

designated in areas where the old growth forest structure and composition currently exists (for 

DOGs) and where it will existing in the future (for ROGs). This allows for planning to be 

responsive to changes on the ground (e.g., when a DOG is burned up in a wildfire). Wildlife 

connectivity corridors are also proposed under the Magone Project to serve as connectivity 

between DOGs, ROGs, and other late and old structure (LOS) stands; these corridors allow for 

the movement of old growth dependent species and big game migratory and dispersal 

movements, as well as providing higher cover rates and forage. So, by following the Malheur 

Forest Plan direction and amending the forest plan to change old growth (MA13) boundaries the 

project is maintaining ecosystem integrity. See Magone FEIS chapter 3, Wildlife section for more 

detail. 
Magone Project 

36 

In summary, the effects of the MA13 amendment, as described above, are to change MA13 

designations to locate MA13 in areas that currently provide old growth habitat or are on the path 

to providing old growth habitat. 

I have reviewed the effects analysis of the MA13 amendment in the Magone FEIS chapter 3, and 

found that the effects are not contrary to § 219.9(a)(1) because changes to MA13 will provide for 

ecosystem integrity by designating it in areas that provide actual old growth habitat, providing for 

this habitat type on the landscape. 

36 CFR § 219.9(a)(2) Ecosystem diversity. – The old growth amendment will meet the 

requirement of § 219.9(a)(2) because changing old growth boundaries allows for DOGs and 

ROGs to be designated in areas that actually provide that habitat type on the ground (for DOGs) 

and where it will exist in the future (for ROGs), providing for maintenance of old growth habitat 

contributing to ecosystem diversity, with multiple stand structural stages (i.e., stand initiation, 

understory reinitiation, stem exclusion, young and old forest multi-strata, and old forest single 

stratum), plant association groups (e.g., Warm Dry, Cool Moist), species composition, and stand 

stocking levels. See Magone FEIS chapter 3, Wildlife and Level and Effects of Silviculture 

Treatments sections for more detail. 

In summary, the effects of the MA13 amendment will be to increase the designation by 1,215 

acres of old growth habitat within the Magone project planning area, contributing to ecosystem 

diversity of the project planning area and Malheur National Forest by providing old growth 

habitat along with other stand structural stages. 

I have reviewed the effects analysis of the MA13 amendment in the Magone FEIS chapter 3, and 

found that the effects are not contrary to § 219.9(a)(2) because changes to MA13 will provide for 

maintenance of old growth habitat, contributing to ecosystem diversity. 

36 CFR § 219.9(a)(2)(i) Key characteristics associated with terrestrial and aquatic ecosystem 

types. – The old growth amendment will meet the requirement of § 219.9(a)(2)(i) because 

changes to DOGs and ROGs are proposed following Malheur Forest Plan direction to designate 

MA13 in locations that provide actual old growth habitat for species dependent on old growth 

habitat (i.e., Malheur Forest Plan Management Indicator Species for old growth). Habitat for old 

growth dependent species will be provided for within MA13, with dead and defective wood 

habitat, large-diameter logs and snags, and closed canopy and multi-canopy stands. See Magone 

FEIS chapter 3, Wildlife section for more detail. 

In summary, the effects of the MA13 amendment will be to increase the designation by 1,215 

acres of old growth habitat within the Magone project planning area, that will provide dead and 

defective wood habitat, large diameter logs and snags, and closed canopy and multi-canopy 

stands. 

I have reviewed the effects analysis of the MA13 amendment in the Magone FEIS chapter 3, and 

found that the effects are not contrary to § 219.9(a)(2)(i) because changes to MA13 will provide 

for maintenance of key characteristics associated with terrestrial and aquatic ecosystem types. 

36 CFR § 219.10(a)(1) Aesthetic values, air quality, cultural and heritage resources, ecosystem 

services, fish and wildlife species, forage, geologic features, grazing and rangelands, habitat 

and habitat connectivity, recreation settings and opportunities, riparian areas, scenery, soil, 

surface and subsurface water quality, timber, trails, vegetation, viewsheds, wilderness, and 
Record of Decision 

37 

other relevant resources and uses. – The old growth amendment will meet the requirement of § 

219.10(a)(1) by providing for: 

 Aesthetic values will be maintained and improved through the retention of stands with 

large trees and old forest characteristics, as well as developing future large tree character 

(see Magone FEIS chapter 3, Visuals section). 

 MA13 will continue to provide nesting and foraging habitat for pileated woodpeckers. 

MA13 will continue to maintain (in the case of DOGs) and develop (in the case of ROGs) 

habitat for pine marten, providing adequate habitat for pine marten denning, foraging, 

and dispersal. The expansion of MA13, along with other proposed actions, will retain 

population viability for pileated woodpeckers, pine marten, and three-toed woodpeckers 

on the Malheur National Forest. See Magone FEIS chapter 3, wildlife section related to 

Management Indicator Species for old growth (pileated woodpecker, pine marten, and 

three-toed woodpecker). 

 MA13 will continue to provide habitat for pileated woodpeckers, pine marten, three-toed 

woodpeckers, and other old growth dependent species, and contribute to the habitat 

connectivity of MA13, late and old structure (LOS) stands, and the wildlife connectivity 

corridors that connect them. See Magone FEIS chapter 3, wildlife section related to the 

Old Growth Network and Connectivity Corridors. 

The air quality, cultural and heritage resources, ecosystem services, forage, geologic features, 

grazing and rangelands, recreation settings and opportunities, riparian areas, scenery, soil, surface 

and subsurface water quality, timber, trails, vegetation, viewsheds, wilderness, and other relevant 

resources and uses parts of § 219.10(a)(1) do not directly apply to the old growth amendment. 

In summary, the effects of the MA13 amendment will be to increase the designation by 1,215 

acres of old growth habitat to maintain and improve the retention of stands will large trees and 

old forest characteristics and habitat for Malheur Forest Plan Management Indicators species for 

old growth. 

I have reviewed the effects analysis of the MA13 amendment in the Magone FEIS chapter 3, and 

found that the effects are not contrary to § 219.10(a)(1) because changes to MA13 will provide 

for aesthetic values, wildlife species, and habitat and habitat connectivity. 

36 CFR § 219.10(a)(5) Habitat conditions, subject to the requirements of 219.9, for wildlife, 

fish, and plants commonly enjoyed and used by the public; for hunting, fishing, trapping, 

gathering, observing, subsistence, and other activities (in collaboration with federally 

recognized Tribes, Alaska Native Corporations, other Federal agencies, and State and local 

governments). – The old growth amendment will meet the requirement of § 219.10(a)(5) because 

changes to DOGs and ROGs are proposed to designate this management area in locations that 

provide actual old growth habitat for these species or in locations that are on the path to becoming 

old growth habitat for pine marten and pileated woodpeckers. MA13 will continue to provide 

nesting and foraging habitat for pileated woodpeckers. MA13 will continue to maintain (in the 

case of DOGs) and develop (in the case of ROGs) habitat for pine marten, providing adequate 

habitat for pine marten denning, foraging, and dispersal. The expansion of MA13, along with 

other proposed actions, will retain population viability for pileated woodpeckers, pine marten, 

and three-toed woodpeckers on the Malheur National Forest. See Magone FEIS chapter 3, 

Wildlife section for more detail. 
Magone Project 

38 

In summary, the effects of the MA13 amendment will be to increase the designation by 1,215 

acres where old growth habitat conditions will be maintained for Malheur Forest Plan 

Management Indicator Species (pine marten, pileated woodpecker, and three-toed woodpecker). 

I have reviewed the effects analysis of the MA13 amendment in the Magone FEIS chapter 3, and 

found that the effects are not contrary to § 219.10(a)(5) because changes to MA13 will maintain 

habitat conditions for wildlife commonly enjoyed and used by the public. 

36 CFR § 219.10(a)(8) System drivers, including dominant ecological processes, disturbance 

regimes, and stressors, such as natural succession, wildland fire, invasive species, and climate 

change; and the ability of the terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems on the plan area to adapt to 

change (219.8). – See discussion under § 219.8(a)(1)(iv) above. 

In summary the effects of the MA13 amendment are to change MA13 designations to locate 

MA13 in areas that currently provide old growth habitat or are on the path to providing old 

growth habitat. 

I have reviewed the effects analysis of the MA13 amendment in the Magone FEIS chapter 3, and 

found that the effects are not contrary to § 219.10(a)(8) because changes to MA13 are being 

responsive to system drivers. In particular, natural succession by designating MA13 in areas that 

currently provide old growth habitat or are on the path to providing old growth habitat. 

See Magone FEIS chapter 3, Evaluation of Forest Plan Amendments section, pages 564-584. 

Reduce Summer Range, Winter Range, and Wildlife Emphasis Area 

(Management Area 21) Cover below Malheur Forest Plan Standards 

Scope, Scale, and Purpose of the Amendment 

I have determined the scope and scale of the amendment based on what is necessary for the 

project to meet its purpose and need. The overall purpose of the Magone Project is to restore 

forest resiliency by reestablishing and restoring forest structure and pattern, vegetation 

composition and diversity, and riparian communities to conditions that are more resilient to 

natural disturbance processes, including wildfire (see the Purpose and Need section for a full 

description). 

