United States Department of Agriculture

Craggy Vegetation 

Management Project

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Forest Service

Klamath

National Forest

Salmon/Scott River

Ranger District

R5-MB-305

August 

2017
Non-Discrimination Policy

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights 

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

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

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

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

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

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

and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.

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

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

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

USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information 

may be made available in languages other than English.

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

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

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

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

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

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

9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: program.intake@usda.gov.

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

El USDA es un proveedor, empleador y prestamista que ofrece igualdad de oportunidad.
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

i

Craggy Vegetation Management Project

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Siskiyou County, California

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service

Responsible Official: Patricia A. Grantham, Forest Supervisor

Klamath National Forest

1711 South Main Street

Yreka, CA 96097-9549

For Information Contact: Andrew Mueller, Interdisciplinary Team Lead

11263 N. Hwy 3, Fort Jones, CA 96032

530-468-1223 or aamueller@fs.fed.us

Abstract: The Craggy Vegetation Management Project (Craggy Project) was developed to 

improve fire resiliency on National Forest System lands by reducing fuels and stand density

in strategic areas and within the wildland urban interface (WUI). This project will address the 

needs for 1) defensibility and resiliency to wildfires; 2) improvement to forest health (reduce 

density, reduce fuel loads, create fire resiliency, and improve insect and disease resistance); 

3) improvement to early seral habitat for deer; 4) improvement to the fire resiliency in habitat 

for late-successional dependent species (northern spotted owl and fisher); 5) enhancement of 

habitat for the sensitive plant species, Calochortus persistens (Siskiyou mariposa lily); and 6) 

improvement to watershed concerns caused by sediment sources to streams. Alternatives 

considered in detail are: 1) Alternative 1, no action; 2) Alternative 2, the refined proposed 

action; 3) Alternative 3, an alternative that emphasizes hazardous fuel reduction adjacent to 

private property and decreases impacts to the northern spotted owl.

Reviewers should provide the Forest Service with their comments during the review period 

of the draft environmental impact statement. This will enable the Forest Service to analyze 

and respond to the comments at one time and to use information acquired in the preparation 

of the final environmental impact statement, thus avoiding undue delay in the decisionmaking process. Reviewers have an obligation to structure their participation in the National 

Environmental Policy Act process so that it is meaningful and alerts the agency to the 

reviewers’ position and contentions. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 

U.S. 519, 553 (1978). Environmental objections that could have been raised at the draft stage 

may be waived if not raised until after completion of the final environmental impact 

statement. City of Angoon v. Hodel (9th Circuit, l986) and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. v. 

Harris, 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). Comments on the draft environmental 

impact statement should be specific and should address the adequacy of the statement and the 

merits of the alternatives discussed (40 CFR 1503.3). In order for a reference to be 

considered, commenters are required to supply all referenced literature and discuss its 

relevancy to the project and its effects as part of their comments. The opportunity to 

comment ends 45 days following publication of the notice of availability (NOA) in the 

Federal Register. Publication of the NOA in the Federal Register is the sole means of 

calculating the comment period. The acceptable format(s) for electronic comments include: 
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

ii

plain text (.txt), rich text format (.rtf), Word (.doc, .docx), or portable document format 

(.pdf). Submit comments to the Craggy Project website

(www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=31770) or, send hard-copy comments to: Patricia 

Grantham, ATTN: Andy Mueller, fax (530) 468-1290 or mailed to 11263 N. Highway 3, Fort 

Jones, CA 96032-9702, or hand-delivered during normal business hours (8 am to 4:30 pm 

Monday through Friday, excluding holidays). For oral comments contact Andy Mueller at 

(530) 468-1223.
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

iii

Summary

The Klamath National Forest proposes the Craggy Vegetation Management Project (Craggy 

Project) to improve defensibility to wildfire to the nearby communities of Yreka and 

Hawkinsville, CA, while improving fire resiliency on 10,600 to 11,310 acres (depending on 

the selected alternative) across the project area which encompasses about 29,500 acres. The 

Project would also improve forest health in terms of reducing stand density which would

increase stand resistance to insects, disease, and high intensity fires; improve early seral 

habitat and winter range for deer; improve the fire resiliency in habitat for late-successional 

dependent species (e.g., northern spotted owl); enhance habitat for the sensitive plant species, 

Calochortus persistens (Siskiyou mariposa lily) which would benefit from reduced shading, 

competition, and fuel loading in its habitat; and address watershed concerns regarding legacy 

sediment sites (sites with existing or potential discharge into streams as a result of human 

activity from the past that can reasonably or feasibly be remedied) in the project area.

The area affected by the proposal is an environment that receives about three fire starts per

year. About 80 percent of the project area is moderately or severely departed from historic 

conditions (fire-return intervals are much longer than historic intervals). Dense brush and 

dense stands of trees are susceptible to high intensity, stand-replacing wildfire. Mortality in 

trees is occurring due to dense conditions and to drought. Foraging habitat quality is low for 

deer, and habitat is limited for late-successional species, also threatened by potential highintensity wildfire. The habitat for Calochortus persistens needs improvement due to 

increased fuel loading and corresponding risk of fire suppression activities, shading, and

competition. There are many legacy sediment sites in the project area, each with different 

amounts of sediment available to be discharged into streams which would have negative 

effects on water quality should a discharge event occur.

Action is needed to make the project area more resilient to wildfire and improve the 

defensibility of areas adjacent to the project area. The Project will address the need to 

improve stand health and to provide for future sustainable timber yields, the need for 

improved habitat for early seral and late-successional species, and for improved or 

maintained habitat for the sensitive plant species, Calochortus persistens. It will also address 

legacy sediment sites as practicable and possible in order to be in compliance with the Clean 

Water Act.

Public Engagement

See chapter 1 for details. The notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement

for the Craggy Project was published in the Federal Register on January 4, 2016, beginning a 

30-day public scoping period. The Forest used news releases, social media, a public open 

house, and public field trips to inform broader audiences.

Results of Scoping

The Forest received 122 comments by means of 12 letters or phone calls and one public open 

house. In response to comments received, the Forest Service determined two issues to be 

relevant to alternative development or modification. Other issues were also considered during 

the modification of the proposed action (chapter 2) or addressed in the disposition of scoping 

comments (available in the Scoping Outcome Summary on the project website).

Relevant issues identified from public scoping and public input are:
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

iv

1. There was a debate about the effectiveness of the project for adequately protecting 

private landowners and private property.

2. There was a debate about the environmental effects of project activities such as 

temporary road construction, timber haul, landing establishment, and yarding 

activities on soils and aquatic resources.

These issues led the agency to develop alternatives to the proposed action summarized 

below.

Alternatives Considered in Detail

In response to relevant issues, the Forest Service developed one alternative to the proposed 

action and three other alternatives were considered but eliminated from detailed study. These 

are described in detail in chapter 2.

Alternative 1:

This is the no action alternative. Current management plans will continue to guide 

management of the project area. No project activities would be implemented to accomplish 

project goals. This alternative provides reviewers a baseline to compare the magnitude of the 

environmental effects of the action alternatives.

Alternative 2:

This is the proposed action as detailed in the project proposal for scoping with some 

clarifying additions. The alternative was developed through interdisciplinary involvement 

and recommendations in order to meet the purpose and need of the project. This alternative 

proposes treatments on about 10,600 acres; with about 1,400 acres of fuel breaks and 

roadside fuel treatments, 4,160 acres of prescribed underburning, 900 acres of mastication, 

1,330 acres of thinning without removal of forest products and 2,870 acres of thinning with 

removal of forest products.

Approximately 90 miles of system roads will potentially be used for forest product removal. 

Two existing low-water crossings have been identified on system roads that may be used in 

this alternative for forest product removal. To reduce log skidding distances and associated 

impacts to soils and other resources, 12 miles of existing roadbeds will be used as temporary 

roads for short-term access. Two miles of new temporary road construction are proposed. All 

temporary roads on existing roadbeds and new temporary roads will be hydrologically 

stabilized as described in the project design features (Table 2-1 in chapter 2). Existing 

landings will be used to the extent possible and all landings will be located in accordance 

with project design features.

Road-related legacy sediment sites in treatment units and along haul routes that are likely to 

be used will be treated to minimize the risk to water quality. Some sites may be on 

unauthorized routes that are closed to public motor vehicle use; these will require survey for 

heritage resources before implementation can occur. Legacy sediment sites will be treated as 

agreed upon with the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board).

Alternative 3:

This was developed in response to the two relevant issues identified during the scoping

period: concerns related to hazardous fuels reduction adjacent to private lands; and the 
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

v

concerns about impacts to watershed condition from implementing proposed activities such 

as log-haul, road construction, and yarding activities. This alternative proposes treatments on

about 11,310 acres, with 2,190 acres of fuel breaks and roadside fuel treatments, 4,430 acres 

of prescribed underburning, 770 acres of mastication, 1,690 acres of thinning without 

removal of forest products, and 2,230 acres of thinning with removal of forest products.

Approximately 80 miles of system roads will potentially be used for forest product removal. 

One existing low-water crossing has been identified on a system road that may be used in this 

alternative for forest product removal. To reduce log skidding distances and associated 

impacts to soils and other resources, eleven miles of existing roadbeds will be used as 

temporary roads for short-term access. One mile of new temporary road construction is

proposed. All temporary roads on existing roadbeds and new temporary roads will be 

hydrologically stabilized as described in the project design features. Existing landings will be 

used to the extent possible and all landings will be located in accordance with project design 

features.

Legacy sediment sites will be treated similarly as in Alternative 2 and as agreed upon with 

the Water Board. 

More detailed descriptions of all treatments are provided in chapter 2 and Appendix A of this 

draft environmental impact statement. Maps of treatment layouts are located in Appendix B. 

