Table of Contents 

SUMMARY_________________________________________________________________________ i 

1. CHAPTER ONE - PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION________________________ 1

1.1. INTRODUCTION___________________________________________________________ 1

1.2. AREA DESCRIPTION_______________________________________________________ 1

1.3. PURPOSE AND NEED ______________________________________________________ 7

1.4. PLANNING PROCESS ______________________________________________________ 8

1.5. SCOPING - ISSUES IDENTIFICATION _______________________________________ 9

1.6. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ______________________________________________ 11

2. CHAPTER TWO - ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION _ Error! 

Bookmark not defined.

2.1. INTRODUCTION____________________________________ Error! Bookmark not defined.

2.2. FORMULATION OF ALTERNATIVES_________________ Error! Bookmark not defined.

2.3. ALTERNATIVE 1 (NO ACTION) ______________________ Error! Bookmark not defined.

2.4. ALTERNATIVE 2 ___________________________________ Error! Bookmark not defined.

2.5. ALTERNATIVE 3 ___________________________________ Error! Bookmark not defined.

2.6. ALTERNATIVE 4 ___________________________________ Error! Bookmark not defined.

2.7. ALTERNATIVE 5 ___________________________________ Error! Bookmark not defined.

3. CHAPTER THREE – AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT/ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

Error! Bookmark not defined.

3.1. INTRODUCTION____________________________________ Error! Bookmark not defined.

3.2. VEGETATION ______________________________________ Error! Bookmark not defined.

3.3. RECREATIONAL VALUE IN THE LEMOLO LAKE AREAError! Bookmark not defined.

3.4. FUELS AND FIRE MANAGEMENT____________________ Error! Bookmark not defined.

3.5. AIR QUALITY ______________________________________ Error! Bookmark not defined.

3.6. GEOLOGY / SOILS __________________________________ Error! Bookmark not defined.

3.7. FISHERIES _________________________________________ Error! Bookmark not defined.

3.8. WATERSHED – STREAMFLOW REGIME _____________ Error! Bookmark not defined.

3.9. WATERSHED – WATER QUALITY ___________________ Error! Bookmark not defined.

3.10. WATERSHED – STREAM MORPHOLOGY _____________ Error! Bookmark not defined.

3.11. WILDLIFE - MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES ____ Error! Bookmark not defined.

3.12. FEDERALLY LISTED ANIMAL SPECIES______________ Error! Bookmark not defined.

3.13. FOREST SERVICE SENSITIVE WILDLIFE SPECIES ___ Error! Bookmark not defined.

3.14. SURVEY AND MANAGE SPECIES ____________________ Error! Bookmark not defined.

Lemolo Watershed Projects Draft Environmental Impact Statement 
Table of Contents

3.15. THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND SENSITIVE PLANT SPECIES Error! Bookmark 

not defined.

3.16. RARE PLANT SPECIES______________________________ Error! Bookmark not defined.

3.17. NOXIOUS WEEDS ___________________________________ Error! Bookmark not defined.

3.18. TRANSPORTATION__________________________________ Error! Bookmark not defined.

3.19. HERITAGE RESOURCES _____________________________ Error! Bookmark not defined.

3.20. LOCAL COMMUNITIES AND ECONOMICS ____________ Error! Bookmark not defined.

3.21. WETLANDS, PARKLANDS, FARMLANDS, WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS, 

ECOLOGICALLY CRITICAL AREAS AND FLOODPLAINS____ Error! Bookmark not defined.

3.22. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES___ Error! 

Bookmark not defined.

3.23. SHORT TERM USES AND LONG TERM PRODUCTIVITY Error! Bookmark not defined.

3.24. CONSUMERS, CIVIL RIGHTS, MINORITY GROUPS AND WOMEN Error! Bookmark 

not defined.

4. CHAPTER FOUR - LIST OF PREPARERS _____________Error! Bookmark not defined.

4.1. INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM ________________________ Error! Bookmark not defined.

5. CHAPTER FIVE - AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PERSONS WHO 

PARTICIPATED DURING THE EIS SCOPING PROCESS____Error! Bookmark not defined.

5.1. PARTICIPATING AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS __ Error! Bookmark not defined.

5.2. PARTICIPATING MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC_________ Error! Bookmark not defined.

6. CHAPTER SIX - REFERENCES ______________________Error! Bookmark not defined.

6.1. BOTANY REFERENCES _____________________________ Error! Bookmark not defined.

6.2. FIRE REFEENCES __________________________________ Error! Bookmark not defined.

6.3. FISHERIES REFERENCES ___________________________ Error! Bookmark not defined.

6.4. HYDROLOGY REFERENCES ________________________ Error! Bookmark not defined.

6.5. SILVICULTURAL REFERENCES _____________________ Error! Bookmark not defined.

6.6. SOILS REFERENCES________________________________ Error! Bookmark not defined.

6.7. WILDLIFE REFERENCES ___________________________ Error! Bookmark not defined.

7. CHAPTER SEVEN - ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONSError! Bookmark not defined.

8. CHAPTER EIGHT - GLOSSARY ______________________Error! Bookmark not defined.

LIST OF PICTURES

Picture 1 – Shelterwood Prescription With Green-tree Retention Leave Group ____________________________ vi

Picture 2 – Seed tree Prescription with Green-tree Retention Leave group in Background ___________________vii

Picture 3 – Small Group harvest – 1 to 5 Acres in Size _______________________________________________vii

Picture 4 – Stand before a commercial thin from below _____________________________________________ viii

Lemolo Watershed Projects Draft Environmental Impact Statement 
Table of Contents 

Picture 5 – Stand after thinning and controlled underburn ____________________________________________ ix

Picture 6 – Commercial thin leaving old growth remnants _____________________________________________x

Picture 7 – Shelterwood Prescription With Green-tree Retention Leave Group _____Error! Bookmark not defined.

Picture 8 – Seed tree Prescription with Green-tree Retention Leave group in Background ___ Error! Bookmark not

defined.

Picture 9 – Small Group harvest – 1 to 5 Acres in Size ________________________Error! Bookmark not defined.

Picture 10 – Stand before a commercial thin from below ______________________Error! Bookmark not defined.

Picture 11 – Stand after thinning and controlled underburn ____________________Error! Bookmark not defined.

Picture 12 – Commercial thin leaving old growth remnants ____________________Error! Bookmark not defined.

Picture 13 – Typical old growth forest within the Lemolo analysis area___________Error! Bookmark not defined.

Picture 14 – Old growth ponderosa pine – competition from under story fir species Error! Bookmark not defined.

Picture 15 – Dense Lodgepole pine stand at high risk to Mountain Pine beetle attack Error! Bookmark not defined.

Picture 16 – Overstocked mixed conifer stand with high levels of down fuel _______Error! Bookmark not defined.

Picture 17 – Fuel Model 10 within a mature mixed conifer stand ________________Error! Bookmark not defined.

Picture 18 – Lemolo Fire Hazard Reduction Project – hand piles along main road__Error! Bookmark not defined.

Picture 19 – Typical thinning from below that reduces ladder fuel _______________Error! Bookmark not defined.

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 – Management Area Prescriptions _________________________________________________________3

Table 2 – Alternative Two Unit Summary (Proposed Action) ___________________Error! Bookmark not defined.

Table 3 – Alternative Three Unit Summary _________________________________Error! Bookmark not defined.

Table 4 – Alternative Four Unit Summary __________________________________Error! Bookmark not defined.

Table 5 – Alternative Five Unit Summary __________________________________Error! Bookmark not defined.

Table 6 – Monitoring Plan ______________________________________________Error! Bookmark not defined.

Table 7 – Alternative Comparison Table ___________________________________Error! Bookmark not defined.

Table 8 – Age Class Structure (Alternative 1) _______________________________Error! Bookmark not defined.

Table 9 – Age Class Structure (Alternative 2) _______________________________Error! Bookmark not defined.

Table 10 – Age Class Structure (Alternative 3) ______________________________Error! Bookmark not defined.

Table 11 – Age Class Structure (Alternative 4) ______________________________Error! Bookmark not defined.

Table 12 – Age Class Structure (Alternative 5) ______________________________Error! Bookmark not defined.

Table 13 – Soil by Risk Class Within Each Sub-watershed _____________________Error! Bookmark not defined.

Table 14 – Direct and Cumulative Detrimental Soil Condition by Alternative ______Error! Bookmark not defined.

Table 15 – 6th Level Sub-watersheds and HUCs _____________________________Error! Bookmark not defined.

Table 16 - Summary of 303(d) Listed Water Bodies Within and Near the Affected ___Error! Bookmark not defined.

Table 17 - Alternative Effects to Spotted Owl Habitat From Proposed Timber Harvest _____ Error! Bookmark not

defined.

Table 18 - Alternative Effects to Spotted Owls From Proposed Natural Fuels ______Error! Bookmark not defined.

Table 19 - Combined Harvest and Natural Fuels Impacts to Spotted Owl Habitat___Error! Bookmark not defined.

Table 20 - Alternative Impacts to Potential Pacific Shrew Habitat _______________Error! Bookmark not defined.

Table 21 - Alternative Impacts to Wolverine Seclusion Habitat _________________Error! Bookmark not defined.

Table 22 - Alternative Impacts to Suitable Fisher Habitat______________________Error! Bookmark not defined.

Table 23 - Road Density by 6th Level Sub-watershed _________________________Error! Bookmark not defined.

Table 24 - Resultant Road Maintenance Levels by Alternative (Total Miles) _______Error! Bookmark not defined.

Table 25 – Value Change Between Alternatives______________________________Error! Bookmark not defined.

Table 26 - Economic Impact Analysis _____________________________________Error! Bookmark not defined.

Table 27 - Recreation Spending Impacts ___________________________________Error! Bookmark not defined.