Specifically, it is necessary to amend the Malheur Forest Plan to allow non-commercial thinning 

(which will remove juniper and other conifer cover) to enhance upland shrubs, while still 

providing horizontal cover from mahogany and increasing forage. Although the habitat 

effectiveness index (HEI) and cover requirements are currently meeting or exceeding Malheur 

Forest Plan standards according to the model, in the Nipple Butte Inventoried Roadless Area 

(IRA) and Wildlife Emphasis Area (WEA) this is primarily provided by juniper, which was 

present at much lower levels historically (see Magone FEIS Appendix B – Maps, Maps 38 and 

39). This area is within the Nipple Butte IRA, where forage is needed more than hiding cover 

(because there are no roads). The cover that is currently being provided is primarily in the form of 

juniper, which is not quality cover. The Grub Creek subwatershed is also impacted by 

encroaching juniper in addition to higher densities of other tree species that would not have been 

as dense historically. Currently, the amount of forage and browse is below what would have 

occurred historically, particularly in drier habitat types and along ridgetops. Lack of fire in 

adjacent habitat types has allowed juniper and other conifers to encroach into areas formerly 
Record of Decision 

39 

dominated by mountain mahogany, bitterbrush, and other forage and browse species (see Magone 

FEIS chapter 3, Wildlife section). 

This is not in balance with what this system would have provided within the historical range of 

variability. This conflict is apparent in the Hot Dry and Warm Dry forests dominated by 

ponderosa pine in the Magone project planning area. Historical conditions and fire return 

intervals favored large blocks of trees with canopy closure too low to support satisfactory or 

marginal cover. Today, cover requirements are being met on many ponderosa pine sites; however, 

stands are stocked at levels that are at a high risk to bark beetle attack and severe wildfires. 

Modeling results from Forest Vegetation Simulator suggest cover levels may not be sustainable; it 

is not within the inherent capability of these Hot Dry and Warm Dry sites to maintain high levels 

of cover. This inherent conflict may be even more relevant in winter range, which is often located 

in low elevation, Hot Dry and Warm Dry forests dominated by ponderosa pine. However, 

thinning, the treatment that most effectively reduces beetle and fire risk, also reduces the 

effectiveness of a stand as cover. See Magone FEIS, pages 46-47, 443-456, and 570-584. 

Directly Applicable Substantive Requirements of 36 CFR 219.8 through 219.11 

I have reviewed the following specific substantive rule requirements contained in rule sections 

219.8 through 219.11 and determined which requirements directly apply to this amendment. For 

each substantive requirement that applies, I have examined the effects of the amendment and 

concluded that those effects are not contrary to these requirements. My rationale is as follows: 

Historically, the Grub Creek subwatershed, as well as most of the Malheur National Forest, 

burned frequently (every 10 to 20 years) with low severity wildfire (Schmidt et al. 2002, Johnston 

2016). This disturbance regime typically kept most lower elevation forested areas in open 

woodland, shrubland, and grassland conditions with canopy closures too low to support 

satisfactory or marginal cover as it is defined by the Malheur Forest Plan. Over the past century, a 

wetter climate coupled with fire suppression and grazing, has allowed for the regeneration and 

encroachment of ponderosa pine and western juniper in the Hot Dry and Warm Dry forests of the 

Grub Creek subwatershed. The Silviculture section shows that the more open structural stages 

(e.g., old forest single stratum and stand initiation) in the Hot Dry and Warm Dry plant 

association groups are currently much lower than the historical range of variability. Due to the 

encroachment of ponderosa pine and juniper, canopy closures are currently high enough to meet 

satisfactory and marginal cover requirements, as defined by the Malheur Forest Plan. However, 

stands are overstocked and are at a higher risk to beetle infestation and severe wildfire. Ponderosa 

pine and juniper are also competing for limited water supplies and shading out bunchgrasses, 

mountain mahogany, and bitterbrush that are valuable forage and browse species, changing the 

composition of these stands. Current cover levels are likely not sustainable. 

A forest plan amendment to reduce cover in summer range, winter range, and the Nipple Butte 

Wildlife Emphasis Area is needed to authorize proposed silviculture and fuels treatments. The 

proposed treatments are designed to help move the Grub Creek subwatershed toward the 

historical range of variability given the historical fire regime (addressing substantive provisions § 

219.8(a)(1)(iv) and § 219.10(a)(8)). Non-commercial thinning is designed to protect and release 

shrub and browse species, such as mountain mahogany and bitterbrush that are currently being 

overtopped and shaded out by ponderosa pine and juniper. Thinning is also designed to reduce 

tree density, retain old tree structure, create openings, and leave dense forested patches where 

appropriate to increase the diversity and overall resiliency of the subwatershed to disturbance 

processes and potential future climate change (§ 219.9(a)(1) and § 219.9(a)(2)). Fuels reduction 

treatments are designed to reduce current fuel loads and create the conditions where fire can 
Magone Project 

40 

safely be re-introduced into the landscape to help restore the fire adapted system (§ 

219.8(a)(1)(v)). See chapter 3, Level and Effects of Silviculture Treatments and Fire, Fuels, and 

Air Quality sections for more detail. 

The Grub Creek subwatershed was historically much more open, providing more forage and less 

conifer canopy cover than it is currently. Reducing cover and restoring historical conditions will 

improve forage availability and quality for big game at the landscape scale (§ 219.9(a)(1), § 

219.8(a)(1)(vi), and § 219.10(a)(1)). Thinning is designed to protect and enhance shrub and 

browse species that are an important food source for big game. Although these shrub species are 

not defined as cover in the Malheur Forest Plan, they are still tall, brushy shrubs that limit sight 

distances into stands and provide hiding cover for big game. In addition, unthinned patches will 

be retained to provide areas of dense conifer cover, and wildlife connectivity corridors will be 

provided with this decision. Increased forage quality and quantity will draw animals off of 

adjacent private lands and onto the forest, enhancing recreational opportunities for big game 

hunting and wildlife viewing (§ 219.10(a)(5)). See chapter 3, Wildlife, Recreation, and Level and 

Effects of Silviculture Treatments sections for more information. 

While most sections of 219.8 through 219.11 at least indirectly relate to a given forest plan 

amendment (because of the interrelated nature of natural resource), only some directly relate to 

the cover amendments. See Magone FEIS Appendix E for a rationale for why other provisions of 

36 CFR 219.8 through 219.11 do not apply. 

See Magone FEIS chapter 3, Evaluation of Forest Plan Amendments section, pages 564-584. 

Meeting the Specific Substantive Requirements of 36 CFR 219.8 through 219.11 

and Effects of the Forest Plan Amendment 

Based on these substantive requirements, I have concluded that the cover amendments have met 

and its effects are not contrary to any of the directly related substantive requirement of rule 

sections 219.8 through 219.11 as follows: 

36 CFR § 219.8(a)(1)(iv) System drivers, including dominant ecological processes, disturbance 

regimes, and stressors, such as natural succession, wildland fire, invasive species, and climate 

change; and the ability of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems on the plan area to adapt to 

change. – Summer and winter range in the Grub Creek subwatershed and the Nipple Butte 

Wildlife Emphasis Area historically had more frequent, low intensity wildfires that maintained 

areas with more forage and less cover for big game than is currently present in the area. The 

Magone FEIS chapter 3, Silviculture section shows that the more open structural stages (e.g., old 

forest single stratum and stand initiation) in the Hot Dry and Warm Dry plant association groups 

are currently much lower than the historical range of variability. In addition, much of the 

unforested area in the Magone project planning area has had vegetation changes over time due to 

fire suppression and other management actions. Juniper and other conifers have been encroaching 

into other vegetation types, including herblands, shrublands, and some neighboring forested 

areas. 

The cover amendments will meet the requirement of §219.8(a)(1)(iv) because restoring these 

conditions on the landscape will improve the area’s resiliency to “system drivers” such as 

wildland fire, invasive species, and climate change. See chapter 3, Level and Effects of 

Silviculture Treatments, Wildlife, and Invasive Plants sections for more detail. 
Record of Decision 

41 

In summary, the effects of the cover amendments will be to reduce cover below Malheur Forest 

Plan standards in big game summer range, big game winter range (MA4A), and the Nipple Butte 

WEA (MA21). This will allow restoration treatments that move the area towards its historical 

range of variability. 

I have reviewed the effects analysis of the cover amendments in the Magone FEIS chapter 3, and 

found that the effects are not contrary to § 219.8(a)(1)(iv) because the amendments will allow 

restoration treatments which restore the area’s resiliency to wildland fire, invasive species, and 

climate change. 

36 CFR § 219.8(a)(1)(v) Wildland fire and opportunities to restore fire adapted ecosystems. – 

The cover amendments will meet the requirement of § 219.8(a)(1)(v) because the thinning that 

will necessitate a cover amendment is proposed to restore this area back towards its historical 

condition as a fire adapted ecosystem. The proposed actions will reduce canopy fuels, ladder 

fuels, and surface fuels, create a mosaic of burned and unburned areas, stands would begin to 

resemble a more historical forest structure and pattern, improving resiliency of these fire adapted 

ecosystems. See Magone FEIS chapter 3, Level and Effects of Silviculture Treatments and Fire, 

Fuels, and Air Quality sections for more detail. 

