United States 

Department of

Agriculture

Forest 

Service

 September 2012

Record of Decision

Ogden Vegetation Management 

Project and Forest Plan Amendments

Bend/Ft. Rock Ranger District, Deschutes National Forest

Deschutes County, Oregon

Legal Location: T 22S, R15 E, Sections 21, 22, 26-29, 31-36; T 23 S, R 

14 E, Sections 11-14; T 23 S, R 15 E, Sections 1-18; Willamette Meridian

 

 
Record of Decision 

Table of Contents

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

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

DECISION AND RATIONALE ...............................................................................................................................2

REASONS FOR THE DECISION ............................................................................................................................4

OTHER ALTERNATIVES ANALYZED.....................................................................................................................9

THE ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE......................................................................................10

PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT....................................................................................................................................10

CONSULTATION WITH GOVERNMENT AGENCIES AND TRIBES ........................................................................11

LEGAL REQUIREMENTS AND POLICY ...............................................................................................................12

IMPLEMENTATION..........................................................................................................................................13

APPEAL RIGHTS...............................................................................................................................................14

CONTACT PERSONS / FURTHER INFORMATION ..............................................................................................15

RESPONSIBLE OFFICIAL ...................................................................................................................................15

APPENDIX A – UNIT MAP - HARVEST...............................................................................................................17

APPENDIX A – UNIT MAP – FUELS REDUCTION ...............................................................................................18

APPENDIX B – UNIT PRESCRIPTIONS ...............................................................................................................19

APPENDIX C - RESOURCE PROTECTION MEASURES .........................................................................................28

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities 

on the basis of race, color, national origin, gender, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual 

orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with 

disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large 

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

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, 

Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call

(202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
ii

Figure 1. Location of the Ogden Project area.

Record of Decision

Page 1

RECORD OF DECISION

Ogden Vegetation Management Project

USDA Forest Service

Bend/Ft. Rock Ranger District, Deschutes National Forest

Deschutes County, Oregon

Legal: T 22S, R15 E, Sections 21, 22, 26-29, 31-36; T 23 S, R 14 E, Sections 11-14; T 23 S, 

R 15 E, Sections 1-18; Willamette Meridian

Introduction

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

Alternative 3 of the September 2012 Ogden Vegetation Management Project Final

Environmental Impact Statement. This project will address forest management issues within 

the project area including tree density and fuels accumulations and will provide timber 

products to the local wood products industry. 

The 26,521-acre Ogden project is about 12 miles south of Bend, Oregon on the western flank 

of the Newberry Crater. The Forest identified a need to reduce forest vegetation density and 

fuels to increase resilience to insects, disease, and wildfire, to improve growth and health of 

residual trees, and to increase the proportion of LOS ponderosa pine. The Forest also 

identified the need to contribute to the local and regional economies by providing timber and 

other wood fiber products. The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) documents the 

Forest’s consideration of alternative ways to meet this need and discloses and compares the 

environmental effects of the alternatives.

Project Background 

The current condition of the forests in the Ogden project area largely results from historic 

logging practices and fire suppression. A large proportion of the project area was clearcut 

logged in the 1920s and 30s with most large trees removed when the lands were in private 

logging company ownership. This past harvest has put the area outside the historic range of 

variability (HRV) for large tree structure and correspondingly above the HRV for mid-seral 

structures that with fire suppression have become overly dense where it has not been thinned. 

These mid-seral stands also have the capability of moving towards LOS if properly managed. 

Fire suppression has also allowed more lodgepole and true fir to grow into the understory and 

brush to accumulate. These hazardous fuels conditions put the area at risk of wildfire, such as 

occurred in 1998 with the McKay stand-replacing fire (FEIS p. 2).

The Ogden project area is a popular recreation destination in Central Oregon. The main route 

to Newberry Crater, County Highway 21, bisects the project area west to east and leads 

visitors into the Newberry National Volcanic Monument. Several developed recreation sites 

are located along or near the route, including Prairie Campground and two snoparks. Paulina 

Creek, flowing east to west through the project area, is considered eligible for inclusion in the 

Wild and Scenic Rivers system. Well-used dispersed and developed recreation sites occur 

along the creek, such as Mckay Campground. The Peter Skene Ogden National Scenic Trail
Record of Decision

Page 2

which follows the creek for most of its length is a popular attraction for hikers, bikers, and 

sightseers. And snowmobile trails and two sno-parks offer winter recreation opportunities. 

The location of these attractions and the current condition of the forest surrounding them is 

part of the context for the purpose and need for action (FEIS pp. 1-5). 

Decision and Rationale

I have reviewed the FEIS for the Ogden Vegetation Management Project and the information 

contained in the project file. I have also reviewed and considered the public comments 

submitted on this project. I have determined that there is adequate information to make a 

reasoned choice among alternatives. It is my decision to select Alternative 3, including 

associated connected actions, forest plan amendments, resource protection measures, and 

monitoring, as described in the FEIS (pp. 23-49, 53-54). The following two modifications to 

Alternative 3 were incorporated into the Final EIS and are part of this decision:

Across the project area, ponderosa pine trees that exhibit old tree characteristics will 

be retained, with exceptions. See page 8 for a discussion and Appendix C of this ROD 

for specific characteristics and specific exceptions which provide the ability to still 

meet project objectives. 

Five units (54, 285, 342, 947, 951) totaling 131 acres, that provide down wood habitat 

for American marten are dropped from surface fuels treatments of removing 

dead/down lodgepole pine. All dead/down lodgepole pine will be left in place in those 

units. These units do not fall within the Protection Areas of Interest listed in Table 54 

of the FEIS which are key locations for fuels reduction (FEIS p. 143). Leaving the 

dead/down wood may make it infeasible to conduct thinning operations in some places 

where heavy amounts of down wood would impede the use of machinery; therefore, 

up to 131 fewer acres could have surface fuel reduction. 

Specifics of Decision

A total of 14,422 acres will be entered for vegetation management with this decision (Table 

1). 7,663 acres will receive tree treatments (thinning or regeneration harvest) in combination 

with a natural fuels treatment; 5,284 acres will receive tree treatments without a natural fuels 

treatment; and 1,475 acres will be entered only for natural fuels reduction. Appendix A lists 

each unit and what treatment combination will occur. The following tables are summaries of 

the activities.

Table 1. Summary of Tree and Fuel Treatment Acres.

Treatments Acres

Tree and fuel treatments in combination* 7,663

Tree treatments without fuel treatments 5,284

Fuel treatments without tree treatments 1,475

Total Footprint 14,422

* “fuel treatments” refers to mowing and/or underburning of natural fuels. 

Activity fuels are treated in all units as needed, according to the method listed in Appendix A. 

As shown in the following table, all tree treatments total 12,947 acres (Table 2), of which 

11,993 acres is thinning from below. This is estimated to produce approximately 29.2 mmbf 
Record of Decision

Page 3

of timber. The narrative descriptions of thinning and other harvest methods listed in Table 2

are located in the FEIS on pages 29-31. Minimum stocking level and lower management 

zone area provided in the FEIS at Table 6, p. 30. Areas of fuels-only treatment total 1,475 

acres. Natural and activity fuel treatment descriptions are in the FEIS on pages 31-32. Maps 

of the units are included in Appendix A of this ROD.

Table 2. Summary of Harvest and Fuels Treatments

Lodgepole Pine Regeneration Harvest Treatments Acres

Even-aged method, with lodgepole pine seed tree removal - stands 

have regenerated from earlier clearcut where seed trees were reserved; 

seed trees (generally 8-12” dbh) are now removed.

954

Thinning Treatments 

 Outside RHCA and Goshawk PFA

Thin, favoring ponderosa pine for retention. Lodgepole pine and true fir 

retained as needed to meet minimum stocking levels 4,270

Thin, favoring ponderosa pine for retention. Lodgepole pine and true fir 

retained as needed to meet lower management zone stocking levels. 5,154

Thin, within plantations and other areas where excess stocking is 

primarily small diameter trees. 2,014

 Thin within Riparian Habitat Conservation Area (RHCA)* 212

 Thin within goshawk Post Fledging Area (PFA)** 343

Total Thinning Acres 11,993

Total Thinning/Harvest Treatment Acres 12,947

Fuel Treatments(occurring alone or in combination with thinning/harvest)

Mechanical Shrub Treatment (MST) 1,107

Ladder fuels reduction/Mow 83

Mow/Underburn 7,001

Ladder fuel reduction/Mow/Underburn 735

RHCA Underburn 212

Total Fuels Treatment Acres 9,138

*RHCA is the 300-foot wide corridor along Paulina Creek (see FEIS section 3.8).

** PFA is an area around goshawk nests (see FEIS p. 230).

Approximately 9.5 miles of temporary roads will be needed to access harvest units. As 

described in the FEIS (p. 36), about 5 miles will be newly impacted ground, and 4.5 miles will 

be located where previous logging systems are still evident. These temporary roads will be 

rehabilitated when activities are complete.

Forest Plan Amendments: My decision includes two non-significant amendments to the 

Deschutes LRMP within the Scenic Views management area. First, standard M9-27 requires 

visible results from management activities within retention foreground areas to not be visible 

within one year after work has been completed, and visible results from management 

activities within partial retention foreground areas to not be visible within two years. This 

decision amends that standard and allows the visible results of management to be apparent for 

about five years. This is because prescribed underburning can create blackened, scorched 
Record of Decision

Page 4

vegetation and tree trunks that will last about five years. The use of prescribed underburning 

within the Scenic Views management area will meet the goals and objectives for the 

management area over the long term (FEIS pp. 410-413), particularly by maintaining and 

promoting large old-growth ponderosa pine. 

Second, M9-90 states that “Low intensity prescribed fires will be used to meet and promote 

the Desired Visual Condition within each stand type. Prescribed fire and other fuel 

management techniques will be used to minimize the hazard of a large high intensity fire.” 

However, the Forest Plan standard also reads “In foreground areas, prescribed fires will be 

small, normally less than 5 acres....” Foreground areas of the Ogden project that will benefit 

from prescribed fire total 2,376 acres. Under Alternative 3 of the Ogden project, stands 

within the Scenic Views management area will benefit from prescribed fire, and fire will 

promote the Desired Visual Condition for ponderosa pine. Reducing fuels will help to feature 

large ponderosa pine with old-growth characteristics (FEIS pp. 409-413). The Scenic View 

corridor along County Road 21 also happens to be a primary ingress/egress route identified in 

the Community Wildfire Protection Plan (FEIS p. 155). Fuels reduction adjacent to this route 

allows opportunity for safe evacuation of public and opportunities for safe fire suppression by 

firefighters. 

Resource Protection Measures: This decision includes all resource protection measures 

described for Alternative 3 in the FEIS. Resource protection measures are listed in Appendix 

B of this ROD.

Reasons for the Decision

My decision to select Alternative 3 was made by considering how well the alternative meets 

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

been adequately considered, and what the likely environmental effects will be. In selecting 

Alternative 3, I carefully reviewed disclosures in Chapter 3 of the FEIS. The analysis 

discloses predicted environmental consequences of the actions, including effects to northern 

goshawk and other wildlife, benefits to forest health, reductions in wildfire risk, compliance 

with water and air quality regulations, and maintenance of soil productivity. My conclusions 

are based on a review of the entire project record, which includes a thorough review of 

relevant scientific information, and a consideration of responsible opposing views. The 

following narratives go into detail on my reason for the decision.

Response of Alternative 3 to the Purpose and Need

There is a need to reduce forest vegetation density and fuels to increase resilience to insects, 

disease, and stand-replacing wildfire, to improve growth and health of residual trees, and to 

increase the proportion of late and old structure (LOS) ponderosa pine.

By thinning from below on nearly 12,000 acres, Alternative 3 will improve vigor of trees, 

increasing their ability to survive beetle attack. Without thinning, about 52% of the 

ponderosa pine stands have high density; Alternative 3 moves that proportion of stands with 

high density to 36%. Alternative 3 will also be effective at reducing mistletoe spread in 

lodgepole stands by removing seed trees.

It’s important that we restore conditions that allow the use of prescribed fire on the landscape, 

and as shown in Figure 43 of the FEIS (p. 144), thinning, mowing, and underburning will 

create conditions that reduce the severity of wildfire if it were to occur, and also makes it 
Record of Decision

Page 5

possible to apply fire in a prescribed manner. Fuel treatments will create conditions where 

wildfire can be more safely suppressed which is important for firefighter safety and because 

more options for control are available (p. 160). 

