Actions Covered by the Aquatic Restoration Biological Opinion

United States 

Department of 

Agriculture 

Forest 

Service 

July 2012 

Decision Notice 

Fivemile-Bell Landscape Management Project 

Actions Covered by the Aquatic Restoration Biological Opinion 

Central Coast Ranger District-ODNRA 

Siuslaw National Forest 

Douglas County, Oregon 

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service 

Responsible Official: Michele Jones, District Ranger 

Central Coast Ranger District 

Siuslaw National Forest 

1130 Forestry Lane 

Waldport, OR 97394 

For Information Contact: Paul Burns, Fish Biologist 

Central Coast Ranger District 

4480 Hwy 101, Bldg. G 

Florence, OR 97439 

(541) 902-6953 

pburns@fs.fed.us 

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

basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, 

parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part 

of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all 

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

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

TDD). 

To file a compliant of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 14t00 Independence 

Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is 

an equal opportunity provider and employer.

1 



Riparian Actions 

Project Background, Area, and Needs 

This decision addresses a group of wildlife and fisheries habitat improvement actions in riparian areas 

encompassed by the Fivemile-Bell Landscape Management Project Environmental Assessment (the 

Project EA). 

The Project EA includes a broad suite of restoration actions within the Project area. The majority of the 

Project area is within the 6 th -field Tahkenitch Lake – Tahkenitch Creek sub-watershed, with the remainder 

(the northwest corner of the Project area) located within the 6 th -field Siltcoos Lake sub-watershed. The 

Project area includes the drainage area of Fivemile Creek upstream of Fivemile Road (County Road 49), 

which includes Bell Creek, Harry Creek, and several other unnamed perennial and intermittent tributaries. 

Actions in the Project EA that pertain to upland treatments, such as commercial thinning, creating 

meadows, and repairing and maintaining forest roads, are covered by a decision made on July 27, 2012. 

This decision covers a subset of actions related specifically to riparian areas, such as adding large wood to 

streams and replacing culverts in coho habitat. While these riparian actions are addressed in the Project 

EA, they (portion of Alternative 2) have independent utility and can proceed independently from the 

actions covered by the July 27, 2012 decision. These riparian treatments are being addressed in a separate 

decision in order to facilitate consultation under the Endangered Species Act, specifically the Aquatic 

Restoration Biological Opinion. Other actions associated with valley bottom restoration, such as new 

channel construction, valley re-grading, and levee removal, will be covered under a separate decision. 

The Project EA includes actions designed to restore aquatic habitat and enhance water quality and stream 

function on National Forest System (NFS) lands. 

The Project area is located about 10 miles southeast of Florence, Oregon (map 1), and includes Fivemile 

and Bell Creeks of the Tahkenitch Lake basin 6th-field watershed. The Project area encompasses 5,787 

acres—3,723 acres managed by the US Forest Service, 308 acres managed by the Bureau of Land 

Management, and 1,756 acres under private ownership. 

The Project area is located in Township 19 South, Range 11 West, sections 2 and 3; and Township 20 

South, Range 11 West, sections 1-5, 8-12, 14-17, and 21-23; Willamette Meridian; Douglas County, 

Oregon. 

One of the needs for the Project, identified in chapter 1 of the Project EA, includes enhancing the health 

of streams and associated aquatic ecosystems. 

The decision to be made is whether to implement actions designed to meet the Project needs by selecting 

the specific actions designed to improve watershed conditions and the health of the aquatic systems 

(portion of Alternative 2) or to postpone these actions by selecting the no-action alternative (Alternative 

1).

2 




My Decision 

I have decided to proceed with the following specific actions, as described in the Fivemile-Bell 

Landscape Management Project Environmental Assessment for actions covered by the Aquatic 

Restoration Biological Opinion that may affect coho habitat and designated critical habitat, such as 

adding large wood to streams and replacing culverts in coho habitat. 

Actions to restore watershed conditions and the health of the aquatic systems (portion of 

Alternative 2) 

These actions are needed to restore aquatic conditions and will be implemented whether or not the actions 

connected with the July 27, 2012 decision, such as commercial thinning, creating meadows, and repairing 

and maintaining forest roads, are implemented. Funding would not be reliant upon that decision. 

The following actions will be done to improve watershed function and will include mitigation and 

monitoring requirements (EA, appendices A and F) to ensure protection of natural resources. 