In summary, the effects of the cover amendments will be to reduce cover below Malheur Forest 

Plan standards in big game summer range, big game winter range (MA4A), and the Nipple Butte 

WEA (MA21). As described above, the proposed actions will reduce canopy fuels, ladder fuels, 

and surface fuels, create a mosaic of burned and unburned areas, stands would begin to resemble 

a more historical forest structure and pattern, improving resiliency of these fire adapted 

ecosystems 

I have reviewed the effects analysis of the cover amendments in the Magone FEIS chapter 3, and 

found that the effects are not contrary to § 219.8(a)(1)(v) because this will allow restoration of the 

area back to a fire adapted ecosystem. 

36 CFR § 219.8(a)(1)(vi) Opportunities for landscape scale restoration. – As stated in the 

Magone FEIS, although HEI and cover requirements are meeting or exceeding Malheur Forest 

Plan standards, cover requirements are not always compatible with the historical range of 

variability. This conflict is apparent in Hot Dry and Warm Dry forests dominated by ponderosa 

pine. Historical conditions and fire return intervals favored large blocks of trees with canopy 

closure too low to support satisfactory or marginal cover. Today, cover requirements are being 

met on many ponderosa pine sites; however, stands are overstocked and at high risk to bark beetle 

and severe wildfires. Cover levels may not be sustainable. Tree thinning, the treatment that most 

effectively reduces beetle and fire risk, also reduces the effectiveness of a stand as cover. 

The cover amendments will meet the requirement of § 219.8(a)(1)(vi) because the proposed 

silviculture and fuels treatments that will reduce cover in the Grub Creek subwatershed’s summer 

and winter range and the Nipple Butte Wildlife Emphasis Area will help move this planning area 

towards the historical range of variability. The Grub Creek subwatershed was historically much 

more open, providing more forage and less cover than it is currently. Restoring these conditions 

on the landscape will also improve the areas resiliency to disturbances. In addition, through 

variable density thinning areas of dense trees will be retained in unthinned patches to provide 

areas of cover for big game. See Magone FEIS chapter 3, Wildlife; Level and Effects of 

Silviculture Treatments; and Fire, Fuels, and Air Quality sections for more detail. 
Magone Project 

42 

In summary, the effects of the cover amendments will be to reduce cover below Malheur Forest 

Plan standards in big game summer range, big game winter range (MA4A), and the Nipple Butte 

WEA (MA21). However, this reduction in cover will allow for restoration treatments that will 

reduce the juniper and conifers that have encroached into these historically open areas. 

I have reviewed the effects analysis of the cover amendments in the Magone FEIS chapter 3, and 

found that the effects are not contrary to § 219.8(a)(1)(vi) because this amendment will contribute 

to opportunities for landscape scale restoration. 

36 CFR § 219.9(a)(1) Ecosystem integrity. – The cover amendments will meet the requirement 

of § 219.9(a)(1) because the Grub Creek subwatershed and the Nipple Butte WEA were 

historically much more open, providing more forage and less cover than it is currently. Restoring 

these conditions in the Grub Creek subwatershed and Nipple Butte WEA will provide the type of 

big game habitat that was provided historically in the area; forage availability and quality for big 

game and other species will improve. See Magone FEIS chapter 3, Wildlife and Level and Effects 

of Silviculture Treatments sections for more information. 

In summary, the effects of the cover amendments will be to allow for restoration treatments that 

reduce the juniper and conifers that have encroached in the Nipple Butte WEA and Grub Creek 

subwatershed, allowing for more sunlight and water to be available to bunchgrasses, mountain 

mahogany, bitterbrush, and other valuable forage species for wildlife. 

I have reviewed the effects analysis of the cover amendments in the Magone FEIS chapter 3, and 

found that the effects are not contrary to § 219.9(a)(1) because this amendment will allow 

restoration treatments that improve the ecosystem integrity of the Nipple Butte WEA and the 

Grub Creek subwatershed, providing for more open areas with bunchgrasses, mountain 

mahogany, bitterbrush, and other valuable forage species on the landscape. 

36 CFR § 219.9(a)(2) Ecosystem diversity. – The cover amendments will meet the requirement of 

§ 219.9(a)(2) because cover and forage patches will be provided in sizes and with spacing 

beneficial to big game use. The proposed extensive upland shrub enhancement treatments (i.e., 

non-commercial thinning) will remove juniper and other conifer cover but still provide cover 

from mahogany, substantially increasing forage for big game. While satisfactory, marginal, and 

total cover, and size and spacing of cover will be reduced in some areas, numerous patches will 

be retained providing cover distribution. The project will substantially improve overall habitat for 

elk in the mid- to long-term (with increased forage quality and quantity), and the expected quick 

recovery of vertical cover. See Magone FEIS chapter 3, Wildlife and Level and Effects of 

Silviculture Treatments sections for more information. 

In summary, the effects of the cover amendments, as described above, will be to allow for 

restoration treatments that reduce the juniper and conifers that have encroached in the Nipple 

Butte WEA and Grub Creek subwatershed, allowing for more sunlight and water to be available 

to bunchgrasses, mountain mahogany, bitterbrush, and other valuable forage species for wildlife. 

I have reviewed the effects analysis of the cover amendments in the Magone FEIS chapter 3, and 

found that the effects are not contrary to § 219.9(a)(2) because these amendments will provide for 

the increase of valuable wildlife forage species, contributing to ecosystem diversity. 

36 CFR § 219.10(a)(1) Aesthetic values, air quality, cultural and heritage resources, ecosystem 

services, fish and wildlife species, forage, geologic features, grazing and rangelands, habitat 

and habitat connectivity, recreation settings and opportunities, riparian areas, scenery, soil, 
Record of Decision 

43 

surface and subsurface water quality, timber, trails, vegetation, viewsheds, wilderness, and 

other relevant resources and uses. – The cover amendments will meet the requirement of § 

219.10(a)(1) by providing for the needs of wildlife species, specifically big game, by allowing for 

more forage to be created (through reducing cover). The cover habitat component will be 

reduced, while the forage habitat component will be increased. Wildlife connectivity corridors 

and unthinned patches of dense trees in treated areas will be provided for with this decision. 

Recreation opportunities for hunting big game habitat will be enhanced by increased forage 

drawing animals onto the Forest and viewing wildlife will be increased with more open forest 

structure. See Magone FEIS chapter 3, Wildlife and Recreation sections for more information. 

The aesthetic values, air quality, cultural and heritage resources, ecosystem services, fish species, 

geologic features, grazing and rangelands, recreation settings, riparian areas, scenery, soil, surface 

and subsurface water quality, timber, trails, vegetation, viewsheds, wilderness, and other relevant 

resources and uses parts of § 219.10(a)(1) do not directly apply to the cover amendments. 

In summary, the effects of the cover amendments, as described above, will be to allow for 

restoration treatments that reduce the juniper and conifers that have encroached in the Nipple 

Butte WEA and Grub Creek subwatershed, allowing for more sunlight and water to be available 

to bunchgrasses, mountain mahogany, bitterbrush, and other valuable forage species for wildlife. 

I have reviewed the effects analysis of the cover amendments in the Magone FEIS chapter 3, and 

found that the effects are not contrary to § 219.10(a)(1) because the amendments will provide for 

wildlife species, habitat, and habitat connectivity. 

36 CFR § 219.10(a)(5) Habitat conditions, subject to the requirements of 219.9, for wildlife, 

fish, and plants commonly enjoyed and used by the public; for hunting, fishing, trapping, 

gathering, observing, subsistence, and other activities (in collaboration with federally 

recognized Tribes, Alaska Native Corporations, other Federal agencies, and State and local 

governments). – The cover amendments will meet the requirement of § 219.10(a)(5) by providing 

favorable habitat conditions for big game. While cover habitat will be reduced, forage habitat will 

be increased. See Magone FEIS chapter 3, Wildlife section for more information. 

In summary, the effects of the cover amendments, as described above, will be to allow for 

restoration treatments that reduce the juniper and conifers that have encroached in the Nipple 

Butte WEA and Grub Creek subwatershed, allowing for more sunlight and water to be available 

to bunchgrasses, mountain mahogany, bitterbrush, and other valuable forage species for wildlife. 

I have reviewed the effects analysis of the cover amendments in the Magone FEIS chapter 3, and 

found that the effects are not contrary to § 219.10(a)(5) because the amendments will maintain 

habitat conditions for wildlife commonly enjoyed and used by the public. 

36 CFR § 219.10(a)(8) System drivers, including dominant ecological processes, disturbance 

regimes, and stressors, such as natural succession, wildland fire, invasive species, and climate 

change; and the ability of the terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems on the plan area to adapt to 

change (219.8). – See discussion under § 219.8(a)(1)(iv) above. 

In summary, the effects of the cover amendments will be to reduce cover below Malheur Forest 

Plan standards in big game summer range, big game winter range (MA4A), and the Nipple Butte 

WEA (MA21). This will allow restoration treatments that move the area towards its historical 

range of variability. 
Magone Project 

44 

I have reviewed the effects analysis of the cover amendments in the Magone FEIS chapter 3, and 

found that the effects are not contrary to § 219.10(a)(8) because the amendments will allow 

restoration treatments which restore the area’s resiliency to wildland fire, invasive species, and 

climate change. 

See Magone FEIS chapter 3, Evaluation of Forest Plan Amendments section, pages 564-584. 

Findings Required by Other Laws and Regulations 

To the best of my knowledge, my decision is consistent with all laws, regulations, and agency 

policy relevant to this project. 