The Ogden project area involves Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) along its western boundary, 

along critical transportation routes, and around high-use recreation sites. Fuels reduction in 

these areas will allow effective suppression action to be taken and safe evacuation of the 

public taken in the event of a wildfire.

The current lack of late and old structure (LOS) ponderosa pine in relation to the historic 

range of variability (there is less than 1 percent of the ponderosa pine biophysical 

environment in LOS structural stages) is evidence of the past timber harvest that removed 

large trees over vast areas in central Oregon when lands were in private ownership by large 

logging companies (FEIS p. 117). Large areas of medium sized ponderosa pine are now on a 

trajectory towards becoming large tree structure again but are at risk to bark beetle attack 

which could slow the development of LOS; high fuel levels could also set back the clock on 

stand development in the event of a wildfire. This decision will continue the development of 

second growth ponderosa pine towards large tree structure on nearly 10,000 acres and 

maintain or increase ponderosa pine dominance in these stands (FEIS p. 75). 

There is a need to contribute to the local and regional economies by providing timber and 

other wood fiber products and associated jobs now and in the future.

The timber sales, wood fiber, and associated jobs resulting from the selected alternative will 

contribute to the local and regional economy. The FEIS estimates that Alternative 3 will 

provide 29 million board feet of timber. Of this, nearly 25 mmbf will be of ponderosa pine 

and lodgepole pine sawlogs (FEIS p. 453). There currently is a demand for this type of 

product which is estimated to maintain or create 251 jobs in the timber industry. The vast 

majority of the project area is in a General Forest allocation which has an emphasis on timber 

production. Alternative 3 does the best job of meeting the Forest Plan’s goal of emphasizing 

timber production while also providing for visual quality, wildlife habitat and recreational 

opportunities. 

Response of Alternative 3 to the Key Issues

Regeneration Harvest in Lodgepole Pine

During the scoping period, conservation groups had expressed concerns with regeneration

harvests proposed on 397 acres. 362 acres are lodgepole pine stands that would have been 

clearcut harvested with seed trees reserved, and 35 acres are small stands of mixed conifer 

that would have had all of the lodgepole pine removed. Late-seral lodgepole pine provides 

ecological value for certain wildlife and to respond to the issue raised by the public, the IDT 

developed an alternative that would defer the regeneration harvest with seed trees reserved on 

397 acres. By not conducting these treatments, Alternative 3 retains more acres of late seral 

lodgepole pine, which will continue to be abundant in the project area. Certain wildlife 

species can benefit from the abundance of late seral lodgepole pine. In the Ogden project area 

these species include the three-toed woodpecker and black-backed woodpecker, and 

American marten. Either action alternative would provide habitat for these species, but 

Alternative 3 does a better job of retaining a larger block in the higher elevation lodgepole 
Record of Decision

Page 6

pine (FEIS p. 316). This alternative also develops habitat on 385 acres by precommercially 

thinning lodgepole pine stands and retaining the overstory nesting structure (FEIS p. 320). 

Thinning Level and Stocking in Mixed Stands of Ponderosa Pine and Lodgepole

To promote late and old structured forest stands and increase resilience to mountain pine 

beetles, stands with a mix of ponderosa pine and lodgepole pine were proposed for thinning to 

favor ponderosa pine and stocking reduced to the lower management zone (LMZ). By 

removing lodgepole pine, however, some stands would be reduced below the lower 

management zone. Alternative 3 was developed to provide a comparison with thinning that 

would retain more lodgepole pine in order to maintain a stocking level at the lower 

management zone. 

Compared to Alternative 2, Alternative 3 would result in a much smaller proportion of stands 

that would be stocked below the lower management zone. In areas stocked at or above the 

LMZ, tree growth would capture much of the site resources, making fewer resources available 

for the establishment and growth of understory vegetation and consequently increasing the 

time stands remain resilient to wildfire (FEIS p. 75). Conversely, areas stocked at or above 

the LMZ will return more quickly to the upper management zone (UMZ). Additionally, 

because of the retention of lodgepole pine, less burning will take place in stands where 

ponderosa pine stocking is low or variable. These stands will retain more species diversity 

which addresses the public’s desire to see variability and diversity within stands and across 

the landscape. The concern having been that the proposed action may homogenize the forest. 

Air Quality Impacts from Burning

Air quality was considered an issue in the Ogden EIS because some members of the public 

were concerned that prescribed underburning would create a high amount of smoke impacts. 

Alternative 3 addresses this issue by reducing the amount of acres that will be underburned. 

The FEIS shows that either action alternative would comply with air quality standards and 

following smoke management guidelines and smoke created under either action alternative 

would have fewer emission than that created by a wildfire. Alternative 3 will implement 

about 7,948 acres of underburning compared to 10,595 in Alternative 2. However, 

Alternative 3 retains the units that are strategically placed to retain a mosaic of fuel treatments 

across the landscape (FEIS p. 179). 

Treatments within Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs), Old Growth Management 

Areas (OGMAs) and Potential Wilderness (PWAs)

Alternative 3 was designed to address public issues around treatment within certain areas and 

allocations that some members of the public feel should be avoided with mechanical harvest. 

Alternative 3 reduced the amount of treatment within the riparian habitat conservation area of 

Paulina Creek, within the Paulina Creek Old Growth Management Area, and in areas that may 

be considered as having roadless characteristics. These areas are addressed individually in the 

following paragraphs.

Riparian Habitat Conservation Area (RHCA): Paulina Creek is the only perennial stream in 

the project area. All RHCA units are above the UMZ and two Riparian Management 

Objectives (RMOs) are not being met under current conditions (large woody material in the 

stream is lacking and water temperatures exceed state standards). Units located in the RHCA 

of Paulina Creek have the intent of changing fire behavior to low intensity surface fire, 
Record of Decision

Page 7

promoting the development of late and old structure, and reducing the risk of insect 

infestation. Under Alternative 3, Units 111, 112, 113, and 114 are not included. In selecting 

Alternative 3, I considered the difficult access to those four units and potential impacts to the 

Peter Skene Ogden Trail. Alternative 3 avoids those units and reduces the amount of soil 

disturbance in the RHCA, but it still is expected to provide risk reduction within 43% (212 

acres) of the RHCA and to promote the development of larger trees (FEIS pp. 391-393 ). 

Importantly, under Alternative 3, the units directly adjacent to the McKay Campground will 

be thinned and fuels reduced which will reduce risk to the upper portions of the stream and 

Old Growth Management Area. By thinning and reducing fuels within a substantial 

proportion of the RHCA, the serious effects to the riparian corridor that resulted from the 

McKay wildfire of 1998 can be avoided while at the same time promoting development and 

maintenance of large trees. Project design limits use of mechanized equipment in the RHCA 

to protect riparian vegetation, ground cover, and water quality (see FEIS pp. 41 – 42). The 

project is designed to be consistent with INFISH standards and guidelines and will help to 

attain RMOs of large woody debris and water temperature (FEIS p. 402). Large wood 

recruitment is maintained and improved in the long term, and shade will be maintained and 

increased over time, with potential to decrease water temperatures. 

Paulina Creek Old Growth Management Area (OGMA): The current conditions within the 

OGMA put it at high risk of wildfire. A portion of the OGMA was burned by the McKay 

wildfire of 1998, resulting in the loss of focal species habitat. Because of heavy recreation 

use in the area, it’s important to protect the OGMA from another wildfire by reducing fuels. 

Along the south facing slopes, thinning and fuels reduction will protect and prolong the lives 

of the larger ponderosa pine that occur there. Because of the concerns with access to the units 

at the higher end of the OGMA, this alternative drops units 110 – 117. Alternative 3 will thin 

and reduce fuels on 372 acres within the western end of the OGMA. These activities will 

benefit the sustainability of the stands by focusing activities around known recreation sites 

and the south-facing slopes that are not currently providing ideal habitat for the focal species

(FEIS p. 355). 

Roadless Characteristics: The analysis in the FEIS distinguishes between Inventoried 

Roadless Areas (IRAs), areas that meet the inventory criteria for potential wilderness (PWA), 

and other unroaded lands. Two Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) lie adjacent to the Ogden 

project area and will not be directly impacted by project activities. FEIS p.439. Criteria in 

FSH 1909.12 Chapter 71 was used to determine if any areas could be included in an inventory 

for potential wilderness. One area that is contiguous with the North Paulina IRA meets the 

inventory criteria for potential wilderness (called a potential wilderness area, PWA). The 

PWA totals 20,472 acres and about 278 acres falls within the Ogden project boundary (FEIS 

p. 433, 436). This PWA is partially coincident with what Oregon Wild and Sierra Club 

submitted to the Forest during scoping as an “uninventoried roadless” area (displayed in FEIS 

pp. 437-438). However, beyond what meets in the inventory criteria for potential wilderness, 

the areas they submitted as uninventoried roadless show evidence of past harvest and road 

building, including recent salvage logging in the McKay fire area.

I’ve selected Alternative 3 which does not include any units within that PWA, so there will be

no impacts to the inventory of potential wilderness (FEIS p. 440). Other undeveloped areas 

will be minimally impacted by this project. These areas do not meet the inventory criteria for 
Record of Decision

Page 8

potential wilderness, are not ecologically unique, and are within management allocations that 

allow the proposed activities to occur. 

Goshawk Habitat Management

I considered the tradeoffs involved with vegetation management inside of goshawk post 

fledging areas (PFAs). Under Alternative 2, there would be no active management within 

PFA. Under Alternative 3, portions of the three PFAs are actively managed (8%, 33%, and 

26%). Currently, some stands within the PFAs are showing increased levels of beetle activity 

and beetles are moving from the lodgepole into the larger ponderosa pine. Thinning, mowing, 

and underburning would improve the resilience of the stands in the PFAs and protect the 

longevity of the larger trees (FEIS p. 237-239), focusing on the more fire resistant ponderosa 

pine. I understand that this creates short-term negative impacts such as disturbance and 

reduction of canopy closures; however, I feel that it is important to retain larger trees that can 

be provide better quality habitat in the future. Goshawk nest stands will not be entered, and 

activities will occur outside the nesting period to reduce impacts from disturbance. 

Consideration of Public Comment and other Resource Issues

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

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

to public comments. In responding to comments the interdisciplinary team has supplemented 

and improved some of the analysis, made factual and editorial corrections, and made 

clarifications. 

Because of concern over American marten habitat, the ID Team modified Alternative 3 to 

retain all dead and down lodgepole pine in five units (54, 285, 342, 947, and 951). After 

considering public comment on the matter, the IDT compared areas that provide the best 

quality habitat for marten against areas that are high priority for fuels reduction (because of 

location along travel corridors for example). I’ve determined that dead and down lodgepole 

pine within five units can be retained to provide high quality marten habitat. This project 

does not enter montane mixed conifer habitat type that is most likely to provide the high 

downed wood density and large snag habitat used by marten (FEIS p. 273), and Alternative 3 

also forgoes treatment within Units 110-117 which are providing habitat for marten in the 

OGMA. But over much of the Ogden project area that is considered potential marten habitat, 

moving stands towards more resilient conditions (e.g. favoring ponderosa pine, reducing 

density and fuels) will downgrade the quality of habitat it would serve for marten. Other 

species benefit from this type of treatment, because thinning will promote the development of 

larger ponderosa pine, which is an important component of habitat for white-headed 

woodpecker and Lewis’ woodpecker (FEIS pp. 209, 218).

The size of trees that are removed by thinning has been an issue for some groups. Comments 

suggested that trees over 18, 16, or even 15 inches in diameter should not be removed with 

thinning. The same groups have advocated for the retention of trees that exhibit old tree 

characteristics, regardless of diameter or age. In this project, all trees over 21” dbh regardless 

of age are retained to comply with the Eastside Screens. And both action alternatives also

incorporate an additional provision to retain ponderosa pine trees less than 21” dbh that 

exhibit “old tree characteristics.” The Ogden project area is primarily comprised of second

growth ponderosa pine that has regenerated since industrial logging about 80 years ago, so old 
Record of Decision

Page 9

trees are rare. Large trees are also uncommon and so by retaining large trees and trees that 

exhibit old tree characteristics, there will be a measure of diversity provided within a 

landscape that, because of past logging and fire suppression, is somewhat homogenous as 

mostly second-growth ponderosa pine stands. Some modeling of representative stands was 

completed to show the size of trees removed. The majority of cut trees are in the less than 

16” diameter size class, and the actual number of trees per acre in the greater than 16” 

diameter class is relatively small (FEIS Appendix E). But those trees above 16” can help 

contribute to the economic viability of a commercial timber sale and help meet the purpose 

and need of contributing to the local and regional economies. 