Support documents for this project, including resource reports and maps, are available at the 

project website: http://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=31770.
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

vi

This page intentionally left blank
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

vii

Table of Contents

Chapter 1 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION ...........................................................1

1.1 Document Structure...............................................................................................................1

1.2 Background............................................................................................................................1

1.3 Management Direction ..........................................................................................................6

1.4 Purpose and Need for Action.................................................................................................8

1.5 Proposed Action ....................................................................................................................9

1.6 Decision Framework............................................................................................................10

1.7 Public Involvement..............................................................................................................10

1.8 Issues ...................................................................................................................................11

Chapter 2 ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION.........................13

2.1 Alternatives Considered in Detail........................................................................................13

2.2 Project Design Features Applicable to All Alternatives......................................................16

2.3 Alternatives Considered But Eliminated From Detailed Study...........................................33

2.4 Monitoring...........................................................................................................................35

2.5 Comparison of Alternatives.................................................................................................36

Chapter 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES49

3.1 Introduction .........................................................................................................................49

3.2 Fire and Fuels...............................................................................................................50

3.3 Silviculture (Vegetation) ..............................................................................................61

3.4 Botany ..........................................................................................................................64

3.5 Wildlife (Terrestrial) ....................................................................................................74

3.6 Aquatic Species............................................................................................................87

3.7 Hydrology.....................................................................................................................95

3.8 Soils............................................................................................................................108

3.9 Geology ......................................................................................................................112
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

viii

3.10 Air Quality ...................................................................................................................... 118

3.11 Scenery............................................................................................................................ 122

3.12 Recreation ....................................................................................................................... 128

3.13 Heritage Resources.......................................................................................................... 131

3.14 Social and Economic Resources ..................................................................................... 136

3.15 Climate Change............................................................................................................... 145

3.16 Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity ................................................................. 147

3.17 Unavoidable Adverse Effects.......................................................................................... 148

3.18 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources.............................................. 148

3.19 Other Required Disclosures ............................................................................................ 149

Chapter 4 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION................................................. 153

4.1 Preparers and Contributors................................................................................................ 153

4.2 Distribution of the Environmental Impact Statement........................................................ 156

4.3 Acronyms, Glossary, Literature Cited and Index.............................................................. 159

Appendix A: Treatment Prescriptions by Unit........................................................ 181

Appendix B: Vicinity and Treatment Maps.............................................................. 193

Appendix C: Actions Considered for Cumulative Effects...................................... 213

Appendix D: Best Management Practices............................................................... 223

Appendix E: Legacy Sediment Site Inventory ........................................................ 233

Appendix F: Aquatic Conservation Strategy .......................................................... 251
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

ix

List of Tables

Table 1-1: Relevant Forest Plan Goals per Management Area in Project Area ................................................................ 7

Table 1-2: Relevant Issues Identified for this Project and their Associated Indicators .................................................. 12

Table 2-1: Project Design Features...................................................................................................................................... 16

Table 2-2: Quantitative Comparison of Treatments, Roads, and Access by Alternative Considered in Detail ............ 36

Table 2-3: Comparison of Effects of Alternatives Related to Addressing Purpose and Need ........................................ 37

Table 2-4: Comparison of Measurement Indicators for Relevant Issue #1:..................................................................... 39

Table 2-5: Comparison of Measurement Indicators for Relevant Issue #2:..................................................................... 39

Table 3-1: Flame Length Potential for the Project Area for Alternative 2 in Acres and Percent of the Project Area . 53

Table 3-2: Fire Type Potential for the Project Area for Alternative 2 in Acres and Percent of the Project Area ........ 53

Table 3-3: Fire Behavior Potential on Dominant Vegetation Type for the Project Area for Alternative 2, in Acres... 53

Table 3-4: Fire Behavior Potential on Size Class for the Project Area for Alternative 2 in Acres................................. 53

Table 3-5: Short-term Flame Length Potential within the Wildland Urban Interface under Alternative 2 ................. 54

Table 3-6: Mid-term Flame Length Potential within the Wildland Urban Interface under Alternative 2.................... 55

Table 3-7: Flame Length Potential for the Project Area for Alternative 3 in Acres and Percent of the Project Area . 56

Table 3-8: Fire Type Potential for the Project Area for Alternative 3 in Acres and Percent of the Project Area ........ 56

Table 3-9: Fire Behavior Potential on Dominant Vegetation Type for the Project Area for Alternative 3, in Acres... 56

Table 3-10: Fire Behavior Potential on Size Class for the Project Area for Alternative 3 in Acres............................... 56

Table 3-11: Short-term Flame Length Potential within the Wildland Urban Interface under Alternative 3 ............... 57

Table 3-12: Mid-term Flame Length Potential within the Wildland Urban Interface under Alternative 3.................. 57

Table 3-13: Flame Length Potential (short-term) in the Project Area for Alternative 1 Compared to Action 

Alternatives............................................................................................................................................................................ 58

Table 3-14: Fire Type Potential (short-term) in the Project Area for Alternative 1 Compared to Action Alternatives

................................................................................................................................................................................................ 58

Table 3-15: Flame Length Potential (mid-term) in the Project Area for Alternative 1 Compared to Action 

Alternatives............................................................................................................................................................................ 58

Table 3-16: Fire Type Potential (mid-term) in the Project Area for Alternative 1 Compared to Action Alternatives 58

Table 3-17: Fire Behavior Potential (flame length) on Dominant Vegetation Types in Acres, Comparing Short-term 

Effects for Alternatives......................................................................................................................................................... 59

Table 3-18: Fire Behavior Potential on Vegetation Size Class for Current Condition as Displayed for Alternative 1 

Compared to Action Alternatives in the Short Term......................................................................................................... 59
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

x

Table 3-19: Flame Length Potential (short-term) in the Wildland Urban Interface for Alternative 1 Compared to 

Action Alternatives............................................................................................................................................................... 60

Table 3-20: Flame Length Potential (mid-term) in the Wildland Urban Interface for Alternative 1 Compared to 

Action Alternatives............................................................................................................................................................... 60

Table 3-21: Comparison of Effects on Forest Health (measured by SDI)........................................................................ 64

Table 3-22: Documented Occurrences or Suitable Habitat for Sensitive Plant Species.................................................. 67

Table 3-23: Current Flame Length Potential of Management Area 5 with Acres and Percent of the Management 

Area........................................................................................................................................................................................ 68

Table 3-24: Flame Length Potential of Management Area 5 for Alternatives 2 and 3 with Acres and Percent of the 

Management Area ................................................................................................................................................................ 71

Table 3-25: Comparison of Effects to Botanical Resources between Alternatives.......................................................... 73

Table 3-26: Northern Spotted Owl Habitat Acres within the Analysis Area................................................................... 76

Table 3-27: Northern Spotted Owl Survey Summary by Activity Centers in the Analysis Area................................... 76

Table 3-28: Home Range and Core Acres of Northern Spotted Owl Activity Centers................................................... 76

Table 3-29: Status, Habitat Description and Known Sites for Terrestrial Species.......................................................... 77

Table 3-30: Management Indicator Species Relevant to the Craggy Project ............................................................ 79

Table 3-31: Foraging Habitat in Home Range and Core Acres of Northern Spotted Owl Activity Centers Affected by 

Alternative 2.......................................................................................................................................................................... 82

Table 3-32: Foraging Habitat in Home Range and Core Acres of Northern Spotted Owl Activity Centers Affected by 

Alternative 3.......................................................................................................................................................................... 84

Table 3-33: Comparison of Effects of Alternatives on Federally Listed, Forest Service Sensitive, Management 

Indicator, and Survey and Manage Wildlife Species......................................................................................................... 86

Table 3-34: Actual and Potential Occupancy of Aquatic Species by 7th and 5th Field Watershed ................................. 89

Table 3-35: Baseline for Project Area Aquatic Resources Indicators .............................................................................. 90

Table 3-36: Summary of Determinations on Aquatic Resources for Alternatives 2 and 3 ............................................. 93

Table 3-37: Effects of Alternatives on Analysis Indicators for Aquatic Resources......................................................... 94

Table 3-38: Equivalent Roaded Area Modeled Results for the Current Condition in 7th Field Watersheds................ 99

Table 3-39: Craggy Project Area Current Indicator Conditions vs. Desired Conditions............................................. 100

Table 3-40: Alternative 1 - Equivalent Roaded Area Modeling Results ........................................................................ 101

Table 3-41: Equivalent Roaded Area (ERA) Results for Alternative 2 (in acres)......................................................... 105

Table 3-42: Cumulative Risk Ratios for Alternative 2 .................................................................................................... 105

Table 3-43: Equivalent Roaded Area Model Results for Alternative 3.......................................................................... 106

Table 3-44: Cumulative Risk Ratios for Alternative 3 .................................................................................................... 106
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

xi

Table 3-45: Comparison of Equivalent Roaded Area (ERA) Risk Ratios for Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 ......................... 107

Table 3-46: Equivalent Roaded Area (ERA) Model Results Due to Wildfire for Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 under the 

Wildfire Scenario ................................................................................................................................................................ 107

Table 3-47: Summary of Estimated Acres (and percentages of treatment areas) Not Meeting Desired Conditions for 

Soil Indicators as a Result of Project Activities................................................................................................................ 112

Table 3-48: Summary of GEO results for 7th Field Watersheds under Alternative 1 with a Modeled Wildfire Event 

and Action Alternatives with a Modeled Wildfire Event for Zero to Five Years after Project Implementation ........ 116

Table 3-49: Percent of Watershed that is Likely to Burn with High or Moderate Soil Burn Severity for All 

Alternatives.......................................................................................................................................................................... 117

Table 3-50: Summary of Effects to Landslide Risk with and without Wildfire Scenario ............................................. 117

Table 3-51: Comparison of the Effects of Alternatives on Air Resources and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. ............... 121

Table 3-52: Evaluation Viewpoints and how they are considered .................................................................................. 123

Table 3-53: Scenery Comparison of Effects...................................................................................................................... 128

Table 3-54: Recreation Resources Directly Affected by Proposed Project Treatments................................................ 130

Table 3-55: Comparison of Effects on Recreation Analysis Indicators for all Alternatives ......................................... 131

Table 3-56: Comparison of Alternatives on Social Analysis Indicators ......................................................................... 144

Table 3-57: Comparison of Alternatives on Economic Analysis Indicators................................................................... 145

Table A-1: Alternative 2 Treatment Prescriptions........................................................................................................... 181

Table A-2: Alternative 3 Treatment Prescriptions........................................................................................................... 186

Table E-1: Legacy Sediment Site Inventory Chart .......................................................................................................... 233

List of Figures

Figure 1: Wildland Urban Interface Zones......................................................................................................................... 51

Figure 2: Forest Product Sales by the Klamath National Forest. ................................................................................... 139

Figure 3: Direct Employment and Labor Income Supported by the Klamath National Forest................................... 140

Figure B-1: Vicinity Map.................................................................................................................................................... 193

Figure B-2: Alternative 2 Treatment Map Page 1 of 4..................................................................................................... 195

Figure B-3: Alternative 2 Treatment Map Page 2 of 4..................................................................................................... 196

Figure B-4: Alternative 2 Treatment Map Page 3 of 4..................................................................................................... 197

Figure B-5: Alternative 2 Treatments Map Page 4 of 4 ................................................................................................... 198

Figure B-6: Alternative 3 Treatments Map Page 1 of 4 ................................................................................................... 199

Figure B-7: Alternative 3 Treatments Map Page 2 of 4 ................................................................................................... 200
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

xii

Figure B-8: Alternative 3 Treatments Map Page 3 of 4................................................................................................... 201

Figure B-9: Alternative 3 Treatments Map Page 4 of 4................................................................................................... 202

Figure B-10: Management Area Map ............................................................................................................................... 203

Figure B-11: Craggy 7th Field Watersheds: Within and Adjacent to the Project Boundary Map............................... 204

Figure B-12: Map of Locations and Risk Ratings of all Project Area Legacy Sites-page 1 of 4................................... 205

Figure B-13: Map of Locations and Risk Ratings of all Project Area Legacy Sites-page 2 of 4................................... 206

Figure B-14: Map of Locations and Risk Ratings of all Project Area Legacy Sites -page 3 of 4.................................. 207

Figure B-15: Map of Locations and Risk Ratings of all Project Area Legacy Sites -page 4 of 4.................................. 208

Figure B-16: Craggy Legacy Site Treatment Plan Map page 1 of 4............................................................................... 209

Figure B-17: Craggy Legacy Site Treatment Plan Map page 2 of 4............................................................................... 210

Figure B-18: Craggy Legacy Site Treatment Plan Map page 3 of 4............................................................................... 211

Figure B-19: Craggy Legacy Site Treatment Plan Map page 4 of 4............................................................................... 212
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Craggy Vegetation Management Project

1

CHAPTER 1 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR ACTION

1.1 Document Structure

The USDA Forest Service (Forest Service) has prepared this draft environmental impact 

statement in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other 

relevant federal and state laws and regulations. This environmental impact statement

discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that would result 

from the proposed action and alternatives. The document is organized into four chapters:

• Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action: This chapter briefly describes the 

proposed action (as presented in public scoping), the existing and desired 

conditions that drive the need for change, and other purposes to be achieved by 

the proposal. This section summarizes how the Forest Service informed the 

public of the proposed action and how the public responded.