National Forest Management Act 

Requirements of the National Forest Management Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-588), including 

amendments to the Forest and Range Renewable Resource Planning Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-378) 

would be met. Timber harvest will only occur on soils, slopes, or watershed conditions that will 

not be irreversibly damaged. Protection is provided for streams and streambanks from detrimental 

changes in water temperatures and deposits of sediment that would present serious and adverse 

effects to water conditions or fish habitat (see Magone FEIS chapter 3, Aquatic Resources and 

Watershed sections). No regeneration harvest is proposed under this decision. No harvest is 

proposed in Malheur Forest Plan management areas that are classified as “unsuitable” (Magone 

FEIS, pages 169 and 588). 

Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act 

The Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act of 1960 authorizes and directs the Secretary of Agriculture 

to develop and administer the renewable resources of timber, range, water, recreation, and 

wildlife on the national forests for multiple use and sustained yield of the products and services. 

Alternative 3 (modified) meets the intent of the Act by providing timber products and service 

(renewable resources) from the National Forest without impairment of the productivity of the 

land. Proposed management of the lands in the project planning area are consistent with the goals 

and objectives of the Malheur Forest Plan and will continue to provide for the needs of the 

American people to enjoy multiple uses associated with water resources, recreation, and wildlife 

(Magone FEIS, pages 588-589). 

Malheur Forest Plan, as Amended 

I have reviewed the Malheur National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Malheur 

Forest Plan) (USDA Forest Service 1990a), as amended, as well as the Final Environmental 

Impact Statement and Record of Decision (USDA Forest Service 1990b; USDA Forest Service 

1990c). Implementing the selected alternative is consistent with the intent of the Malheur Forest 

Plan’s goals and objectives listed on pages IV-1 to IV-24. 

The Magone Project is designed to conform to the Malheur Forest Plan standards and guidelines 

described in that plan. This project complies with the Malheur Forest Plan, with the exception of 

the forest plan amendments described elsewhere in this document (Magone FEIS chapter 3). See 

Magone FEIS, pages 169, 177-178, 196, 220-221, 250-251, 259, 294-295, 393-395, 423-489, 

512-513, 517, 525, 531-532, 541, and 554-555. 
Record of Decision 

45 

Clean Air Act 

My decision will comply with the Clean Air Act and the Oregon State Smoke Management Plan. 

Burning of any kind will not occur unless prior approval is granted by Oregon Department of 

Forestry. See Magone FEIS, page 588. 

Clean Water Act 

Compliance with the Clean Water Act is discussed in the Magone FEIS chapter 3, Watershed 

section (pages 295, 395, and 587). Based on the analysis in the Magone FEIS, and adherence to 

BMPs, my decision will protect soil and water resources, and meets the requirements of the Clean 

Water Act. 

Floodplains (Executive Order 11988) and Wetlands (Executive 

Order 11990) 

Executive Order 11988 says that Federal agencies shall avoid adverse effects to floodplains or 

minimize potential harm. Floodplains several to hundreds of feet wide occur in the Magone 

project planning area. The floodplains are primarily contained within riparian habitat 

conservation areas. The Magone Project will improve the physical processes of floodplain 

connectivity and floodplain functions of water storage through being inundated. My decision will 

minimize adverse effects to the floodplains, and thus be consistent with Executive Order 11988 

(Magone FEIS, pages 395 and 587). 

Executive Order 11990 says that Federal agencies shall avoid management practices that would 

adversely affect wetlands. Wetlands that occur in the Magone project planning area will be 

maintained, improved, or expanded in spatial extent with improved function. Focusing on riparian 

vegetation and channel condition, my decision will allow increased water storage in the 

floodplains and is consistent with Executive Order 11990 (Magone FEIS, page 587). 

Endangered Species Act, Region 6 Sensitive Species, MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, and 

Facilitation of Hunting Heritage and Wildlife Conservation 

(Executive Order 13443) 

The Magone interdisciplinary team’s fisheries biologist, botanist, and wildlife biologist evaluated 

alternative 3 (modified) in regards to effects to threatened and endangered fish, plants, and 

wildlife, respectively (Magone FEIS, pages 295-423, 595-513, and 588). 

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires the Forest Service to manage for the recovery of 

threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. Forests are 

required to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or the National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS) if a proposed activity may affect the population or habitat of a listed 

species. Federally listed fish species and their designated critical habitats in the planning area 

subject to consultation include Mid-Columbia River (MCR) steelhead and their designated 

critical habitat. ESA section 7 consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National 

Marine Fisheries Service is complete (letter of concurrence dated April 5, 2017), and the 

completed biological assessment and consultation are located in the project record. 

As there are no threatened or endangered plant species known to occur within the Magone project 

planning area, consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) was not required, 

and a BA was not prepared. A biological evaluation (BE) for Region 6 Sensitive plant species was 
Magone Project 

46 

prepared, and is incorporated into the Botanical Resources analysis in the Magone FEIS chapter 3 

(pages 495-513). 

As there are no threatened or endangered wildlife species known to occur within the Magone 

project planning area, consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) was not 

required, and a BA was not prepared. A biological evaluation (BE) for Region 6 Sensitive wildlife 

species was prepared, and is incorporated into the Wildlife analysis in the Magone FEIS chapter 3 

(pages 396-423). 

The purpose of Executive Order 13443 (Facilitation of Hunting Heritage and Wildlife 

Conservation) is to direct federal agencies that have activities that have a measurable affect to 

public land management to facilitate the expansion and enhancement of hunting opportunities for 

the public. With implementation of alternative 3 (modified) there will be no effects to hunting 

opportunities or seasons (Magone FEIS, page 589). 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Executive Order 13186 

I believe alternative 3 (modified) provides adequate conservation measures for migratory birds. 

Overall, impacts on migratory birds are expected to be minimal and are not expected to impact 

species viability (Magone FEIS, pages 489-494 and 588). 

National Historic Preservation Act 

Qualified Heritage professionals completed a cultural resource inventory survey meeting current 

methodological standards (Thomas 1991) for the Magone project planning area. All 

documentation and data related to this fieldwork are incorporated into a Cultural Resource 

Inventory Report to be submitted to Oregon State Historic Preservation Office for review and 

concurrence. The activities in the selected alternative have been designed to avoid and minimize 

effects to cultural resource sites through both protection and avoidance (Magone FEIS, pages 

525-532 and 586 and Magone FEIS Appendix C – Project Design Criteria). Oregon State Historic 

Preservation Office concurrence will be received before any project activities are implemented 

and the Magone Project will comply with the National Historic Preservation Act. 

Roadless Area Conservation Rule 

My decision will comply with the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation rule (see rationale below). 

The Roadless Area Conservation Rule states that the cutting, sale, or removal of generally small 

diameter timber is allowed if it is needed to maintain or improve one or more of the roadless area 

characteristics as defined in § 294.11. “To improve threatened, endangered, proposed, or sensitive 

species habitat” 36 CFR 294.13(b)(1)(i), or “to maintain or restore the characteristics of 

ecosystem structure, such as to reduce the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire effects, within the 

range of variability that would be expected to occur under natural disturbance regimes of the 

current climatic period” 36 CFR 294.13(b)(1)(ii). See FEIS chapter 3, Evaluation of Proposed 

Forest Plan Amendments section. 

Generally Small Diameter 

The Roadless Area Conservation Rule did not specifically define what constitutes “generally 

small diameter timber,” “(b)ecause of the great variation in stand characteristics between 

vegetation types in different areas...” The Rule further states that project planning: 

[W]ill consider how the cutting or removal of various size classes of trees would affect 

the potential for future development of the stand, and the characteristics and 
Record of Decision 

47 

interrelationships of plant and animal communities associated with the site and overall 

landscape. Site productivity, due to factors such as moisture and elevation gradients, site 

aspect, and soil types, will be considered, as well as how such cutting or removal of 

various size classes of standing or down timber would mimic the role and legacies of 

natural disturbance regimes in providing habitat patches, connectivity, and structural 

diversity critical to maintaining biological diversity. In all cases, the cutting, sale, or 

removal of small diameter timber will be consistent with maintaining or improving one or 

more of the roadless area characteristics (see Final Rule, Federal Register, Volume 66, 

No.9, 3257). 

Commercial thinning will generally be from below removing grand fir encroachment to protect 

the abundant large, old ponderosa pine and western larch within these stands. Commercial 

thinning will include removing all trees less than 21 inches DBH within 1.5 times the dripline of 

all legacy trees. Outside the 1.5 times the dripline, the silvicultural prescription will be 

implemented with a 16-inch DBH limit. These trees are generally of small diameter because in 

areas proposed for thinning, old trees range from 25 to 55 inches DBH, with a majority of them 

being between 25 to 40 inches DBH. 

Non-commercial thinning will include trees 1 foot tall to 11 inches DBH through manual and 

mechanical methods. Approximately half of the non-commercial thinning will be removal of 

juniper encroachment and the other half would be removal of conifer encroachment to protect 

mountain mahogany, bitterbrush, grasses, and other browse species that provide important habitat 

to Rocky Mountain elk and mule deer. Non-commercial thinning will remove trees of generally 

small diameter and will leave larger trees as well as old growth juniper and ponderosa pine that 

range in size from 12 to 35 inches DBH. 