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 – Vicinity Map ________________________________________________________________________4

Figure 2- Watershed Boundaries _________________________________________________________________5

Figure 3 – Land Management Allocations__________________________________________________________6

Figure 4 – Alternative Two Map _________________________________________Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure 5 – Alternative Three Map ________________________________________Error! Bookmark not defined.

Lemolo Watershed Projects Draft Environmental Impact Statement 
Table of Contents

Figure 6 – Alternative Four Map _________________________________________Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure 7 – Alternative Five Map _________________________________________Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure 8 - Averaged amounts of erosion for each alternative on Units 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 __Error! Bookmark not defined.

Figure 9 - Averaged amounts of sediment for each alternative on Units 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 32 with regard to

precipitation events. ___________________________________________________Error! Bookmark not defined.

APPENDICES

Botany / Mycology ...................................................................................................Appendix A 

Heritage Resources..................................................................................................Appendix B 

Economics................................................................................................................Appendix C 

Watershed/Fisheries ................................................................................................Appendix D 

Fire Management.....................................................................................................Appendix E 

ID Team Scoping......................................................................................................Appendix F

Logging Systems.......................................................................................................Appendix G 

Public Involvement...................................................................................................Appendix H

Silviculture ...............................................................................................................Appendix I 

Soils..........................................................................................................................Appendix J 

Transportation / Roads Analysis..............................................................................Appendix K 

Visual Resource .......................................................................................................Appendix L 

Wildlife.....................................................................................................................Appendix M

Forest Plan Standard And Guideline Checklists .....................................................Appendix N 

KV Project Priorities.................................................................................Appendix O

Lemolo Watershed Projects Draft Environmental Impact Statement 
Summary i

SUMMARY 

SUMMARY 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

CHAPTER 1 – PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION 

The purpose of this project is to implement recommendations that stemmed from the Diamond 

Lake/Lemolo Lake Watershed Analysis (WA). Goals and objectives of the Umpqua National Forest 

Land Resource Management Plan (LRMP), as amended by the Northwest Forest Plan ROD are achieved 

through implemention of WA recommendations. The District Ranger and the Diamond Lake Ranger 

District staff are responsible for implementing watershed analysis recommendations and achieving 

Forest Plan goals and objectives. 

There is a need to achieve the desired conditions outlined in Chapter Five of the Diamond Lake/Lemolo 

Lake Watershed Analysis by implementing the WA recommendations within the Lemolo Analysis Area, 

including the Bunker Hill area. In order to achieve desired conditions the project needs to: 

• Maintain the high level of vegetative diversity in both structure and pattern, promote pine 

health, and improve stand health and vigor by approximating natural disturbance processes 

and patterns through silvicultural harvest prescriptions that are varied over the Lemolo 

Lake Watershed landscape. At landscape levels, a mix of treatment intensities makes sense; 

no treatment on some areas, less intensive treatment on other areas, and more intensive 

treatment involving reduction of canopy density in still other areas (Agee 2002). To meet 

this desired condition, there is a site specific need to harvest areas adjacent to or within 

close proximity to managed stands (plantations) using shelterwood (8-12 live leave trees 

per acre) and seed tree (4-6 live leave trees per acre) prescriptions, under the 15% greentree retention Forest Plan Standard and Guideline. This will approximate larger scale 

disturbance processes such as stand replacement fire. There is a site specific need to 

commercially thin areas in order to approximate disturbances such as light ground fire and 

occasional insect attacks, non- stand replacing events. There is also a site specific need to 

approximate disturbances such as light ground fire and small, localized disturbance such as 

root disease and concentrated insect attack. This can be achieved through partial harvest 

and small group harvest of less than 5 acres. 

•

h within natural

stands which have been classified as fuel model 8 through fuel model 10. 

Move the Lemolo Lake Watershed from a high severity fire regime towards the historical 

moderate severity fire regime. The WA states, “Design timber sales to approximate fires 

natural disturbance at the stand and landscape scale, and help return the watershed to a 

moderate fire regime”. It also states that “Once harvest is complete prescribed fire will be 

used to treat activity created fuel as well as being reintroduced to areas which were not 

harvested within the sale area. In order to meet this general desired condition, there is a site 

specific need to do silvicultural treatments that approximate natural disturbance processes, 

treat slash from proposed harvest activity, and underburn and hand pile slas

Lemolo Watershed Projects Environmental Impact Statement 
ii Summary 

Historically low and moderate fire regimes are much better candidates for some type of fire 

safe treatment (Agee 2002). Treatment should focus on surface fuel, ladder fuel, and then 

crown fuel. (Agee 2002). Reducing these fuels will limit the potential intensity of fires, 

and provide a higher chance of controlling wildfires, and allow more of the forest to 

survive when it does burn (Agee 2002). 

The best general approach for managing wildfire damage seems to be by managing tree 

density and species composition with well-designed silvicultural systems at a landscape 

scale that includes a mix of thinning, surface fuel treatments, and prescribed fire with 

proactive treatment in areas with high risk to wildfire. 

• Bring existing road systems up to current standards and reduce the risk to the aquatic 

resource from road related erosional processes within the Lemolo Lake Watershed. 

Reconstruct / maintain the road system and decommission system roads through KnutsonVandenburg funding opportunities on a site-specific basis. 

• Provide miscellaneous forest products (post & poles and house logs) by following the 

harvest priority recommendations. 

• Improve the long-term site productivity of managed stands that have been adversely

affected by past management practices. In order to meet this general desired condition, 

there is a site-specific need to subsoil main skid roads and temporary haul roads in 

managed stands within the Lemolo analysis area through Knutson-Vandenburg or other 

funding opportunities. 

Achieving the desired conditions outlined in the WA leads to meeting the main objective for 

Management Area 10/matrix lands: to supply a probable sale quantity (PSQ) of timber to local and 

regional economies on a cost efficient, sustainable basis. Objectives for matrix lands are described on 

page B-1 of the ROD. The ROD states “Production of timber and other commodities is an important 

objective for the matrix.” The ROD also states on page B-2 and B-6 that one of the objectives of matrix 

lands is to provide ecological diversity at the landscape scale in the form of early-successional habitat 

through commercial timber harvest. There is a need to conduct timber harvest inside Management Area 

10/matrix lands within the Lemolo Analysis Area to meet the PSQ and provide for early successional 

habitat.

SITE LOCATIONS

The legal description of the project area includes all or portions of sections 24 through 28 and 33 

through 36, T25S, R5 1/2E; sections 30, 31 and 32, T25S, R6E; sections 32 through 36, T25 1/2S, R6E; 

sections 31, 32 and 33, T25 1/2S, R6 1/2E; sections 10 through 15, 22 through 25 and 36, T26S, R5E; 

sections 1 through 36, T26S, R6E; sections 4 through 9, 15 through 21 and 27 through 35, T26S, R6 

1/2E; sections 1, 12 and 13, T27S, R5E; sections 1 through 28 and 33 10, 11 and 12, T28S, R6E, 

Willamette Meridian, Douglas County, Oregon. 

Lemolo Watershed Projects Environmental Impact Statement 
Summary iii

SCOPING - ISSUES IDENTIFICATION

The original scoping period identified one significant issue and concern from members of the public that 

recreate in the Lemolo Lake area. This issue was labeled “Recreational value in the Lemolo Lake area”, 

and is discussed in detail below. After the first draft EIS was sent out for a 45-day comment period an 

additional issue and concern from members of the public was raised relating to the proposed action. 

This issue revolved around the proposed harvest of old growth habitat within the Lemolo Analysis Area 

and is also discussed in detail below under the heading “Old Growth Habitat.” These significant issues 

were based on unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources. 

John Ouimet District Ranger reviewed all of the issues and determined the significant issues. This 

approval is documented in a letter signed on March 5th, 2002 and filed in Appendix F of this document. 

RECREATIONAL VALUE ISSUE

The 1990 Umpqua National Forest LRMP, as amended, established Forest-wide multiple use goals, 

objectives and management area requirements as well as management area prescriptions. The immediate 

area around Lemolo Lake is in Management Area 2 (Concentrated Developed Recreation). The focus is 

to provide an appropriate environment for concentrated developed recreation activities in areas 

immediately surrounding Lemolo Lake. All proposed actions fall outside this management area and 

meet the direction stated in the LRMP, including standards and guidelines for visual quality objectives. 

Some members of the public expressed concerns of certain actions that were near this area or near other 

developed recreation sites in the analysis area. Their concern was that timber harvest activities on 

Bunker Hill and within the vicinity of the Lemolo Lake Recreation Area would adversely affect their 

recreational experience and personal value for solitude. Specific units at issue within the proposed 

action include units 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 9, 14-24, 26, 27, 30, 32-41, 48, 53-56, and 68 and the south portion 

of unit 25 below the 60 road. 

This issue can be framed in the context of “unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available 

resources.” At issue is whether the timber sale related adverse effects on recreation and solitude out 

weigh the risk of high intensity fire, the decline of pine health, the reduction of stand health and vigor 

on Bunker Hill and within the Lemolo watershed, and the need to provide probable sale quantity from

matrix lands. Evaluation criteria and environmental effects surrounding the recreational value issue are 

based on total acres treated to promote pine health on Bunker Hill and within the Lemolo watershed; 

total acres harvested within areas identified as high recreational value through public comment within 

the Lemolo watershed, total acres of hazardous fuels treated on Bunker Hill and within the Lemolo 

watershed, probable sale quantity, and total acres of stand density management (commercial thinning) 

on Bunker Hill and within the Lemolo watershed. 