• Chapter 2. Alternatives, including the proposed action: This chapter provides a 

detailed description of the agency’s modified proposed action as well as 

alternative actions that were developed in response to comments raised during 

scoping. The end of the chapter includes a summary table comparing the 

proposed action and alternatives considered in detail with respect to their 

environmental impacts.

• Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences: This chapter 

describes the affected environment and environmental impacts of the proposed 

action and alternatives.

• Chapter 4. Preparers, Consultation, Distribution, Glossary, References and 

Index: This chapter provides a list of preparers and agencies consulted during the 

development of the environmental impact statement. Included are a list of 

acronyms and glossary of terms used, literature cited, and an index of page 

numbers by document topic.

• Appendices. The appendices provide more detailed information to support the 

analyses presented in the environmental impact statement.

The draft environmental impact statement and supporting documents including maps and 

resource reports are available on the Project website.

1.2 Background

The Craggy Vegetation Management project (Craggy Project) is located in Siskiyou 

County, California, about one mile west of Yreka and ten miles north of Fort Jones. The 

project area encompasses about 29,500 acres, primarily on National Forest System land 

but including private property within its bounds. Over 75 percent of the project area is in 

federal ownership with the remainder a mix of industrial forestland and individual, 

small, privately-owned tracts. Treatments are proposed only on land managed by the 

Klamath National Forest (Forest). Elevation ranges from about 2,000 to 6,200 feet. The 

legal location is Township (T) 46 North (N), Range (R) 8 West (W), Sections 13, 23-28, 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Craggy Vegetation Management Project

2

and 32-35; T45N R8W Sections 1-17 and 21-24; T46N R7W, Sections 16-18, 20, 22, 28, 

30, and 32-34; and T45N R7W, Sections 4-6, 8, 9, and 17-20 (Mt. Diablo Meridian).

The project area is primarily located within eight 7th field watersheds1 (Clear Creek, 

Upper Humbug Creek, Lower Humbug Creek, Middle Fork Humbug Creek, Greenhorn 

Creek, Yreka City-Yreka Creek, Rocky Gulch-Yreka Creek, and Long Gulch). These are 

within the Yreka Creek and Humbug Creek 6th field watersheds, and within the Yreka 

Creek-Shasta River and Humbug Creek-Klamath River 5th field watersheds. Along with

a small portion of the Klamath River, several connected fish-bearing streams are within 

the analysis area: Humbug Creek, Middle Fork Humbug Creek, South Fork Humbug 

Creek, and Sucker Creek.

The majority of the project area, except for the easternmost 25 percent, is within the 

footprint of the 1955 Haystack Fire. In response to this fire, salvage logging occurred 

followed by multiple reforestation efforts at different times (for more information see the 

full silviculture (vegetation) report available on the project website). There are also 

stands where residual conifers provided natural seeding and reforestation. The result of 

years of conifer reforestation efforts is that the majority of the project area is dominated 

by relatively young, pole- to small-sized conifers. Other than these reforestation efforts, 

few management activities have occurred within the Craggy project area, other than 

minimal amounts of fuel reduction and thinning (see the silviculture and fire and fuels 

reports), leaving the area with dense stands of trees and brush.

Common conifer species found in the project area are ponderosa and Jeffrey pine, 

Douglas-fir, sugar pine, white fir, and incense cedar. There is also a well-established 

brush and hardwood component in many areas. The ecological diversity found 

throughout the Klamath Province is reflected in the diversity of vegetation types and 

terrain in the Craggy project area. Diversity of vegetation may exist over the project area 

as a whole, but conditions within stands are mostly homogeneous.

The composition of riparian vegetation within the project area is very diverse, reflecting 

differences between locations in regard to elevation, slope aspect, soil character, timber 

harvest, wildfire history, and local hydrologic condition. Large-scale scouring by recent 

floods, especially from 1964 and 1997 (see the full aquatic resources report on the 

project website), has reset the riparian vegetation to an early- to mid-seral progression in 

many tributaries with regrowth inhibited due to banks being reduced to cobbles and 

other coarse materials. Alder, big-leaf maple, cottonwood, willow, and dogwood are 

common riparian species. Drier areas within the riparian area may also include upland 

species such as oak, Douglas-fir, incense cedar, and other conifers mentioned above.

 

1 The Cayuse Gulch-Klamath River, Modoc Gulch-Shasta River, Cherry Creek, Deadwood Creek, Badger 

Creek-Klamath River, Little Humbug Creek, Miller Gulch-Klamath River, Grouse Creek, and Vesa Creek 7th

field watersheds are slightly within the Craggy project boundary, but total less than one percent of the 

project area. Please see the 7th field watershed map in Appendix B for a visual representation of this.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Craggy Vegetation Management Project

3

Existing Condition

The existing condition of the project area is as follows:

Defensibility and Resiliency to Wildfires

The project area is within the wildfire threat zone of the town of Yreka, a municipality 

identified by the 2001 National Fire Plan as an at-risk-community to wildfire (a list of 

such communities in California is found on the California Department of Forestry and 

Fire Protection (CALFIRE) website (http://www.fire.ca.gov/). About three fire starts per 

year occur within the project area with historic fire-return intervals of 11 to 55 years. 

About 80 percent of the project area is moderately to severely departed from historic 

conditions (fire-return intervals are much longer than historic intervals). The project area 

is located in an area that can receive a high concentration of lightning strikes.

The effects of past harvest, overstocking, fuels accumulations, large amounts of 

decadent brush, insects, diseases, drought, mortality, and fire suppression has put this 

area at substantial risk to severe wildfire. Nearly 90 percent of the project area has been 

fire-free since 1955. As a result, the build-up of ladder and surface fuels has increased 

the probability of high-severity stand-replacing fire.

Current fire modeling predicts that, during extreme fire weather conditions (90th

percentile weather conditions), only 18 percent of the project area will have flame 

lengths of less than four feet, which is the height that flames should be below to provide

for more safe and direct attack. There exists potential to threaten resource values such as 

wildlife and botanical habitat, soil stability, human uses, hydrology, air quality, and 

more. This threat increases as the potential flame length increases.

Forest Health

The project area includes highly-stocked and mostly homogeneous plantation stands that 

are reaching 60 to 80 percent of the maximum carrying capacity. Ongoing mortality is

especially noticeable in the pine plantations and on the drier south and west facing

slopes. A limited number of natural stands exist; these are also suffering from high tree 

mortality due to high stocking levels added to the effects of drought. The current stand 

densities are not sustainable and stands are facing ongoing mortality due to the factors 

mentioned above.

Homogeneity in plantations is also contributing to negative effects from insects and 

disease. Mistletoe infections are increasing and western pine beetles have begun killing 

small (less than a quarter acre) groups of trees with increasing frequency over the last 

five years in the older planted stands and terraced plantations.

Current densities, fuel accumulations, and the effects of insects and disease would 

contribute to increased potential effects from another wildfire, should one occur in the 

area.

Early seral Habitat

Foraging habitat for early seral wildlife species such as deer is at a low level and animal 

access through brush and dense tree stands is below optimal conditions. Winter range for 

deer is lacking due to the increasing decadence in brush and hardwood stands. Early 

seral habitat quality is low to moderate and deer populations are low.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Craggy Vegetation Management Project

4

Late-successional Habitat

Habitat for species dependent on late-successional stand characteristics (such as northern 

spotted owl and fisher) is limited and likely to be reduced due to high-intensity wildfires.

Other existing factors that may detract from late-successional habitat are the overstocked densities of many stands in the project area, that can contribute to the likelihood 

of increased insect and disease mortality in trees within or adjacent to the habitat needed 

for late-successional species. Many of the stands are dominated by small diameter 

conifers but contain scattered legacy trees exceeding 30 inches in diameter (e.g. large 

hardwoods and large Douglas-fir trees) that are important to northern spotted owl for 

their prey base.

Sensitive Plant Species Habitat

Calochortus persistens has been reviewed as a candidate for federal listing by the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service. The candidate listing designation was removed following this 

review allowing for continued management as a Forest Service Sensitive species 

provided that a conservation agreement was developed and implemented for the species. 

As a result the Conservation Agreement between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and 

the U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Bureau of Land Management for Calochortus persistens 

(Siskiyou mariposa lily) (USDI USDA 2013) was developed that outlines management 

tasks that will reduce the known threats to the species. Two of these management tasks 

are as follows:

• If encroachment appears to be occurring, plan and conduct prescribed burn tests 

or small conifer hand-removal projects in those areas.

• Plan and implement fuel reduction test plots within portions of C. persistens 

habitat that will reduce the risk of high-intensity fire, shading, and competition. 

Continue prescribed burning if tests show it creates suitable habitat that is being 

colonized by C. persistens plants. Discontinue prescribed fire if tests show that 

this type of disturbance increases the density of Isatis tinctoria or other weeds.

The population of Calochortus persistens within the project area is scattered along a sixmile stretch of ridgetop within a montane shrub plant community of rocky openings on 

both Forest and private land. Surrounding the open shrubby vegetative community 

where Calochortus persistens occurs is mixed coniferous forest. Populations of 

Calochortus persistens within the project area are currently viable and static. However,

encroachment is on-going and has resulted in increased fuel loading, shading, 

competition, the risk of high intensity wildfire, and the potential risk of fire suppression 

activities that could be destructive to its habitat.

A non-native invasive plant, Dyer’s woad or Marlahan mustard (Isatis tinctoria), occurs 

on the ridge within Calochortus persistens habitat. Past and ongoing annual management 

efforts have reduced this infestation in some locations along the ridge, but its 

competition with Calochortus persistens is considered a primary threat to this 

population.

Eriogonum ursinum var. erubescens is another Forest Service Sensitive plant species 

present within the project area. Habitat where this species occurs in the project area is 

currently within desired conditions, project design features have been developed to 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Craggy Vegetation Management Project

5

reduce project related effects to this species (Table 2-1); effects to this species are 

discussed in the botany section of chapter 3.

Legacy Sediment Sites

Current conditions do not meet water quality standards; streams in the project area are 

listed as impaired under section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. Due to past storm 

events, activities, and highly erosive granitic soils that occur in the project area, some 

segments of the road system (legacy sediment sites) are not resilient to disturbance by 

fire and floods which may cause soil erosion or trigger debris torrents that remove 

riparian vegetation, reduce stream shade and increase water temperatures.

Desired Condition

The Forest Plan (USDA 1995, as amended), which incorporates the Northwest Forest 

Plan, provides direction for projects such as the Craggy Vegetation Management Project. 

The Humbug Landscape Analysis and Design is an assessment document that provides a 

means by which the landscape can be understood as an ecological system, and 

knowledge to help shape the landscape patterns created through National Forest land 

management activities (USDA 1993). Both documents describe desired conditions for 

the Forest and for management areas within the Humbug landscape. The analysis and 

design document provides specific desired conditions in terms of stand densities, stand 

structure, landscape elements, and in terms of percentage of area within the landscape. 