Felling of trees within aspen stands will be completed for the purpose of removing conifer 

encroachment to protect existing aspen trees and stimulate suckering, as well as utilizing those 

trees for placement of large woody debris within Clear, McClellan, and Thompson creeks. Aspen 

provides unique habitat for many wildlife species within coniferous forests, and it is currently 

much reduced from its historical extent. The overstory of most aspen stands on the Malheur 

National Forest is single-storied and even-aged with many close to the end of their natural life 

cycle. Conifer trees felled will be predominately ponderosa pine that range in size from 

approximately 14 to 21 inches DBH. Trees greater than 21 inches DBH that do not exhibit old 

tree characteristics will occasionally be felled for large woody debris to meet Malheur Forest Plan 

standards that specify 20 percent of the large woody debris (80 to 120 pieces per mile) will be 

greater than 20 inches in diameter (Forest Plan Amendment 29). Trees that exhibit old tree 

characteristics will not be felled. Adding large woody debris into these streams will directly 

benefit Mid-Columbia River steelhead (threatened species) and Westslope cutthroat trout (Region 

6 Sensitive species) (Magone FEIS, pages 210-211). 

Maintaining or Improving Roadless Area Characteristics 

Cutting, sale, and removal of this material will maintain or improve this roadless area 

characteristic (§ 294.11): 

 Habitat for threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate, and sensitive species and for 

those species dependent on large, undisturbed areas of land – Project activities will 

improve habitat for Mid-Columbia River steelhead (threatened species), Mid-Columbia 

River steelhead Critical Habitat, and Westslope cutthroat trout (Region 6 Sensitive 

species) by increasing instream flows through juniper thinning. In addition, project 
Magone Project 

48 

activities will provide a greater amount of forage and browse for Rocky Mountain elk and 

mule deer. 

It is important to also note that the majority of the material cut within the Nipple Butte IRA will 

not be sold or removed; most will be either cut and left in place, scattered, or pile burned to 

reduce fuel loading, used for woody debris placement in nearby streams, or placed on highly 

erodible soils to reduce the potential for erosion (Magone FEIS, pages 211-212). 

Maintaining or Restoring the Characteristics of Ecosystem Structure 

The purpose for treatment in the Nipple Butte IRA is: “To maintain or restore the characteristics 

of ecosystem composition or structure, such as to reduce the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire 

effects, within the range of variability that would be expected to occur under natural disturbance 

regimes of the current climatic period.” 36 CFR 294.13(b)(1)(ii). 

Successful fire suppression efforts have led to an increase in fuel loads in the Nipple Butte IRA. 

The Malheur Forest Plan allows for planned ignitions to achieve resource management 

objectives. It also allows for prescribed fire from lightning ignitions to be used to allow fire to 

play its natural ecological role (USDA Forest Service 1990a, MA21 standard 19, page IV-133). 

Applying mechanical treatments where possible, combined with prescribed fire, will help reduce 

the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire effects within the Nipple Butte IRA. Where mechanical 

treatments are not possible, exclusive use of prescribed fire will gradually move the IRA toward 

desired conditions. 

Stands within the IRA with light fuel loads will remain about the same after treatment. The 

biggest effect will be a decrease in the number of stands with heavy fuel loads. It is anticipated 

the majority of acres with heavy fuel loads would shift to moderate fuel loads following 

treatment. The potential for sustained crown fire within the IRA will be minimized (Magone 

FEIS, pages 212-213). 

Cutting and Sale of Timber is Infrequent 

The purpose of proposing silviculture treatments in the Nipple Butte IRA is to re-establish natural 

process and function, setting up the area to function as it did historically with frequent, lowintensity fire. Over 100 years of fire suppression has altered the natural succession in the area. 

Under natural conditions, low intensity fire would have selectively maintained ponderosa pine in 

the understory. 

The project includes 306 acres of commercial and non-commercial thinning, 2,915 acres of noncommercial thinning, 746 acres of non-commercial thinning with designation as Replacement Old 

Growth, and 0.6 acres of conifer reduction in aspen stands. The vast majority of trees cut within 

the IRA will be felled and left in place or hand piled and pile burned, a few units along existing 

roads have the potential for timber to be cut and removed. 

Approximately 100 acres was harvested in the Nipple Butte IRA about 25 years ago (between 

1986 and 1991), removing trees infected by insects and diseases. There are no foreseeable 

projects that would cut or remove timber in the Nipple Butte IRA; this action would be infrequent 

on this landscape (Magone FEIS, page 213). 

Roads Analysis 

A Forest-wide Roads Analysis was completed in December 2004 on the Malheur National Forest. 

The forest-scale analysis concentrated on the Forest’s minimum primary road system, virtually all 
Record of Decision 

49 

of the maintenance level 3, 4, and 5 roads and some maintenance level 2 roads determined to 

have high recreation or resource management values, or both. The Magone project planning area 

has maintenance level 1, 2 and 3 roads. 

Each road in the Magone project planning area was field checked and road condition surveys 

were completed to reflect existing conditions. In addition, the Magone interdisciplinary team 

reviewed each road in the project planning area to provide recommendations on whether to open, 

close, re-open, or decommission that road based on the road’s condition, the access it provides, 

and if the road is detrimentally impacting forest resources. This determination was based on the 

guidelines included in the Malheur National Forest Roads Analysis Report (USDA Forest Service 

2004) (Magone FEIS, pages 532-541). 

Environmental Justice and Civil Rights 

Executive Order 12898 directs federal agencies to identify and address the issue of environmental 

justice: adverse human health and environmental effects that disproportionately impact minority 

and low-income populations. The population of Grant County is predominately white (95.5 

percent), followed by American Indian and Alaska Native (0.6 percent). The region is sparsely 

populated and contains low populations of other minority groups (3.9 percent of Grant County, 

3.3 percent of Baker County, and 4.0 percent of Harney County) (United States Census Bureau 

2014). The primary American Indian tribes represented are the Burns Paiute Tribe, Confederated 

Tribes of the Umatilla Reservation, and Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs. With the 

exception of the Burns Paiute Tribe, other minority groups are scattered throughout the three 

counties. Data regarding minorities or people with disabilities employed in the region in the 

timber, mining, ranching, road construction, forestry services, and recreation sectors is 

unavailable. Some contracts are reserved for award to minority businesses under the USDA 

Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization and the Small Business Administration. 

Alternative 3 (modified) will have minimal impacts to minority and low-income populations, 

mainly connected with contractors implementing harvest, road reconstruction, tree thinning, 

planting, fuels treatments, and aquatic restoration, providing jobs associated with project 

activities. With implementation of alternative 3 (modified), there will not be disproportionately 

high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations. 

The actions will occur in a remote area, and nearby communities will mainly be affected by 

economic impacts related to contractors implementing harvest and thinning activities. Racial and 

cultural minority groups are often well represented in the work force that will implement 

prescribed fire, tree planting, and thinning activities. Contracts contain clauses that address 

worker safety. 

Effects on civil rights, including those of minorities and women, will be minimal. Activities 

associated with the proposed action will be governed by Forest Service contracts, which are 

awarded to qualified purchasers regardless of race, color, sex, religion, etc. Such contracts also 

contain nondiscrimination requirements. While the proposed activities will create jobs and 

provide consumer goods, no quantitative output, lack of output, or timing of output associated 

with these projects will affect the civil rights, privileges, or status quo of consumers, minority 

groups, or women (Magone FEIS, pages 585-586). 

Administrative Procedures Act and Grant County Plans 

This project is consistent with the Administrative Procedures Act, the Grant County 

Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and other applicable county statutes. 
Magone Project 

50 

In addition, there are no known RS2477 claims for any roads proposed for access changes in the 

project planning area. See Magone FEIS, page 589. 

Other Required Findings and Disclosures 

Prime Farmland, Range Land, and Forest Land – The Magone project planning area is not 

located in or adjacent to prime farmlands; therefore, there will be no impact to prime farmlands. 

The Magone Project does not contain prime rangelands because of soils and climate. None of the 

proposed activities in the project planning area will convert rangelands to other uses. Therefore, 

there would be no negative impacts on prime rangelands. The Magone Project would not convert 

forestlands to other uses. All lands designated as forested will be retained and managed as 

forested; therefore, there will be no negative impacts on prime forestlands (Magone FEIS, pages 

586-587). 

Municipal Watersheds – There are no municipal watershed in the Magone project planning area 

(Magone FEIS, page 589). 

Energy Requirements – Energy (fuel) would be required to perform management activities 

authorized with this decision, including but not limited to: harvesting and transportation of timber 

products, conducting fuels treatments such as excavator piling, implementing prescribed burning 

activities, road reconstruction activities, and road decommissioning and storage. The proposed 

project would not involve construction or maintenance of any new facilities. Because there is no 

unusual expenditure of energy and the energy requirements are minor, the project activities do not 

lend themselves to particular energy conservation measures. Activities for the project involve a 

short-term and non-significant expenditure of energy. (Magone FEIS, page 587). 

Public Health and Safety – Public health and safety will be improved with implementation of 

alternative 3 (modified) (Magone FEIS, pages 123-589). 

Conflicts with Plans, Policies, or Other Jurisdictions – There are no known conflicts with plans 

or policies of other jurisdictions associated with implementation of alternative 3 (modified) 

(Magone FEIS, page 589). 

Ecologically Critical Areas – There are no ecologically critical areas in the project planning area 

(Magone FEIS, page 586). 

Alternatives Considered 

Alternative 1 (No Action) 

Under alternative 1 (no action alternative), current management plans would continue to guide 

management of the planning area. Alternative 1 is designed to represent the existing condition 

and projected future conditions if current forest management continues. The no action alternative 

is based on the assumption that ecosystems undergo change, even in the absence of active 

management. It serves as a baseline to compare and describe the differences and effects between 

taking no action and implementing an action alternative. 