Second-growth ponderosa pine is often characterized as homogenous and lacking stand level 

diversity, and scoping responses expressed a desire to see variability and diversity within 

stands and across the landscape. The selected alternative is expected to provide gaps and 

clumps, primarily driven by the existing condition of stands. Where lodgepole pine or dwarf 

mistletoe is removed, gaps can occur. Prescribed underburning can also help to induce a 

gappy and patchy character. Across the project area, following thinning, about 21% of the 

ponderosa pine thinning units will exhibit low stocking. That equates to approximately 8% of 

the project area. The remainder of the ponderosa pine thinning units would have stocking 

above the lower management zone.

Another concern for some commenters is the reduction in potential tree mortality that may 

occur when forest stands are thinned. Because thinning stands will maintain or improve the 

vigor of trees, their ability to survive beetles is increased. This project will not eliminate 

mortality in trees, but will reduce the proportion of the landscape where the potential for 

serious mortality exists. The choice I’m making will keep a higher percentage of the stands 

with the best potential for large tree development growing and resilient, avoiding beetle risk 

for 20 to 40 years. This provides the opportunity to reach the HRV for LOS ponderosa pine 

and to recruit larger snags in the future.

Other Alternatives Analyzed

In addition to the selected Alternative 3, two additional alternatives were analyzed in detail. 

They include Alternative 1 the No Action and Alternative 2. Additional alternatives include 

those considered in the FEIS but eliminated from detailed analysis (FEIS, pp. 55-57).

Alternative 1 (No Action)

Alternative 1 is the No Action alternative, used to provide a baseline for comparison of the 

effects of all of the alternatives. There would be no stand density management or fuels 

reduction. Alternative 1 does nothing to address the purpose and need outlined for the Ogden 

project area. The FEIS shows that under Alternative 1 stand stocking will continue to be 

above the upper management zone and at risk of mountain pine beetle attack for stands that 

have not been previously thinned (FEIS p. 87, 118). These stands would also not be put on a 

trajectory towards LOS and the proportion of the LOS would remain below the historic range 

of variability. 

Important areas and sites such as campgrounds, travel corridors, and the riparian area along 

Paulina Creek would remain vulnerable to wildfire effects. With no action, a larger 

proportion of the landscape would continue to deviate further from the historic fire regime 

and gradually increase in vulnerability to a stand replacing wildfire. Areas that currently rate 
Record of Decision

Page 10

a low hazard potential would shift to moderate or high hazard potential. In those areas that 

are rated moderate or high, suppression of a wildfire would be more difficult and more 

damage could occur (FEIS p. 160). The chance for wildfire to become large is moderate to 

very high across the majority of the project area and as fuels accumulate over time, the rates 

of spread of potential wildfire would continue to increase.

By not reducing fuels or stand density; by not improving forest health or promoting LOS 

ponderosa pine; and by not contributing timber or other wood fiber products, Alternative 1 

would not meet the purpose and need for action. Therefore, I did not select Alternative 1.

Alternative 2

Alternative 2 was developed to respond to the purpose and need and is described on pages 18 

- 19 of the FEIS. This alternative would treat about 13,818 acres with thinning and 

regeneration harvest, and conduct about 11,772 acres of fuels reduction activities, including 

over 10,000 acres of prescribed underburning. Alternative 2 would conduct thinning and 

underburning in slightly more acres of RHCA than Alternative 3 and would also require the 

use of more temporary roads than Alternative 3. The two action alternatives are similar in 

how they address the purpose and need through thinning and fuels reduction on a landscape 

scale, but Alternative 2 was not selected because it does not address the key issues 

(regeneration harvest in lodgepole pine, thinning level in mixed stands of ponderosa and 

lodgepole pine, air quality impacts from burning, and treatments within RHCA, OGMA, 

PWA, and goshawk PFAs) that were raised by the public as well as Alternative 3 did. 

The Environmentally Preferable Alternative

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

environmentally preferable alternative (40 CFR 1505.2(b)). This is interpreted to mean the 

alternative that would cause the least damage to the biological and physical components of the 

environment, and which bests protects, preserves, and enhances, historic, cultural, and natural 

resources (Council on Environmental Quality, Forty Most Asked Question Concerning CEQ’s 

National Environmental Policy Act Regulations, 46 Federal Register 18026). Factors 

considered in identifying this alternative include: (1) fulfilling the responsibility of this 

generation as trustee of the environment for future generations, (2) providing for a productive 

and aesthetically pleasing environment, (3) attaining the widest range of beneficial uses of the 

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

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

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

alternatives based on relevant factors, including economic and technical considerations and 

statutory missions {40 CFR 1505.2(b)}.

I have determined that the environmentally preferable alternative is Alternative 3. A 

comparison of the two action alternatives can be found in the FEIS on pp. 50-53.

Public Involvement

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

and 36 CFR 215. The FEIS describes scoping efforts and the public comment period (pp. 6, 

358). An interim mailing was also sent to the public to describe the alternatives that were 

going to be analyzed in the DEIS. The Bulletin, Bend, Oregon featured the Ogden project on 
Record of Decision

Page 11

two occasions. The public comment period is addressed further in Chapter 4. Comments 

received from 12 individuals, agencies, and organizations were carefully reviewed and 

substantive comments have been responded to individually in Appendix F. Some comments 

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

Consultation with Government Agencies and Tribes

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

of the Warm Springs, Burns Paiute, and the Klamath Tribes (FEIS pp. 7, 461). Government 

to government conferences included discussions of this project. These Tribal governments 

did not express any concerns about the project.

The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) was consulted during project planning

following guidelines in the Regional Programmatic Agreement among USDA-Forest Service, 

the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the Oregon SHPO. In a letter dated 

October 6, 2011 the SHPO concurred with the Forest’s recommended protection procedures 

and the monitoring program outlined in the report submitted to them. The SHPO agreed that 

the project will have no adverse effect on any known cultural resources (FEIS p. 463). 

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

pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9. They provided a Lack of Objections rating (FEIS p. 462). The 

EPA’s reviewing official wrote on September 6, 2011: 

“The EPA is supportive of the overarching goals and objectives of the proposed 

project, and we find the DEIS to be clear, well organized, and robust. We appreciate 

the visual representations provided in conjunction with the descriptions of existing and 

projected stand conditions (i.e. Figures 14-26). This is a useful synthesis for the reader. 

We also appreciate the level of analysis given to activities proposed within the 

Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs). The photographs and site specific 

discussion and prescriptions help to provide clarity about the need for treatment and 

desired post treatment conditions. We are also pleased by the Forest’s responsiveness 

to issues raised during the scoping process through the development and adoption of 

Alternative 3 as the preferred alternative. We support the approach in Alternative 3 of 

maintaining stands at or above the lower management zone, and the lighter touch 

within the RHCA. We are also cognizant, however, of recent research demonstrating 

that intensive thinning treatments are the most effective in reducing the probability of 

crown fires in the dry forests1. The DEIS demonstrates that Alternative 3 would 

increase the percent of the landscape with low flame length potential (p. 149) and 

reduce crown fire potential (p. 154) but we encourage the Forest to consider this recent 

research as the final selected alternative is analyzed.” 

Formal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or National Marine 

Fisheries Service was not required and did not occur because the project does not 

involve any habitat for threatened or endangered wildlife or fish species (FEIS pp. 181, 

399).

 

1

Johnson, Morris C.; Kennedy, Maureen C; Peterson, David L. 2011. Simulating fuel treatment effects in dry 

forests of the western United States: testing the principles of a fire-safe forest. Canadian Journal of Forest 

Research. 41(6): 1018-1030. http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/38390
Record of Decision

Page 12

Legal Requirements and Policy

In reviewing the FEIS and actions associated with Alternative 3, we have concluded that our

decision is consistent with the following laws and requirements:

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

NEPA establishes the format and content requirements of environmental analysis and 

documentation as well as requirements for public involvement and disclosure. The entire 

process of preparing this environmental impact statement was undertaken to comply with 

NEPA. 

The National Forest Management Act (NFMA)

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

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

Forest Plan direction, including from the Regional Forester’s Forest Plan Amendment #2 

(Eastside Screens) has been adhered to and incorporated into the project’s design. The 

selected alternative is outside of the Newberry National Volcanic Monument.

Deschutes Forest Plan Amendments: These amendments will not have an impact on the goals 

and objectives for the Forest Plan and they provide for activities that contribute to meeting the 

Scenic Views management area objectives. All other aspects of the selected alternative are 

consistent with the direction in the Forest Plan and Eastside Screens. I find the amendments 

described in the FEIS (pp. 410-411) to be non-significant based on the analysis on pages 412 

and 413 of the FEIS. 

The selected alternative is consistent with direction contained in the Inland Native Fish 

Strategy (INFISH). Some Riparian Management Objectives (RMOs) are not being met under 

current conditions. The analysis concludes that Alternative 3 would benefit two RMOs-water 

temperature and large woody material (FEIS pp. 401-402). 

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

Management Act implementing regulations; specifically under Alternative 3, there is no 

timber harvest on lands classified as unsuitable for timber production and Alternative 3 is 

consistent with the seven management requirements and the vegetation requirements from 36 

CFR 219.217.

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

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

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

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

Terms of the 2004 Programmatic Agreement” with the Oregon State Historic Preservation 

Officer (SHPO). The activities in the selected alternative have been designed to have no 

effect to cultural resource sites through both protection and avoidance (FEIS pp. 446-447). A 

finding of No Adverse Effect has been made for this project. The project is compliant with 

the SHPO regulations (FEIS p. 463).

The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended

Biological Evaluations were prepared to document the possible effects of the proposed 

activities to threatened and endangered species within the project area. The selected 
Record of Decision

Page 13

alternative is determined to “No Effect” to northern spotted owl, Oregon spotted frog, and 

California wolverine. It has been determined that implementation of all of the proposed 

activities will have no effect to any threatened or endangered fish or plant species and would 

have either no impact on any sensitive wildlife species or associated habitat or may impact 

individuals or habitat but not cause a trend toward federal listing (FEIS pp. 221-222). 

The Clean Water Act, 1982 and 303(d)

The selected alternative will comply with the Clean Water Act. This Act establishes a nondegradation policy for all federally proposed projects. Paulina Creek is water-quality 

impaired due to high water temperatures. Design of the Ogden project was structured to 

avoid, minimize, or rectify potentially adverse effects to the water quality of Paulina Creek. 

Measures include stream setbacks, buffers for mechanized equipment, slope limitations, tree 

height-based restrictions for thinning, and hand piling. The analysis concludes that effective 

stream shade will be maintained and therefore not adversely affecting water temperature.

(FEIS pp. 397-398).

NPDES Permits: With the Consolidated Appropriations Act (2012, § 429, Pub. L. No. 112-

74, 125 Stat. 786 1046-1047), Congress has temporarily suspended the permitting 

requirement imposed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision in Northwest 

Environmental Defense Center (NEDC) v. Brown. In NEDC v. Brown, the court held that 

stormwater runoff associated with logging roads is not exempt from the National Pollution 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting requirements of the Clean Water Act. At 

this time, it is uncertain whether any NPDES permitting requirements apply, or will apply in 

the future, to stormwater discharges from logging roads. The analysis shows that runoff from 

stormwater would be none to negligible (FEIS pp. 385-386).

The Clean Air Act

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

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

State Forester in conducting prescribed burning in order to achieve strict compliance with all 

aspects of the Clean Air Act and adherence to the Oregon Smoke Management Plan (FEIS pp. 

179-180).

Civil Rights and Environmental Justice

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

address any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on 

minority and low income populations. The analysis focuses on potential effects from the 

project to minority populations, disabled persons, and low-income groups. 

After evaluating the discussion in the FEIS, page 455, I have determined that there would be 

no discernible impacts from any of the alternatives on Native Americans, women, other 

minorities, or the Civil Rights of any American citizen.

Implementation

Implementation will likely begin in the spring of 2013. We reviewed the FEIS and associated 

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

reasoned choice of action. We are fully aware of adverse effects that cannot be avoided and 
Record of Decision

Page 14

believe the risks are outweighed by the benefits. Implementing the selected alternative will 

cause no unacceptable cumulative impact to any resource.