The range of desired conditions, along with individual element descriptions, is designed 

to be consistent with landscape scale processes, provide a variety of habitat values,

provide a variety of opportunities for human uses, and provide sustainable and 

predictable levels of resource outputs (USDA 1993).

The desired condition for the project area is the following:

Defensibility and Resiliency to Wildfires

The project area moves toward more frequent fire-return levels and lower intensity 

wildfires. Less intense fires will occur where the fire stays on the surface of the land and 

out of the tree crowns, with flame lengths of less than four feet in height, particularly in 

the defense zone around communities. Less intense fires will allow for direct attack by 

firefighters using hand tools and will bring the area to a level conducive to protect 

communities by providing for safe and effective firefighting.

Diverse vegetation conditions that do not promote high-severity wildfire are present and 

the area is more fire-resilient. Due to fire characteristics on different aspects and slope 

positions, south and west slopes and upper slope positions would be more open due to 

more frequent and intense fire regimes while north and east slopes and lower slope 

positions would have denser vegetation relative to drier sites.

Forest Health

Stand health is improved and maintained; stands are resilient to wildfire and tree 

mortality from insect and disease infestations. A diversity of tree species within stands is 

encouraged where the site is capable of supporting diverse species, including hardwoods 

and conifers. Conifer growth and stocking levels provide future sustainable timber 

yields. Stand health will increase due to decreased densities and competition. Planted 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Craggy Vegetation Management Project

6

areas have returned to more natural, open conditions. Natural stands have in-growth 

from fire suppression removed, more open understories, and heterogeneity of crown 

structure.

Early Seral Habitat

Early seral habitat is promoted through creation of a mosaic of conditions across the 

landscape. Diversity of brush age classes increases as natural disturbance regimes such 

as low intensity fire encourage new growth on brush. Leave islands and irregular edges 

maintain vegetation structure suitable for species that prefer more open habitat and 

habitat for early seral species. Encroachment by small conifers is reduced; in oak stands 

and areas with springs, foraging habitat for wildlife species dependent on early seral 

habitat is abundant.

Late-successional Habitat

In late-successional habitat in the long term, decreased densities of stands and increased 

tree species diversity will increase resilience to disturbance from wildfire, insects, and 

disease outbreaks. Habitat for species dependent on late-successional habitat will

increase in amount and quality.

Sensitive Plant Species Habitat

Random natural variation within the habitat for Calochortus persistens will occur 

without negative effects on the future viability of the species. Occupied Calochortus 

persistens habitat will be open with reduced levels of conifer and brush encroachment

and a shallow or absent litter and duff layer. The conifer stands surrounding this 

population will be less susceptible to high intensity wildfire and more likely to support 

lower intensity mosaic burn conditions than at present. Reduced flame lengths in the 

stands surrounding this habitat could be low enough that suppression is feasible with 

hand tools rather than heavy equipment. Isatis tinctoria (Dyer’s woad or Marlahan 

mustard), a non-native invasive species, will not spread beyond current infestation 

boundaries.

Legacy Sediment Sites

Potential discharge of sediment to streams is reduced from the current condition. 

Potential sediment sources are inventoried and assessed for potential risk of 

sedimentation. Untreated road sediment sources (legacy sites) do not pose substantial 

risks of material entering stream courses.

1.3 Management Direction

Direction for this project comes from the Forest Plan. Direction in the Forest Plan is 

provided for the Forest as a whole in forest-wide management goals, standards and 

guidelines. Direction is also provided specifically for management areas (MAs). 

Management areas within the project area are: MA-5 Special Habitat (Calochortus 

persistens), MA-5 Special Habitat (Late Successional Reserve), MA-10 Riparian 

Reserves, MA-11 Retention Visual Quality Objective (VQO), MA-15 Partial Retention 

Visual Quality Objective, and MA-17 General Forest. Of these land allocations, all 

except for riparian reserves are mutually exclusive; riparian reserves may overlap other 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Craggy Vegetation Management Project

7

management areas so the total number of acres in the project area is less than the sum of 

the acres in various land allocations.

Most of the land allocations within the project area include goals to provide a 

programmed, sustained harvest of wood products; provide habitat for wildlife and fish; 

and protect sensitive plants, water quality, and scenery. Relevant goals for each 

management area in the project area are listed in Table 1-1.

Table 1-1: Relevant Forest Plan Goals per Management Area in Project Area

Management 

Area Acres2

% of 

project 

area

Forest 

Plan 

(pages)

Goals Pertinent to This Proposal

Special Habitat, 

Calochortus 

persistens (MA 5)

940 4 4-94

Maintain the currently known, and any newly discovered, 

Calochortus population's habitat in an undisturbed 

condition. Inventory similar habitats for potential 

population expansion opportunities. Manage habitat to 

provide for a viable population of Calochortus. Manage 

the plant populations and species vigor in a way that 

would prevent the need to list this species as threatened 

and endangered. Reduce or eliminate invasive, non-native 

weedy plant species that compete with Calochortus for 

water, space and nutrients.

Special Habitat, 

Late Successional 

Reserve (MA 5)

110 <1 4-83 to 4-

89

Protect and enhance conditions of late-successional and 

“old growth” forest ecosystems, which serve as habitat for 

late-successional and “old growth”-related species, 

including the northern spotted owl.

Riparian Reserves 

(MA 10) 6,250 21 4-106 to

4-114

Maintain and restore riparian-dependent structures and 

functions of intermittent streams. Be consistent with 

Aquatic Conservation Strategy goals.

Retention Visual 

Quality Objective 

(MA 11)

10 <1 4-115 to

4-116

Manage for a programmed, sustained harvest of wood 

products in area that are capable, available, and suitable 

for timber management. Maintain stand health, as well as 

resilience to wildland fire, insect, disease, and other 

damage. Provide a level of attractive, forested scenery by

maintaining the areas in a natural or natural-appearing 

condition.

Partial Retention 

Visual Quality 

Objective (MA 15)

6,650 22 4-126 to

4-127

Manage for a sustained yield of wood products in areas 

capable, available, and suitable for timber production. 

Maintain stand health as well as resilience to wildland fire, 

insect, disease, and other damage. Provide an attractive, 

forested landscape where management activities remain 

visually subordinate to the character of the landscape.

 

2 Acres for management areas listed here are updated from what was reported in the Craggy Project 

Proposal. Updates occurred within the geographic information system (GIS) database in order to more 

accurately portray the distribution of management areas, and to include the updated designations of lands 

acquired since the Forest Plan (see page 4-41 of the Forest Plan for guidance on this direction).
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Craggy Vegetation Management Project

8

Management 

Area Acres2

% of 

project 

area

Forest 

Plan 

(pages)

Goals Pertinent to This Proposal

General Forest 

(MA 17) 9,480 31 4-131 to 

4-132

Provide a programmed, non-declining flow of timber 

products, sustainable through time. Maintain conifer 

stocking levels and high growth rates commensurate with 

the capability of the site to produce wood fiber. Intensively 

manage young regenerated stands to maximize growth 

potential. Maintain stand health, resilience to wildland fire, 

insect, disease, and other damage. Emulate ecological 

processes and stand and landscape patterns where 

possible. Within harvest units, maintain appropriate 

structure, composition, and ecological functioning of the 

area. Provide for snags and hardwood habitat to help 

maintain viable populations of wildlife species that require 

these structural components. Meet the VQOs. Achieve 

less modified visual conditions when possible.

Forest-wide standards and guidelines that are pertinent to this project, and the ways in 

which the project is consistent with this direction, are included in the Forest Plan 

Consistency Checklist, available on the project website. For further information 

pertaining to the Forest Plan, please visit the Forest website: 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/klamath/landmanagement/planning.

The project is in compliance with the Forest Plan. No site-specific amendments to the 

Forest Plan are required. Assessments that provide background information for this 

project include the Humbug Landscape Analysis and Design (1993), and the Forest-wide 

Late Successional Reserve Assessment (USDA 1999, page 2-91). Assessment 

documents are available at:

http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/klamath/landmanagement/planning/?cid=STELPRDB510

9804.

1.4 Purpose and Need for Action

The purpose of the Craggy Project is to reduce the gap between existing and desired 

conditions. There is a need for defensibility and resiliency to wildfires; to improve forest 

health; to improve early-seral, late-successional, and sensitive plant species habitat; and 

to reduce sedimentation of streams by addressing legacy sediment sites.

• Defensibility and Resiliency to Wildfire: The threat of high-intensity wildfire 

moving toward the communities of Yreka, Hawkinsville, Humbug, and 

residences in the Greenhorn area is exacerbated by the recent years of drought 

and heavy fuels in the project area due to past fire suppression and resulting 

growth of brush and dense stands of trees. There is a need to reduce fuel loading 

within the project area to improve defensibility and resiliency to wildfire.

• Forest Health: A high level of stand density has led to a project area that is not 

resilient to insects, disease, and high-intensity, stand-replacing wildfire. There is 

a need to reduce stand density in both plantations and natural stands.

• Early Seral and Late-Successional Habitat: Foraging habitat for wildlife 

species dependent on early seral vegetation (grasses, shrubs and forbs) is lacking 

and is dominated by decadent chaparral habitat. Access through brush and dense 

stands is below optimal conditions. The deer populations have subsequently 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Craggy Vegetation Management Project

9

decreased in the general area. There is an opportunity to increase forage habitat 

availability in the project area. This area is popular for local hunter use. 

Additionally, habitat for late-successional species such as northern spotted owl 

needs to be improved and maintained in the long-term. Late-successional 

forested habitat is limited due to past harvesting, historic wildfires, and 

ecological types existing in the area. Existing conditions are on a trajectory for a 

continued decrease in these habitat conditions. Late-successional habitat is in 

jeopardy of loss to wildfire due to overstocked stands and high fuel loadings.

There is a need to provide for improved mosaic habitat diversity, promote latesuccessional habitat, and reduce the risk of the loss of these habitats to wildfire.

• Sensitive Plant Species Habitat: There is a need to address known and potential 

threats to Calochortus persistens to maintain populations so that random natural 

variation can occur without a negative effect on the future viability of the 

species. Threats include conifer and shrub encroachment that result in fuel 

loading, shading, and competition; competition from non-native and invasive 

plant species; and high-intensity wildfires and fire suppression activities that can 

affect populations negatively. 

• Legacy Sediment Sites: Direct discharge of sediment to streams during storms 

has negative effects on water quality that need to be addressed to be in 

compliance with the Clean Water Act.

1.5 Proposed Action

The proposed action, as documented in the scoping notice for the project, was designed 

to meet the purpose and need of the project by treating about 10,600 acres of the 29,500-

acre project area. Acres by treatment type are described below and do not account for the 

overlap in treatment types.

Craggy, as described in the scoping notice issued in January 4, 2016, includes five

overlapping types of treatment: (1) fuel breaks and roadside fuel treatments on about 

1,400 acres; (2) prescribed underburning on about 4,160 acres; (3) mastication on about 

900 acres; (4) thinning without removal of forest products on about 1,330 acres; (5) 

thinning with removal of forest products on about 2,870 acres.

Sixty-eight legacy sediment sites were proposed for treatment to improve water quality. 

The proposed action includes the use of 12 miles of temporary road on existing roadbeds 

and construction of about two miles of new temporary roads. Ninety miles of system 

roads will potentially be used for forest product removal. No roads will be added to or 

deleted from the National Forest Transportation System. Existing landings will be used 

to the extent possible.

