Draft Supplemental EIS APPENDIX F Page F-1 

Proposed Actions Triggering the Port-Orford-cedar Risk Key 

Motorized Vehicle Use on the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest

APPENDIX F 

Proposed Actions Triggering the Port-Orford-cedar Risk Key 

The Port-Orford-cedar Risk Key is used to clarify the environmental conditions that require 

implementation of one or more of the disease controlling management practices listed in the Record 

of Decision (ROD) and Land and Resource Management Plan Amendment for Management of 

Port-Orford-cedar in Southwest Oregon Siskiyou National Forest. Project-specific NEPA analysis 

will appropriately document the application of the risk key and the consideration of the available 

management practices. Application of the risk key and application of resultant management 

practices (if any) will make the project consistent with the mid- and large-geographic and 

temporal-scale effects described by the SEIS analysis, and will permit the project analysis to tier to 

the discussion of those effects. 

(USDA FS 2004). 

Port-Orford-Cedar Risk Key

This is a site-specific analysis to help determine where risk reduction management practices 

would be applied. 

1a. Are there uninfected POC within, near1, or downstream of the activity area whose ecological, 

Tribal, or product use or function measurably contributes to meeting land and resource 

management plan objectives? 

YES 

1b. Are there uninfected POC within, near1 or downstream of the activity area that, were they to 

become infected, would likely spread infections to trees whose ecological, Tribal, or product use 

or function measurably contributes to meeting land and resource management plan objectives? 

YES 

1c. Is the activity area within an uninfested 7th field watershed2? 

YES 

If the answer to all three questions, 1a, 1b, and 1c, is no, then risk is low and no POC 

management practices are required. If the answer to any of these three questions is yes, 

continue. 

2. Will the proposed project introduce appreciable additional risk3 of infection to these 

uninfected POC? 

YES (as identified below) 

 

 1 In questions 1a and 1b, "near" generally means within 25 to 50 feet downslope or 25 feet upslope from management activity areas, access 

roads, or haul routes; farther for drainage features; 100 to 200 feet in streams. 

2 Uninfested 7th field watersheds are those with at least 100 acres of POC stands, are at least 50% federal ownership, and are free of PL except 

within the lowermost 2 acres of the drainage. 

3 Appreciable additional risk does not not mean "any risk." It means that a reasonable person would recognize risk, additional to existing 

uncontrollable risk, to believe mitigation is warranted and would make a cost-effective or important difference.
Draft Supplemental EIS APPENDIX F Page F-2 

Proposed Actions Triggering the Port-Orford-cedar Risk Key 

Motorized Vehicle Use on the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest

Alternative 1:

This alternative does not prohibit cross-country travel or propose to add new routes to the NFTS. 

Alternative 1 carries the highest risk of PL spread and new root disease sites as all POC 

populations on the forest outside of specially designated areas closed to motorized vehicle use 

would potentially be accessible to OHVs. All POC populations outside of specially designated 

areas would be considered high risk sites as they all would potentially be within 50 feet of an 

OHV route. 

Because no new routes are proposed by Alternative 1, the POC Risk Key would not be triggered 

by this Alternative. 

Alternative 2:

Alternative 2 would designate the current condition of motorized uses with Plan Amendments to 

allow consistency with the Travel Management Rule and resolve currently inconsistent Forest 

Plan direction. To the extent that motorized vehicle use is reduced in areas of POC and PL, the 

potential for importing PL onto sites with healthy POC and exporting PL off infested sites would 

be reduced. The effects of Alternative 2 would be essentially the same as those described in 

Alternative 1. 

Because no new routes are proposed by Alternative 2, the POC Risk Key would not be triggered 

by this Alternative. 

Alternative 3:

Alternative 3 would reduce risk to POC that measurably contributes to meeting management 

objectives on the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest by designating roads, trails, or areas for 

motorized vehicle use compared to the current situation. Designating specific areas for 

motorized use reduces the potential to export PL off infested sites and import PL onto uninfested 

sites as the area utilized for motor vehicle use declines. 