OLD GROWTH HABITAT ISSUE 

The 1990 Umpqua National Forest LRMP, as amended, established Standards and Guidelines relating to 

late successional/old growth habitat within Fifth Field Watersheds. Standard and Guideline C-44/45 in 

the Northwest Forest Plan ROD states; “all remaining late-successional stands should be protected when 

the amount of late-successional habitat within a Fifth level Watershed falls below 15%.” Latesuccessional habitat is defined as forest greater than 80 years old. Analysis shows that none of the 

alternatives within this DEIS drop the level of late-successional habitat below 15% of the total area 

within the Lemolo Fifth Field Watershed, thus meeting the Standard and Guideline. In fact, none of the 

alternatives drop the level of late-successional habitat below 60% and the level of old growth habitat

below 30% of the total area within the Lemolo Watershed. 

Lemolo Watershed Projects Environmental Impact Statement 
iv Summary 

Even though all alternatives meet the late-successional Standard and Guideline, many members of the 

public are still concerned about harvesting old growth stands. There are 23,720 acres of old growth 

stands within the Lemolo Watershed Projects Analysis area, as described in the Northwest Forest Plan 

(ROD – Glossary F-4). Old growth forest stands are usually at least 180-220 years old with moderate to 

high canopy closure; a multi-layered, multi-species canopy dominated by large over story trees; high 

incidence of large trees, some with broken tops and other indications of old and decaying wood 

(decadence); numerous large snags; and heavy accumulations of wood, including large logs on the 

ground. Old growth stands have been delineated using the vegetative age class information from the 

“ump_femat_age” coverage located in the Umpqua GIS reference library. Specific units at issue within 

the proposed action include; 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 14-24, 26, 27, 30, 32-34, 36, 37, 40, 41, 68 and associated road 

construction. At issue is whether to maintain these existing old growth stands at this time or harvest 

them within matrix lands inside the Lemolo Watershed Projects analysis area under the Northwest 

Forest Plan. If no harvest of old growth occurs there are tradeoffs related to pine health, probable sale 

quantity, and fire hazard within the analysis area. The evaluation criteria and environmental effects 

surrounding the old growth issue are based on the total acres of old growth harvested within the Lemolo 

watershed, the total acres treated to promote pine health on Bunker Hill and within the Lemolo 

atershed, probable sale quantity, and the total acres of hazardous fuels treated on Bunker Hill and 

watershed.

easures included in the 

also developed to address members of the public who feel that 

y timber harv deral d is still an unresolved conflict concerning alternative uses of the 

portant to note that other activities will still take place. These activities would include recreation 

anagement, routine road maintenance, and project activities covered under other decision documents. 

w

within the Lemolo

OTHER ISSUES

Some preliminary issues and concerns raised during scoping were determined not to be significant 

issues by the line officer, as described in the National Environmental Policy Act (Committee on 

Environmental Quality Regulations), and were not used to generate alternatives to the proposed action. 

These issues were not determined to be significant, due to mitigation m

alternatives and compliance with direction and Standards and Guidelines outlined in the 1990 Umpqua

National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP), as amended. 

CHAPTER 2 – ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION 

The Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) used the Purpose and Need along with the significant issues as the 

basis for alternative development. This resulted in a range of alternatives that meets the Purpose and 

Need and responds to significant issues. A no action alternative was developed as a baseline for 

estimating environmental effects. It was 

an est on Fe lan

available resources. 

ALTERNATIVE 1 (NO ACTION) 

This alternative serves as a benchmark, enabling the responsible official and IDT to compare the 

magnitude of effects of the action alternatives. It also addresses members of the public who feel that no 

timber harvest should take place on Federal land, no old growth should be harvested, and the 

recreational value around the Lemolo Lake Recreation Area should be preserved. No action will occur 

within the Lemolo Watershed Projects Analysis area. This alternative will not meet the need for action 

described in Chapter One. Although no actions would be implemented with this alternative, it is

im

m

Lemolo Watershed Projects Environmental Impact Statement 
Summary v

ACTIVITIES UNDER ALTERNATIVE 1 (NO ACTION

TIMBER HARVEST AND ROAD WORK

No timber harvest, reforestation, slash treatment, or road construction, reconstruction, and

decommissioning will occur under this alternative. There will be no probable sale quantity (PSQ) of 

timber for local and regional economies. There will be no early successional habitat created within the 

Lemolo watershed. There will be no improvement to hydrologic function related to the Forest Service 

road system. 

FUEL TREATMENT/FIRE HAZARD REDUCTION 

No fire hazard reduction will occur through harvest activities and natural fuel treatments. The Lemolo 

watershed will not begin to move from a high severity fire regime towards the historical moderate 

severity fire regime. 

PINE HEALTH AND STAND DENSITY MANAGEMENT

Pine health will continue to decline within the Lemolo watershed. These declines would lead to 

increased mortality in mature and old growth pine, increasing the likely hood of a mountain pine beetle 

outbreak within mature Lodge pole pine stands, and increasing susceptibility of trees to insects and 

disease within stands not undergoing silvicultural treatment. Overstocked stands targeted for density

management would continue to decline in vigor. 

SITE PRODUCTIVITY

Site productivity will not be improved on 264 acres of plantations within the Lemolo watershed through 

sub-soiling of old compacted temporary roads, landings, and skid trails. Losses to surface organic matter 

and poor water infiltration rates will continue on these sites. 

RECREATIONAL VALUE AND OLD GROWTH

Recreational value will not be reduced for some concerned publics, because there will be no timber 

arvest around the Lemolo Lake Recreation Area. Old growth habitat will not be harvested and 

 one percent of the Lemolo watershed will remain as old 

IDT were participants in

e Diamond Lake / Lemolo Lake Watershed Analysis for this area. In doing so, the IDT had a clear 

idea o e r them into development of the 

roposed action. This alternative best meets the Purpose and Need because it: 

• most probable sale quantity to local economies. 

within the Lemolo 

watershed. 

• Reduces fuel levels over the most acres within the Lemolo watershed. 

• er the most acres within the Lemolo watershed. 

h

converted to early successional habitat. Thirty

growth habitat. 

ALTERNATIVE 2 

The IDT used the Purpose and Need solely as the basis for development of this alternative. The 

Proposed Action meets the direction found in the 1990 Umpqua National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan (LRMP) as amended, and follows the recommendations in the Diamond Lake and 

Lemolo Lake Watershed Analysis. The interdisciplinary team worked together in the field for one year 

to develop the Proposed Action. It must be noted, most of the members of the

th

f th ecommendations that were made and how best to incorporate

p

Provides the

• Provides for the most early successional habitat within matrix lands

Promotes pine health ov

Lemolo Watershed Projects Environmental Impact Statement 
vi Summary 

• Improves stand health and vigor through density management over the most acres within 

the Lemolo watershed. 

• Provides the most Knutson-Vandenberg (KV) funds for restoration activities, including site 

productivity improvement and road decommissioning. 

ACTIVITIES UNDER ALTERNATIVE 2 

TIMBER HARVEST AND ROAD WORK

Timber sales will harvest 448 acres using shelterwood and seed tree silvicultural prescriptions (Error! 

Reference source not found. & Error! Reference source not found.), commercially thin 892 acres 

(Error! Reference source not found., Error! Reference source not found.), partial harvest 39 acres 

through individual tree selection, harvest 146 acres through small group selection (Error! Reference 

source not found.), selectively harvest 42 acres for posts and poles, and harvest 10 acres for house logs 

using seed tree silvicultural prescriptions. Timber harvest would produce approximately 27.7 million 

board feet. All timber harvest activities would meet current standards and guidelines for matrix lands. 

Artificial reforestation and/or natural regeneration will be used to establish new stands. More detail on 

silvicultural prescriptions can be found in the Silvicultural Prescription in Appendix I. Five sales are 

planned to be sold in 2004 and 2005 and operate for 2-3 years. Logging systems will be a combination 

of skyline, helicopter, loader, and mechanical. Construction of two permanent helicopter landings will 

occur. These sales will supply timber to local and regional economies on a cost efficient, sustainable 

asis and help meet the Probable Sale quantity for the Umpqua National forest in 2004 and 2005. No 

mber harvest will occur within inventoried road-less areas, riparian reserves, unsuitable soils, the 

b

ti

OCRA, cultural sites or owl cores. 

Picture 1 – Shelterwood Prescription With Green-tree Retention Leave Group 

Lemolo Watershed Projects Environmental Impact Statement 
Summary vii

Picture 2 – Seed tree Prescription with Green-tree Retention Leave group in Background 

Picture 3 – Small Group harvest – 1 to 5 Acres in Size

Lemolo Watershed Projects Environmental Impact Statement 
viii Summary 

 

Approximately 3.17 miles of new system road construction, 51.79 miles of road 

reconstruction/maintenance, 6.19 miles of road decommissioning inside potential sale area boundaries, 

4.83 miles of road decommissioning outside potential sale area boundaries, 3.9 miles of temporary road 

construction and subsequent obliteration, and 2 acres of helicopter landing construction will occur under 

this alternative. 

FUEL TREATMENT/FIRE HAZARD REDUCTION

Natural fuels and harvest activity fuels will be treated on 1,861acres (282 acres of natural fuels) within 

the Lemolo watershed through underburning and pile burning. Fuel levels will be reduced to less than 

21 tons/acre over the 1,861 acres (Error! Reference source not found. & Error! Reference source 

not found.). This will begin to move the Lemolo watershed from a high severity fire regime towards the 

historical moderate severity fire regime. 

Picture 4 – Stand before a commercial thin from below 

 

Lemolo Watershed Projects Environmental Impact Statement 
Summary ix

Picture 5 – Stand after thinning and controlled underburn 

PINE HEALTH AND STAND DENSITY MANAGEMENT

Pine health will be promoted on 1,703 acres within the Lemolo watershed through silvicultural 

prescriptions that reduce stand densities around individual pine trees; regenerate harvested areas with 

blister rust resistant white pine and sugar pine, and ponderosa pine; and harvest greater than 80 year old 

lodge pole pine stands that are highly susceptible to a mountain pine beetle outbreak. Stand health and 

vigor will be improved on 892 acres of mixed conifer stands within the Lemolo watershed through 

commercial thinning prescriptions that reduce existing stand densities (Error! Reference source not 

found.). 