I did not select this alternative because it would not fully meet any of the purpose and need items 

for the Magone Project. Specifically, alternative 1 would not restore forest structure, composition, 

and density; reduce fuel loading; improve habitat for fish and wildlife species; improve one or 

more of the nine roadless area characteristics within the Nipple Butte IRA; or provide for a 
Record of Decision 

51 

variety of social values and opportunities in the watershed (Magone FEIS, pages 31-41). Given 

no action: 

 Trees in the Magone project planning area would continue growing on their current 

trajectory. Forested stands would continue to be overstocked with high proportions of late 

seral species (Magone FEIS, page 143). 

 Stand structure would shift from predominantly young forest structure to predominantly 

old forest structure (Magone FEIS, page 143). 

 The proportion of the project planning area above the management zone would increase 

rapidly from the current approximately 86 percent of the area, to 99 percent in 40 years 

(Magone FEIS, page 147). 

 Aspen would continue to have conifer encroachment and herbivore browsing, reducing 

aspen stand vigor and inhibiting the ability of aspen to expand (Magone FEIS, pages 147-

148). 

 There would be more difficult and less successful protection of life and property because 

of the increased potential for uncharacteristic, crown fire behavior. Fire severity with 

detrimental effects to vegetation and soils would be high (Magone FEIS, pages 233-235). 

 County Road 18, County Road 32, Forest Service road (FSR) 36, FSR 3618, FSR 3640, 

FSR 3947, and FSR 3620, which are identified as escape corridors from Magone Lake in 

the Grant County Community Fire Protection Plan, would not receive fuel reduction 

treatments (Magone FEIS, pages 233-235). 

 Roads and undersized culverts would not be treated, and the current levels of pool 

frequency, water temperature and stream shading, large woody debris, embeddedness and 

fine sediment, and width-to –depth ratios would not be improved, resulting in degraded 

stream conditions that are likely having adverse impacts to aquatic habitat (Magone 

FEIS, pages 326-332). 

 Old Growth (MA13) boundaries would not be increased to meet Malheur Forest Plan 

standards (Magone FEIS, page 459). 

 Non-commercial thinning around winter browse species such as bitterbrush and mountain 

mahogany would not occur (Magone FEIS, pages 446-447). 

 Habitat for threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate, and sensitive species and for 

those species dependent on large, undisturbed areas of land, as well as reference 

landscape conditions would not be improved in the Nipple Butte IRA (Magone FEIS, 

pages 204-221). 

 The Magone Lake recreation area would remain the centerpiece for recreation, however, 

fishing and boating opportunities at Magone Lake would not be improved (Magone FEIS, 

pages 182-184). 

 Mountain biking opportunities would continue to be non-existent and hiking 

opportunities would remain limited (Magone FEIS, pages 182-184). 

 This alternative would not harvest timber and therefore would not generate wood 

products or support employment opportunities (Magone FEIS, pages 174-175). 

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) 

Alternative 2 was designed to meet the purpose and need for this project (Magone FEIS, pages 

31-41) and proposes the following project activities: silviculture treatments, prescribed burning, 

Magone Lake treatments, trail construction, and road activities. The interdisciplinary team for the 

Magone Project used input received during collaborative engagement and input from other 

interested members of the public to inform the purpose and need and proposed action developed 

for this project. This proposed action was further refined by scoping comments received during 
Magone Project 

52 

the scoping period in February/March 2015 and the 30-day comment period in February/March 

2016. Following scoping, additional alternatives were developed to analyze the effects of 

differing levels of the proposed action. Specifically, an alternative with higher levels of treatment 

(alternative 3) and lower levels of treatment (alternative 4) were developed. Given alternative 2: 

 An intermediate level of thinning (approximately 11,872 acres) would occur. Tree density 

would be reduced and species composition would shift to a higher proportion of early 

seral species in the stands treated (Magone FEIS, page 148). 

 Stand structure would shift with the proportion of young forest structure decreasing and 

the proportion of old forest structure increasing over 40 years. Comparing old forest 

structure after 40 years to the no action alternative achieves something closer to the 

historical range of variability (HRV) (Magone FEIS, page 149). 

 The proportion of the project planning area above the management zone would decrease 

rapidly from currently approximately 86 percent of the area, and then increase over time 

to 63 percent in 40 years (Magone FEIS, page 154). 

 Encroaching conifers would be removed from aspen stands (approximately 18 acres), and 

these stands would be fenced to prevent herbivore browsing (Magone FEIS, page 154). 

 There would be a reduction of canopy, ladder, and surface fuels associated with 

mechanical treatments and prescribed burning of approximately 28,500 acres, which 

would contribute to the success of suppression and protection under most fire scenarios 

(Magone FEIS, pages 236-242). 

 Fuel reduction treatments along County Road 18, County Road 32, Forest Service road 

(FSR) 36, FSR 3618, FSR 3640, FSR 3947, and FSR 3620, would provide safe travel for 

the public and suppression forces, as well as provide anchor points and better 

opportunities for stopping the spread of wildland fires (Magone FEIS, pages 236-242). 

 Roads and undersized culverts would be treated and aquatic habitat would be improved 

through the placement of large woody debris into streams, felling encroaching conifers in 

aspen stands, and reducing fuel loading. Aquatic species and their habitat may have shortterm impacts, but are likely to have long-term beneficial impacts (Magone FEIS, pages 

332-352). 

 Old Growth (MA13) boundaries would be increased to meet Malheur Forest Plan 

standards (Magone FEIS, pages 459-462). 

 Non-commercial thinning that would benefit winter browse species such as bitterbrush 

and mountain mahogany would occur on approximately 7,196 acres (Magone FEIS, 

pages 447-449). 

 Habitat for threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate, and sensitive species and for 

those species dependent on large, undisturbed areas of land, would be improved on up to 

10,112 acres with lowered water temperatures, reduced fine sediment levels, increased 

large woody debris levels, increased floodplain connectivity, and a greater amount of 

forage and browse for Rocky Mountain elk and mule deer (Magone FEIS, page 211). 

 Reference landscape conditions would be improved in the Nipple Butte IRA through 

reducing fuel loading in stands with heavy fuel loads and felling encroaching juniper 

(Magone FEIS, pages 204-221). 

 Fishing and boating opportunities at Magone Lake would be improved through the 

replacement and modification of the boat and mooring docks, and through the placement 

of fish cribs into the lake (Magone FEIS, pages 184-189). 

 There would be 54.0 miles of new trails added to the trail system, increasing hiking and 

mountain biking opportunities; however, no new OHV use would be designated (Magone 

FEIS, pages 184-189). 
Record of Decision 

53 

 Approximately 14 MMBF of timber would be harvested, with positive bid rates 

producing a viable harvest with an estimated revenue of $473,188, as well as 107 harvest 

related jobs for 2 years (Magone FEIS, pages 175-177). 

Alternative 3 

Alternative 3 was also designed to meet the purpose and need for this project (Magone FEIS, 

pages 31-41) and proposes the following project activities: silviculture treatments, prescribed 

burning, Magone Lake treatments, trail construction, and road activities. This alternative was 

developed in response to scoping comments received during the scoping period in 

February/March 2015 requesting more silviculture treatments (including in the Nipple Butte 

IRA), expressed concern about spring burning in the Nipple Butte IRA, that requested certain 

road semgents be left as maintenance level 2 (open), and that requested more and different trails. 

Given alternative 3: 

 A higher level of thinning (approximately 14,147 acres) would occur. Tree density would 

be reduced and species composition would shift to a higher proportion of early seral 

species in the stands treated (Magone FEIS, page 155). 

 Stand structure would shift with the proportion of young forest structure decreasing and 

the proportion of old forest structure increasing over 40 years. When comparing old 

forest structure after 40 years to the no action alternative, alternative 3 creates less than 

the no action alternative, but achieves something closer to the historical range of 

variability, including a 5 percent increase in stand initiation. There would be a decrease 

over time of young forest with a multistory component (Magone FEIS, page 155). 

 The proportion of the project planning area above the management zone would decrease 

from currently approximately 86 percent of the area to 54 percent above the management 

zone (Magone FEIS, pages 160-161). 

 Encroaching conifers would be removed from aspen stands (approximately 18 acres), and 

these stands would be fenced to prevent herbivore browsing (Magone FEIS, page 161). 

 There would be a reduction of canopy, ladder, and surface fuels associated with 

mechanical treatments and prescribed burning of approximately 28,500 acres, which 

would contribute to the success of suppression and protection under most fire scenarios 

(Magone FEIS, pages 245-246). 

 Fuel reduction treatments along County Road 18, County Road 32, Forest Service road 

(FSR) 36, FSR 3618, FSR 3640, FSR 3947, and FSR 3620, would provide safe travel for 

the public and suppression forces, as well as provide anchor points and better 

opportunities for stopping the spread of wildland fires (Magone FEIS, pages 245-246). 

 Roads and undersized culverts would be treated and aquatic habitat would be improved 

through the placement of large woody debris into streams, felling encroaching conifers in 

aspen stands, and reducing fuel loading. Aquatic species and their habitat may have shortterm impacts, but are likely to have long-term beneficial impacts (Magone FEIS, pages 

352-369). 

 Old Growth (MA13) boundaries would be increased to meet Malheur Forest Plan 

standards (Magone FEIS, pages 459-462). 