To address public scoping comments and correct errors, the proposed action was 

modified. This modified proposed action is analyzed as Alternative 2 in this draft 

environmental impact statement and includes slight modifications due to edited 

geospatial information.

To address public scoping comments and correct errors, the proposed action was 

modified as follows to become Alternative 2:
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Craggy Vegetation Management Project

10

• One proposed treatment unit (136-61) for thinning of small material was 

modified to remove 61 acres of the unit that are on a slope position that has a low 

susceptibility to high-intensity wildfire within a 100-acre late successional 

reserve and within foraging habitat in a historical northern spotted owl home 

range. The 57 acres left in the treatment unit are part of the upper one-third slope 

position on which thinning will decrease the potential for development of crown 

fires within the unit.

• The set of legacy sediment sites proposed for treatment has been modified due to 

a recent inventory of sites and new evaluation of the water quality risk. The 

modified set of legacy sediment sites is based on optimizing the treatment of sites 

with the greatest potential risk for failure and the highest hazard or volume of 

potential sediment entering waterways. The final list of sediment sites to be 

treated will be based on agreement with the Water Board to meet the 

requirements of the 2015 Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements for Nonpoint 

Source Discharges Related to Certain Federal Land Management Activities on 

National Forest System Lands in the North Coast Region (Waiver).

• Minor modifications are made due to edited geospatial information.

1.6 Decision Framework

The Forest Supervisor is the responsible official for Craggy. After the Forest receives 

comments on this draft environmental impact statement, a final environmental impact 

statement and draft record of decision will be prepared and distributed. There will be a 

45-day time period to raise objections to the final environmental impact statement and 

draft record of decision followed by a time period for objection resolution prior to the 

final record of decision. Within the final record of decision, the responsible official will 

decide whether to implement the modified proposed action, an alternative to the 

proposed action, or choose no action. The final decision will be based on the information 

in the final environmental impact statement and the supporting information contained in 

the project record, consideration of public comments, how well the selected alternative 

meets the purpose and need for the project, and whether the selected alternative complies 

with agency policy, applicable state and federal laws, and Forest Plan direction.

1.7 Public Involvement

Planning for this project was initiated in 2010. The project was first published to the 

Schedule of Proposed Actions and the Forest website on April 1, 2010.

Public involvement with the Yreka Area Fire Safe Council and Klamath Siskiyou 

Wildlands Center began in 2012. This outreach effort led to public field trips in 2012 

and 2013. Comments were sought from a number of other organizations and Indian 

tribes; those providing input during this process included the City of Yreka, California 

Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CALFIRE), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Shasta Tribe Inc., California Deer Association, and the Office of the State Senator for 

the area including the project.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Craggy Vegetation Management Project

11

Scoping was originally planned for spring 2014 but was delayed due to agency personnel 

changes and the reprioritization of resources in response to large-scale wildfires in 2013 

and 2014. On December 30, 2015, a scoping letter was sent to interested and affected 

parties, including the Environmental Protection Agency, Quartz Valley Indian 

Reservation, Karuk Tribe, Shasta Indian Nation, Shasta Nation Inc., adjacent property 

owners, and other interested groups and individuals. The list of addresses of landowners 

was sourced from the Siskiyou County Assessor’s Office tax-payer records. On January 

4, 2016, a legal notice of scoping was published in the Siskiyou Daily News, the 

newspaper of record for the project. Project information including the project proposal 

and maps were made available on the Project website, and a notice of intent to prepare 

an environmental impact statement for the project was published in the Federal Register

on the same date; this notice began the formal scoping process that guides the 

development of the environmental impact statement.

The Forest and Yreka Area Fire Safe Council co-sponsored an open house on January 

13, 2016. This open house was attended by representatives from the City of Yreka, 

CALFIRE, Northern California Resource Center, Siskiyou Gardens, Parks and 

Greenway Association, and landowners within and adjacent to the project area as well as 

other private individuals. A total of 17 participants signed the attendance sheet. 

CALFIRE representatives and private individuals were especially interested in fuels 

reduction treatments adjacent to private lands and proposed additional areas for 

treatment. Subsequently on March 1, 2016, the project team leader and fire and fuels 

specialist met with CALFIRE to further discuss the agency’s interests and potential 

modification of the proposed action. This led to the development of Alternative B, which 

includes additional fuels reduction treatments.

The comments received as a result of public scoping are summarized in the scoping 

outcome summary, available on the Project website. The interdisciplinary team met and 

reviewed the scoping responses on March 9, 2016. This meeting included representatives 

from National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Ideas 

presented at the meeting led to clarification of the proposed action and were considered 

in the development of alternatives. Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

and National Marine Fisheries Service is ongoing.

1.8 Issues

Following public scoping, comments were categorized as either concerns or issues. 

Concerns are general comments or questions that do not meet the definition of an issue. 

Issues are defined as points of discussion, dispute, or debate about the environmental 

effects that may directly or indirectly be caused by implementing the proposed action, 

and are categorized as follows:

Relevant issues are issues that led to development of alternatives or project design 

features not previously identified in the project proposal.

Other Issues are issues that may not be relevant for alternative or project design feature 

development for any of the following reasons: (1) the issue was outside the scope of the 

proposed action, and is not related to the decision to be made; (2) the issue is already 

decided by law, regulation, policy, or direction (Forest Plan); (3) the issue was addressed 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Craggy Vegetation Management Project

12

through project design features in the project proposal or was (or will be) addressed 

through analysis; or (4) the issue is not supported by scientific (or factual) evidence.

The Forest received 122 comments by means of twelve letters or phone calls and one 

public open house. During scoping, 58 issues or concerns were identified, and two issues 

were identified and determined to be relevant to alternative development or modification 

(Table 1-2).

Table 1-2: Relevant Issues Identified for this Project and their Associated Indicators

Relevant Issues and 

their Indicators Descriptions

Relevant Issue #1: There is a point of discussion about the effectiveness of the project for 

adequately protecting private landowners and private property.

Indicators: Potential flame length in wildland-urban interface defense zones.

Acres treated adjacent to private land.

Relevant Issue #2: There is a point of discussion about the environmental effects of project 

activities such as temporary road construction, timber haul, landing 

establishment, and yarding activities on soils and aquatic resources.

Indicators: Cumulative watershed effects results (equivalent roaded area, landslide 

potential, and soil erosion).

Miles of temporary roads.

Miles of road (all types) used for forest product removal.

Number of low-water stream crossings.

Number of new landings.

Potential hazard reduction from treatment of legacy sediment sites.

Other issues were raised by the public that were either addressed in alternatives 

considered but eliminated from detailed study (see chapter 2 for reasons detailing these 

eliminations) or are included in the analysis in this document. See the scoping outcome 

summary on the project website for a discussion of the way comments to the project 

proposal are treated.
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

13

CHAPTER 2 ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE 

PROPOSED ACTION

This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered for the Craggy Project. This 

chapter includes a description of each alternative considered in detail. It also includes 

alternatives considered but eliminated from detailed study and the reason for their 

elimination. Maps of each action alternative considered in detail are available in Appendix B.

This chapter also presents the alternatives considered in detail in comparative form, defining 

the differences between alternatives and providing a clear basis for choice among options by 

the decision maker and the public.

The interdisciplinary team developed the proposed action (Alternative 2) to respond to the 

purpose and need of the project. Alternative 3 responds to public comments received from 

the project proposal scoping.

A “no action” alternative (Alternative 1), required by the Council on Environmental Quality 

NEPA regulations (40 CFR 1502.14 (d), is analyzed to provide a baseline for consideration 

of the effects of the proposed action and other action alternatives. Three additional 

alternatives responding to public comment are considered but eliminated from detailed study 

for reasons cited later in this chapter.

2.1 Alternatives Considered in Detail

Alternative 1

Under this alternative, current management plans continue to guide management of the 

project area. No project activities would be implemented to accomplish project goals. This 

alternative provides reviewers a baseline to compare the magnitude of the environmental 

effects of the action alternatives.

Alternative 2

Alternative 2 is the proposed action as detailed in the project proposal for scoping with some 

clarifying additions. About 10,600 acres are proposed for treatment with this alternative. 

Actions in this alternative are as follows:

Fuel Breaks and Roadside Fuel Treatments (1,400 acres): Fuel breaks would be 

placed along key ridges in the project area. The ridgeline fuel breaks would be generally 

about 300 feet in width, but may be more in order to strategically tie into other fuel breaks

along a road. Within these fuel breaks, conifers less than 10 inches in diameter would be 

thinned manually, hand-piled, and burned. Variable density thinning (thinning focused on 

leaving a variety of spacing and structure rather than a uniform approach) would be used to 

obtain an average spacing ranging from 20 to 25 feet for both conifers and hardwoods (see 

the silviculture resource report and chapter 3 for more information). Areas dominated by 

brush would also be hand-cut, piled, and burned. Actual treatment areas would vary in size 

according to field conditions.
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

14

Fuelbreaks adjacent to private land are the same as ridgeline fuelbreaks in their manner of 

treatment methods. Their width would be up to 150 feet. Actual treatment areas would vary 

in size according to field conditions.

In roadside fuel treatments, brush and small diameter trees (less than 10 inches in diameter) 

would be manually cut, hand-piled and burned. Where equipment can remove trees without 

leaving an established roadbed, some trees may be removed as biomass where this removal 

would support achieving the desired conditions. Residual trees would be limbed up to seven 

feet in height. Actual treatment areas may vary in size and width depending on fuel 

conditions but would not exceed 300 feet (150 feet on either side of the road). Trees less than 

10 inches in diameter would be variable-density thinned to the average spacing mentioned 

above for ridgeline fuelbreaks. Areas dominated by brush would be hand cut, piled, and 

burned. Fuels reduction and removal of encroaching brush using hand-cutting and piling, 

may occur through two subpopulations of Calochortus persistens as described in the project 

design features.

Prescribed Underburning (4,160 acres): In the project area, strategic areas would be 

underburned according to an approved burn plan. All prescribed fire operations would be 

conducted subject to an administratively approved burn plan which includes the objectives of 

the burn, desired fire behavior and intensity, an emergency contingency plan, and specified 

level of response to a fire escape. Prescribed fire effects in riparian reserves would be 

designed to mimic a low intensity backing fire, except for hand-piles where higher intensity 

may occur to consume pile material. In upland areas, fire effects would be designed to range 

from low to moderate with consumption of primarily litter and fine woody debris. Prescribed 

underburning may be used in the Calochortus persistens Management Area (part of the 

Forest Plan Management Area 5) in accordance with the project design features. All burning 

within this area would be done in coordination with the project botanist and timed during the 

dormant growing season.

Mastication (900 acres): In the project area, mastication would be used in areas that are 

dominated by decadent brush. Operation of mastication equipment would be in accordance 

with project design features.

Thinning without Removal of Forest Products3 (1,270 acres): Conifers less than 10 

inches in diameter would be hand-thinned using a variable-density approach designed to 

leave the more desirable trees. Cut trees would be limbed and bucked with resulting slash 

scattered or hand-piled for burning.

Thinning with Removal of Forest Products4 (2,870 acres): Both ground-based and 

skyline cable yarding systems would be used to yard thinned trees. Trees would be thinned 

by a combination of hand and mechanical falling using a variable-density thinning approach. 