Actions to improve aquatic conditions: 

• Increase the large wood component of fish habitat by placing plantation trees (including 

rootwads) and mature trees (between 18 and 36 inches in diameter) in Fivemile Creek and Bell 

Creek; 

• Improve the long-term stability of stream shade and speed the development of large wood that 

would fall into streams by releasing riparian conifer from alder and shrub competition and by 

non-commercially thinning dense conifer near streams; and by planting riparian areas with native 

conifer and hardwoods upstream from channel reconstruction areas; 

• Maintain existing meadows along Bell Creek; 

• Reduce the potential for mass-soil movement and chronic sedimentation associated with some 

routes that were built to accommodate logging equipment used during the initial harvest by 

removing fills at stream crossings, and decompacting and obliterating roadbeds; and 

• Decommission the upper portion of the valley bottom road. 

Table 1 summarizes the quantities associated with the actions.




Table 1. Alternative 2 quantitative summary (estimated quantities) 

Issue, Objective, and Outcome Alternative 

2 

Actions to improve aquatic conditions: 

Stream Channel Restoration 

Add large wood to Fivemile Creek and Bell Creek, 

using a helicopter (number of plantation 

trees/number of mature trees/miles of stream) 

Riparian Vegetation Management 

Release riparian conifer from alder and shrub 

competition (acres) 

Plant riparian areas with conifer and hardwoods 

upstream from channel reconstruction areas (acres) 

Maintain existing meadows along Bell Creek 

(acres) 

Road Management 

Stabilize and re-contour roads used for accessing 

large wood for in-stream placement. These roads 

were built for initial, past timber harvesting 

(miles/culverts for removal) 

Decommission the upper portion of the valley 

bottom road (miles) 

Young Stand Treatments 

3 

2,500/110/ 

7.3 

20 

15 

3 

6.3/29 

Non-commercially thin young stands (acres) 73 

Other actions associated with Alternative 2 in the Project EA, such as commercial thinning, creating 

meadows, and repairing and maintaining forest roads, are covered by the July 27, 2012 decision. Actions 

associated with restoring the valley bottom, such as stream channel construction, valley re-grading, and 

levee removal, will be covered by a separate decision. 

In making this decision, I have reviewed the Project EA and its appendices, terrestrial Biological 

Evaluation and corresponding Letters of Concurrence from the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the aquatic 

Biological Evaluation and other project-file documents, and the comments received during the 30-day 

public comment period. 

Reasons for the Decision 

My decision to improve watershed conditions and the health of the aquatic ecosystems was based on the 

needs identified in chapter 1 of the Project EA. The Project is designed to protect affected natural 

resources in the short term and maintain or enhance the quality and productivity of these resources in the 

1.5

4 




long term (EA, chapter 3 and appendix A). The Project will also improve aquatic conditions with actions, 

such as decommissioning roads and removing culverts in roads (EA, chapter 3). 

The Project best meets my expectations for holistic and integrated restoration. No unacceptable 

cumulative effects to any resource are expected. Many beneficial effects will accrue from implementing 

the Project, and the risk associated with any potential negative effects, discussed in chapter 3 of the 

Project EA, is low. 

In my review of the Project EA, its appendices, and other project-file documents, I believe the 

information provided to me is adequate for a reasoned choice of action. I am fully aware that the selected 

alternative will have some unavoidable adverse environmental effects such as disturbance to wildlife (EA, 

page 141), irreversible resource commitments such as continued use of existing roads (EA, page 141), and 

irretrievable commitment of resources such as loss of vehicular access through the forest as roads are 

closed or decommissioned (EA, page 142). I have determined, however, that these effects and risks are 

outweighed by the likely benefits. 

In making this selection, I have also reviewed information in the administrative record, including but not 

limited to the Siuslaw Forest Plan (1990), as amended by the Northwest Forest Plan (1994); the Coastal 

Lakes Watershed Analysis (1998); the Late-Successional Reserve Assessment, Oregon Coast Province 

Southern Portion (1997); consultation files and records involving the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and 

the National Marine Fisheries Service; public and other agency comments; and applicable laws and 

regulations. 

The Siuslaw Land and Resource Management Plan (Siuslaw Forest Plan) was developed and approved 

March 7, 1990. I have found that this project is consistent with the Siuslaw Forest Plan (EA, chapters 1 

and 2). 