 Non-commercial thinning that would benefit winter browse species such as bitterbrush 

and mountain mahogany would occur on approximately 6,964 acres (Magone FEIS, 

pages 447-449). 

 Habitat for threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate, and sensitive species and for 

those species dependent on large, undisturbed areas of land, would be improved on up to 

10,112 acres with lowered water temperatures, reduced fine sediment levels, increased 
Magone Project 

54 

large woody debris levels, increased floodplain connectivity, and a greater amount of 

forage and browse for Rocky Mountain elk and mule deer (Magone FEIS, page 211). 

 Reference landscape conditions would be improved in the Nipple Butte IRA through 

reducing fuel loading in stands with heavy fuel loads and felling encroaching juniper 

(Magone FEIS, pages 204-221). 

 Fishing and boating opportunities at Magone Lake would be improved through the 

modification of the existing day use boat dock,replacement of the campground boat 

mooring, placement of a new fishing dock along the east side of the lake, and through the 

placement of fish cribs into the lake (Magone FEIS, pages 190-193). 

 There would be 96.3 miles of new trails added to the trail system; a minor increase for 

hiking and mountain biking opportunities in the area; and OHV use designated on FSR 

36 to Four Corners (Magone FEIS, pages 190-193). 

 Approximately 16 MMBF of timber would be harvested, with positive bid rates 

producing a viable harvest with an estimated revenue of $984,057, as well as 164 harvest 

related jobs for 2 years (the highest of the action alternatives) (Magone FEIS, pages 175-

177). 

Alternative 4 

Alternative 4 was also designed to meet the purpose and need for this project (Magone FEIS, 

pages 31-41) and proposes the following project activities: silviculture treatments, prescribed 

burning, Magone Lake treatments, trail construction, and road activities. This alternative was 

developed in response to scoping comments received during the scoping period in 

February/March 2015 requesting fewer silviculture treatments (including in the Nipple Butte 

IRA), that expressed concern about prescribed burning in the Nipple Butte IRA, that requested 

certain road segments be left as maintenance level 2 (open), and that raised concerns regarding 

the amount of fish cribs and fish sticks that would be placed into Magone Lake. Given alternative 

4: 

 A lower level of thinning (approximately 5,505 acres) would occur. Tree density would 

be reduced and species composition would shift to a higher proportion of early seral 

species in the stands treated (Magone FEIS, page 162). 

 Stand structure would shift with the proportion of young forest structure decreasing and 

the proportion of old forest structure increasing over 40 years. When comparing old 

forest structure after 40 years to the no action alternative, alternative 4 creates less old 

forest structure than the no action alternative, but does move closer to the historical range 

of variability. There would be little stand reinitiation after 40 years (Magone FEIS, page 

162). 

 The proportion of the project planning area above the management zone would decrease 

from currently approximately 86 percent of the area to 69 percent above the management 

zone, and then increase over time to 78 percent above the management zone in 40 years 

(Magone FEIS, pages 167-168). 

 Encroaching conifers would be removed from aspen stands (approximately 18 acres), and 

these stands would be fenced to prevent herbivore browsing (Magone FEIS, page 168). 

 There would be a reduction of canopy, ladder, and surface fuels associated with 

mechanical treatments and prescribed burning of approximately 17,200 acres, which 

would contribute to the success of suppression and protection under most fire scenarios 

(although to a lesser extent than alternatives 2 and 3) (Magone FEIS, pages 247-249). 

 Fuel reduction treatments along County Road 18, County Road 32, Forest Service road 

(FSR) 36, FSR 3618, FSR 3640, FSR 3947, and FSR 3620, would provide safe travel for 
Record of Decision 

55 

the public and suppression forces, as well as provide anchor points and better 

opportunities for stopping the spread of wildland fires (Magone FEIS, pages 247-249). 

 Roads and undersized culverts would be treated and aquatic habitat would be improved 

through the placement of large woody debris into streams, felling encroaching conifers in 

aspen stands, and reducing fuel loading. Aquatic species and their habitat may have shortterm impacts, but are likely to have long-term beneficial impacts (Magone FEIS, pages 

369-381). 

 Old Growth (MA13) boundaries would be increased to meet Malheur Forest Plan 

standards (Magone FEIS, pages 459-462). 

 Non-commercial thinning that would benefit winter browse species such as bitterbrush 

and mountain mahogany would occur on approximately 1,936 acres (Magone FEIS, 

pages 447-449). 

 Habitat for threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate, and sensitive species and for 

those species dependent on large, undisturbed areas of land, would be improved on up to 

1,405 acres with lowered water temperatures, reduced fine sediment levels, increased 

large woody debris levels, increased floodplain connectivity, and a greater amount of 

forage and browse for Rocky Mountain elk and mule deer (Magone FEIS, page 211). 

 Reference landscape conditions would not be improved in the Nipple Butte IRA (Magone 

FEIS, pages 204-221). 

 Fishing and boating opportunities at Magone Lake would be improved through the 

modification of the existing day use boat dock and replacement of the campground boat 

mooring, and through the placement of fish cribs into the lake (Magone FEIS, pages 193-

196). 

 There would be 15.4 miles of new trails added to the trail system; a minor increase for 

hiking and mountain biking opportunities in the area; no new OHV use would be 

designated (Magone FEIS, pages 193-196). 

 Approximately 9 MMBF of timber would be harvested, with positive bid rates producing 

a viable harvest with an estimated revenue of $429,601, as well as 82 harvest related jobs 

for 2 years (the least of the action alternatives) (Magone FEIS, pages 175-177). 

Environmentally Preferred 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 best protects, preserves, and enhances historic, cultural, and natural 

resources (Council on Environmental Quality, Forty Most Asked Questions 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)). 

Based upon my examination of the Magone FEIS, discussions with the project’s interdisciplinary 

team, and consideration of comments received from agencies and the public I have concluded that 

alternative 3 (modified) is the environmentally preferable alternative. Alternative 3 (modified) 
Magone Project 

56 

will restore forest structure, composition, and density toward more resistant and resilient 

vegetative conditions for future generations; reduce the fuel loadings, including the density and 

horizontal and vertical connectivity of standing vegetation, surface fuels, and/or ladder fuels to 

restore characteristics of ecosystem composition and structure resilient to uncharacteristic 

wildfire effects; maintain or improve habitat for fish and wildlife species present in the project 

planning area; improve one or more of the nine roadless area characteristics (as defined by the 

2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule) within the Nipple Butte IRA; and provide for a variety of 

social values and opportunities in the watershed. These positive outcomes are achieved without 

significant differences in effects to the environment when compared with the other action 

alternatives. 

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study 

There were 13 additional alternatives considered but eliminated from detailed study. These 

include building horse trails and corrals in the Magone Lake recreation area, making the Magone 

Lake loop trail wheelchair accessible, allowing bikes on the Magone Lake loop trail, adding more 

motorized loop opportunities, creating an auto tour through the Magone project planning area, 

creating more OHV trails at the east end of the planning area, allowing OHV use in the Magone 

Lake recreation area, designating cross-country ski trails, turning lesser-used and closed roads 

into trails, adding more trails to the wildlife emphasis area and Nipple Butte IRA, co-designating 

bike and OHV trails, identifying more areas for commercial timber harvest in the Nipple Butte 

IRA, and disallowing temporary road construction. Rationale for why these were alternatives 

were not considered for detail study or selected is provided in chapter 2 of the Magone FEIS on 

pages 75-78. 

Public Involvement and Consultation with 

Government Agencies and Tribes 

The Magone Project was listed in the Malheur National Forest Schedule of Proposed Actions 

(SOPA) beginning in October 2014, and has been listed in all subsequent quarterly SOPAs. This 

document is mailed to individuals and is available on the internet 

(http://www.fs.fed.us/sopa/forest-level.php?110604) for those who are interested in activities 

proposed on the Malheur National Forest. 

Collaboration 

The proposed action and other action alternatives were developed through a collaborative process 

involving the public, the Blue Mountains Forest Partners (BMFP) collaborative, and the Malheur 

National Forest staff. Beginning in the summer of 2014, fieldtrips and meetings were held with 

collaborators to discuss the existing and desired conditions of the project planning area, and a 

potential suite of activities to achieve those desired conditions. 

On June 18, 2014, BMFP and Malheur National Forest staff visited sites within the Nipple Butte 

Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA) in the Magone project planning area. Site visits within the IRA 

included discussions on fir and juniper encroachment, wildlife habitat improvement, forest 

densities, ladder fuels, fire starts, potential silviculture treatments, and natural ignition. 

On July 16, 2014, BMFP and Malheur National Forest staff visited sites around the Magone Lake 

recreation area. Discussion topics at the sites visited included aesthetics and visuals, fir 
Record of Decision 

57 

encroachment, safety corridors, trail improvements, fuel breaks, ladder fuels, cool moist pockets, 

and recreation site management versus lake management. 

In September 2014, the Forest Service interdisciplinary team for the Magone Project presented 

resource stories on the existing condition of the project planning area to the Blue Mountain Forest 

Partners collaborative at their regular monthly meeting. The resource stories served as a baseline 

for developing proposed treatments. These same resource stories were also presented at a public 

open house meeting on September 24, 2014. Stakeholders of the project planning area were 

invited to attend, and an article was published in the Blue Mountain Eagle on August 27, 2014, to 

announce the meeting to local interested public. In addition, flyers were circulated at the Magone 

Campground in the summer and fall, and there was a radio spot on the radio station KJDY where 

the District Ranger shared information about the planning process for the Magone Project. The 

extended and more detailed versions of the Magone Project resource stories can be found online: 

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL6ZBnsdnJddrU7TNXorZsK844YMjK6JgL. 