Ground-based yarding is proposed for 1,730 acres of which 1,260 are in plantations. Cable 

 

3 This activity is sometimes referred to as “non-commercial thinning.” For the purposes of environmental 

analysis, the description of this treatment (size of trees to be thinned and method used) is more important than 

the name.

4 In some documents, this is referred to as “commercial thinning.” Except for economic impacts, the 

environmental effects of this treatment are not dependent on whether or not the products are sold but by the 

size and methods used to remove the products.
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

15

yarding is planned for 1,140 acres of which 510 are in plantations; of this cable yarding, 60 

acres are proposed for endline yarding and 1,080 for skyline cable yarding. Areas planned for 

cable yarding may instead be treated using tethered harvesting equipment. Trees brought to a 

landing would be either merchandized into round log products and transported to a mill for 

making into lumber or veneer forest products, chipped, or piled for disposal by burning. 

Activity-generated fuels would be treated by hand piling, machine piling, whole-tree yarding,

or underburning.

Access and Roads: No roads would be added to, or removed from, the National Forest 

Transportation System (system) as part of this project. Ninety miles of system roads would

potentially be used for forest product removal. Two existing low-water crossings have been 

identified on system roads that may be used in this alternative for forest product removal. To 

reduce log skidding distances and associated impacts to soils and other resources, 12 miles of 

existing roadbeds would be used as temporary roads for short-term access. Two miles of new 

temporary road construction are proposed. All temporary roads on existing roadbeds and new 

temporary roads would be hydrologically stabilized as described in the project design 

features. Existing landings would be used to the extent possible and all landings would be 

located in accordance with project design features.

Legacy Sediment Site Restoration: Road-related legacy sediment sites in treatment 

units and along haul routes that are likely to be used would be treated to minimize the risk to 

water quality. Some sites may be on unauthorized routes that are closed to public motor 

vehicle use; these would require survey for resources of concern including heritage resources

before implementation can occur. Legacy sediment sites would be treated as agreed upon 

with the Water Board. Any or all of the following legacy site restoration activities may be 

carried out as appropriate for a given site:

• Remove fill from streambanks and unstable areas

• Construct dips at stream crossings to eliminate diversion potential

• Outslope road surface and eliminate in-board ditch or outside berms

• Seed, mulch, or plant disturbed areas to control surface erosion

• Stabilize landslides. May include construction of retaining walls

• Upgrade culverts to pass 100-year peak flows

• Reduce road fill volumes at stream crossings to withstand 100-year peak flows and debris 

flows

• Apply rock aggregate to the road surface

Alternative 3

Alternative 3 was developed in response to the two relevant issues identified during the

scoping period: concerns related to hazardous fuels reduction adjacent to private lands; and 

the concerns about impacts to watershed condition from implementing proposed activities 

such as log-haul, road construction, and yarding activities. As a result, about 11,310 total 

acres of treatment are proposed in Alternative 3; changes from Alternative 2 are summarized 

below and the location of the modifications are provided on the map of Alternative 3 in 

Appendix B:
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

16

• Hazardous fuel reduction treatments adjacent to private lands (fuelbreaks and 

underburning) have been modified to increase protection in response to comments 

received from private individuals and fire protection agency recommendations. This 

includes changing some units from mastication to fuelbreaks and increasing the width 

of fuelbreaks adjacent to private property (up to 300 feet wide). This results in 2,190 

acres of fuel break treatments, 760 acres of mastication, and 4,430 acres of 

underburning; in total.

• Change of some units from thinning with forest product removal to thinning without 

removal. This change reduces the number of low-water stream crossings and miles of 

road likely to be used for transportation of forest products. Resulting in about 1,690 

acres of thinning without removal of forest products and thinning with removal of 

forest products on about 2,230 acres. Ground-based yarding is proposed for 1,170 

acres of which 620 are in plantations. Cable yarding or tethered harvesting equipment 

is planned for 1,060 acres of which 310 are in plantations; of this cable yarding, 60 

acres are proposed for endline yarding and 1,000 for skyline cable yarding.

• Access and roads (one mile of new temporary road, 11 miles of temporary road on 

existing roadbeds, 80 miles of road that potentially may be used for forest product 

removal, and one low-water crossing on a system road that may be used in the 

project).

• Unit 136-61 was modified in response to conversations with representatives of the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The unit boundary was modified to decrease impacts 

to northern spotted owl foraging habitat from proposed treatment activities.

2.2 Project Design Features Applicable to All Alternatives

Project design features specific to this project, developed prior to and after scoping, will be 

used as a part of all action alternatives to minimize or eliminate negative effects to resources 

in the project area. Implementing these project design features helps ensure compliance with 

the Forest Plan and applicable laws and regulations. Specific best management practices that 

will be followed are listed in Appendix D of this document. Interim riparian reserve widths 

from the Forest Plan are used for this project because these are determined to be sufficient for 

resource protection in the project area.

Project design features in the following table are listed under the resource for which they are 

intended to reduce effects. They are applicable to units and alternatives in which these units 

are being treated. “All alternatives” in this table refers to all action alternatives.

Table 2-1: Project Design Features

Design 

Feature Description

Applicable Action 

Alternatives/

Areas or Units

Rationale or

Applicable Standard 

and Guideline

Air Quality-1 Haul routes will be watered to suppress 

dust when needed.

All Alternatives: All 

Forest Service Roads in 

project area 

National Core BMP

Road-4 (R5 BMP

2.4); required for 

Water Board Waiver
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

17

Design 

Feature Description

Applicable Action 

Alternatives/

Areas or Units

Rationale or

Applicable Standard 

and Guideline

Botany-1

Within Calochortus persistens habitat (in the 

Calochortus persistens management area, 

ground disturbance will only occur within 

designated unit boundaries; all equipment 

and project related disturbance will not 

operate or occur outside those boundaries 

except on designated road systems. No 

new landings will be constructed within this 

management area. Use of existing landings 

will be coordinated with the district botanist.

All Alternatives: Units 

134-47S, 138-155S, 

138-46E, 138-56S, 138-

71S, 544-17S, 544-19S, 

544-20E, 544-222S

USFWS / USFS / 

Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM)

Conservation 

Agreement

Botany-2

Within Calochortus persistens populations 

in the Calochortus persistens management 

area, all sub-populations within the project 

area will be flagged. No equipment/vehicle 

activity, tree skidding, or any other form of 

ground disturbance will occur within these 

flagged boundaries. Burn piles will not be 

constructed within flagged areas.

All Alternatives: Units 

134-47S, 138-155S, 

138-46E, 138-56S, 138-

71S, 544-17S, 544-19S, 

544-20E, 544-222S, 

134-70P, 138-102P, 

138-56P, 138-70P, 

FBP1, FBR2, FBS1, 

FBS2

USFWS / USFS / 

BLM Conservation 

Agreement

Botany-3

Two sub-populations of Calochortus 

persistens will be included for fuels removal 

treatment and underburn prescriptions. This 

work will be implemented with the district 

botanist and the following design features 

will be implemented: 1) Prescribed fire, and 

removal of brush and small diameter 

conifers within the sub-population boundary 

will only occur outside of the active growing 

season (April through August); 2) Burn piles 

will not be constructed within the flagged 

population boundaries; 3) Monitoring will 

occur after implementation and will include 

monitoring non-native invasive plant 

species.

All Alternatives: UB5, 

FBR2, and FBS1

USFWS / USFS / 

BLM Conservation 

Agreement

Botany-4

All populations of Eriogonum ursinum var. 

erubescens within the project area will be 

excluded from all project activities. These 

locations will be flagged with yellow and 

black flagging prior to project 

implementation.

All Alternatives: UB1, 

UB5, FBR2, FBS1, 138-

155

USFWS / USFS / 

BLM Conservation 

Agreement

Fuels-1

All prescribed fire operations will be 

conducted subject to an administratively 

approved burn plan which includes the 

objectives of the burn, desired fire behavior 

and intensity, an emergency contingency 

plan and specified level of response to a fire 

escape.

All Alternatives: Units 

UB1, UB2, UB3, UB4, 

UB5

Forest Plan S&G 22-

10; Response to 

Comments
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

18

Design 

Feature Description

Applicable Action 

Alternatives/

Areas or Units

Rationale or

Applicable Standard 

and Guideline

Fuels-2

The prescribed burn plan will include a 

smoke management plan with the following 

features:

* Burning will be implemented when smoke 

is likely to be transported away from 

sensitive locations, when possible.

* Residents and landowners likely to be 

affected by smoke will be notified, as 

appropriate, prior to ignition.

* Ignition will only take place on permissive 

burn days as determined by the Siskiyou 

County Air Pollution Control District.

*Forecasts of weather in the project area 

will be used to ensure favorable “within 

prescription” weather conditions for the burn 

and smoke transport. Contingency plans will 

be developed to minimize smoke impacts if 

meteorological conditions change.

All Alternatives: All 

underburn, fuel break, 

and thinning units

Forest-wide S&G 22-

21

Heritage-1

All heritage sites within the area of potential 

effects will be clearly delineated prior to 

implementation. This includes but is not 

limited to flagging site boundaries.

All Alternatives: All Units Forest Plan S&G 24-

7

Heritage-2

In the event that new heritage resources are 

discovered during project implementation, 

the district archaeologist and/or heritage 

program manager must be notified and all 

activities in the immediate vicinity of the 

resource shall cease until site evaluation is 

completed.

All Alternatives: All Units Forest Plan S&G 24-

7

Invasive 

Species-1

Equipment and vehicles that leave 

established road surfaces will be cleaned of 

soil, seeds, vegetative matter, and other 

debris that could contain noxious weeds 

seeds or propagative material prior to 

entering the project area and before leaving 

infested areas. Areas appropriate for 

cleaning equipment will be designated as 

appropriate.

All Alternatives: All 

Thinning with Removal 

and Mastication Units

Forest Plan 21-53

Invasive 

Species-2

High priority non-native invasive species

sites will be flagged prior to project 

implementation with orange/black flagging 

labeled with “invasive species.” Equipment, 

vehicles, and personnel will avoid working 

within these flagged high priority areas. 

Mastication, equipment piling, and pile 

burning will not occur within these high 

priority areas.

All Alternatives: 136-

145, 137-8, 138-11, 

138-46, 138-56, 138-71, 

138-74, 138-151, 138-

155,138-501, 544-17, 

544-19, 544-20, 544-

222, UB1, UB2, UB4, 

FBR2, FBR3, FBR4, 

FBS2, 138-MAST-1, 

138-MAST-4 

Forest Plan 21-53
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

19

Design 

Feature Description

Applicable Action 

Alternatives/

Areas or Units

Rationale or

Applicable Standard 

and Guideline

Invasive 

Species-3

If potential landing sites are infested with 

noxious weeds, consult with the district 

botanist to determine appropriate methods 

for containing and/or managing the 

infestation. Methods may include blading 

infested soil away from activity zones and 

covering this soil; or adding a barrier to the 

landing so seed banks cannot be 

transported.

All Alternatives: All 

Thinning with Removal 

Units

Forest Plan 21-53

Invasive 

Species-4

Any straw or seed placed within the project 

area must be documented as California 

certified weed free. Other materials where 

State inspection protocol does not exist 

(gravel, wood chips) used as mulch in the 

project area should be inspected by a 

Forest Service representative to determine 

the potential for spread of noxious weeds.