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

management and protection objectives. In determining whether and what kind of further 

NEPA action is required, we will consider the criteria to supplement an existing 

Environmental Impact Statement in 40 CFR 1502.9(c) and FSH 1909.15, sec. 18, and in 

particular, whether the proposed change is a substantial change to the intent of the Selected 

Alternative as planned and already approved, and whether the change is relevant to 

environmental concerns. Connected or interrelated proposed changes regarding particular 

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

cumulative impacts of these changes will also be considered.

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

protection, to improve logging system efficiency, and to better meet the intent of our decision. 

Many of these minor changes will not present sufficient potential impacts to require any 

specific documentation or action to comply with applicable laws.

Appeal Rights

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

the day following the date the legal notice of this decision is published in The Bulletin, Bend, 

Oregon. Only individuals or organizations that submitted comments during the 45-day 

comment period, which ran from July 22, 2011 to September 6, 2011, may appeal. Notices of 

appeal must meet the requirements of 36 CFR 215.14. Appeals can be submitted in several 

forms, but must be received by the Appeal Deciding Officer, Regional Forester, within 45 

days from the date of publication of notice of the decision in The Bulletin, Bend, OR. Appeals 

may be:

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

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

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

and the project name in the subject line. Electronic appeals must be submitted as part of 

an actual e-mail message, or as an attachment in Microsoft Word (.doc), rich text format 

(.rtf), or portable document format (.pdf) only. E-mails submitted to addresses other than 

the ones listed above or in formats other than those listed above or containing viruses will 

be rejected. It is the responsibility of the appellant to confirm receipt of appeals submitted 

by electronic mail. For electronically mailed appeals, the sender should normally receive 

an automated electronic acknowledgement from the agency as confirmation of receipt. If 

the sender does not receive an automated acknowledgement of the receipt of the appeal, it 

is the sender’s responsibility to ensure timely receipt by other means;

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

Duncan Plaza Building, Portland, Oregon 97204-3440 between 7:45 AM and 4:30 PM, 

Monday through Friday except legal holidays; or

4) Faxed to: Regional Forester, Attn: 1570 APPEALS at (503) 808-2339.
Record of Decision

Page 15

Contact Persons / Further Information

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

available on the internet at http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/nepa_projects?forest=110601. 

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

may contact:

Beth Peer Kevin Larkin

Environmental Coordinator District Ranger

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

63095 Deschutes Market Road 63095 Deschutes Market Road

Bend, OR 97701 Bend, OR 97701

(541) 383-4769 (541) 383-4766

Responsible Official

The Supervisor of the Deschutes National Forest is the official responsible for deciding the 

type and extent of management activities in the Ogden project area.

 /s/ John Allen____ __9/14/12___

JOHN ALLEN Date

Forest Supervisor

Deschutes National Forest
Record of Decision

Page 16

This page intentionally left blank.
Record of Decision

 Page 17

 Appendix A – Unit Map - Harvest
Record of Decision

Page 18

Appendix A – Unit Map – Fuels Reduction
 Appendix A-1 – Map of Harvest Treatments, Alternative 3 Ogden Vegetation Management Project 
Appendix A-2 – Map of Fuels Treatments, Alternative 3 Ogden Vegetation Management Project
Record of Decision

Page 19

Appendix B – Unit Prescriptions

Prescription Codes

LP_1 Lodgepole pine seed tree removal (previous clearcut where understory is 

fully regenerated, seed trees are removed)

MC_1, PP_1, PP_LP_1 Thin, favoring ponderosa pine for retention. Lodgepole pine and true fir 

retained as needed to meet minimum stocking levels

MC_2, LP_2, LP_4 Thin, favoring ponderosa pine for retention. Lodgepole pine and true fir 

retained as needed to meet lower management stocking levels

LP_SPC, MC_SPC, 

PP_LP_SPC, PP_SPC

Thin, within plantations and other areas where excess stocking is primarily 

small diameter trees.

RHCA Thin within Riparian Habitat Conservation Area

MOW Mechanical shrub treatment or Mowing

WTY Whole tree yarding

UB Underburning

Mow_UB Combination mow and underburn 

Mow_UB_2 Combination mow and underburn where thinning retains lodgepole or 

white fir to meet lower management zone tree density

Unit 

Number Objective Treatment Acres Tree Slash 1 Slash 2 Natural Fuel

1 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_LP_2 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY Mow_UB_2 42

2 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_LP_2 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY Mow_UB_2 19

3 PP_LP_sustain_Lg_tree_str PP_LP_2 None_Lop_Scatter WTY Mow_UB_2 13

4 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_LP_2 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY None 3

5 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_LP_2 None_Lop_Scatter WTY Mow_UB_2 22

6 PP_LP_sustain_Lg_tree_str PP_LP_2 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY Mow_UB_2 138

7 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_LP_2 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY Mow_UB_2 15

9 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_LP_2 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY None 38

13 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_LP_2 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY None 12

14 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_LP_2 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY None 147

15 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_LP_2 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY None 31

16 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_LP_2 None_Lop_Scatter WTY None 10

17 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_LP_2 None_Lop_Scatter WTY None 53

18 PP_LP_sustain_Lg_tree_str PP_LP_2 None_Lop_Scatter WTY Mow_UB_2 36

19 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_LP_2 None_Lop_Scatter WTY Mow_UB_2 56

20 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_LP_2 None_Lop_Scatter WTY Mow_UB_2 20

21 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_LP_2 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY Mow_UB_2 60

22 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_LP_2 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY Mow_UB_2 114

23 PP_LP_sustain_Lg_tree_str PP_LP_2 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY Mow_UB_2 17

24 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_LP_2 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY Mow_UB_2 55
Record of Decision

Page 20

Unit 

Number Objective Treatment Acres Tree Slash 1 Slash 2 Natural Fuel

25 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_LP_2 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY Mow_UB_2 143

26 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_LP_2 None_Lop_Scatter WTY Mow_UB_2 36

27 PP_move_to_intermediate PP_SPC Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY None 11

28 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_LP_2 None_Lop_Scatter WTY None 96

29 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_LP_2 None_Lop_Scatter WTY None 45

30 PP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_1 None_Lop_Scatter WTY Mow_UB 41

31 PP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_1 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY Mow_UB 84

32 PP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_1 None_Lop_Scatter WTY Mow_UB 39

33 PP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_1 None_Lop_Scatter WTY Mow_UB 82

34 PP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_1 None_Lop_Scatter WTY Mow_UB 11

35 PP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_1 None_Lop_Scatter WTY Mow_UB 128

36 PP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_1 None_Lop_Scatter WTY Mow_UB 252

37 PP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_1 None_Lop_Scatter WTY None 138

38 PP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_1 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY None 26

39 PP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_1 None_Lop_Scatter WTY None 96

40 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_1 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY None 138

41 PP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_1 None_Lop_Scatter WTY Mow_UB 93

42 PP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_1 None_Lop_Scatter WTY Mow_UB 44

43 PP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_1 None_Lop_Scatter WTY Mow_UB 20

44 PP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_1 None_Lop_Scatter WTY Mow_UB 19

45 PP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_1 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY Mow_UB 22

46 PP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_1 None_Lop_Scatter WTY Mow_UB 65

47 PP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_1 None_Lop_Scatter WTY Mow_UB 85

48 PP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_1 None_Lop_Scatter WTY None 17

49 PP_move_to_intermediate None None None MOW 117

50 PP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_1 None_Lop_Scatter WTY None 60

51 PP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_1 None_Lop_Scatter WTY None 10

52 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str MC_2 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY None 25

53 PP_move_to_Lg_tree_str GSHK_PFAmc None_Lop_Scatter WTY None 17

54 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str MC_2 None_Lop_Scatter WTY None 12

55 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str MC_2 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY None 41

56 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str MC_2 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY None 4

60 MC_move_to_intermediate MC_SPC Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY None 20

61 MC_move_to_Lg_tree_str MC_SPC Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY None 10

62 PP_move_to_intermediate MC_SPC Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY None 1

63 LP_move_to_intermediate LP_SPC Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY None 34

64 PP_move_to_intermediate PP_SPC Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY None 43

65 LP_move_to_intermediate LP_SPC Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY None 34

66 PP_move_to_intermediate PP_SPC Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY None 25

67 LP_move_to_intermediate LP_1 Hand_Pile WTY None 19

68 LP_move_to_intermediate LP_SPC Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY None 39

70 LP_move_to_intermediate LP_SPC Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY None 37

71 LP_move_to_intermediate LP_SPC Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY None 31

73 LP_move_to_intermediate LP_1 Hand_Pile WTY None 44
Record of Decision

Page 21

Unit 

Number Objective Treatment Acres Tree Slash 1 Slash 2 Natural Fuel

76 LP_move_to_intermediate LP_1 Hand_Pile WTY None 39

78 WLHab_LP_StructDiversity LP_SPC Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY None 63

79 LP_move_to_intermediate LP_1 Hand_Pile WTY None 68

80 LP_move_to_intermediate LP_1 Hand_Pile WTY None 8

82 LP_move_to_intermediate LP_1 Hand_Pile WTY None 23

84 LP_move_to_intermediate LP_1 Hand_Pile WTY None 41

86 LP_move_to_intermediate LP_1 Hand_Pile WTY None 37

87 LP_move_to_intermediate LP_1 Hand_Pile WTY None 34

90 LP_move_to_intermediate LP_1 Hand_Pile WTY None 28

91 LP_move_to_intermediate LP_1 Hand_Pile WTY None 88

92 LP_move_to_intermediate LP_1 Hand_Pile WTY None 3

93 LP_move_to_intermediate LP_1 Hand_Pile WTY None 14

94 WLHab_LP_StructDiversity LP_SPC Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY None 170

95 LP_move_to_intermediate LP_1 Hand_Pile WTY None 67

96 LP_move_to_intermediate LP_1 Hand_Pile WTY None 19

97 MC_move_to_Lg_tree_str MC_2 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY None 36

98 LP_move_to_intermediate LP_1 Hand_Pile WTY None 31

99 LP_move_to_intermediate LP_1 Hand_Pile WTY None 28

100 LP_move_to_intermediate LP_SPC Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY None 27

101 PP_LP_move_to_intermediate PP_SPC Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY MOW 21

102 PP_move_to_intermediate PP_SPC Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY MOW 16

103 PP_move_to_intermediate PP_SPC Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY None 30

104 LP_move_to_intermediate LP_SPC Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY None 37

106 LP_move_to_intermediate LP_1 Hand_Pile WTY None 77

107 PP_move_to_intermediate PP_SPC Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY None 13

108 PP_LP_sustain_Lg_tree_str MC_2 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY None 13

109 LP_move_to_intermediate LP_1 Hand_Pile WTY None 11

118 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str MC_2 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY None 19

119 PP_LP_move_to_intermediate None None None MOW 42

120 PP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_SPC Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY MOW 11

121 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str MC_2 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY None 11

122 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str MC_2 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY None 8

123 PP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_SPC Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY MOW 20

124 MC_move_to_Lg_tree_str MC_2 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY None 76

125 PP_move_to_intermediate None None None MOW 48

126 PP_move_to_Lg_tree_str None None None MOW 16

127 PP_move_to_intermediate None None None MOW 9

128 PP_move_to_intermediate PP_SPC Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY MOW 11

129 PP_move_to_intermediate PP_SPC Lop_Scatter None MOW 4

130 PP_move_to_intermediate PP_SPC Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY MOW 34

131 PP_move_to_intermediate PP_SPC Lop_Scatter None MOW 106

132 PP_move_to_intermediate PP_SPC Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY MOW 29

133 PP_move_to_intermediate None None None MOW 43

134 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str MC_2 None_Lop_Scatter WTY None 66
Record of Decision

Page 22

Unit 

Number Objective Treatment Acres Tree Slash 1 Slash 2 Natural Fuel

135 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str MC_2 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY None 8

136 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str MC_2 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY None 61

137 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str MC_2 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY Mow_UB_2 21

138 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str RHCA_MC RHCA_Pile RHCA_WTY RHCA_UB 27

139 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str MC_2 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY Mow_UB_2 21

140 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str RHCA_PP_LP RHCA_Pile RHCA_WTY RHCA_UB 9