All practical means to avoid or minimize environmental harm have been adopted in the design of the 

Selected Alternative. I have included all of the project design criteria and mitigation measures that I 

believe are necessary to avoid, minimize, or rectify impacts on resources affected by implementation of 

the Selected Alternative. My conclusion is based on a review of the record that shows a thorough review 

using the best available science. The resource analyses disclosed in Chapter 3 of the EA identify the 

effects analysis methodologies, reference scientific sources which informed the analysis, and disclose 

limitations of the analysis. 

Alternatives Considered 

Before selecting these actions that improve watershed conditions and the health of the aquatic ecosystems 

(portion of Alternative 2), I considered Alternative 1 (no action), and other alternatives that were 

eliminated from detail study in the Project EA. 

Alternative 1, no action—Alternative 1 is fully described in chapter 2 of the Project EA, and the analysis 

of its effects is disclosed in chapter 3. The no-action alternative forms the basis for a comparison between

5 




meeting the project needs and not meeting the project needs. This alternative provides baseline 

information for understanding changes associated with Alternative 2 and expected environmental 

responses as a result of past management actions. 

Reasons for Not Selecting the Other Alternatives 

The no-action alternative does not create obvious negative effects, but it also does not meet any of the 

Project needs. Without some restorative actions, some watershed conditions, such as water quality and 

fish habitat, would continue to degrade (EA, chapter 1). Therefore, I could find no reason to select this 

alternative. 

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study 

I considered several alternatives, based largely on public comments received during scoping and during 

the 30-day public review of the preliminary analysis. The following alternatives represent those that I 

considered, but for various reasons, eliminated from detailed study. 

Complete the stream restoration portion in less than five years 

Consideration was given to complete the stream restoration in less than five years. To accomplish this, the 

majority of the valley bottom would be in a disturbed state in a relatively short period of time. The 

analysis indicates that this rate of restoration could potentially adversely impact coho salmon habitat due 

to the anticipated rate of annual sedimentation and the need to relocate large numbers of fish over large 

reaches of stream, adversely impact early seral wildlife species that use the valley bottom, and exhaust 

supplies of native-vegetation seed that are needed to ensure native plant species become re-established on 

the re-graded portions of the valley. Because a slower approach (over a 10-year period) would reduce 

these potential adverse effects and would also provide opportunities to learn from each phase and apply 

what was learned to the next phase, this alternative was eliminated from detailed study. 

Aggrade Fivemile and Bell creeks using in-stream structures 

Initial project discussion on potential treatments to reduce the incision of these two streams focused on 

placing structures in the streams to aggrade the stream beds. While this method has some merit and has 

been used in other similar projects with some success, this method is not recommended for these stream 

systems. Hard structures with jumps or steps are not a typical feature that exists in this stream type 

because the stream bed is comprised of fine sediments that move easily, especially during high stream 

flows. Installing hard structures in this sediment would likely cause the stream to erode around the 

structure and increase the amount of disturbed eroding banks, while doing little for the incision problem. 

A Restoration Assistance Team from the US Forest Service visited the site to review the existing 

conditions and concurred with the recommendation to not aggrade the stream beds with structures. 

Therefore, this alternative was eliminated from detailed study.

Single entry treatment of all managed stands 

6 




Considerable thought was given to determine whether a one-time only thinning entry is desirable for all 

25 to 50 year-old stands. The interdisciplinary planning team and I felt this alternative provided too much 

risk to stands. With this alternative, managed stands across the landscape would be thinned to 30 to 50 

trees per acre and include associated actions, such as creating snags and planting trees in the understory. 

Following treatment, these stands would be allowed to develop old-growth conditions on their own. A 

landscape populated by stands with minimum numbers of trees leaves little room for mortality from 

natural events, such as strong winds or insect infestation. In addition, the variability between stands 

would be limited. 

Tappeiner et al. (1997) and Oliver and Larson (1996) advocate the use of several prescriptive residual 

overstory levels across the landscape. Carey et al. (1999) says that diversity in treatment is critical to 

meeting existing and future needs of wildlife. Variability and diversity are the keys to recapturing many of 

the forest functions. Also, the Northwest Forest Plan standards and guidelines incorporate the concept of 

adaptive management (ROD, page E-12). Applying the single-entry treatment on all plantations limits the 

agency’s ability to monitor, evaluate, and adapt treatments to these plantations in response to new 

information. Thus, under this alternative, we would not be able to apply the concept of adaptive 

management in the Project area. 