Lemolo Watershed Projects Environmental Impact Statement 
x Summary 

Picture 6 – Commercial thin leaving old growth remnants 

SITE PRODUCTIVITY

Site productivity will be improved on 264 acres of plantations within the Lemolo watershed through 

subsoiling of old temporary roads, landings, and skid trails. KV funding will finance 192.4 acres of the 

264 acres planned. 

RECREATIONAL VALUE AND OLD GROWTH

Recreational value will be reduced for some concerned publics, through timber harvest on 941 acres 

surrounding the Lemolo Lake Recreation Area. Three hundred acres of old growth habitat will be 

harvested and converted to early successional habitat. 

ALTERNATIVE 3 

The IDT developed this alternative to address some public’s concern about timber harvest near Lemolo 

Lake and other areas within the project analysis area that have high recreational value to them, while 

still trying to meet Purpose and Need. Harvest units 1-5, 7, 9, 14-24, 26, 27, 30, 32-41, 53-56, 68 and 

the east half of unit 25 below the 60 road and associated road construction and helicopter landings were 

dropped from the Proposed Action to formulate this alternative, in order to address some public’s

concern over recreational value. This alternative does not promote pine health, reduce fire hazard, or 

improve stand health and vigor on Bunker Hill, facing Lemolo Lake. It partially meets the Purpose and 

Need because it does not propose activities on this major part of the Lemolo landscape that has high fuel 

loadings and high risk of fire, high density stands, and old growth ponderosa pine that are declining in 

health and vigor due to under story conifer encroachment. 

Lemolo Watershed Projects Environmental Impact Statement 
Summary xi

ACTIVITIES UNDER ALTERNATIVE 3 

TIMBER HARVEST AND ROAD WORK

Timber sales will harvest 172 acres using shelterwood and seed tree silvicultural prescriptions, 

commercially thin 374 acres, harvest 38 acres through small group selection, selectively harvest 42 

acres for posts and poles, and harvest 10 acres for house logs using seed tree silvicultural prescriptions. 

These sales will supply timber to local and regional economies on a cost efficient, sustainable basis and 

help meet the probable sale quantity for the Umpqua National forest in 2004 and 2005. Timber harvest 

would produce approximately 8.7 million board feet. All timber harvest activities would meet current 

standards and guidelines for matrix lands. Artificial reforestation and/or natural regeneration will be 

used to establish new stands. Four sales are planned to be sold in 2004 and 2005 and operate for 2-3 

years. Logging systems will be a combination of skyline, helicopter, loader, and mechanical.

Construction of two permanent helicopter landings will occur. No timber harvest will occur within

ventoried road less areas, riparian reserves, unsuitable soils, the OCRA, cultural sites, or owl cores. 

9 miles of temporary road 

onstruction and subsequent obliteration will occur under this alternative. 

in

Approximately 2.46 miles of new system road construction, 19.18 miles of road reconstruction / 

maintenance, 0.29 miles of road decommissioning inside potential sale area boundaries, 10.73 miles of 

road decommissioning outside potential sale area boundaries, and 1.

c

FUEL TREATMENT/FIRE HAZARD REDUCTION 

Natural fuels and harvest activity fuels will be treated on 939 acres (303 acres of natural fuels) within 

the Lemolo watershed through underburning and pile burning. Fuel levels will be reduced to less than 

21 tons/acre over the 939 acres. This will begin to move the Lemolo watershed from a high severity fire 

regime towards the historical moderate severity fire regime. 

PINE HEALTH AND STAND DENSITY MANAGEMENT

Pine health will be promoted on 763 acres within the Lemolo watershed through silvicultural

prescriptions that reduce stand densities around individual pine; regenerate harvested areas with blister 

rust resistant white pine and sugar pine, and ponderosa pine; and harvest greater than 80 year old lodge 

pole pine stands that are highly susceptible to a mountain pine beetle outbreak. Stand health and vigor 

will be improved on 452 acres of mixed conifer stands within the Lemolo watershed through 

commercial thinning prescriptions that reduce existing stand densities. 

SITE PRODUCTIVITY

Site productivity will be improved on 264 acres of plantations within the Lemolo watershed through 

sub-soiling of old temporary roads, landings, and skid trails. KV funding will finance 21 acres of the 

264 acres planned. 

RECREATIONAL VALUE AND OLD GROWTH

Recreational value will not be reduced for some concerned publics, through timber harvest on -

- acres surrounding the Lemolo Lake Recreation Area. Two acres of growth habitat will be 

arvested and converted to permanent openings in the form of roads. 

0

h

Lemolo Watershed Projects Environmental Impact Statement 
xii Summary 

ALTERNATIVE 4 

The IDT developed this alternative to address some public’s concern about timber harvest of old growth 

stands within the project analysis area, while still trying to meet Purpose and Need. Harvest units 2, 3, 5, 

7, 9, 14-24, 26, 27, 30, 32-34, 36, 37, 40, 41, 68 and associated road construction were dropped from the 

Proposed Action to formulate this alternative, in order to address some public’s concern over old growth 

values. This alternative does not promote pine health on Bunker Hill, facing Lemolo Lake. It partially

meets the Purpose and Need because it does not propose silvicultural activities on this major part of the 

Lemolo landscape that has old growth ponderosa pine that are declining in health and vigor due to under 

tory conifer encroachment. 

CTIVITIES UNDER ALTERNATIVE 4 

s

A

TIMBER HARVEST AND ROAD WORK

Timber sales will harvest 254 acres using shelterwood and seed tree silvicultural prescriptions, 

commercially thin 553 acres, harvest 44 acres through small group selection, selectively harvest 42 

acres for posts and poles, and harvest 10 acres for house logs using seed tree silvicultural prescriptions. 

These sales will supply timber to local and regional economies on a cost efficient, sustainable basis and 

help meet the probable sale quantity for the Umpqua National forest in 2004 and 2005. Timber harvest 

would produce approximately 12.7 million board feet. All timber harvest activities would meet current 

standards and guidelines for matrix lands. Artificial reforestation and/or natural regeneration will be 

used to establish new stands. More detail on silvicultural prescriptions can be found in the Silvicultural 

Prescription in Appendix I. Four sales are planned to be sold in 2004 and 2005 and operate for 2-3 

years. Logging systems will be a combination of skyline, helicopter, loader, and mechanical.

Construction of two permanent helicopter landings will occur. No timber harvest will occur within

ventoried road less areas, riparian reserves, unsuitable soils, the OCRA, cultural sites, or owl cores. 

subsequent obliteration, and 2 acres of helicopter landing construction will occur under 

is al native.

in

Approximately 2.97 miles of new system road construction, 23.84 miles of road

reconstruction/maintenance, 1.99 miles of road decommissioning inside potential sale area boundaries, 

9.43 miles of road decommissioning outside potential sale area boundaries, 2.5 miles of temporary road 

construction and

th ter

FUEL TREATMENT/FIRE HAZARD REDUCTION 

Natural fuels and harvest activity fuels will be treated on 1,208 acres (303 acres of natural fuels) within 

the Lemolo watershed through underburning and pile burning. Fuel levels will be reduced to less than

1 tons/acre over the 1,208 acres. This will begin to move the Lemolo watershed from a high severity

regime. 

2

fire regime towards the historical moderate severity fire

PINE HEALTH AND STAND DENSITY MANAGEMENT

Pine health will be promoted on 1032 acres within the Lemolo watershed through silvicultural

prescriptions that reduce stand densities around individual pine; regenerate harvested areas with blister 

rust resistant white pine and sugar pine, and ponderosa pine; and harvest greater than 80 year old lodge 

pole pine stands that are highly susceptible to a mountain pine beetle outbreak. Stand health and vigor 

d on 553 acres of mixed conifer stands within the Lemolo watershed through 

commercial thinning prescriptions that reduce existing stand densities. 

 

will be improve

Lemolo Watershed Projects Environmental Impact Statement 
Summary xiii

SITE PRODUCTIVITY

Site productivity will be improved on 264 acres of plantations within the Lemolo watershed through 

subsoiling of old temporary roads, landings, and skid trails. KV funding will finance 25 acres of the 264 

acres planned. 

RECREATIONAL VALUE AND OLD GROWTH

Recreational value will be reduced for some concerned publics, through timber harvest on 267 acres 

surrounding the Lemolo Lake Recreation Area. Three acres of old growth habitat will be harvested and 

converted to permanent openings in the form of roads and a helicopter landing. 

ALTERNATIVE 5 

The IDT developed this alternative to address some public’s concern about timber harvest of old growth 

stands and stands with high recreational value within the project analysis area, while still trying to meet 

Purpose and Need. Compromise on these two public issues was emphasized in the development of this 

alternative. Compromise of the recreational value issue was met by dropping the most controversial 

units in this alternative. Compromise of the old growth issue was met by dropping the highest quality

old growth stands within this alternative. Harvest units 2, 5, 9, 14, 15, 18-24, 26, 27, 30, 32, 34, 36, 37, 

48, 53-56 and associated road construction were dropped from the Proposed Action to formulate this 

alternative. This alternative fully meets the Purpose and Need because it proposes needed activities 

across the Lemolo Watershed, including the Bunker Hill area. 

ACTIVITIES UNDER ALTERNATIVE 5

TIMBER HARVEST ROAD WORK

Timber sales will harvest 245 acres using shelterwood and seed tree silvicultural prescriptions, 

commercially thin 835 acres, harvest 99 acres through small group selection, selectively harvest 42 

acres for posts and poles, and harvest 10 acres for house logs using seed tree silvicultural prescriptions. 