141 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str RHCA_PP_LP RHCA_Pile RHCA_WTY RHCA_UB 85

142 PP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_1 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY Mow_UB 25

143 PP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_1 None_Lop_Scatter WTY Mow_UB 37

144 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str MC_1 None_Lop_Scatter WTY Mow_UB 82

145 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str MC_1 None_Lop_Scatter WTY Mow_UB 87

146 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str MC_1 None_Lop_Scatter WTY Mow_UB 91

147 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str MC_1 None_Lop_Scatter WTY Mow_UB 32

148 PP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_1 None_Lop_Scatter WTY Mow_UB 99

149 PP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_1 None_Lop_Scatter WTY None 20

150 PP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_1 None_Lop_Scatter WTY None 20

151 PP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_1 None_Lop_Scatter WTY None 135

152 PP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_1 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY None 5

153 PP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_1 None_Lop_Scatter WTY Mow_UB 59

154 PP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_1 None_Lop_Scatter WTY None 20

155 PP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_1 None_Lop_Scatter WTY Mow_UB 16

156 PP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_1 None_Lop_Scatter WTY None 103

157 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_LP_2 None_Lop_Scatter WTY None 38

158 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_LP_2 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY Mow_UB_2 204

159 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str RHCA_PP_LP RHCA_Pile RHCA_WTY RHCA_UB 80

160 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_LP_2 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY Mow_UB_2 44

161 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_LP_2 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY Mow_UB_2 54

162 PP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_1 None_Lop_Scatter WTY Mow_UB 173

163 PP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_1 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY Mow_UB 23

164 PP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_1 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY Mow_UB 4

165 PP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_1 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY Mow_UB 3

166 PP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_1 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY Mow_UB 12

167 PP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_1 None_Lop_Scatter WTY Mow_UB 225

168 PP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_1 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY Mow_UB 6

169 PP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_1 None_Lop_Scatter WTY Mow_UB 10

170 PP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_1 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY Mow_UB 135

171 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_LP_2 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY Mow_UB_2 55

172 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str RHCA_PP_LP RHCA_Pile RHCA_WTY RHCA_UB 11

173 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_LP_LFR Lop_Scatter None Mow_UB_2 29

174 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_LP_2 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY Mow_UB_2 121

175 PP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_1 None_Lop_Scatter WTY Mow_UB 41

176 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_LP_2 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY Mow_UB_2 8

177 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_LP_2 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY Mow_UB_2 41

178 PP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_1 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY Mow_UB 136
Record of Decision

Page 23

Unit 

Number Objective Treatment Acres Tree Slash 1 Slash 2 Natural Fuel

179 PP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_1 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY Mow_UB 15

180 PP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_1 None_Lop_Scatter WTY Mow_UB 66

181 PP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_1 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY Mow_UB 3

182 PP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_1 None_Lop_Scatter WTY Mow_UB 21

183 PP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_1 None_Lop_Scatter WTY None 55

184 PP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_1 None_Lop_Scatter WTY Mow_UB 9

185 PP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_1 None_Lop_Scatter WTY Mow_UB 17

186 PP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_1 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY Mow_UB 20

187 PP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_1 None_Lop_Scatter WTY Mow_UB 141

188 PP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_1 None_Lop_Scatter WTY Mow_UB 21

189 PP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_1 None_Lop_Scatter WTY Mow_UB 7

190 PP_sustain_Lg_tree_str PP_1 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY Mow_UB 18

191 PP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_1 None_Lop_Scatter WTY Mow_UB 13

192 PP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_1 None_Lop_Scatter WTY Mow_UB 23

193 PP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_1 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY Mow_UB 31

194 PP_move_to_intermediate PP_SPC Lop_Scatter None MOW 36

195 PP_move_to_intermediate PP_SPC Hand_Pile None MOW 7

196 PP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_1 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY Mow_UB 11

197 PP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_1 None_Lop_Scatter WTY Mow_UB 28

198 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_LP_2 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY Mow_UB_2 2

199 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_LP_LFR Lop_Scatter None Mow_UB_2 23

200 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_LP_2 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY Mow_UB_2 3

201 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_LP_2 None_Lop_Scatter WTY Mow_UB_2 25

202 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_LP_2 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY Mow_UB_2 6

203 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_LP_2 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY Mow_UB_2 4

204 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_LP_LFR Lop_Scatter None Mow_UB_2 22

205 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_LP_LFR Lop_Scatter None Mow_UB_2 4

206 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_LP_LFR Lop_Scatter None Mow_UB_2 14

207 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_LP_2 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY Mow_UB_2 30

208 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_LP_2 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY None 78

209 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_LP_2 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY None 91

210 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_LP_SPC None_Lop_Scatter WTY Mow_UB_2 7

211 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_LP_2 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY Mow_UB_2 56

212 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_LP_2 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY None 13

214 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_LP_2 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY Mow_UB_2 170

215 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_LP_LFR Lop_Scatter None Mow_UB_2 32

216 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str None None None Mow_UB_2 61

217 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_LP_2 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY Mow_UB_2 4

218 PP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_1 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY None 21

219 PP_move_to_intermediate PP_SPC Lop_Scatter None MOW 12

220 PP_move_to_intermediate PP_SPC Lop_Scatter None MOW 62

221 PP_move_to_intermediate PP_SPC Lop_Scatter None MOW 6

222 PP_move_to_intermediate PP_SPC Lop_Scatter None None 6

223 PP_move_to_intermediate PP_SPC Hand_Pile None None 48
Record of Decision

Page 24

Unit 

Number Objective Treatment Acres Tree Slash 1 Slash 2 Natural Fuel

224 PP_move_to_intermediate PP_SPC Lop_Scatter None None 181

225 PP_move_to_intermediate PP_SPC Lop_Scatter None None 30

226 PP_move_to_intermediate PP_SPC Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY None 19

227 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_LP_2 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY None 9

228 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_LP_LFR Lop_Scatter None Mow_UB_2 38

229 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_LP_2 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY Mow_UB_2 34

230 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_LP_LFR Lop_Scatter None Mow_UB_2 98

231 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_LP_2 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY Mow_UB_2 30

232 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_LP_LFR Lop_Scatter None Mow_UB_2 31

233 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_LP_2 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY Mow_UB_2 43

234 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_LP_LFR Lop_Scatter None Mow_UB_2 20

235 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_LP_2 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY Mow_UB_2 35

236 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_LP_2 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY Mow_UB_2 31

237 PP_LP_move_to_intermediate LP_1 Lop_Scatter WTY None 20

238 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_LP_LFR Lop_Scatter None Mow_UB_2 64

239 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_LP_2 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY Mow_UB_2 5

240 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_LP_2 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY Mow_UB_2 5

241 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_LP_2 None_Lop_Scatter WTY Mow_UB_2 36

242 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_LP_LFR Lop_Scatter None Mow_UB_2 44

243 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_LP_LFR Lop_Scatter None Mow_UB_2 34

244 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_LP_2 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY Mow_UB_2 25

245 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_LP_2 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY Mow_UB_2 5

246 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_LP_2 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY Mow_UB_2 14

247 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_LP_LFR Lop_Scatter None Mow_UB_2 70

248 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_LP_2 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY Mow_UB_2 14

249 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_LP_LFR Lop_Scatter None Mow_UB_2 31

250 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_LP_LFR Lop_Scatter None Mow_UB_2 43

251 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_LP_2 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY Mow_UB_2 126

252 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_LP_LFR Lop_Scatter None Mow_UB_2 15

253 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_LP_2 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY Mow_UB_2 45

254 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_LP_LFR Lop_Scatter None Mow_UB_2 94

255 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_LP_2 None_Lop_Scatter WTY Mow_UB_2 22

256 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_LP_2 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY Mow_UB_2 36

257 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_LP_2 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY Mow_UB_2 51

258 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_LP_2 None_Lop_Scatter WTY Mow_UB_2 84

259 PP_move_to_Lg_tree_str None None None Mow_UB 31

260 PP_move_to_Lg_tree_str None None None Mow_UB 29

261 PP_move_to_Lg_tree_str None None None Mow_UB 16

262 PP_move_to_Lg_tree_str None None None Mow_UB 10

263 PP_move_to_Lg_tree_str None None None Mow_UB 62

264 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_LP_LFR Lop_Scatter None Mow_UB_2 11

265 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_LP_2 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY Mow_UB_2 151

266 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_LP_2 None_Lop_Scatter WTY Mow_UB_2 29

267 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_LP_2 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY Mow_UB_2 86
Record of Decision

Page 25

Unit 

Number Objective Treatment Acres Tree Slash 1 Slash 2 Natural Fuel

268 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_LP_2 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY Mow_UB_2 106

269 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_LP_2 None_Lop_Scatter WTY None 115

273 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_LP_2 None_Lop_Scatter WTY None 150

274 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_LP_2 None_Lop_Scatter WTY Mow_UB_2 45

275 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str None None None Mow_UB_2 27

277 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str None None None Mow_UB_2 24

278 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_LP_2 None_Lop_Scatter WTY Mow_UB_2 86

279 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_LP_2 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY Mow_UB_2 59

280 PP_LP_move_to_intermediate PP_LP_SPC Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY Mow_UB_2 4

281 PP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_1 None_Lop_Scatter WTY None 91

283 PP_move_to_Lg_tree_str MC_1 None_Lop_Scatter WTY Mow_UB 86

285 MC_move_to_Lg_tree_str MC_1 None_Lop_Scatter WTY Mow_UB 25

286 MC_move_to_Lg_tree_str MC_2 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY Mow_UB_2 12

287 PP_move_to_Lg_tree_str MC_1 None_Lop_Scatter WTY Mow_UB 25

288 PP_move_to_intermediate PP_SPC Lop_Scatter None MOW 13

289 LP_move_to_intermediate LP_1 Hand_Pile WTY None 14

290 LP_move_to_intermediate LP_SPC Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY None 45

291 MC_move_to_Lg_tree_str MC_2 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY Mow_UB_2 9

292 MC_move_to_Lg_tree_str MC_2 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY Mow_UB_2 2

293 LP_move_to_intermediate LP_1 Hand_Pile WTY None 20

296 LP_move_to_intermediate LP_SPC Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY None 27

298 LP_move_to_intermediate LP_1 Hand_Pile WTY None 25

305 LP_move_to_intermediate LP_1 Hand_Pile WTY None 24

306 LP_move_to_stnd_initiation LP_4 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY None 8

307 LP_move_to_intermediate LP_1 Hand_Pile WTY None 13

308 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str MC_2 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY None 7

309 PP_move_to_intermediate PP_SPC Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY None 37

310 LP_move_to_intermediate LP_1 Hand_Pile WTY None 27

311 LP_move_to_intermediate LP_SPC Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY None 14

312 PP_move_to_intermediate PP_SPC Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY None 15

313 LP_move_to_intermediate LP_1 Hand_Pile WTY None 13

314 LP_move_to_intermediate LP_1 Hand_Pile WTY None 28

318 LP_move_to_intermediate LP_SPC Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY None 9

319 LP_move_to_intermediate LP_SPC Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY None 1

322 LP_move_to_intermediate LP_1 Hand_Pile WTY None 12

325 LP_move_to_intermediate LP_1 Hand_Pile WTY None 26

326 LP_move_to_intermediate LP_1 Hand_Pile WTY None 1

330 LP_move_to_intermediate LP_1 Hand_Pile WTY None 10

331 MC_move_to_Lg_tree_str MC_2 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY None 23

332 LP_move_to_intermediate LP_1 Hand_Pile WTY None 14

333 MC_move_to_Lg_tree_str MC_2 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY Mow_UB_2 39

334 LP_move_to_intermediate LP_1 Hand_Pile WTY None 28

335 PP_move_to_intermediate PP_SPC Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY MOW 10

337 MC_move_to_Lg_tree_str MC_LFR Lop_Scatter None MOW 3
Record of Decision

Page 26

Unit 

Number Objective Treatment Acres Tree Slash 1 Slash 2 Natural Fuel

338 MC_move_to_Lg_tree_str MC_LFR Lop_Scatter None MOW 13

339 PP_move_to_intermediate PP_SPC Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY MOW 19

341 LP_move_to_intermediate LP_SPC Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY None 23

342 MC_move_to_Lg_tree_str MC_2 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY None 48

343 MC_move_to_Lg_tree_str MC_2 None_Lop_Scatter WTY Mow_UB_2 19

345 MC_move_to_Lg_tree_str MC_2 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY Mow_UB_2 11

346 MC_move_to_Lg_tree_str MC_LFR Lop_Scatter None MOW 67

351 MC_move_to_Lg_tree_str MC_2 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY None 6

352 MC_move_to_Lg_tree_str MC_2 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY None 55

353 PP_move_to_Lg_tree_str MC_1 None_Lop_Scatter WTY None 25

365 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_LP_SPC Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY None 21