Because of the current level of uncertainty with single-entry treatment, I decided it was better to take a 

more conservative approach to stand management and development at this time by implementing singleentry 

prescriptions for only a few stands under this project. As information is obtained about single-entry 

treatments, such as through the Siuslaw Thinning and Underplanting Diversity Study, it may become a 

more widespread silvicultural tool in the future. 

No new temporary roads 

The interdisciplinary planning team considered an alternative that would not build new temporary roads; 

however, it was determined that new temporary roads are necessary and pose no substantial adverse 

impacts individually or collectively. The following design criteria are included to minimize effects of new 

temporary roads in Alternative 2: 

• Where feasible, design the logging plan to minimize the need for new temporary roads; 

• Do not locate new temporary roads on valley bottoms and mid-slopes to avoid stream crossings 

and other impacts to hydrology; 

• Limit new temporary roads to stable areas, such as ridges and generally flat terrain, to minimize 

soil disturbance; 

• Use new temporary roads during the dry season, whenever possible, to avoid adding rock to 

native surfaces and to reduce costs. Identify dry-season roads in the timber-sale contract; and 

• Waterbar and close new temporary roads between operating seasons or after operations are 

completed.

The team then evaluated the effects of building new temporary roads: 

7 




• New temporary roads access landing sites needed to feasibly thin and harvest stands; for example, 

the shorter tower heights associated with small yarders often require extensions of existing roads 

to reach the slope break; 

• New temporary roads would not connect with streams; no effects to hydrology would occur; 

• New temporary road impacts would be localized and minimized through application of the 

project design criteria listed above and in Appendix A; 

• New temporary roads would reduce the amount of sidehill and downhill yarding. Adverse impacts 

associated with sidehill and downhill yarding include soil disturbance and damage to residual 

trees; and 

• New temporary roads would minimize the need for yarding through riparian buffers. 

Help from the Public and Other Agencies 

A field trip with the Siuslaw Basin Partnership (Partnership) was conducted on July 7, 2010. The valleybottom 

portion of the Project area was visited. Groups associated with the Partnership and that 

participated in the trip included the Siuslaw Watershed Council, Siuslaw Institute, EcoTrust, and the 

Siuslaw Soil and Water Conservation District. Discussions centered on topics, such as channel excavation 

and grading, placing large wood in streams, seeding and planting with native plant species, managing 

invasive plants, managing meadows, thinning stands, and managing roads. Additional field trips with the 

Partnership were conducted during the development of this project. 

Letters describing the actions proposed by the Project were mailed on May 21, 2010 to individuals, 

agencies, and organizations identified as potentially interested in the proposed project and analysis. The 

Siuslaw National Forest’s quarterly “Project Update” publications were also used for public outreach. 

Comments on the proposed project were requested by June 18, 2010. Through these scoping efforts, 

representatives from five organizations responded. Public comments and Forest Service responses are 

summarized in the EA, Appendix E, Table E-1. 

Public comments contained a variety of suggestions. Comments not outside the scope of the project and 

not covered by previous environmental review or existing regulations were reviewed for substantive 

content related to the project. Based largely on public comment, some alternatives were considered, but 

eliminated from detailed study, while another alternative was considered in detail. The alternatives are 

discussed in chapter 2. Comments relevant to clarifying how the project will be implemented or 

disclosing the effects of implementing the project are addressed in the Project EA, chapters 2, 3, or 4; the 

project design criteria (EA, Appendix A); contributions from others (EA, Appendix E); or the project file. 

The notice of 30-day review and comment period for the Fivemile-Bell Landscape Management Project 

Preliminary Analysis was published in the Eugene Register-Guard on May 27, 2012 and mailed to those 

who commented on the proposed project during scoping or who expressed interest in the project. The 

legal notice and letters indicated the beginning and end of the comment period, described the comment

8 




process, and identified a Forest Service contact person. Copies of the preliminary analysis were also made 

available at the Siuslaw National Forest Headquarters in Corvallis, and the District office in Waldport. 