On April 15, 2015, BMFP and Malheur National Forest staff visited sites within the Nipple Butte 

IRA. Site visits within the IRA included discussions on prescribed burning and removing conifers 

and juniper that are encroaching upon and shading out mountain mahogany and other upland 

shrubs. Another fieldtrip stop looked at a stand proposed to be moved from dedicated old growth 

to replacement old growth designation, with thinning to create variable density and to help move 

the stand toward old growth characteristics. 

In addition, members of the Magone Project interdisciplinary team provided updates on the 

Magone Project at the monthly BMFP meetings in 2014 through 2016. 

Public Scoping 

The Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an environmental impact statement was published in the 

Federal Register on February 13, 2015. This notice initiated the 30-day scoping period. A legal 

notice was also published in the Blue Mountain Eagle on February 11, 2015, providing 

notification of the Magone Project scoping period. A scoping package was sent to approximately 

150 individuals, groups, federal, and state agencies at the same time the scoping notice was 

published. Twenty-six (26) comments were received in response within the 30-day scoping 

period. The legal notice, letters, a radio spot on the local KJDY radio station, and the Forest’s 

website included an invitation to a public meeting on February 24, 2015, which approximately 25 

people attended. The Forest Service response to the comment letters received during the scoping 

period can be found in Magone ROD Appendix D – Scoping Report, and public meeting notes 

can be found in the project record. 

Public Comment Period 

The 45-day comment period for the Magone Project began on February 5, 2016, with publication 

of a Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Magone Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) 

in the Federal Register (see Federal Register Vol. 81, No. 24, Friday, February 5, 2016). Letters 

were sent to approximately 130 individuals or organizations summarizing the alternatives, and 

included directions to the Forest’s website for more information. A public open house was held on 

March 8, 2016, where attendees had the opportunity learn more about the project and ask 

questions of the interdisciplinary team. 

The Forest Service response to the comment letters from the scoping period and 45-day comment 

period, and public meeting notes can be found in the project record. 
Magone Project 

58 

Objection Period 

The 45-day objection filing period began on December 28, 2016, with publication of a legal 

notice in the Blue Mountain Eagle. The final environmental impact statement (FEIS) and draft 

record of decision (ROD) were available for review and objection. Six eligible objections were 

received that had standing. The formal resolution meeting with objectors was held on April 11, 

2017. The Forest partially resolved the objections and made the modifications described in the 

Decision section of this ROD. 

Tribal Government and State Historic Preservation Office 

Consultation 

Following the terms of the individual Memorandums of Understanding between the Malheur 

National Forest and the Burns Paiute Tribe, Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Reservation, and 

Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs, each tribe was notified of the project proposals 

throughout the planning process. Government to government conferences included discussions of 

this project. These Tribal governments did not express concerns about this project. 

Qualified Heritage professionals completed a cultural resource inventory survey meeting current 

methodological standards (Thomas 1991) for the Magone project planning area. All 

documentation and data related to this fieldwork are incorporated into a Cultural Resource 

Inventory Report to be submitted to Oregon State Historic Preservation Office for review and 

concurrence. The activities in the selected alternative have been designed to avoid and minimize 

effects to cultural resource sites through both protection and avoidance (Magone FEIS, pages 

531-532 and 586 and Magone FEIS Appendix C – Project Design Criteria). Oregon State Historic 

Preservation Office concurrence will be received before any project activities are implemented. 

Listed Species Consultation 

The selected alternative is consistent with the Endangered Species Act. Biological evaluations 

have been completed for all Region 6 sensitive plant and terrestrial wildlife species and candidate 

species for federal listing. 

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires the Forest Service to manage for the recovery of 

threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. Forests are 

required to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or the National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS) if a proposed activity may affect the population or habitat of a listed 

species. Federally listed fish species and their designated critical habitats in the planning area 

subject to consultation include Mid-Columbia River (MCR) steelhead and their designated 

critical habitat. ESA section 7 consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National 

Marine Fisheries Service is complete (letter of concurrence dated April 5, 2017), and the 

completed biological assessment and consultation are located in the project record. 

State and County Government 

Letters were sent to state and Grant County governments, inviting input and participation 

throughout the planning process. The Magone Project was presented to the Grant County Court 

on March 2 and December 7, 2016, answering questions from the county judge and 

commissioners, and members of the public present in the court room. Forest staff were also 

available to answer questions and provide information when a member of public was on the 

agenda to speak about the Magone Project on February 8, 2017. 
Record of Decision 

59 

The Court stated that they would like to discuss assuming responsibility of the 36 road (end of 

41023-32 to the junction of the 18 road) and the 3618 road. Since this is something that is 

resolved outside of the NEPA planning process, the Forest stated that they are open to discussing 

this proposal further. The Court also encouraged the Forest Service to allow the use of ATVs in 

the Magone Lake Campground. The Forest responded by stating this was considered but 

eliminated from detailed study because OHV use within the campground would alter the current 

rustic experience that Magone is known for and generate noise disturbance to existing 

recreational uses (FEIS Appendix D – Public Comment Report, pages 6 and 8). 

The Grant County Oregon Public Lands Natural Resources Plan (Plan) was not reviewed for 

consistency with the Magone Project because Judge Cramer determined on January 26, 2016, that 

County Initiative #12-57 to adopt the Plan was in violation of Art IV Sec. 1(2)(d). See Magone 

ROD Appendix D – Review of Grant County Clerk’s Certification of County Initiative #12-57. 

Implementation 

This final decision is the final administrative decision by the agency. Implementation is expected 

to begin in 2017. I reviewed the Magone FEIS, associated appendices, and project record, and I 

believe there is adequate information within these documents to provide a reasoned choice of 

action. I am fully aware of adverse effects that cannot be avoided and believe these risks have 

been adequately mitigated and are outweighed by the benefits. Implementing the selected 

alternative will cause no unacceptable 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 at FSH 1909.15, section 18. 

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

or action to comply with applicable laws. 

Contact Information / Further Information 

For additional information concerning this decision or the Forest Service objection process, 

contact Sasha Fertig, NEPA Planner, Blue Mountain Ranger District, Malheur National Forest, 

431 Patterson Bridge Road / P.O. Box 909, John Day, OR 97845, (541) 575-3061 or 

sashafertig@fs.fed.us. 

Record of Decision 

61 

References 

Bull E.L. and R.S. Holthausen. 1993. Habitat use and management of pileated woodpeckers in 

northeastern Oregon. Journal of Wildlife Management 57: 335-345. 

Grant County Community Fire Protection Plan. 2005. Grant County, OR. Available online: 

http://grantcountycwpp.com/ 

Johnston, J. 2016. Forest successional and disturbance dynamics in the Southern Blue Mountains 

of Oregon. Doctor of Philosophy in Forest Science Dissertation. Corvallis, OR: Oregon 

State University. 

Schmidt, K.M., J.P. Menakis, C.C. Hardy, W.J. Hann, and D.L. Bunnell. 2002. Development of 

coarse-scale spatial data for wildland fire and fuel management. General Technical 

Report RMRS-GTR-87. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 

Thomas, S.C. 1991. Malheur National Forest cultural resource inventory plan. John Day, OR: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Malheur National Forest. 

USDA Forest Service. 1990a. Malheur National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. 

John Day, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Malheur National Forest. 

Available online: 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/malheur/landmanagement/?cid=fsbdev3_033814 

USDA Forest Service 1990b. Malheur National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

Final Environmental Impact Statement. John Day, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Malheur National Forest. Available online: 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/malheur/landmanagement/?cid=fsbdev3_033816 

USDA Forest Service. 1994. Decision Notice Finding of No Significant Impact and Forest Plan 

Amendment for Incorporation of the Columbia River Basin Anadromous Fish Habitat 

Management Policy and Implementation Guide into the Malheur National Forest Land 

and Resource Management Plan. (Amendment 29). U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Malheur National Forest. 

USDA Forest Service. 1995a. Decision Notice for the Revised Continuation of Interim 

Management Direction Establishing Riparian, Ecosystem and Wildlife Standards for 

Timber Sales. (Eastside Screens). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Region 

6: Colville, Deschutes, Fremont, Malheur, Ochoco, Okanogan, Umatilla, WallowaWhitman and Winema National Forests in Oregon and Washington. Available online: 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/malheur/landmanagement/planning 

USDA Forest Service. 1995b. Environmental Assessment for the Implementation of Interim 

Strategies for Managing Anadromous Fish-producing Watersheds in Eastern Oregon and 

Washington, Idaho and Portions of California (PACFISH). Available online: 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/malheur/landmanagement/planning 

USDA Forest Service. 2004. The Malheur National Forest Roads Analysis Report. John Day, OR: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Malheur National Forest. 
Magone Project 

62 

USDA Forest Service. 2014a. Aquatic Restoration Environmental Assessment. John Day, OR: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Malheur National Forest. 203 p. 

Available online: 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprd3817700.pdf 

USDA Forest Service. 2014b. Decision Notice for Aquatic Restoration Project. John Day, OR: 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Malheur National Forest. 47 p. Available 

online: 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/detailfull/malheur/landmanagement/?cid=STELPRD3817723