366 PP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_1 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY Mow_UB 12

367 PP_LP_move_to_intermediate PP_LP_SPC Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY None 8

368 PP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_1 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY None 8

369 PP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_1 None_Lop_Scatter WTY Mow_UB 90

370 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_LP_2 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY None 118

371 PP_move_to_intermediate PP_SPC Lop_Scatter None MOW 24

372 PP_move_to_intermediate PP_SPC Lop_Scatter None MOW 9

373 PP_move_to_intermediate PP_SPC Lop_Scatter None MOW 66

374 PP_move_to_intermediate PP_SPC Lop_Scatter None MOW 6

375 PP_move_to_intermediate PP_SPC Lop_Scatter None MOW 25

376 PP_move_to_intermediate PP_SPC Lop_Scatter None MOW 11

377 PP_move_to_intermediate PP_SPC Lop_Scatter None MOW 149

378 PP_move_to_intermediate PP_SPC Lop_Scatter None MOW 45

379 PP_move_to_intermediate PP_SPC Lop_Scatter None MOW 10

380 PP_move_to_intermediate PP_SPC Lop_Scatter None MOW 27

381 PP_move_to_intermediate PP_SPC Lop_Scatter None MOW 7

382 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str MC_2 None_Lop_Scatter WTY Mow_UB_2 29

383 MC_move_to_Lg_tree_str MC_2 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY Mow_UB_2 13

384 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str MC_2 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY Mow_UB_2 19

385 MC_move_to_Lg_tree_str MC_2 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY Mow_UB_2 24

386 MC_sustain_Lg_tree_str MC_2 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY Mow_UB_2 25

387 MC_move_to_Lg_tree_str MC_2 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY Mow_UB_2 18

388 MC_move_to_Lg_tree_str MC_2 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY Mow_UB_2 3

901 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_LP_2 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY Mow_UB_2 11

902 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_LP_2 None_Lop_Scatter WTY None 138

903 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str None None None Mow_UB_2 33

904 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_LP_2 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY None 116

905 PP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_1 None_Lop_Scatter WTY None 56

906 PP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_1 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY None 50

907 PP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_1 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY None 2

909 PP_move_to_Lg_tree_str GSHK_PFAmc None_Lop_Scatter WTY Mow_UB 33

912 PP_move_to_Lg_tree_str MC_1 None_Lop_Scatter WTY None 23

913 PP_move_to_Lg_tree_str GSHK_PFAmc Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY Mow_UB_2 57
Record of Decision

Page 27

Unit 

Number Objective Treatment Acres Tree Slash 1 Slash 2 Natural Fuel

914 MC_move_to_Lg_tree_str MC_2 None_Lop_Scatter WTY Mow_UB_2 20

916 LP_move_to_stnd_initiation LP_4 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY None 8

918 PP_move_to_Lg_tree_str MC_1 None_Lop_Scatter WTY Mow_UB 32

919 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str MC_1 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY Mow_UB 5

920 PP_move_to_Lg_tree_str MC_1 None_Lop_Scatter WTY Mow_UB 5

921 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str MC_1 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY Mow_UB 6

922 PP_move_to_Lg_tree_str MC_1 None_Lop_Scatter WTY Mow_UB 7

923 PP_move_to_Lg_tree_str MC_1 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY Mow_UB 12

924 PP_LP_move_to_intermediate PP_LP_SPC Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY Mow_UB_2 43

925 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str MC_1 None_Lop_Scatter WTY Mow_UB_2 19

926 MC_move_to_Lg_tree_str MC_2 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY None 3

927 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str MC_2 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY None 4

928 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str MC_2 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY None 13

929 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_LP_2 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY Mow_UB_2 22

930 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_LP_LFR Lop_Scatter None Mow_UB_2 18

931 PP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_1 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY Mow_UB 27

932 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_LP_2 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY Mow_UB_2 58

933 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_LP_2 None_Lop_Scatter WTY None 17

934 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_LP_2 None_Lop_Scatter WTY None 10

935 PP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_1 None_Lop_Scatter WTY Mow_UB 21

943 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_LP_2 None_Lop_Scatter WTY None 18

944 PP_move_to_Lg_tree_str None None None Mow_UB 89

945 PP_move_to_Lg_tree_str MC_1 None_Lop_Scatter WTY Mow_UB 9

946 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str GSHK_NST Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY Mow_UB_2 50

947 MC_move_to_Lg_tree_str MC_2 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY Mow_UB_2 29

948 PP_move_to_Lg_tree_str MC_1 None_Lop_Scatter WTY Mow_UB 5

949 PP_move_to_Lg_tree_str GSHK_PFA None_Lop_Scatter WTY None 129

951 MC_move_to_Lg_tree_str MC_2 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY None 17

955 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_LP_SPC None_Lop_Scatter WTY None 19

956 MC_move_to_Lg_tree_str MC_SPC Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY MOW 8

957 MC_move_to_Lg_tree_str MC_SPC Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY MOW 22

958 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str MC_SPC Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY MOW 6

964 PP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_1 None_Lop_Scatter WTY None 4

965 PP_move_to_Lg_tree_str GSHK_PFA Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY Mow_UB 25

966 MC_move_to_Lg_tree_str GSHK_NSTmc Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY Mow_UB_2 32

967 MC_move_to_Lg_tree_str MC_1 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY Mow_UB 36

969 PP_LP_move_to_Lg_tree_str PP_LP_2 Hand_Grapple_Pile WTY None 15
Record of Decision

Page 28

Appendix C - Resource Protection Measures

Measure 

Number

Protection Measure Units affected

1. To preserve ongoing research, Ecology Plots will be excluded from treatment. 35, 36

2. Retain ponderosa pine trees less than 21” dbh with old tree characteristics (from Van 

Pelt 2008) except where they are either: 1) ladder fuels which pose a threat to larger 

diameter trees or 2) dwarf mistletoe infected and contribute to infection potential of 

desired understory trees. Ponderosa pine old tree characteristics include all of the 

following: 1) orange bark with plates generally more than three times wider than the 

darker fissures that separate them, 2) rounded crown, and 3) below the main crown, 

few if any dead branches present and knots not noticeable.

All units

To ensure public safety and awareness during operations

3. Warning signs and public notices will be posted when burning or logging during 

hunting season or other times when public use of the area is high. To help ensure 

public safety during burning operations, signs or other traffic control measures would 

be used, in accordance with Oregon Department of Transportation permit 

requirements. Signs will be posted at either end of the Peter Skene Ogden NRT, at 

trailheads, and at McKay Campground. Trails and developed sites may be closed 

during these activities.

Units in and near 

developed recreation 

sites.

4. Private landowners, vendors, contractors, permit holders, and cooperators that may be 

impacted by underburning operations will be notified in advance of beginning any 

burning activities adjacent to their lands or areas of interest.

All

5. Burn areas adjacent to private land will be patrolled before leaving the site following 

ignition and daily thereafter until the unit fuels specialist and/or fire management 

officer determines there is no further threat to private land.

Along western 

boundary

6. Hazard trees created by underburning will be felled and left on site. All

7. Operations will be coordinated with special use permit holders and concessionaires in 

the project area.

All

8. Operations will be coordinated with geothermal operators and lease holders in the 

project area. Where exploration sites occur within treatment units, the site will be 

excluded from the activity area.

78, 84, 107, 118, 331, 

377, 99, 93

9. To help ensure public safety during thinning and mowing operations within 

plantations, especially within units adjacent to high traffic areas such as Road 21, limit 

mechanical brush-cutting, thinning, and shredding equipment to those whose design 

minimizes the distance debris is thrown during operations. For operations occurring 

away from high traffic areas, measures could also include the posting of warning signs 

or the closing of roads during operations.

Units 371-381 (Road 

21 units)

To preserve air quality

10. All prescribed burning operations would be coordinated with the Oregon State 

Department of Environmental Quality and the Oregon State Department of Forestry 

through FASTRACS, the State of Oregon smoke management program. Anticipated 

weather conditions would be favorable for smoke dispersion.

All
Record of Decision

Page 29

Measure 

Number

Protection Measure Units affected

To protect trees while burning 

11. To reduce potential for direct fire-related mortality, bark beetle induced mortality, and 

fire damage which could result in long-term growth loss, conduct burns in a manner 

that will result in 1) retention of at least 40 percent live crown ratio on dominant and 

codominant trees, with crown scorch generally less than 50 percent, and 2) minimal 

cambium scorching of lodgepole pine. Measures will include: 1) initiating burns 

outside the time of bud elongation (generally between mid-May to early June 

depending on weather conditions), 2) initiating burns when weather and fuel moisture 

conditions are favorable for meeting fuel reduction objectives and minimizing damage, 

and 3) utilizing lighting techniques expected to meet fuel reduction objectives while 

minimizing damage to residual trees. To minimize cambium scorching of lodgepole 

pine, lighting techniques to include avoiding direct ignition under lodgepole pine.

All units with 

prescribed 

underburning.

To protect Peter Skene Ogden (PSO) National Scenic Trail

12. To marginalize harvest impacts from view, mechanical harvest may occur up to 25 feet 

from the trail with equipment tracks remaining as far from the trail as possible, except 

where a trail-protected crossing is necessary.

PSO Mitigation 

Units:

137, 138, 140, 141, 

144, 159

13. Cut all trees to leave the lowest stump possible within visual distance from either side 

of the PSO trail. For any cut vegetation within 10 feet of either side of the trail, cut 

vegetation stumps flat and flush to the ground to prevent creating a hazard to trail 

users. At a minimum, following completion of all treatment activities, forest staff 

would review and evaluate the trail conditions to ensure that they meet safety 

standards.

PSO Mitigation 

Units:

137, 138, 140, 141, 

144, 159

14. Avoid creating sharply diverse vegetation conditions immediately adjacent to one side 

of the trail compared to the other. Completed operations should promote and 

emphasize a "natural" look of the forest as viewed from the trails and developed sitesminimizing natural disturbances and a mosaic of conditions where terrain and 

vegetation allow. Wherever possible, utilize techniques such as natural terrain features, 

or wet holding lines off the trail and construct new fireline out of site from the PSO 

trail.

PSO Mitigation 

Units:

137, 138, 140, 141, 

144, 159

15. Cross trails with machinery at intervals no closer than 200 feet apart along the length 

of the trail within the affected unit and guard the trail tread with slash where crossing 

must occur when snow depth does not protect tread. Inspect with recreation staff to 

ensure trail tread has been protected during operations and rehabilitated where 

affected.

PSO Mitigation 

Units:

137, 138, 140, 141, 

144, 159

Paulina Plunge Units: 

141,162,163,166, 

167,180

16. Coordinate landing, skid trail, slash pile and staging area locations with recreation staff 

prior to approval. Whenever possible, landings, slash piles, and other discordant visual 

evidence of harvest and treatment activities should not be visible from the PSO trail or 

developed recreation facilities following completion of operations. E.g. Avoid slash 

piles tree scorch in multiple trees seen from or along the trails or within sight of the 

developed sites. Yard vegetation away from the PSO trail. See also visual standards 

for Retention and Partial Retention. 

PSO Mitigation 

Units:

137, 138, 140, 141, 

144, 159

Paulina Plunge: 

141,162,163,166, 

167,180

17. Where stewardship or other implementation tools allow for long-term (one month or 

more) on-site storage of bundles or decks, do not approve long-term storage of bundles 

or decks within visibility of the PSO trail, developed or dispersed sites or facilities 

unless approved by the District Recreation staff. When possible, require swift removal 

and rehabilitation of piles and landings visible from PSO trail and recreation sites and 

short time spans between sale and post-sale operations.