The comment period ended at the close-of-business on June 26, 2012. Public meetings at Reedsport, 

Oregon (June 6, 2012) and at Florence, Oregon (June 7, 2012) were held to obtain public comments. 

Through these various means, comments from three parties were received prior to the end of the comment 

period. These comments and the Forest Service responses to them are summarized in the Project EA, 

Appendix E, Table E-2. 

The Project is consistent with the US Fish and Wildlife Service’s Letters of Concurrence (reference 

#13420-2010-F-0184, habitat modification; and reference # 13420-2009-I-0152, disturbance) because no 

suitable habitat for northern spotted owl or marbled murrelet will be removed, and potential adverse 

effects to these species from project-related disturbance will be within the limits consulted on for this type 

of project in the Central Coast Ranger District of the Siuslaw National Forest. The terms and conditions 

are included in the project design criteria (appendix A). Project actions will not jeopardize the continued 

existence of these species or result in adverse modification to their designated critical habitat. 

The Oregon Coast coho salmon is listed as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. The 

restoration actions affected by this decision fit into the National Marine Fisheries Service’s (NMFS) 

Aquatic Restoration Biological Opinion (ARBO). 

On December 17, 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington issued an order in 

Conservation Northwest, et al. v. Sherman, et al., No. 08-1067-JCC (W.D. Wash.), granting Plaintiffs’ 

motion for partial summary judgment and finding NEPA violations in the Final Supplemental to the 2004 

Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement to Remove or Modify the Survey and Manage Mitigation 

Measure Standards and Guidelines (USDA and USDI, June 2007). In response, parties entered into 

settlement negotiations in April 2010, and the Court filed approval of the resulting Settlement Agreement 

on July 6, 2011. Projects that are within the range of the northern spotted owl are subject to the survey 

and management standards and guidelines in the 2001 ROD, as modified by the 2011 Settlement 

Agreement. 

I have reviewed the NEPA document for the Fivemile-Bell Landscape Management Project and have 

determined it is consistent with the Siuslaw Forest Land and Resource Management Plan as amended by 

the 2001 Record of Decision and Standards and Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, 

Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines (2001 ROD), as modified by 

the 2011 Settlement Agreement. 

Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) 

Based on the site-specific environmental analysis documented in the Fivemile-Bell Landscape 

Management Project Environmental Assessment, I have determined that the activities described do not 

constitute a major Federal action and would not significantly affect the quality of the human environment;

9 




therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement is not needed. This determination was made in light of the 

following factors (40 CFR 1508.27): 

Context 

Project activities have been viewed and approved in a Regional context through the Siuslaw National 

Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA 1990), as amended by the Final Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement on Management of Habitat for Late-Successional and Old-Growth 

Forest Related Species within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl (USDA, USDI 1994). This action 

only affects a small portion of the Forest, which in turn, is a very small portion of the Region. 

The site-specific activities that are authorized and guided by this decision are limited in scope and 

duration. Some minor adverse effects are expected. However, given the short duration of these projects, 

these effects are expected to be short-term. No long-term adverse effects are expected. 

Intensity 

1. Impacts may be both beneficial and adverse. A significant effect may exist even if the Federal agency 

believes that on balance the effect will be beneficial. 

Project actions will have both beneficial and adverse effects. Sediment from replacing culverts may be 

considered adverse effects. However, I have considered the benefits that the aquatic system will 

receive from implementing the Project actions and find that the overall beneficial effects to the 

ecosystem outweigh any short-term adverse effects. Further, I find that when considered alone, the 

adverse effects of this project are not significant (EA, chapter 3). 

2. The degree to which the proposed action affects public health or safety. 

No significant adverse effects to human health or safety have been identified (EA, page 143). 

3. Unique characteristics of the geographic area, such as proximity to historic or cultural resources, park 

lands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas. 

The characteristics of the geographic area do not make it uniquely sensitive to the effects of project 

actions. Past actions of similar intensity in similar areas have not indicated any significant adverse 

effects (EA, chapter 3). 

4. The degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to be highly 

controversial. 

The effects from the Project on the quality of the human environment are not found to be highly 

controversial (EA, chapters 1 and 3).

10 




5. The degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are highly uncertain or involve 

unique or unknown risks. 