There are three proposed changes in Alternative 3 that will introduce additional appreciable risk: 

1) .05 mile of new motorized trail (Woodruff) in Township 36 South, Range 13 West, section 9. 

Access to the new trail from the west passes through a PL infested area; 

2) 4.8 miles of Maintenance Level 1 roads in the Signal Butte area being proposed for 

conversion into motorized trails; and 

3) 2.7 miles of a Maintenance Level 1 road to access Biscuit Hill are being proposed for 

conversion into a motorized trail. 

These proposed road to trail conversions pass through both healthy and PL infested areas of 

POC. While this is a proposed change from the current condition, these areas currently receive 
Draft Supplemental EIS APPENDIX F Page F-3 

Proposed Actions Triggering the Port-Orford-cedar Risk Key 

Motorized Vehicle Use on the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest

OHV use due to the accessibility of the area’s Maintenance Level 1 roads and openness of the 

terrain. 

Below are tables that summarize the areas triggered by the POC Risk Key. 

1): 

New Trail  (Woodruff) Through POC

Route

Number POC Type

Total

Miles

Total

Acres

Woodruff

(None

Assigned) MC‐POC 0.5 6

Woodruff

(None

Assigned)

PL‐

Infested < 0.1 1.3

Woodruff Access Routes Through POC

Route

Number POC Type

Total

Miles

Total

Acres

None

Assigned MC‐POC 0.8 8.8

3313020 MC‐POC 1.2 17.8

None

Assigned

PL‐

Infested < 0.1 0.1

 
Draft Supplemental EIS APPENDIX F Page F-4 

Proposed Actions Triggering the Port-Orford-cedar Risk Key 

Motorized Vehicle Use on the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest

2): 

Signal Butte ML 1 Conversions to Motorized

Trails

Route

Number POC Type

Total

Miles

Total

Acres

3300116 MC‐POC < 0.1 1

3313103 MC‐POC 0.2 1.1

3313110 MC‐POC 0.8 20.4

3313117 MC‐POC 0.3 7.4

3680195 MC‐POC 0.6 16.7

3680220 MC‐POC 0.5 6.2

3313 MC‐POC 0.2 2.1

3313103

PL‐

Infested <0.1 0.5

3313110

PL‐

Infested 1.1 24.3

3680190

PL‐

Infested 0.4 9.5

3680220

PL‐

Infested 1.1 24.7

3313

PL‐

Infested 0.6 12.2

Access Routes into Signal Butte Area

Route

Number POC Type

Total

Miles

Total

Acres

3300 MC‐POC 3.8 78.4

3300090 MC‐POC 1.6 36.1

3313 MC‐POC 14.2 117.3

3313102 MC‐POC <0.1 <0.1

33131000 MC‐POC 1 5.7

3680220 MC‐POC 0.5 11.7

3300

PL‐

Infested 0.8 17.8

3300090

PL‐

Infested 0.8 11

3313

PL‐

Infested 2.9 70.5

3313100

PL‐

Infested 1.1 22.1

3313102

PL‐

Infested 0.4 8.8

3680220

PL‐

Infested <0.1 0.3
Draft Supplemental EIS APPENDIX F Page F-5 

Proposed Actions Triggering the Port-Orford-cedar Risk Key 

Motorized Vehicle Use on the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest

3): 

Biscuit Hill ML 1 Conversion to a Motorized

Trail

Route

Number

POC

Type

Total

Miles

Total

Acres

4402494 MC‐POC 0.2 0.5

Access Routes into Biscuit Hill Area

Route

Number POC Type

Total

Miles

Total

Acres

4402112 MC‐POC 0.4 1.5

4402019 MC‐POC 0.1 0.7

4402

PL‐

Infested 0.7 2.5

By implementing a combination of management practices contained in the mitigation section of 

Chapter II of this document, no additional effects, direct or indirect are anticipated from the 

proposed changes. In addition, since these areas are currently receiving use by OHVs without 

the implementation of mitigation measures to abate the spread of PL, the proposed road and trail 

changes that will trigger the Risk Key and resultant management practices could decrease the 

likelihood of PL spread. 