These sales will supply timber to local and regional economies on a cost efficient, sustainable basis and 

help meet the probable sale quantity for the Umpqua National forest in 2004 and 2005. Timber harvest 

would produce approximately 20.55 million board feet. All timber harvest activities would meet current 

standards and guidelines for matrix lands. Artificial reforestation and/or natural regeneration will be 

used to establish new stands. More detail on silvicultural prescriptions can be found in the Silvicultural 

Prescription in Appendix I. Five sales are planned to be sold in 2004 and 2005 and operate for 2-3 

years. Logging systems will be a combination of skyline, helicopter, loader, and mechanical. 

Construction of two permanent helicopter landings will occur. No timber harvest will occur within 

inventoried road less areas, riparian reserves, unsuitable soils, the OCRA, cultural sites, or owl cores. 

Approximately 2.95 miles of new system road construction, 37.95 miles of road

reconstruction/maintenance, 1.59 miles of road decommissioning inside potential sale area boundaries, 

9.43 miles of road decommissioning outside potential sale area boundaries, 3.0 miles of temporary road 

construction and subsequent obliteration, and 2 acres of helicopter landing construction will occur under 

this alternative.

FUEL TREATMENT/FIRE HAZARD REDUCTION 

Natural fuels and harvest activity fuels will be treated on 1,536 acres (303 acres of natural fuels) within 

the Lemolo watershed through underburning and pile burning. Fuel levels will be reduced to less than 

21 tons/acre over the 1,536 acres. This will begin to move the Lemolo watershed from a high severity

fire regime towards the historical moderate severity fire regime. 

Lemolo Watershed Projects Environmental Impact Statement 
xiv Summary 

PINE HEALTH AND STAND DENSITY MANAGEMENT

Pine health will be promoted on 1360 acres within the Lemolo watershed through silvicultural

prescriptions that reduce stand densities around individual pine; regenerate harvested areas with blister 

rust resistant white pine and sugar pine, and ponderosa pine; and harvest greater than 80 year old lodge 

pole pine stands that are highly susceptible to a mountain pine beetle outbreak. Stand health and vigor 

will be improved on 835 acres of mixed conifer stands within the Lemolo watershed through 

commercial thinning prescriptions that reduce existing stand densities. 

SITE PRODUCTIVITY

Site productivity will be improved on 264 acres of plantations within the Lemolo watershed through 

subsoiling of old temporary roads, landings, and skid trails. KV funding will finance 21 acres of the 243 

acres planned.

RECREATIONAL VALUE AND OLD GROWTH

Recreational value will be reduced for some concerned publics, through timber harvest on 595 acres 

surrounding the Lemolo Lake Recreation Area. One hundred and thirty one acres of growth habitat will 

be harvested and converted to early successional habitat and permanent openings in the form of roads 

d helicopter landings.

HAPTER NVIRONMENT/ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 

•

an

C 3 – AFFECTED E

INTRODUCTION 

• RECREATIONAL VALUE IN THE LEMOLO LAKE AREA 

• VEGETATION 

• PINE HEALTH AND DENSITY MANAGEMENT 

• GEOLOGY / SOILS

• FISHERIES 

• WATERSHED – STREAMFLOW REGIME

• WATERSHED – WATER QUALITY

• WATERSHED – STREAM MORPHOLOGY

• WILDLIFE - MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES 

• FEDERALLY LISTED ANIMAL SPECIES

• FOREST SERVICE SENSITIVE WILDLIFE SPECIES 

• SURVEY AND MANAGE SPECIES 

• THREATENED, ENDANGERED, AND SENSITIVE PLANT SPECIES 

Lemolo Watershed Projects Environmental Impact Statement 
Summary xv

• TRANSPORTATION

• HERITAGE RESOURCES 

• FUELS AND FIRE MANAGEMENT 

• AIR QUALITY 

• LOCAL COMMUNITIES AND ECONOMICS 

The following table summarizes the effects of the alternatives on the key issues.

Lemolo Watershed Projects Environmental Impact Statement 
xvi Summary 

ISSUES 

& 

CONCERNS 

OLD 

GROWTH FIRE HAZARD RECREATIONAL VALUES PINE HEALTH STAND 

Bunker

Hill Lemolo

Watershed 

Bunker Hill Lemolo

Watershed 

Bunker

Hill 

ALTERNATIVE 

1.) Acres 

Harvested 

(percent of old 

growth 

harvested 

within 

watershed)

1.) Acres of FM-8

2.) Rate of spread (feet 

per minute)

3.) Flame length height 

(feet) 

1.) Acres where 

MA reduce fuel 

level to < 21 

tons /acres 

Prescribed 

natural fuels 

acres included 

in total 

1.) Acres harvested within 

areas identified as high 

recreational value through 

public comment 

1.) Acres treated to 

promote pine health 

1.) Acres 

treated to 

promote pine 

health 

1.) Acres 

of HTH 

1 

(No action)

-0-(0%) 

1) –0-

2) 8.1 3) 4.9 

-0- -0- -0- -0- -0- 

2 

(Proposed Action)

300 (.4%)

1) 488 

2) 2.2 3) 1.8 

1,861 941 488 1,703 374 

3 2 (.008%)

1) –0-

2) 8.1 3) 4.9 

939 -0- -0- 763 -0- 

4 

3 (.008%)

1) 102 

2) 6.7 3) 4.0 

1,208 267 102 1,032 102 

5 

131 (.2%)

1) 399 

2) 2.1 3) 2.1 

1,536 595 399 1,360 384 

Lemolo Watershed Projects Environmental Impact Statement 
Summary xvii

CHAPTER FOUR - LIST OF PREPARERS 

The following individuals participated in the formulation and analysis of the alternatives and the 

subsequent preparation of this Environmental Assessment. 

INTERDISCIPLINARY TEAM

Pat Williams - Interdisciplinary Team Leader/Timber Sale Planner 

Rick Golden – Past District Fisheries Biologist 

Brady Dodd – Past District Hydrologist 

Jim Archuleta - District Soil Scientist 

Rick Abbott - Certified District Silviculturist/District Research Coordinator 

Angie Snyder - District Heritage Program Manager 

Jill Napper – District Fuels Specialist 

Ralph Kingsbury – Past District Botanist 

Clint Emerson-District Botanist 

Jeff Bolher - District Wildlife Biologist 

Arthur Matthews – Past Assistant District Transportation Manager 

Keith Bond – District Transportation Development Engineer 

Mike Kinney - District Road Manager 

Steve Hofford – Forest Hydrologist 

CHAPTER FIVE - AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PERSONS WHO 

PARTICIPATED DURING THE EIS SCOPING PROCESS 

The critical process of issue identification is termed scoping (40 CFR 1501.7). Scoping is done internally

among agency staff and externally among interested members of the public. Public involvement in the 

scoping process is required by NEPA regulations [40 CFR 1501.7 (a)(1) and 1506.6]. The following 

actions took place to keep the public informed and generate issues during the scoping process: 

• Notice of the Lemolo Watershed Projects proposal was initially published in the Forest’s 

April, 1999 quarterly Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA). Since that date, notice has 

been sent out quarterly in the SOPA. 

• The Notice of Intent was published in the Federal Register on April 14, 1999. 

•

•

• The proposed action was sent to publics that requested it. 

• raft EIS was published and went through a 45-day comment period in November 

of 2001. 

• A public meeting was held on April 24th, 2002 to share new alternatives with the public. 

es, organizations, and persons who participated during the scooping process can 

e found in this chapter.

A public meeting was held at Douglas County Library on April 21, 1999. 

A field visit to the project area with the public took place on August 21, 1999. 

The first d

A complete list of agenci

b

Lemolo Watershed Projects Environmental Impact Statement 
xviii Summary 

CHAPTER SIX – REFERENCES 

A complete list of references used in this document can be found in this chapter. 

te list explaining acronyms and abbreviations used in this document can be found in this 

apter.

glossary of definitions of technical terms can be found in this chapter. 

CHAPTER SEVEN - ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 

A comple

ch

CHAPTER EIGHT – GLOSSARY 

A

Lemolo Watershed Projects Environmental Impact Statement 
Chapter One Purpose and Need 1

1. CHAPTER ONE - PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION 

1.1. INTRODUCTION 

This Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) describes alternatives, including the 

proposed action, for conducting timber harvest; reforestation; road construction, reconstruction, 

and decommissioning; soil restoration; and fuels reduction activities within the Lemolo Lake 

watershed. The DEIS also analyzes and discloses the effects on the human environment that 

are likely to occur from implementing the proposed action and the alternatives to the proposed 

action. This analysis is tiered to the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the 1990 

Umpqua National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) as amended by the 

1994 Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management 

Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl (ROD), Record of 

Decision for Amendment to the Survey & Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation 

Measures Standards and Guidelines; and incorporates the recommendations and analysis 

completed in the Diamond Lake and Lemolo Lake Watershed Analysis. 

1.2. AREA DESCRIPTION 

The Lemolo Watershed Projects analysis area is located within the Lemolo Lake 5th Level 

Watershed and is approximately 76,653 acres. The geologic features of the area consist of the 

High Cascade Geology. The headwaters of the North Umpqua River begin at Maidu Lake and 

are located within the Lemolo Watershed. There are five smaller sub watersheds that make up 

the Lemolo watershed. They are as follow: Bradley Creek 11,577 acres, Lemolo Reservoir 

11,918 acres, North Umpqua Headwaters 14,322 acres, Thirsty Creek 15,310 acres and Lake 

Creek 23,526 acres. The Lemolo Watershed Projects analysis area encompasses several 

different Management Areas: 

• Management Area 1 provides opportunities for unroaded recreation primarily in semiprimitive settings and is approximately 1.2% of the watershed. 

• Management Area 2 provides and appropriate environment for concentrated developed 

recreation activities in areas immediately surrounding Lemolo Lake and is approximately

2.9% of the watershed. 

• Management Area 4 preserves the natural character of these lands in a manner consistent 

•

ith the intent of the Oregon Wilderness act and is approximately 42.2% of the 

• enjoyment of remarkable designated 

•

water

quality, visual quality, recreation and is approximately 29.1% of the planning area. 