The Project’s environmental effects are not uncertain or unknown. Planned actions are similar to those 

already accomplished on similar lands on the Forest and several scientific studies have been conducted 

that support the Project’s treatment strategies for plantations (EA, chapters 1 and 3). 

6. The degree to which the action may establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects or 

represents a decision in principle about a future consideration. 

Actions that will be implemented by the Project do not set a precedent for future actions because 

similar actions have been implemented in the past (EA, chapter 3, including page 144). 

7. Whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively 

significant impacts. Significance exists if it is reasonable to anticipate a cumulatively significant impact 

on the environment. Significance cannot be avoided by terming an action temporary or by breaking it 

down into small component parts. 

The Fivemile-Bell Landscape Management Project Environmental Assessment has disclosed direct, 

indirect, and cumulative effects to soil, water, aquatic and terrestrial species, and other components of 

the human environment. There are no significant direct, indirect, or cumulative effects anticipated 

from implementing project actions. Project actions will speed the development of late-successional 

habitat in late-successional and riparian reserves and improve watershed function. The analysis of 

cumulative effects considered past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions on National 

Forest lands as well as for other ownerships in the affected watershed (EA, chapter 3). 

8. The degree to which the action may adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects 

listed in the National Register of Historic Places or may cause loss or destruction of significant, scientific, 

cultural, or historic resources. 

The pre-project survey and record search of the Project area indicates that actions associated with the 

Project will have “no effect” (as defined in 36 CFR 800.5 [b]) on any listed or eligible heritage 

(cultural) resources. If a heritage site is discovered during project implementation, work will be 

stopped until the site is evaluated or the project has been altered to avoid the site (EA, pages 127 and 

143; EA, Appendix A, page 11). 

9. The degree to which the action may adversely affect an endangered or threatened species or its habitat 

that has been determined to be critical under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. 

The Project EA, chapter 3; the Project EA, appendices A, F, and H (fisheries biological evaluation); 

and the other biological evaluations prepared for the Project (Wildlife Report and BE, and the

11 




Botanical Report) indicate that the effects on Federally listed terrestrial and aquatic species are not 

found to be significant. 

10. Whether the action threatens a violation of Federal, State, or local law or requirements imposed for 

the protection of the environment. 

The Project is in compliance with relevant Federal, State and local laws, regulations and requirements 

designed for the protection of the environment. The Project will meet or exceed State water and air 

quality standards and is consistent with the Oregon Coastal Management Program as required by the 

Coastal Zone Management Act (EA, page 143). 

Other Disclosures 

All measures contained in the Project EA, appendices A and G will be incorporated to comply with the 

Record of Decision (October 2005) for the Pacific Northwest Region Invasive Plant Program, Preventing 

and Managing Invasive Plants Final Environmental Impact Statement. Actions will be designed to prevent 

the spread of invasive plants, including noxious and undesirable weeds (EA, page 115; and Appendix F). 

Cleaning of off-road equipment pursuant to Executive Order 13112, dated February 3, 1999, will be 

required. (EA, Appendix A, page 3). 

The Project will have no significant adverse effects on wetlands, floodplains, farm land, range land, park 

land, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, or inventoried roadless areas; minority groups, civil rights, 

women, or consumers; Indian social, economic, subsistence rights, and sacred sites; and heritage 

resources (EA, pages 127 and 143). Actions will be consistent with the scenic quality objectives for the 

planning area (EA, page 130). 

Findings Required By Other Laws 

Based on the analysis in the Fivemile-Bell Landscape Management Project Environmental Assessment, I 

find the selected alternative to be consistent with the Siuslaw National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan (USDA 1990), as amended by the Northwest Forest Plan (USDA, USDI 1994) and is 

designed to meet or exceed the objectives of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy as set forth in the 

Northwest Forest Plan (EA, page 137). 