 
Draft Supplemental EIS APPENDIX F Page F-6 

Proposed Actions Triggering the Port-Orford-cedar Risk Key 

Motorized Vehicle Use on the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest

Alternative 4:

Alternative 4 would reduce risk to POC that measurably contributes to meeting management 

objectives on the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest by designating roads, trails, or areas for 

motorized vehicle use compared to the current situation. Designating specific areas for 

motorized use reduces the potential to export PL off infested sites and import PL onto uninfested 

sites as the area utilized for motor vehicle use declines. 

This Alternative has the greatest potential to reduce the spread of PL. This is because 

Alternative 4 proposes the most restrictive use of motorized vehicles within MC-POC and PL 

areas. All of the items in Alternative 3 requiring implementation of one or more of the POC 

Management practices are not present in Alternative 4. Therefore, no appreciable additional risk 

to POC that measurably contribute to meeting management objectives is occurring within this 

alternative. 

Because no new routes are proposed by Alternative 4, the POC Risk Key would not be triggered 

by this Alternative. 

Alternative 5:

Alternative 5 would reduce risk to POC that measurably contributes to meeting management 

objectives on the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest by designating roads, trails, or areas for 

motorized vehicle use compared to the current situation. Designating specific areas for 

motorized use reduces the potential to export PL off infested sites and import PL onto uninfested 

sites as the area utilized for motor vehicle use declines. 

Under Alternative 5, only one of the proposed changes in Alternative 3 requiring implementation 

of one or more of the POC Management practices is included: 

1) 4.8 miles of Maintenance Level 1 roads in the Signal Butte area being proposed for 

conversion into motorized trails. 

Below are tables that summarize the areas triggered by the POC Risk Key. 

Signal Butte ML 1 Conversions to Motorized

Trails

Route

Number

POC

Type

Total

Miles

Total

Acres

3300116 MC‐POC < 0.1 1

3313103 MC‐POC 0.2 1.1

3313110 MC‐POC 0.8 20.4

3313117 MC‐POC 0.3 7.4

3680195 MC‐POC 0.6 16.7

3680220 MC‐POC 0.5 6.2

 
Draft Supplemental EIS APPENDIX F Page F-7 

Proposed Actions Triggering the Port-Orford-cedar Risk Key 

Motorized Vehicle Use on the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest

Signal Butte ML 1 Conversions to Motorized

Trails

Route

Number POC Type

Total

Miles

Total

Acres

3313 MC‐POC 0.2 2.1

3313103

PL‐

Infested <0.1 0.5

3313110

PL‐

Infested 1.1 24.3

3680190

PL‐

Infested 0.4 9.5

3680220

PL‐

Infested 1.1 24.7

3313

PL‐

Infested 0.6 12.2

Access Routes into Signal Butte Area

Route

Number POC Type

Total

Miles

Total

Acres

3300 MC‐POC 3.8 78.4

3300090 MC‐POC 1.6 36.1

3313 MC‐POC 14.2 117.3

3313102 MC‐POC <0.1 <0.1

33131000 MC‐POC 1 5.7

3680220 MC‐POC 0.5 11.7

3300

PL‐

Infested 0.8 17.8

3300090

PL‐

Infested 0.8 11

3313

PL‐

Infested 2.9 70.5

3313100

PL‐

Infested 1.1 22.1

3313102

PL‐

Infested 0.4 8.8

3680220

PL‐

Infested <0.1 0.3

By implementing a combination of management practices contained in the mitigation section of 

Chapter II of this document, no additional effects, direct or indirect are anticipated from the 

proposed changes. In addition, since these areas are currently receiving use by OHVs without 

the implementation of mitigation measures to abate the spread of PL, the proposed road and trail 

changes that will trigger the Risk Key and resultant management practices could decrease the 

likelihood of PL spread. 
Draft Supplemental EIS APPENDIX F Page F-8 

Proposed Actions Triggering the Port-Orford-cedar Risk Key 

Motorized Vehicle Use on the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest

This page is intentionally left blank