PSO Mitigation 

Units:

137, 138, 140, 141, 

144, 159

18. Obliterate and subsoil existing unauthorized travelways where motorized travel spurs Not limited to 
Record of Decision

Page 30

Measure 

Number

Protection Measure Units affected

(primarily off of FSR 2120, 2120-300, 2120-100, and 9735-174) contribute to 

motorized access of the Riparian Habitat Conservation Area and across the PSO.

emphasis units: 159, 

160, 168, 143, 142, 

141

19. Obliterate and subsoil FSR 2120-300 and 2120-100 (except for the western most 

segment currently serving as parking for a special use permit operation) to help control 

motorized access of the RHCA.

Units 159, 160, 168

20. Leave a combination of natural barriers (including selective retention of large trees, 

un-treated clusters, downed wood or other natural barriers) 1) along FSR 2120 (up to 

1⁄4 mile beyond the east end of 2120-300), and 2) at McKay Crossing interface with 

PSO (to reduce potential for user-created roads and OHV travel in the RHCA and 

across the PSO). 

138, 140, 159, 160, 

168

21. Avoid creating vegetative conditions that would facilitate creation of unauthorized 

trails, or that would facilitate access from a designated route. Ensure that temporary 

roads used for project administration do not become future unauthorized trails by 

effective obliteration after use. Utilize opportunities during operations to obliterate 

unauthorized routes.

PSO mitigation units:

137, 138, 140, 141, 

144, 159

plus 160, 168

To protect recreation sites, facilities, and trails

22. If hauling occurs between December 1 and March 31, include Road Use Permit 

stipulations to establish appropriate safety conditions where snowmobiles are using the 

area. Such stipulations should include consideration of ramping snow berms to 

facilitate designated crossings of plowed routes, limiting haul on snowmobile trails to 

one lane to allow for grooming of the snow berm or other appropriate conditions to 

ensure safe use of the area during and following project operations. Applies to 

snowmobile trail #11 and Ponderosa Rim Nordic trail.

330-333, 336

23. Identify any unavoidable conflicts with summer and winter uses and logging or fuel 

reduction operations. Sign the high-use areas, trailheads and facilities affected in the 

project area that would be affected in advance of operations. 

182, 183, 331, 332, 

333

24. Coordinate with Recreation and Lands Staff regarding closure of Ogden or McKay 

campgrounds if logging or burning operations are being implemented within 1 mile of 

the site. Closure of the sno-parks should occur if operations might conflict with the 

safety of the visitor or visitors’ vehicles and equipment.

Ogden CG: 20, 21, 

24, 25, 26, 27, 30, 31, 

156, 15, 7, 158, 159, 

160, 165, 166, 167, 

168, 169, 170, 171, 

172, 173; McKay 

CG: 134, 135, 136, 

137, 138, 139, 140, 

141, 142, 143, 144, 

145, 146, 147, 152, 

153, 154, 155, 161, 

162, 184, 185, 186, 

187, 188, 189, 377, 

378

25. Coordinate with Recreation and Lands Staff to 1) identify hazard trees adjacent to and 

within recreations sites, and power lines to consider volume additions stemming from 

hazard trees. 2) Notify all special use permit holders in the area prior to project 

activities occurring.

138, 140, 171, 172, 

182, 331, 333

Paulina Plunge: 

141,162,163,166, 

167,180

26. Emphasize retention of trail defining vegetation, including trees and brush. Retain 

trees over 8” within 6 feet of the trail tread edge, except where crossing is essential. 

This vegetation is part of the trail infrastructure and should be protected. Special 

attention will be paid to areas with sparse vegetation or soil conditions that offer fewer 

opportunities to define trail width and location. 

PSO mitigation units: 

111, 112, 113, 114, 

115, 137, 138, 140, 

141, 144, 159

27. To the extent possible, retain trees that hold signs (including diamonds that mark 

winter trails). Inventory and replace any signs that may be damaged or removed during 

PSO mitigation units: 

111, 112, 113, 114, 
Record of Decision

Page 31

Measure 

Number

Protection Measure Units affected

logging or burning operations. 115, 137, 138, 140, 

141, 144, 159

28. Hand pile and burn slash where otherwise scattered slash would be within visual 

distance of campgrounds, sno-parks, trailheads, and trails. Prioritize slash treatment 

for units containing these features.

PSO mitigation units:

111, 112, 113, 114, 

115, 137, 138, 140, 

141, 144, 159

Plus 138, 140, 171, 

172, 182, 331, 333

Paulina Plunge: 

141,162,163,166, 

167,180

29. Treatment unit boundaries should not be evident from summer and winter trails 

or developed sites following completion of operations. This should include 

techniques such as marking unit boundaries utilizing small diameter trees of 6” 

or less; using dots rather than lines where paint is employed; and removing all 

signs of unit boundaries from trees (or the small diameter trees themselves) 

visible from the summer or winter trails, recreation sites, travel corridors and 

otherwise visually sensitive areas.

PSO mitigation units:

137, 138, 140, 141, 144, 159

plus 182, 183, 331, 332, 333

FSR 21 units: 9, 16, 21, 23, 

24, 25, 167, 168, 170, 171, 

172, 177, 182, 183, 189, 

190, 191, 192, 197, 199, 

201, 204, 206, 207, 314, 

331, 333, 334, 372, 373, 

375, 380, 382, 374, 385, 

386, 969, 933

30. Use all blue paint marking techniques and mark ‘take’ trees rather than ‘leave’ trees 

for units containing or visually adjacent to the PSO, campgrounds and sno-parks.

PSO mitigation units:

137, 138, 140, 141, 

144, 159

plus 171, 172, 182, 

331, 332, 333

FSR units (see #29)

To Preserve Visual Quality

31. Underburning activities in Foreground areas would be designed to avoid scorching 

more than 1/3 of the live crown of dominant and codominant trees. Activities such as 

pruning of lower branches may be used to guard against crown fire.

176, 177, 199, 201,203, 

204, 206, 207

To protect soil

32. Surface Drainage on Temporary Roads: minimize the erosive effects of concentrated 

water through the proper design and construction of temporary roads (Road BMP R-7. 

9, 91, 21, 22, 28, 36, 37, 

64, 65, 71, 73, 84, 91, 

106, 124, 126, 146, 148, 

162, 170, 180, 238, 247, 

251, 265, 277, 278, 291, 

293, 300, 303, 342, 346, 

352, 949

33. Surface Drainage on Skid trails: Assure that water control structures are installed and 

maintained on skid trails that have gradients of 10 percent or more; Ensure erosion 

control structures are stabilized and working effectively (LRMP SL-1; Timber 

Management BMP T-16, T-18).). 

All harvest units.

34. Road Maintenance: conduct regular preventive maintenance on all haul routes to avoid 

deterioration of the road surface and minimize the effects of erosion and sedimentation 

(Road BMP R-18, R-19).

Prescribed Burn Operations

35. Protect Soils and Water during prescribed burn operations – Comply with all 

applicable LRMP standards and guidelines and Best Management Practices in burn 
Record of Decision

Page 32

Measure 

Number

Protection Measure Units affected

plans completed before the initiation of prescribed fire treatments in planned activity 

areas. Include soil moisture guidelines to minimize the risk of intense fire and adverse 

impacts to soil and water resources from prescribed burning (LRMP SL-1 & SL-3; 

Timber BMP T-2, T-3 & T-13; Fuels Management BMP F-2, F-3).

Retaining Coarse Woody Debris/Down Wood

36. Minimize disturbance and piling of woody debris during fuel treatments to retain 

adequate organic matter reservoirs for nutrient cycling and maintenance of long-term 

site productivity. For sites in general forest outside of Wildland Urban Interfaces 

(WUIs) reference USDA Forest Service General Technical Reports “Photo Series for 

Quantifying Forest Residues” for target ranges for fuels in the 0.25 to 3.0 inch size 

classes and coarse woody debris up to 9.0 inches in diameter. Acceptable fuel loading 

should include levels between 5 and 10 tons per acre across these size classes for

ponderosa pine and ponderosa/lodgepole sites [4-PP-1-TH (PNW-52)], and 10 to 15 

tons per acre on mixed conifer [3-MC-3-PC (PNW-95] and higher elevation lodgepole 

sites: [3-LP-3-PC (PNW-52)]. These levels are not attached to post-burn conditions in 

units where underburn prescriptions are implemented. Options to maintain these 

levels include limiting the travel of grapple piling machines to existing skid trails in 

units in which higher detrimental impacts from mechanized harvest are anticipated.

Maintaining Duff Layer

37. Strive to maintain fine organic matter less than 3-inches in diameter (commonly 

referred to as the duff layer) over at least 65 percent of an activity area following both 

harvest and post-harvest operations. Adjust minimum amounts to reflect vegetative 

capabilities if the potential natural plant community on site is not capable of producing 

fine organic matter over 65 percent of the area (LRMP SL-6; Fuels Management BMP 

F-2; Timber Management BMP T-13).

Minimize the extent of new soil disturbance from mechanical treatments

38. Implement appropriate design elements for avoiding or reducing detrimental soil 

impacts from project activities. Options include using some or all of the following: 

 Use old landings and skidding networks whenever possible. Designate locations 

for new yarding and transportation systems prior to the logging operations, 

including temporary roads, spur roads, log landings, and primary (main) skid trail 

networks. (LRMP SL-1 & SL-3; Timber Management BMP T-11, T-14 & T-16).

 Maintain spacing of 100’-150’ for all primary (main) skid trail routes, except 

where converging at landings, to minimize soil impacts. Closer spacing due to 

complex terrain must be approved in advance by the Timber Sale Administrator. 

Main skid trails spaced an average of 100’ apart to limit soil impacts to 11% of the 

unit area. For activity areas larger than 40 acres that can accommodate wider 

spacing distances, it is recommended that distance between main skid trails be 

increased to average 150’ to reduce the amount of detrimentally disturbed soil to 

7% of the unit area (Froelich, 1981, and Garland, 1983).

 Restrict grapple skidders and harvester/forwarders to roads, landings, and 

designated skid trails. Restrict grapple pilers to designated routes used for harvest 

operations where post harvest fuel loads are predicted to be moderate or low. 

Limit the amount of traffic from other specialized equipment off of designated 

areas, including harvester shears, excavators used for mechanical shrub treatments 

or grapple pilers in units where post harvest fuel loads are predicted to be high, to 

no more than two equipment passes on any site-specific area to accumulate or 

process materials.

 Avoid equipment operations in units with slopes greater than 20% during times of 

All proposed activity 

areas

14, 16, 20, 21, 23, 32, 
Record of Decision

Page 33

Measure 

Number

Protection Measure Units affected

the year when soils are extremely dry and subject to excessive soil displacement.

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

saturated mineral soil or equipment tracks sinking deeper than normal during dry 

or frozen conditions.

 Operate equipment over a sufficient amount of frozen ground or compacted snow 

to protect mineral soil when available. Equipment operations should be 

discontinued when frozen ground begins to thaw or when equipment begins to 

cause severe rutting damage.

 Recommend full suspension yarding to minimize cumulative soil resource damage 

if winter logging conditions are not available.

33, 35, 36, 39, 47, 50, 

53, 56, 67, 70

39. Where feasible, machine pile fuels on logging facilities (i.e. skid trails and landings) 

that already have detrimental soil conditions in order to minimize additional soil 

impacts within activity areas.

40. Slopes greater than 30 percent: 

Prioritize for leave areas within units. Exceptions for areas that make up less than 

10 percent of an activity area would be subject to Forest Service approval. There 

would be no exceptions made within the RHCA (i.e. no mechanized equipment on 

slopes > 30% in RHCAs).

Prohibit any new development of temporary roads, minimize designated skid 

trails, and restrict mechanical disturbance to existing roads and designated skid 

trails at all times. 

Directionally hand fall trees that cannot be reached by shears from designated skid 

trails and suspend the leading end of logs while accumulating or skidding. 

Skid trails used by the purchaser shall be reclaimed by applying appropriate 

erosion control measures such as the placement of slash in conjunction with, or in 

place of, waterbars for rehabilitation. 

41. Reclaim all machine-built fire lines by redistributing displaced topsoil and unburned 

woody debris over the disturbed surface.

42. Apply restoration treatments (subsoiling) to primary logging facilities in order to meet 

LRMP standards or reduce overall impacts. Units with prior entries and elevated 

existing detrimental conditions are likely to need subsoiling restoration treatments of 

previous impacts as a Sale Area Enhancement to meet LRMP standards for soil 

productivity.