The selected alternative is consistent with the National Forest Management Act implementing regulations, 

including the seven management requirements listed in 36 CFR 219.27, a through g: 

a. Resource protection—The Project EA includes criteria designed to protect resources and will apply 

practices as described in General Water Quality Best Management Practices (BMPs), Pacific Northwest 

Region, November 1988 (EA, appendix A); 

b. Vegetation manipulation of tree cover—Some vegetation will be removed to replace or remove 

culverts. (EA, chapter 1; EA, chapter 3, Aquatic Habitat and Species);

12 




c. Silvicultural practices that apply to timber harvest and cultural treatments—Timber harvest and 

cultural treatments are not considered in this decision; 

d. Even-aged management in the forest—No even-aged management will be implemented with this 

decision; 

e. Riparian area protection—Special attention has been given to riparian areas by maintaining existing 

shade, decommissioning roads, and planting trees in riparian areas. These actions are expected to enhance 

water quality and improve fish habitat in the long term. (EA, chapter 1; EA, chapter 3, water quality- 

temperature; EA, appendices A and D); 

f. Conservation of soil and water resources—The Project is consistent with the Aquatic Conservation 

Strategy objectives and includes best management practices (BMPs) and other measures designed to 

protect, enhance, or minimize effects to soil and water resources. Actions are expected to enhance water 

quality in the long term (EA, chapter 3, soil productivity and water-quality; EA, appendix A; EA, 

appendix D); and 

g. Preserve and enhance the diversity of plant and animal communities—The project is expected to 

improve habitat conditions for several plant and animal species (EA, chapter 1; EA, chapter 2, alternative 

2; EA, chapter 3, aquatic habitat and species, wildlife habitat and species, and botanical species sections; 

EA, appendices A and D). 

Implementation Date 

Implementation of this project may not proceed until five working days after the close of the 45-day 

appeal filing period. Activities, including service contract preparation and solicitation of bids, may 

proceed immediately. 

Administrative Review and Appeal 

This decision is subject to appeal pursuant to Forest Service regulations at 36 CFR 215.7. Written notice 

of appeal must be postmarked or received by the Regional Forester, Appeal Deciding Officer, USDA 

Forest Service, 333 SW First Avenue Portland, OR 97204 within 45 days of the date of publication of the 

notice for this decision in the Eugene Register-Guard (Eugene, Oregon). Individuals or organizations who 

have expressed interest in the Fivemile-Bell Landscape Management Project may file an appeal. The 

appeal must meet the content requirements of 36 CFR 215.14 "Appeal Content”: 

• The appeal must state that the document is an appeal pursuant to 36 CFR 215; 

• The name, address, and telephone number (if applicable) of the appellant must be included, and 

must identify the decision by title, subject, date of decision, and name and title of the Responsible 

Official;

13 




• The appeal narrative must be sufficient to identify the specific change(s) to the decision sought by 

the appellant or portions of the decision to which the appellant objects, and must state how the 

Responsible Official’s decision fails to consider comments previously provided; and 

• If applicable, the appeal should state how the appellant believes this decision violates law, 

regulation, or policy. 

Appeals (including attachments) may be filed by regular mail, fax, e-mail, hand delivery, express 

delivery, or messenger service. The publication date of the notice for this decision in the newspaper of 

record is the sole means of calculating the appeal-filing deadline, and those wishing to appeal should not 

rely on dates or timelines from any other source. 

E-mail appeals must be submitted to: appeals-pacificnorthwest-regional-office@fs.fed.us, and must be in 

one of the following three formats: Microsoft Word, rich text format (rtf) or Adobe Portable Document 

Format (pdf). Electronic appeals must be submitted only to the e-mail address shown above as part of the 

actual email message, or as an attachment in Microsoft Word, rich text format or Adobe portable 

document format only. E-mails in other formats or containing viruses will be rejected. Note in the subject 

line the name of the project and that it is an appeal. 

FAX appeals must be submitted to: 503-808-2339. Appeals may be hand-delivered to the Resource 

Planning and Monitoring Office, 333 SW First Ave., Portland, Oregon 97204 between 8:00 AM and 4:30 

PM Monday-Friday. 

It is the responsibility of all individuals and organizations to ensure their appeals are received in a timely 

manner. For electronically mailed appeals, the sender should normally receive an automated electronic 

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

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

other means. 

Contact Person 

For further information regarding this project, contact Paul Burns at (541) 902-6953, Central Coast 

Ranger District-ODNRA, Florence Office, 4480 Hwy 101, Bldg. G, Florence, OR 97439. 

Responsible Official: 

/s/ Michele Jones July 30, 2012 

MICHELE JONES Date 

District Ranger 

Central Coast Ranger District-ODNRA 

1130 Forestry Lane 

Waldport, OR 97394

Actions Covered by the Aquatic Restoration Biological Opinion

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?