All Alternatives: All Units Forest Plan 21-53

Invasive 

Species-5

Any facility that provides material such as 

rock, gravel, or boulders to be used in the 

project area should be inspected and 

determined to have limited potential for the 

spread of noxious weeds from stored 

material. Material stockpiles must be 

noxious weed free.

All Alternatives: All Units Forest Plan 21-53

Scenery-1

Where feasible, along ridgetops that are 

visible from the Yreka community, minimize 

landing size, number and width of cable 

corridors, and use parallel cable sets for 

skyline and endline units.

All Alternatives: 138-

102G, 135-56S, 138-

155S, 544-17S, 544-

19S, 544-222S, 138-

46E, 544-20E

Forest Plan 11-1, 11-

3, 11-4, 11-6.

Scenery-2

For all treatments that are visible from the 

Yreka community, avoid straight line 

appearances in the landscape along 

treatment edges. Vary the width of all 

ridgeline and roadside fuels treatments, or 

respond to existing vegetation density

outside of all treatments to minimize line 

contrasts.

All Alternatives: Units

138-11G, 138-11S, 138-

102G, 135-56S, 138-

155S, 544-17S, 544-

19S, 544-222S, 138-

46E, 544-20E, 137-

MAST, 138-MAST, 544-

MAST, FBP-1, FBP-4, 

FBR-1, FBR-2, FBR-4, 

FBS-1, FBS-4

Forest Plan 11-1, 11-

3, 11-4, 11-6.
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

20

Design 

Feature Description

Applicable Action 

Alternatives/

Areas or Units

Rationale or

Applicable Standard 

and Guideline

Scenery-3

Treat slash within 100 feet of dispersed 

recreation sites identified by Motor Vehicle 

Use Map access roads and designated 

recreational trails, and along Forest Plan 

identified moderately sensitive (visually) 

road segments. Additionally, treat slash 

within all landings along Forest Plan 

identified moderate sensitive Forest Routes

(roads and trails). Treatment methods may 

vary as practical, with the desired future 

condition perpetuating a natural 

appearance. Ensure slash is abated as 

soon as practical, but no later than three 

years’ time post-project completion in order 

to meet Retention, Partial Retention, and 

Modification Visual Quality Objectives.

All Alternatives: Forest 

Routes (Moderate 

Sensitivity): 45N28, 

Siskiyou County 7G-01 

(Greenhorn Road).

Access Roads to 

Dispersed Sites: 

51D027, 51D025, 

51D02

Trails: 5594, 5596, 

55109

Treatment Units: 133-

89G, 134-55G, 134-

58G, 134-242G, 134-

240G, 138-11G, 138-

11S, 138-46S, 38-56S, 

138-102P, 138-155S, 

138-70P, 544-17S, 544-

19S, 544-20E, 544-

222S, UB1, UB5, FBP1, 

FBR1, FBR2, FBR3, 

FBS1, FBS3

Forest Plan 11-1, 11-

3, 11-4.

Scenery-4

For all treatment units along moderate 

sensitive Forest Routes (roads and trails), 

and adjacent to dispersed recreation sites 

identified by Motor Vehicle Use Map access 

roads in the project area, low-stump (6-8” or 

less) all higher concentrations of cut trees 

that are visible on uphill and downhill slopes 

from the roadside viewing area.

All Alternatives: Forest 

Routes (Moderate 

Sensitivity): 45N28, 

Siskiyou County 7G-01 

(Greenhorn Road).

Access Roads to 

Dispersed Sites: 

51D027, 51D025, 

51D02

Trails: 5594, 5596, 

55109 Treatment Units: 

133-89G, 134-33S, 134-

34G, 134-55G, 134-

58G, 134-107S, 134-

242G, 134-240G, 138-

11G, 138-11S, 138-46E,

138-102P, 138-155S, 

138-70P, 544-17S, 544-

19S, 544-20E, 544-

222S FBP1, FBR1, 

FBR2, FBR3, FBS1, 

FBS3, FBS-4

Forest Plan 11-1, 11-

3, 11-4.
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

21

Design 

Feature Description

Applicable Action 

Alternatives/

Areas or Units

Rationale or

Applicable Standard 

and Guideline

Scenery-5

Minimize visible paint in those treatment 

units along all moderate sensitive Forest 

Routes (roads and trails) in the project area, 

and in or near any dispersed recreation 

sites identified by Motor Vehicle Use Map 

access roads.

All Alternatives: Forest 

Routes (Moderate 

Sensitivity): 45N28, 

Siskiyou County 7G-01 

(Greenhorn Road).

Access Roads to 

Dispersed Sites: 

51D027, 51D025, 

51D02

Trails: 5594, 5596, 

55109 Treatment Units: 

133-89G, 134-33S, 134-

34G, 134-55G, 134-

58G, 134-107S, 134-

242G, 134-240G, 138-

11G, 138-11S, 138-46E,

138-102P, 138-155S, 

138-70P, 544-17S, 544-

19S, 544-20E, 544-

222S FBP1, FBR1, 

FBR2, FBR3, FBS1, 

FBS3, FBS-4

Forest Plan 11-1, 11-

3, 11-4.

Recreation-1

For all dispersed recreation sites 

(designated by Motor Vehicle Use Map 

access roads) that are used as landings or 

for other purposes during harvest 

operations:

• Maintain the existing area footprint 

wherever practical (avoid enlarging 

the area).

• Clear slash, logs, or other activitygenerated debris as soon as 

practical at the close of operations 

for that area.

All Alternatives: Access 

Roads to Dispersed 

Sites: 51D027, 51D025, 

51D02

Forest Plan 12-9

Recreation-2

Repair or replace recreational signing or 

other facilities and trail settings if damaged 

during project implementation.

All Alternatives: All Units 

Where Applicable Forest Plan 12-3

Recreation-3

Provide safety signing along trails, roads, or 

for temporary road or trail closures in active 

project areas for public safety.

All Alternatives: All Units 

Where Applicable Forest Plan 12-3

Recreation-4

Provide visitor information about 

area/road/trail closures, or other recreation 

setting changes, in news releases, on-site, 

and on the Forest website.

All Alternatives: All Units 

Where Applicable Forest Plan 12-3

Recreation-5

No ground-based logging equipment shall 

cross any designated trail in the project area 

unless the Landscape Architect and/or 

District Recreation Officer is consulted for 

mitigation measures.

All Alternatives:

Trails: 5594, 5596, 

55109

Units 134-240G, 134-

55G, 134-245G, 134-

58G, 133-89G

Forest Plan 12-14
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

22

Design 

Feature Description

Applicable Action 

Alternatives/

Areas or Units

Rationale or

Applicable Standard 

and Guideline

Recreation-6

No hauling on Forest Service roads shall 

occur on the following holiday weekends 

during the recreation season: Memorial Day 

weekend, July 4th weekend, and Labor Day 

weekend.

All Alternatives:

All thinning with forest 

product removal units.

Forest Plan 12-8

Recreation-7

When possible, schedule burning to 

minimize impacts to those recreating. This 

may involve burning on low visitor use days 

in the spring and avoiding burning on high 

use weekends.

All Alternatives: All Pile 

Burning and Underburn 

Units

Forest Plan 12-9

Watershed-1

Ground-disturbing activities are proposed to 

take place during the normal operating 

season (NOS) that is defined as May 1 to 

October 31 and in dry periods outside the 

NOS, adhering to the Forest’s wet weather 

operation standards (USDA 2002), as 

approved by the Forest Service 

representative.

* When working in hydrologic riparian 

reserves: When there is a 30 percent 

chance of rain in the next 24 hours, a Forest 

Service representative will be on site to 

insure that winterization or erosion control 

procedures are implemented in a timely 

fashion and to initiate shutdown or resume 

operations.

*Operations will not resume until suitable 

weather, soil, and forecast conditions exist.

All Alternatives: All 

Thinning with Removal 

and Mastication Units

(R5 BMP 1.5, 5.6)

Watershed-2

Post-treatment soil cover will range from 50

to 80 percent depending on slope 

steepness, soil texture, and fuel reduction 

treatments.

All Alternatives: All 

Thinning and 

Mastication Units

(R5 BMP 5.5), 

Forest-wide S&G 3-2

Watershed-3

Maintain existing coarse woody debris by 

having ground-based equipment avoid the 

larger diameter woody debris as much as 

practical.

All Alternatives: All 

Thinning with Removal 

and Mastication Units

(R5 BMP 5.5), 

Forest-wide S&G 6-

16
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

23

Design 

Feature Description

Applicable Action 

Alternatives/

Areas or Units

Rationale or

Applicable Standard 

and Guideline

Watershed-4

Mechanized equipment will be restricted to:

1. If soil texture is Loam or finer: 

Slopes less than 45 percent

2. If soil texture is Sandy Loam or 

coarser: Slopes less than 35 

percent

3. Mechanized equipment will be 

restricted to travelling generally in 

straight up and down patterns on 

slopes 35 to 45 percent and on 

steeper slopes for short portions 

(100 feet or less) regardless of 

texture when necessary

4. Where equipment will be operating 

on >45% slopes for more than just 

short stretches a cable-assist 

tether will be required.

5. In stands where tractor skidding is 

used and, where practical, logs 

should be placed in bundles on 

slopes less than 35 percent.

6. Skid trails that connect benches 

separated by short steep slopes 

(broken ground) can have minor 

portions (100 feet or less) of the 

skid trail on slopes greater than 35 

percent.

Soil texture will be determined by the project 

soil scientist.

All Alternatives: All 

Thinning with Removal 

and Mastication Units

National Core BMP 

Veg-4 (R5 BMP 1.9)

Watershed-5

Skidding equipment can operate in terraced 

plantations with slopes greater than 35 

percent with the following restrictions: 

terraces will be used that are generally wide 

enough to accommodate harvesting and 

skidding equipment to limit increasing the 

cut and fill slopes on terraces. Skidding 

between terraces will be limited and 

locations of these skid trails will be flagged 

by the timber sale administrator with input 

from the project soil scientist.

All Alternatives: All 

Thinning with Removal 

Units

(R5 BMP 1.10)

Watershed-6

No full bench skid trails will be constructed 

except in terraced plantations and then only 

on existing terraces. (Full bench skid trails 

have the entire skid trail cut into the hill 

slope).

All Alternatives: All 

Thinning with Removal 

Units

(R5 BMP 1.10)
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

24

Design 

Feature Description

Applicable Action 

Alternatives/

Areas or Units

Rationale or

Applicable Standard 

and Guideline

Watershed-7

Existing skyline corridors and ground-based 

skid trails will be reused whenever possible. 

Designation of new skid trails will be 

approved by Timber Sale Administrator. 

Use existing skid and swing trails instead of 

building new skid trails unless using existing 

skid trails will have greater negative effects 

than building new. Use no skid trails in 

areas (1) in which ground-based 

mechanical equipment is excluded; and (2) 

on highly erosive soils, unstable areas, 

wetlands, or wet meadows (excluding small 

springs and seeps).

All Alternatives: All 

Thinning with Removal 

Units

(R5 BMP 1.10)

Watershed-8

Ground-based skidding and skyline cable 

yarding will require front-end suspension of 

logs on skid trails and corridors.

All Alternatives: All 

Thinning with Removal 

Units

(R5 BMP 1.10)

Watershed-9

Tractors and mechanical harvesters will be 

excluded from active landslides, toe zones 

of dormant landslides and inner gorges 

unless reviewed and recommended by a 

geologist.