1994 Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management 

with the Wilderness Act of 1984 and is approximately 24.2% of the watershed. 

Management Area 5 provides direction for the Oregon Cascades Recreation Area

consistent w

watershed. 

Management Area 6 provides for the protection and

special interest areas and is .02 % of the watershed. 

Management Area 10 is designed to produce timber on a cost-efficient sustainable basis 

consistent with other resource objectives for wildlife habitat, riparian habitat and

Management area direction is found in the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the 1990 

Umpqua National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) as amended by the 

Lemolo Watershed Projects Environmental Impact Statement 
2 Purpose and Need Chapter One 

Planning Documents within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl (ROD). The land 

allocations are listed below in Table 1. The allocations overlap in many areas between the two 

plans. For example Management area 10 (LRMP) and the matrix (ROD) are basically the same 

area. Total land allocation acres in the table will exceed the total acres in the Lemolo Watershed 

Projects Analysis area. This is a result of the over lapping management direction from the two 

plans. 

1.2.1. SITE LOCATIONS

The legal description of the project area includes all or portions of sections 24 through 28 and 

33 through 36, T25S, R5 1/2E; sections 30, 31 and 32, T25S, R6E; sections 32 through 36, T25 

1/2S, R6E; sections 31, 32 and 33, T25 1/2S, R6 1/2E; sections 10 through 15, 22 through 25 

and 36, T26S, R5E; sections 1 through 36, T26S, R6E; sections 4 through 9, 15 through 21 and 

27 through 35, T26S, R6 1/2E; sections 1, 12 and 13, T27S, R5E; sections 1 through 28 and 33 

10, 11 and 12, T28S, R6E, Willamette Meridian, Douglas County, Oregon. 

Lemolo Watershed Projects Environmental Impact Statement 
Chapter One Purpose and Need 3

1.2.2. MANAGEMENT AREA PRESCRIPTIONS

Table 1 (Management Area Prescriptions) identifies the total acres of management prescription 

and the percentage of the analysis area that it includes. 

Table 1 – Management Area Prescriptions 

Management Area Prescription Acres of 

Application 

Percentage of 

the Analysis 

Area 

NW Forest Plan Riparian Buffers 10,282 13.4 

Inventoried Road less Areas 5,069 6.6 

Unsuitable Soils 11 0.01 

NWFP Matrix 23,146 30.2 

Umpqua LRMP Management Area 1 931 1.2 

Umpqua LRMP Management Area 2 2,187 2.9 

Umpqua LRMP Management Area 4 

(MT. Thielsen Wilderness) 

18,588 24.2

Umpqua LRMP Management Area 5 

(Oregon Cascade Recreation Area) 

32,368 42.2

Umpqua LRMP Management Area 6 177 0.02 

Umpqua LRMP Management Area 10 22,324 29.1 

Lemolo Watershed Projects Environmental Impact Statement 
4 Purpose and Need Chapter One 

Figure 1 – Vicinity Map 

Lemolo Watershed Projects Environmental Impact Statement 
Chapter One Purpose and Need 5

Figure 2- Watershed Boundaries 

BRADLEY CREEK

LAKE CREEK

LEMOLO RESERVOIR

NORTH UMPQUA HEADWATERS

THIRSTY CREEK

LEMOLO FIFTH LEVEL WATERSHED BOUNDARY

7000 0 7000 14000 Feet

N

Legend

Lemolo Watershed Projects

Watershed Boundaries

Bradley Creek

(11,577 Acres)

North Umpqua 

Headwaters

(14,322 Acres)

Lemolo Reservoir

(11,918 Acres)

Thirsty Creek

(15,310 Acres)

Lake Creek

(23,526 Acres)

Lemolo Watershed Projects Environmental Impact Statement 
6 Purpose and Need Chapter One 

Figure 3 – Land Management Allocations 

Lemolo Watershed Projects Environmental Impact Statement 

Umpqua Forest Plan Managemnet Areas

Management Area 1

Management Area 2

Management Area 4 (MT. Thielsen Wilderness)

Management Area 5 (Oregon Cascade Recreation Area)

Management Area 6

Management Area 10

NW Forest Plan Matrix Land Allocation

Riparian Buffers

Inventoried Roadless Areas

5000 0 5000 10000 Feet

N

Lemolo Watershed Projects 

Management Allocations

Legend
Chapter One Purpose and Need 7

•

ithin natural stands which have been classified as 

fuel model 8 through fuel model 10. 

and then crown fuel. (Agee 2002). Reducing these fuels will limit the potential intensity

 

1.3. PURPOSE AND NEED 

 

The purpose of this project is to implement recommendations that stemmed from the Diamond 

Lake/Lemolo Lake Watershed Analysis (WA). Goals and objectives of the Umpqua National 

Forest Land Resource Management Plan (LRMP), as amended by the Northwest Forest Plan 

ROD are achieved through implemention of WA recommendations. The District Ranger and the 

Diamond Lake Ranger District staff are responsible for implementing watershed analysis 

recommendations and achieving Forest Plan goals and objectives. 

There is a need to achieve the desired conditions outlined in Chapter Five of the Diamond 

Lake/Lemolo Lake Watershed Analysis by implementing the WA recommendations within the 

Lemolo Analysis Area, including the Bunker Hill area. In order to achieve desired conditions 

the project needs to: 

• Maintain the high level of vegetative diversity in both structure and pattern, promote 

pine health, and improve stand health and vigor by approximating natural disturbance 

processes and patterns through silvicultural harvest prescriptions that are varied over 

the Lemolo Lake Watershed landscape. At landscape levels, a mix of treatment 

intensities makes sense; no treatment on some areas, less intensive treatment on other 

areas, and more intensive treatment involving reduction of canopy density in still other 

areas (Agee 2002). To meet this desired condition, there is a site specific need to 

harvest areas adjacent to or within close proximity to managed stands (plantations) 

using shelterwood (8-12 live leave trees per acre) and seed tree (4-6 live leave trees per 

acre) prescriptions, under the 15% green-tree retention Forest Plan Standard and 

Guideline. This will approximate larger scale disturbance processes such as stand 

replacement fire. There is a site specific need to commercially thin areas in order to 

approximate disturbances such as light ground fire and occasional insect attacks, nonstand replacing events. There is also a site specific need to approximate disturbances 

such as light ground fire and small, localized disturbance such as root disease and 

concentrated insect attack. This can be achieved through partial harvest and small group 

harvest of less than 5 acres. 

Move the Lemolo Lake Watershed from a high severity fire regime towards the 

historical moderate severity fire regime. The WA states, “ Design timber sales to 

approximate fires natural disturbance at the stand and landscape scale, and help return 

the watershed to a moderate fire regime”. It also states that “ Once harvest is complete 

prescribed fire will be used to treat activity created fuel as well as being reintroduced to 

areas which were not harvested within the sale area.1 In order to meet this general 

desired condition, there is a site specific need to do silvicultural treatments that 

approximate natural disturbance processes, treat slash from proposed harvest activity, 

and underburn and hand pile slash w

Historically low and moderate fire regimes are much better candidates for some type of 

fire safe treatment (Agee 2002). Treatment should focus on surface fuel, ladder fuel, 

1

Diamond Lake / Lemolo lake Watershed Analysis, Chapter five recommendations, Page 223, paragraph four. 

Lemolo Watershed Projects Environmental Impact Statement 
8 Purpose and Need Chapter One 

of fires, and provide a higher chance of controlling wildfires, and allow more of the 

forest to survive when it does burn (Agee 2002). 

The best general approach for managing wildfire damage seems to be by managing tree 

density and species composition with well-designed silvicultural systems at a landscape 

scale that includes a mix of thinning, surface fuel treatments, and prescribed fire with 

proactive treatment in areas with high risk to wildfire.2

 

• Bring existing road systems up to current standards and reduce the risk to the aquatic 

resource from road related erosional processes within the Lemolo Lake Watershed. 

Reconstruct / maintain the road system and decommission system roads through 

Knutson-Vandenburg funding opportunities on a site-specific basis. 

• Provide miscellaneous forest products (post & poles and house logs) by following the 

harvest priority recommendations. 

• Improve the long-term site productivity of managed stands that have been adversely

affected by past management practices. In order to meet this general desired condition, 

there is a site-specific need to subsoil main skid roads and temporary haul roads in 

managed stands within the Lemolo analysis area through Knutson-Vandenburg or other 

funding opportunities. 

Achieving the desired conditions outlined in the WA leads to meeting the main objective for 

Management Area 10/matrix lands: to supply a probable sale quantity (PSQ) of timber to local 

and regional economies on a cost efficient, sustainable basis. Objectives for matrix lands are 

described on page B-1 of the ROD. The ROD states “Production of timber and other 

commodities is an important objective for the matrix.” The ROD also states on page B-2 and B6 that one of the objectives of matrix lands is to provide ecological diversity at the landscape 

scale in the form of early-successional habitat through commercial timber harvest. There is a 

need to conduct timber harvest inside Management Area 10/matrix lands within the Lemolo 

Analysis Area to meet the PSQ and provide for early successional habitat. 

1.4. PLANNING PROCESS 

The environmental policies and procedures specified in Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 

1909.15 were used in developing this Environmental Impact Statement. Following these 

policies and procedures insures compliance with the National Environmental Policy A

(NEPA) and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 CFR, Chapter V). 

ct

considered. The Diamond Lake District Ranger directed the ID team to develop additional 

 

In November of 2001 a DEIS for this project was sent out for public comment. Several 

members of the public commented during the 45-day comment period. Upon completion of the 

ID team review of the comments, it was agreed there were additional issues that needed to be 

2

 The Effects of Thinning and Similar Stand Treatments on Fire Behavior in Western Forests. Graham, Russel T.;

Harvey, Alan E.; Jain, Theresa B.; Tonn, Jonalea R. 1999 US Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station 

27p 

Lemolo Watershed Projects Environmental Impact Statement 
Chapter One Purpose and Need 9

• c meeting was held on April 24th, 2002 to share new alternatives with the 

public. 