Harvest activity units 

with prior entries and 

elevated existing 

detrimental conditions.

43. Rehabilitate all temporary roads created for the current entry. This may include 

utilizing excavator bucket teeth to loosen compacted soils or pulling slash and woody 

materials over treated surfaces to establish effective ground cover protection where 

available. Subsoiling may occur as a post sale area improvement activity where 

conditions are appropriate.

9, 91, 21, 22, 28, 36, 37, 

64, 65, 71, 73, 84, 106, 

124, 126, 146, 148, 162, 

170, 180, 238, 247, 251, 

265, 277, 278, 291, 293, 

342, 346, 352, 949

To Protect Water Quality and Riparian Vegetation 

Apply appropriate Best Management Practices to all ground-disturbing activities

44. T-21 Servicing and Refueling of Equipment: To prevent pollutants from entering 

water, all servicing and refueling of equipment shall occur outside of RHCAs.

General Water 

Quality Best 

Management 

Practices, Pacific 

Northwest Region 

1988

45. R-23 Obliteration of Temporary Roads and Landings: Measures are: road surface 

deeply ripped; natural drainage features reestablished, road effectively drained and 

blocked; and road returned to native vegetation through either replanting or natural 

succession.

46. Maximize skid trails perpendicular to slope within RHCAs.

Applicable to all Riparian Habitat Conservation Areas (RHCAs):
Record of Decision

Page 34

Measure 

Number

Protection Measure Units affected

Alternative 2: Units 111, 112, 113, 114, 138, 140, 141, 159, 172

Alternative 3: Units 138, 140, 141, 159, 172

47. No landings or temporary roads will be located within RHCAs. All Units in RHCA

48. No mechanized equipment will operate on slopes greater than 30% in RHCAs. All Units in RHCA

49. Maximize skid trails perpendicular to slope within RHCAs.

50. Machine or grapple piling is not allowed within 150 feet of Paulina Creek. All Units in RHCA

51. Directionally fall hand-thinned trees away from Paulina Creek to limit streamside 

disturbance (do not drag off streambanks).

All Units in RHCA

52. Hand piling is allowed 50 feet or greater from Paulina Creek. Placement of hand 

piles would focus on upslope areas and avoid areas of washes and depressions that 

may facilitate water run-off toward stream. Burning would occur under conditions 

that do not allow excessive creeping from the pile, generally 10 feet or less. Hand 

piles should not exceed 50 square feet.

All Units in RHCA

53. No direct ignitions within 50 feet of Paulina Creek. Fire is allowed to creep toward 

the stream.

All Units in RHCA

54. No mechanized fireline construction within RHCA. Hand line construction allowed 

where needed to contain underburn. All hand lines will be rehabilitated immediately 

after underburn is completed.

All Units in RHCA

55. Leave higher density stocking and un-thinned leave areas on north sides of spur roads 

2120-100 and 2120-300 to reduce potential for user-created road creation toward 

Paulina Creek (for screening and preventing user-created roads to the creek).

Units: 160, 171

The RHCA (which is 300 feet slope distance on both banks of Paulina Creek) is divided into zones for the purpose of 

applying project design features. The number of zones differs between north and south sides of Paulina Creek. Refer to 

Figure 1, page 29, for a diagram of these zones that are referenced in the following project design features. 

56. North side of Paulina Creek RHCA

Zone 1 (high water line of stream edge to 12 feet): No thinning of trees of any size.

Zone 2 (12 feet from stream to machinery boundary 75-100 feet or more from stream 

edge): Hand thinning only of trees less than 10” dbh to spacing with no height 

limitation. Machinery excluded.

Zone 3 (from machinery boundary of Zone 2 to outer limit of RHCA, which is 300 

feet slope distance from stream): Thinning of trees less than 21” dbh with machinery 

allowed. Thinning prescription can be the same as adjacent unit located outside the 

RHCA.
Record of Decision

Page 35

Measure 

Number

Protection Measure Units affected

57. South Side of Paulina Creek RHCA (provides shade to stream)

Zone 1 (high water line of stream edge to 12 feet): No thinning of trees of any size.

Zone 2 (12 feet to 28 feet): Hand thinning of trees less than 20 feet tall allowed. 

Machinery excluded.

Zone 3 (28 feet to machinery boundary, generally 75-100 feet as with north side of 

creek): Hand thinning of trees less than 10” dbh with no height restriction. 

Machinery excluded.

Zone 4 (machinery boundary to outer limit of RHCA, 300’ each side of stream): 

Thinning of trees less than 21” dbh with machinery allowed. Thinning prescription 

can be the same as adjacent unit located outside the RHCA.

To Minimize Impacts to Wildlife 

Raptors

To prevent disturbance to nesting birds during breeding season

58. To protect nesting raptors and their habitat, any raptor encountered before or during 

management activities will be reported to a Bend/Ft. Rock wildlife biologist; 

additional protection may be necessary. New raptor nests found during management 

activities will be protected from disturbance in accordance with the timeframes 

displayed in the following m measure.

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

from disturbing activities within 1⁄4 mile of the nest, including negative smoke impacts 

to known nesting raptor sites during the nesting periods by restricting site disturbing 

operations during the following periods:

Cooper’s hawk April 15-August 31 (WL-19)

Sharp-shinned April 15-August 31 (WL-19)

Northern goshawk March 1-August 31 (WL-3) 

Red-tailed hawk March 1-August 31 (WL-3)

Osprey April 1-August 31 (WL-3)

Goshawk Units 909, 

949, 965, 966 (Alt. 3 

only);

Red-tail Units 22, 23

Zone 1 Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3

Zone 4 Zone 3

South

Side of

Paulina Creek

North

Side of

Paulina Creek

BoundaryMachinery BoundaryMachinery 

Zone 2

Figure 1: Riparian Habitat Conservation Area (RHCA) Zones (Looking Downstream and West)
Record of Decision

Page 36

Measure 

Number

Protection Measure Units affected

Golden Eagle January 1-August 31 (M3-15) 

60. To avoid negative impacts to nesting raptors, prescribed burning should be conducted 

under wind conditions that do not carry smoke loads to known active nest areas during 

nesting periods. (See nesting restriction periods below)

61. Maintaining the forested character of an area at least 300 feet in radius around the nest 

will protect any new or active osprey and/or red-tailed hawks nest sites. While timber 

management may occur, maintain an average of at least 4 dominant overstory trees per 

acre suitable for nest and perch trees; ponderosa pine favored where possible (WL-2).

62. Underburning within PFAs would be conducted between September 1 and March 1. 

Burning in the PFA would be coordinated with the wildlife biologist. No direct 

ignition of large woody debris; down logs would be maintained.

Units 909, 949, 965, 

966

63. Seasonal restrictions may be waived on an annual basis if a nest inventory determines 

that there is no active breeding.

Dead Wood: Snags, Coarse Woody Material, Green Tree Replacements

64. To provide for primary and secondary cavity nesters as well as coarse wood dependent 

mammalian species such as American marten and a variety of rodents, maintenance of 

snags, CWM, and GTRs are needed. The snags and CWM can be randomly 

distributed over the unit, in clumps, singles, and not met in every acre but totaled for 

the combined acreage. An average of 1 slash pile (approximately 100 square feet) or 

concentration (approximately 200 square feet) per acre will be retained to supplement 

qualifying logs (LRMP WL-73). Some units will not have machine piling or hand 

piling so pile retention will be on a site-specific basis. 

65. Retain all existing snags as supplemental wildlife trees for roosting and foraging 

except when they pose a hazard, other resource protection, or project logistics 

(Wildlife and Log Implementation Strategy, LRMP Standard WL-38). Efforts will be 

made to incorporate snags and logs into retention areas.

66. Retain all down logs in Units 54, 285, 342, 947, and 951. 

Elsewhere, retain at least 3-6 logs per acre greater than 12” diameter at the large end in 

ponderosa pine habitats, at least 15-20 logs per acre greater than 12” diameter at the 

large end in mixed conifer habitat, and at least 15-20 logs per acre greater than 8” 

diameter at the large end in lodgepole pine habitats (Screens Direction).

67. Retain at least one slash pile per acre within units proposed for hand or grapple piling 

(WL-73).

68. Where fuels treatment is dependent on whole tree yarding and/or grapple piling, these 

units will be reviewed by Fuels and Wildlife specialists post harvest to ensure fuel 

loadings meet Screens direction for course woody material (CWM).

69. Develop prescribed burn prescriptions to minimize charring of logs (LRMP Standard 

WL-72). Fire prescription parameters will ensure that consumption will not exceed 3 

inches total (1.5 inches per side) of diameter reduction in featured logs.

Landbirds

70. For natural fuels units (mow and/or burn prescriptions), retain 10% of the unit in 

untreated islands, 2-10 acres in size, distributed throughout the unit to provide for 

movement of ground nesting birds as well as maintaining nesting habitat (this is 

generally considered a “mosaic burn”).

71. Where possible minimize natural fuels and logging operations during spring and early 

summer (April 15 – August 1) to limit disturbance to nesting birds.

To Prevent the Introduction and Spread of Invasive Plants

72. Clean all equipment before entering National Forest System lands. Remove mud, dirt, 

and plant parts from project equipment before initially moving it into project units and 

before proceeding to the next project.

All
Record of Decision

Page 37

Measure 

Number

Protection Measure Units affected

73. The district botanist or designee will inspect all fill material for the presence of weeds 

prior to using on the project.

All road work

74. If a significant weed site is located on a landing or skid trail, an alternate, uninfested 

site will be used.

All

75. The weed sites at Ogden Group Camp, 10-mile sno-park, along Road 21, geothermal 

well pad (T21S, R12E, Section 21, on the 9735-695 road), and McKay Creek crossing 

will be treated prior to project initiation.

Adjacent to EIS units 

25, 73, 137, 139, 158, 

159, 162, 167, 170, 

177, 182, 183, 197, 

331, 332, 333, 334, 

385, 386, 933 (alt. 3).

76. Any water source proposed for this project will be evaluated for weeds by the district 

botanist or her designee and if weeds are found, another source may be recommended, 

or if possible, the site will be treated prior to use.

All road work

For Protection of Range Resources

77. Protect the range study plot – Condition and Trend Transect #3; T21S, R11E, Section 

16 SW 1⁄4. INFRA improvement #01036515. Site (approximately one acre) will be 

flagged by range program and excluded from any treatment. 

Unit 32

To Protect Cultural Resources and to avoid potential effects on eligible and unevaluated sites

78. Sites to be avoided will be flagged prior to project unit layout and site locations will be 

provided to the contracting representative. Units affected are 

identified in the 

heritage resource 

report, located in the 

project file.

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

implementation, they will be flagged and operations in the area avoided until an 

archaeologist is consulted.

80. When using heavy equipment, known cultural sites that are to be avoided (as detailed 

in the Heritage Report) will be provided a spatial consistent with treatment. Such 

buffers are typically 30 meters. This includes harvest, grapple piling, mechanical 

brush treatment (mowing) temporary road building and subsoiling, and creation of skid 

roads and landings.

81. Within archaeological sites where harvest is required over snow, snow depths should 

be sufficient to protect surface artifacts or other site features (approximately 12” in 

depth with 2” of frozen ground). The alternative is site avoidance as described in #71 

above.

82. Prescribed burning activities in areas of cultural sensitivity (as detailed in the Heritage 

Report) should be conducted in spring or fall-like conditions when burn conditions 

would be coolest to limit burn temperatures. Multiple entries at lower temperatures 

are acceptable when conducted to limit burn temperatures.

83. All historic sites (as detailed in the Heritage Report) should be avoided by fuel 

implementation activities to protect glass, ceramic and historical period artifacts. Sites 

will be flagged prior to project activities and identified in the burn plan.

84. Slash piles will not be placed within any site boundaries in order to avoid extreme heat 

on sites and artifacts.

85. Fire hand-line construction will be built outside of site boundaries using a 30 meter 

buffer. 

86. Danger trees identified within known sites will be directionally felled to avoid impacts 

to the site and left in place. When possible, trees will be felled toward access routes. 

Lifting a tree in its entirety is a preferred method of preventing displacement and 
Record of Decision

Page 38

Measure 

Number

Protection Measure Units affected

mixing of site sediments and artifacts. Complete suspension of smaller lengths is 

another method. If either method is not feasible, felled trees will be left in place.