IGNIFICANT SSUES

alternatives to the Proposed Action and initiate a new 45-day comment period with a revised 

DEIS. This document is the product of that decision. 

The Lemolo Lake 5th Level Watershed boundary encompasses the Lemolo Analysis Area and 

was used as the scope of analysis in order to evaluate many of the effects of the proposed 

activities. The same Interdisciplinary Team members that worked on this project were members 

of the Diamond Lake/Lemolo Lake Watershed team. The Diamond Lake/Lemolo Lake 

Watershed Analysis was used throughout the process to: 

• Give insight into the possible direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the alternatives. 

• Help understand ecosystem processes and incorporate that understanding into the 

analysis. 

• Develop the purpose and need and the proposed action. 

1.5. SCOPING - ISSUES IDENTIFICATION 

The critical process of issue identification is termed scoping (40 CFR 1501.7). Scoping is done 

internally among agency staff and externally among interested members of the public. Public 

involvement in the scoping process is required by NEPA regulations [40 CFR 1501.7 (a)(1) and 

1506.6]. The following actions took place to keep the public informed and generate issues 

during the scoping process: 

• Notice of the Lemolo Watershed Projects proposal was initially published in the 

Forest’s April, 1999 quarterly Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA). Since that date, 

notice has been sent out quarterly in the SOPA. 

• The Notice of Intent was published in the Federal Register on April 14, 1999. 

• A public meeting was held at Douglas County Library on April 21, 1999. 

• A field visit to the project area with the public took place on August 21, 1999. 

• The proposed action was sent to publics that requested it. 

• The first draft EIS was published and went through a 45-day comment period in 

November of 2001. 

A publi

1.5.1. S I

The original scoping period identified one significant issue and concern from members of the 

public that recreate in the Lemolo Lake area. This issue was labeled “Recreational value in the 

Lemolo Lake area”, and is discussed in detail below. After the first draft EIS was sent out for a 

Lemolo Watershed Projects Environmental Impact Statement 
10 Purpose and Need Chapter One 

45-day comment period an additional issue and concern from members of the public was raised 

relating to the proposed action. This issue revolved around the proposed harvest of old growth 

habitat within the Lemolo Analysis Area and is also discussed in detail below under the heading 

“Old Growth Habitat.” These significant issues were based on unresolved conflicts concerning 

alternative uses of available resources. 

documented in a letter signed on March 5th, 2002 and filed in Appendix F of 

this document. 

.5.2. RECREATIONAL VALUE 

14-24, 26, 27, 30, 32-41, 48, 53-56, and 68 and the south portion of unit 25 below 

the 60 road. 

management (commercial thinning) on Bunker Hill 

and within the Lemolo watershed. 

.5.3.

successional habitat below 15% of the total area within the Lemolo Fifth Field Watershed, thus 

meeting the Standard and Guideline. In fact, none of the alternatives drop the level of lateJohn Ouimet District Ranger reviewed all of the issues and determined the significant issues. 

This approval is

1

The 1990 Umpqua National Forest LRMP, as amended, established Forest-wide multiple use 

goals, objectives and management area requirements as well as management area prescriptions. 

The immediate area around Lemolo Lake is in Management Area 2 (Concentrated Developed 

Recreation). The focus is to provide an appropriate environment for concentrated developed 

recreation activities in areas immediately surrounding Lemolo Lake. All proposed actions fall 

outside this management area and meet the direction stated in the LRMP, including standards 

and guidelines for visual quality objectives. Some members of the public expressed concerns of 

certain actions that were near this area or near other developed recreation sites in the analysis 

area. Their concern was that timber harvest activities on Bunker Hill and within the vicinity of 

the Lemolo Lake Recreation Area would adversely affect their recreational experience and 

personal value for solitude. Specific units at issue within the proposed action include units 1, 2, 

3, 4, 5, 7, 9,

This issue can be framed in the context of “unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of 

available resources.” At issue is whether the timber sale related adverse effects on recreation 

and solitude out weigh the risk of high intensity fire, the decline of pine health, the reduction of 

stand health and vigor on Bunker Hill and within the Lemolo watershed, and the need to 

provide probable sale quantity from matrix lands. Evaluation criteria and environmental effects 

surrounding the recreational value issue are based on total acres treated to promote pine health 

on Bunker Hill and within the Lemolo watershed; total acres harvested within areas identified as 

high recreational value through public comment within the Lemolo watershed, total acres of 

hazardous fuels treated on Bunker Hill and within the Lemolo watershed, probable sale 

quantity, and total acres of stand density

1 OLD GROWTH HABITAT 

The 1990 Umpqua National Forest LRMP, as amended, established Standards and Guidelines 

relating to late successional/old growth habitat within Fifth Field Watersheds. Standard and 

Guideline C-44/45 in the Northwest Forest Plan ROD states; “all remaining late-successional 

stands should be protected when the amount of late-successional habitat within a Fifth level

Watershed falls below 15%.” Late-successional habitat is defined as forest greater than 80 years 

old. Analysis shows that none of the alternatives within this DEIS drop the level of lateLemolo Watershed Projects Environmental Impact Statement 
Chapter One Purpose and Need 11

successional habitat below 60% and the level of old growth habitat below 30% of the total area 

within the Lemolo Watershed.3

 

Even though all alternatives meet the late-successional Standard and Guideline, many members 

of the public are still concerned about harvesting old growth stands. There are 23,720 acres of 

old growth stands within the Lemolo Watershed Projects Analysis area, as described in the 

Northwest Forest Plan (ROD – Glossary F-4). Old growth forest stands are usually at least 180-

220 years old with moderate to high canopy closure; a multi-layered, multi-species canopy

dominated by large over story trees; high incidence of large trees, some with broken tops and 

other indications of old and decaying wood (decadence); numerous large snags; and heavy

accumulations of wood, including large logs on the ground. Old growth stands have been 

delineated using the vegetative age class information from the “ump_femat_age” coverage 

located in the Umpqua GIS reference library. Specific units at issue within the proposed action 

include; 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, 14-24, 26, 27, 30, 32-34, 36, 37, 40, 41, 68 and associated road 

construction. At issue is whether to maintain these existing old growth stands at this time or 

harvest them within matrix lands inside the Lemolo Watershed Projects analysis area under the 

Northwest Forest Plan. If no harvest of old growth occurs there are tradeoffs related to pine 

health, probable sale quantity, and fire hazard within the analysis area. The evaluation criteria 

and environmental effects surrounding the old growth issue are based on the total acres of old 

growth harvested within the Lemolo watershed, the total acres treated to promote pine health on 

Bunker Hill and within the Lemolo watershed, probable sale quantity, and the total acres of 

hazardous fuels treated on Bunker Hill and within the Lemolo watershed. 

1.5.4. OTHER ISSUES

application of the goals of land allocation activities with these land management plans. 

 

Some preliminary issues and concerns raised during scoping were determined not to be 

significant issues by the line officer, as described in the National Environmental Policy Act 

(Committee on Environmental Quality Regulations), and were not used to generate alternatives 

to the proposed action. These issues were not determined to be significant, due to mitigation 

measures included in the alternatives and compliance with direction and Standards and 

Guidelines outlined in the 1990 Umpqua National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan 

(LRMP), as amended. 

1.6. MANAGEMENT DIRECTION 

The Umpqua NF LRMP as amended by the Northwest Forest Plan, specifies overall direction to 

manage the forest, including management goals and objectives, activity Standards and

Guidelines, and management prescriptions for each land allocation. This analysis is based on 

site-specific direction for implementing the proposed action or its alternatives and the 

3

 Please refer to Appendix I – Silviculture; “Analysis of Late Successional Forest within the Lemolo Lake Fifth

Field Watershed.” 

Lemolo Watershed Projects Environmental Impact Statement 
12 Purpose and Need Chapter One 

1.6.1. UMPQUA NATIONAL FOREST LAND AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

Pursuant to CEQ 1502.20, this Draft EIS is tiered to the Umpqua National Forest Land and 

Resource Management Plan (USDA Forest Service 1990) as amended by the Northwest Forest 

Plan (USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management, 1994). 

1.6.2. NORTHWEST FOREST PLAN

In June 1990, the northern spotted owl, (Strix occidentalis caurina), which lives primarily in 

late-successional forest in the Pacific Northwest and northern California, was listed as a 

threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Reasons for listing included past 

and projected losses of suitable habitat caused primarily by timber harvest. 

On April 2, 1993, President Clinton held a Forest Conference in Portland, Oregon, to deal with 

the controversies over forest management and protection of species associated with old-growth 

forests in the Pacific Northwest and northern California. Scientists, economists, representatives 

from the forest products industry, environmental groups, Indian tribes, and others presented 

concerns, opinions, and proposals to the President about the various issues involved in 

managing the region’s forestlands. Following the conference, President Clinton established a 

Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team (FEMAT) to develop options for the 

management of Federal forest ecosystems to provide habitat that would support stable 

populations of species associated with late-successional forests. A Final Supplemental Impact 

Statement assessing the potential impacts of the options developed by FEMAT was completed 

in February 1994. A ROD adopted Alternative 9, which is based on a system of LateSuccessional Reserves (LSRs), Riparian Reserves, Adaptive Management Areas, and a Matrix 

of Federal lands interspersed with non-Federal lands. These designations complement existing 

Forest Plan allocations, which were allocated to administratively withdrawn and 

Congressionally Reserved lands. 

The Record of Decision for the Amendments to the Forest Service and Bureau of Land 

Management Planning Documents within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl, is commonly

known as the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP). This ROD, jointly signed by the secretaries of 

Agriculture and Interior, amended the Umpqua National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan (LRMP or Forest Plan) and other existing plans within the range of the 

northern spotted owl. This amendment, which became effective on May 20, 1994, provided new 

goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines for resource management. It added several new land 

allocations, each with its own set of Standards and Guidelines. These land allocations overlay

and merge with the allocations from the 1990 LRMP. The direction in the Northwest Forest 

Plan supersedes the LRMP allocations where it is more restrictive or provides greater benefits to 

late-successional ecosystems. Direction from the Forest Plan is retained where it is more 

restrictive or is unaffected by the Northwest Forest Plan. 

1.6.3. AMENDMENTS TO SURVEY AND MANAGE PROVISIONS OF THE NORTHWEST FOREST 

PLAN

On January 12, 2001, the Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and US Fish and 

Wildlife Service announced the signing of a Record of Decision by the Secretaries of Interior 

and Agriculture to amend the “Survey and Manage” provisions in the Northwest Forest Plan. 

Lemolo Watershed Projects Environmental Impact Statement 
Chapter One Purpose and Need 13

n on rare and little known species, and 

uses the agencies’ limited resources more efficiently. 

edible protection for the species or credible scientific 

information for species management. 

e Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and 

other Mitigation Measures and Guidelines will: 

• on those species, habitats, and proposed activities 

where management is needed most. 

Continue to meet the species management objectives of the Northwest Forest Plan. 

• uck in the Northwest Forest plan between risk to species and 

commodity production. 

•

ge. Included are 18 fungi, 35 lichens, 11 bryophytes, 2 mollusks, and 6 vascular 

•

categories based on knowledge and concerns about the species, 

ffecting the practicality of conducting surveys prior to habit-

• Known sites will be managed for 327 of the species. Surveys will be done prior to 

The Lemolo Watershed Projects DEIS has incorporated and documented these amendments to 

These amendments were made through supplemental Standards and Guidelines. This decision 

clarifies Survey and Manage language by eliminating inconsistent or redundant direction; better 

identifies species needs, based on updated information, and establishes a process for adding or 

removing species when new information becomes available. The decision incorporates the most 

up-to-date science, improves projects with informatio

The Northwest Forest Plan required Federal land managers to follow Survey and Manage 

Standards and Guidelines to provide benefits to some 400 species of amphibians, bryophytes, 

lichens, mollusks, vascular plants, and fungi. The agency scientists discovered that it was not 

possible to identify some species in the field or locate some species within one or two years of 

conducting surveys. In addition, there were no criteria for changing categories, adding, or 

removing species from the Survey and Manage list. This resulted in both management activities 

that were more restrictive than necessary to meet species persistence objectives, and some

species not receiving adequate protection. In 1998 the agencies began the preparation of a 

Supplemental EIS to correct the identified problems. Also, in 1998 the agencies were sued over

implementation of the Survey and Manage guidelines (ONRC Action v. USFS, Civ. #C98-

0359D). The District Court of Washington issued a mixing ruling. A “settlement agreement” 

was negotiated with the plaintiffs that allowed the agencies to continue their program of work. 

The settlement agreement was costly to implement and the surveys for some species under this 

agreement did not provide either cr

The Record of Decision for Amendments to th

Focus agency budget and personnel

•

Maintain the balance str

Remove 72 species from Survey and Manage in all (63 species) or part (9 species) of 

their ran

plants. 

Under the Record of Decision, 346 species that remain on the Survey and Manage list 

are placed in one of six 

and characteristics a

disturbing activities. 

habitat disturbance for 75 species. All 346 species will receive strategic surveys. 

Survey and Manage provisions of the Northwest Forest Plan. 

Lemolo Watershed Projects Environmental Impact Statement 
14 Purpose and Need Chapter One 

1.6.4. OTHER FOREST SERVICE CURRENT AND PROPOSED POLICIES

 ROAD-LESS AREA CONSERVATION 

In 1972 the Forest Service began identifying road-less areas for wilderness consideration 

through the Road-less Area Review and Evaluation (RARE I). In 1979, the agency completed 

RARE II, a more extensive national inventory of road-less areas. Most National Forests and 

g at this time. As long as the road-less rule is 

enjoined, the agency policy for the protection and management of inventoried road-less areas is 

proposing any projects within inventoried roadGrasslands employed RARE II data to develop inventories of Road less areas. 

On October 13, 1999, President Clinton directed the Forest Service to begin and open and 

public dialogue about the future of road-less areas throughout the National Forest System. On 

October 19, 1999, a Federal Register Notice of Intent (NOI) was published that described the 

intent of the Forest Service to initiate a public rulemaking process that would propose protection 

of the remaining road-less areas. This proposed rulemaking was designed to respond to strong 

public sentiment for protecting road-less areas and the clean water, biological diversity, wildlife 

habitat, forest health, dispersed recreational opportunities, and other benefits they provide. The 

Road-less Rule is enjoined from implementin

contained in Interim Direction at FSM 1925. 

The Lemolo Watershed Projects DEIS is not 

less areas. 

 FOREST SERVICE ROAD MANAGEMENT POLICY

In January 2001, the Forest Service outlined details of the agency’s final Road Management 

Policy. The policy relies upon scientific analysis and public involvement at the local level. It is 

designed to help the Forest Service determine how to best manage the more than 380,000 miles 

affordable, and efficient to manage. The final policy

requires the Forest Service to undertake a scientifically based road analysis procedure at 

make better 

decisions regarding road management. 

The fin

Conduct and complete extensive analysis and public involvement at the local level, 

• More carefully consider and screen proposals to build new roads. Decisions to build 

of roads in the National Forest roads system. A six-step analysis process was developed and 

documented in August 1999 (Miscellaneous Report FS-643). 

The Forest Service wants to provide a road system that is safe, responsive to the public and 

agency needs, environmentally sound,

appropriate scales and coordinated with other ecosystem analysis in order to

al road management policy emphasizes the need for the Forest Service to: 

•

resulting in a Forest Road System that serves resource objectives and public uses of 

National Forest lands as identified in Forest Plans. 

new roads will consider available funding for maintenance and operation and the latest 

scientific information on the effects of roads on ecosystems. 

Lemolo Watershed Projects Environmental Impact Statement 
Chapter One Purpose and Need 15

afe travel and reduce adverse environmental impacts. 

to maintain the existing 380,000 plus mile road system to environmental 

safety standards. The dramatic shift in public use of National Forests over the years led the 

that began in January 1998 when the Forest 

Service announced its intention to revise its road policy. At the same time, the agency issued an 

ade after January 12, 2002 must be informed by

orporated and documented the six-step Roads 

alysis ocess (located the Tran ortation

rocess.

.6.5.

• Maintain or reconstruct needed roads. Give funding and management priority to most 

heavily-used roads to provide s

• After analysis and public involvement at the local level, decommission or convert 

unneeded roads to other uses. 

The new Road Management policy is designed to improve public access to the forests while 

diminishing the risks of erosion and water quality degradation. It is designed to shift the 

agency’s policy from developing its transportation system to managing its transportation system

in an environmentally and financially responsible way. The Forest Service has a mounting $8.4 

billion maintenance and reconstruction backlog and receives only about 20 percent of the 

annual funding needed

Forest Service to find a new approach to deciding the appropriate extent, use and standards for 

the forest road system. 

The Road Management policy addresses all roads over which the Forest Service has jurisdiction 

and sets official definitions for road management terms. In addition, the policy gives interim

requirements for inventoried road-less areas and contiguous un-roaded areas. This policy is a

result of an extensive public involvement process

interim rule that temporarily suspended road construction and reconstruction in certain unroaded areas on National Forests and Grasslands. 

Following comprehensive training on implementation of the new policy and the Road Analysis 

Process, many concerns were heard about the ability to meet the approaching compliance 

deadlines in Forest Service Manual Chapter 7710. On May 25, 2001, the Chief of the Forest 

Service signed an Interim Directive to provide needed management flexibility. Specifically, the 

Interim Directive provides: a) decisions m

Roads Analysis, b) extend the requirement to implement roads analysis until January 12, 2003, 

and c) delegates to Regional Foresters the authority to grant on a case-by-case basis, extensions 

for completing forest-scale Roads Analysis. 

The Lemolo Watershed Projects DEIS has inc

An pr in sp section - Appendix K), to the extent possible at 

the scale of the analysis area, in conjunction with this NEPA p

1 OTHER RELEVANT OR ADJACENT STUDIES

DIAMOND LAKE / LEMOLO LAKE WATERSHED ANALYSIS

As provided under the Northwest Forest Plan, Watershed Analysis is a systematic procedure for 

characterizing watersheds and is an important tool for implementation of project activities. 

Watershed analysis is used to guide management prescriptions and monitoring programs, 

Riparian reserves boundaries, and provides watershed recommendations for restoration. 

The “Diamond Lake / Lemolo Lake Watershed Analysis” was completed in June 1998, by the 

Diamond Lake Ranger District, Umpqua National Forest. The Diamond Lake/Lemolo Lake 

Lemolo Watershed Projects Environmental Impact Statement 
16 Purpose and Need Chapter One 

watersheds are 5th Level Watersheds located in southwest Oregon, and encompass the eastern 

portion of the Diamond Lake Ranger District. The analysis area for the Lemolo Watersheds 

projects includes the Lemolo Lake 5th Level Watershed which is approximately 76,800 acres. 

ed and utilized herein is incorporated 

by reference to this Draft EIS. 

None of the sub-watersheds analyzed within the watershed analysis area are Federally

designated Key Watersheds in the Northwest Forest Plan. 

There are 5 sub-watersheds within this 5th Level Watershed. The complete text of the Diamond 

Lake/Lemolo Lake Watershed Analysis document identifi

Lemolo Watershed Projects Environmental Impact Statement 
Lemolo Watershed Projects Environmental Impact Statement