All Alternatives: All 

Thinning with Removal 

Units

(R5 BMP 1.6)

Watershed10

Limit equipment disturbance within 20 feet 

on either side of swales by minimizing 

equipment crossings and avoiding running 

trails up the axis of swales. Swales are 

shallow ephemeral channels that do not

meet the definition of a riparian reserve 

because they lack annual channel scour.

All Alternatives: All 

Thinning and 

Mastication Units

National Core BMP 

AqEco-1, AqEco-2 

and Veg-3 (R5 BMP 

1.19)

Watershed11

Place corridors for skyline-yarding outside 

hydrologic riparian reserves parallel to the 

stream channel unless field assessment by 

soil scientist and sale administrator 

determines that placing them within the 

riparian reserve will not substantially 

damage residual trees, soil, or fish. Full 

suspension will be required for any yarding 

across or over perennial and intermittent 

streams to avoid damage to stream banks.

All Alternatives: All 

Thinning with Removal 

Units

National Core BMP 

Veg-5 (R5 BMP 1.8, 

1.11)

Watershed12

Cable corridors will be placed on the 

landscape as to minimize disturbance to 

unstable lands (such as inner gorges, active 

landslides and toe zones). The layout will 

avoid yarding logs up the axis of the 

features.

All Alternatives: All 

Thinning with Removal 

Units

(R5 BMP 1.6)
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

25

Design 

Feature Description

Applicable Action 

Alternatives/

Areas or Units

Rationale or

Applicable Standard 

and Guideline

Watershed13

Trees may be removed from riparian 

reserves if

i. Trees must be removed to provide safe 

road passage or campground access and 

function; OR

ii. Those trees would pose a substantial risk 

to the forest road drainage system integrity; 

OR

iii. A fish biologist ensures that removal of 

these trees within riparian reserves is 

consistent with the Aquatic Conservation 

Strategy objectives.

All Alternatives: All 

Thinning with Removal 

Units

National Core BMP 

Plan-3 (R5 BMP 1.8)

Watershed14

Trees directly rooted into the banks or 

otherwise and obviously integral to the 

stability of the channel bank will not be 

removed. Trees in the uplands will be 

directionally felled to protect stream banks.

All Alternatives: All 

Thinning Units

National Core BMP 

AqEco-1, AqEco-2 

and Veg-3 (R5 BMP 

1.19)

Watershed15

To minimize the concentration of surface 

runoff, slash or water bars will be applied to 

corridors, skid and swing trails where the 

ground cover is below 50 percent and 

where necessary to prevent runoff from 

entering the swing trails and stream 

channels. At project completion, permanent 

operating waterbars will be installed and/or 

repaired as necessary.

All Alternatives: All 

Thinning with Removal 

Units

(R5 BMP 1.10, 1.17)

Watershed16

Perennial streams, even if dry, will not be 

crossed by skid trails. Intermittent channels 

may be crossed when dry and at locations 

designated by the Forest Service.

All Alternatives: All 

Thinning with Removal 

Units

National Core BMP 

AqEco-1, AqEco-2 

and Veg-3 (R5 BMP 

1.19)

Watershed17

Skid trails that cross intermittent streams or 

dry swales (i.e. depressions in the 

landscape that do not meet the definition for 

a designation as riparian reserve) will be 

restored before any storm (with reasonable 

chance of causing offsite sediment 

movement), or after use is complete. This 

generally consists of removing excess soil, 

reshaping and waterbarring former 

approaches, and spreading slash on the 

former crossing.

All Alternatives: All 

Thinning with Removal 

Units

National Core BMP 

AqEco-1, AqEco-2 

and Veg-3 (R5 BMP 

1.19)

Watershed18

Dry intermittent streams may be crossed by 

a masticator at designated sites only after 

field review and approval by a Forest 

Service hydrologist. No perennial streams, 

even when dry, will be crossed.

All Alternatives: All 

Mastication Units

National Core BMP 

AqEco-1, AqEco-2 

and Veg-3 (R5 BMP 

1.19)
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

26

Design 

Feature Description

Applicable Action 

Alternatives/

Areas or Units

Rationale or

Applicable Standard 

and Guideline

Watershed19

Masticators will not operate within 150 

feet of slope distance on perennial streams 

and 100 feet of slope distance on each side 

of intermittent streams, or the site potential 

tree height distance on each side of the 

stream, whichever is greatest (per Aquatic 

Conservation Strategy Objective 8). A 

masticator will not operate beyond the break 

in slope of any inner gorge. Consultation 

with the project fish biologist or hydrologist 

will occur to determine if any additional 

buffer width for masticator equipment is 

needed for a particular riparian reserve.

All Alternatives: All 

Mastication Units

National Core BMP 

AqEco-1, AqEco-2 

and Veg-3 (R5 BMP 

1.19)

Watershed20

Existing landings will be used to the extent 

possible. Construct new landings outside 

both hydrologic and unstable-land riparian 

reserves and away from locations where 

sediment is likely to enter streams (areas 

that have a hydrologic connection to 

streams). If the existing landings are within 

50 feet of slope distance to a stream 

channel or inner gorge they will not be used 

without consultation with the project 

hydrologist.

All Alternatives: All 

Thinning with Removal 

Units

National Core BMP 

Veg-6 (R5 BMP 1.12)

Watershed21

Once project activities are completed, reestablish natural runoff patterns on those 

landings used for the project (hydrologic 

stabilization) to protect water quality. 

Minimize sidecasting of material during 

maintenance, construction or reconstruction 

of landings. Use slash or straw to stabilize 

disturbed soil on fill slopes.

All Alternatives: All 

Thinning with Removal 

Units

National Core BMP 

Veg-6 (R5 BMP 1.16)

Watershed22

Fueling and servicing of vehicles used for 

proposed activities will be done outside of 

hydrologic riparian reserve except at 

designated landings in locations where most 

disconnected from water resources

A spill containment kit will be in place where 

refueling and servicing take place. Report 

spills and initiate appropriate clean-up 

action in accordance with applicable state 

and federal laws, rules and regulations. The 

forest hazardous materials coordinator’s 

name and phone number shall be available 

to Forest Service personnel who administer 

or manage activities utilizing petroleumpowered equipment.

In the occurrence of a spill which may affect 

listed aquatic species, NOAA Fisheries will 

be notified for emergency consultation.

All Alternatives: All Units

National Core BMP 

Road-10 (R5 BMP 

2.11)
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

27

Design 

Feature Description

Applicable Action 

Alternatives/

Areas or Units

Rationale or

Applicable Standard 

and Guideline

Watershed23

Use temporary roads on existing roadbeds 

instead of constructing new temporary 

roads except: (1) when temporary roads on 

existing roadbeds are located within streamcourse riparian reserves (unless the only 

way to access the unit will be to use a 

stream crossing on an existing roadbed); or 

(2) when temporary roads on existing 

roadbeds are located on highly erosive 

soils, active landslides, wetlands or 

meadows (excluding small springs and 

seeps).

All Alternatives: All 

Temporary Roads

National Core BMP 

Road-3 (R5 BMP 2.3)

Watershed24

Improvements to existing roads in the 

project area will not over-steepen road cuts, 

will minimize sidecasting, and maintain the 

ditches and cross drains or any outslope of 

the roadway.

All Alternatives: All 

Applicable Roads

National Core BMP 

Road-3 (R5 BMP 2.3)

Watershed25

Spot rocking will be used as necessary if 

small and isolated portions of the road 

system do not adequately dry to allow haul 

when most of the road is capable of haul. 

Ensure haul over the newly rocked areas 

will not create adverse impacts, such as 

sediment moving offsite towards channels.

All Alternatives: All 

Applicable Roads

National Core BMP 

Road-4 (R5 BMP 2.4)

Watershed26

Existing low water crossings where forest 

transportation system roads cross perennial 

or intermittent streams will have temporary 

stream crossings installed for forest product 

removal, as approved by the project 

fisheries biologist. Installation and removal 

will be seasonally restricted as crossing will 

be installed during the operating season 

only and removed prior to end of the 

operating season of use. No project related 

non-passenger vehicles will cross the 

stream at these locations when/if the 

temporary stream crossing is not in place. 

Project-related passenger vehicle use will 

be monitored and suspended if resource 

damage is likely to occur from continued 

use.

Alternative 2: Forest 

Road 45N53 and 45N88

Alternative 3: Forest 

Road 45N53

National Core BMP 

Road-7 (R5 BMP 2.8)

Watershed27

Take-offs of temporary roads, skid and 

swing trails that intersect roads will be 

obliterated or effectively blocked to vehicle 

access following unit treatment.

All Alternatives: All 

Thinning with Removal 

Units

(R5 BMP 1.10)
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

28

Design 

Feature Description

Applicable Action 

Alternatives/

Areas or Units

Rationale or

Applicable Standard 

and Guideline

Watershed28

Temporary roads on existing road beds and 

new temporary roads will be blocked at the 

end of the normal or extended operating 

season when project activities cease due to 

wet weather conditions. All temporary roads 

will be hydrologically restored at project 

completion, which may include removal of 

culverts and fills at stream crossings, outsloping of road surfaces, obliteration of road 

segments, and water barring or covering 

with slash.

All Alternatives: All 

Temporary Roads

National Core BMP 

Road-3 (R5 BMP 2.3)

Watershed29

On roads treated for dust abatement, use 

erosion control methods such as watering 

only when necessary and applying nonexcessive volumes to prevent any 

sedimentation of streams.

All Alternatives: All 

Applicable Roads

National Core BMP 

AqEco-1, AqEco-2 

and Veg-3 (R5 BMP 

1.19)

Watershed30

• Water drafting by more than one truck 

shall not occur simultaneously.

• Pumping will be terminated before tank 

overflows occur.

• Intakes, for trucks and tanks, shall be 

placed parallel to the flow of water and 

screened, with opening size consistent with 

the protection of aquatic species of interest.

All Alternatives: All 

Water Drafting Sites

National Core BMP 

WatUses-3 (R5 BMP 

2.5)

Watershed31

Drafting from fish-bearing (anadromous) 

waters

Use NOAA Fisheries Water Drafting 

Specifications:

• When in habitat potentially occupied by 

Coho Salmon, intakes will be screened with 

3/32” mesh for rounded or square openings, 

or 1/16 inch mesh for slotted openings. 

When in habitat potentially occupied by 

steelhead trout, intakes will be screened 

with 1/8” mesh size. Wetted surface area of 

the screen or fish-exclusion device shall be 

proportional to the pump rate to ensure that 

water velocity at the screen surface does 

not exceed 0.33 feet per second.

Use of a NOAA approved fish screen will 

ensure the above specifications are met.

• Pumping rate will not exceed 350 gallonsper-minute (gpm) or 10 percent of the flow 

of the anadromous stream drafted from.

All Alternatives: All 

Water Drafting Sites

National Core BMP 

WatUses-3 (R5 BMP 

2.5)
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

29

Design 

Feature Description

Applicable Action 

Alternatives/

Areas or Units

Rationale or

Applicable Standard 

and Guideline

Watershed32

Drafting from fish-bearing (nonanadromous) waters

• Drafting rate should not exceed 350 gpm 

for streamflow greater than or equal to 4.0 

cubic-feet-per-second (cfs).

• Below 4.0 cfs, drafting rates should not 

exceed 20 percent of surface flows.

• Drafting should cease when bypass 

surface flows drop below 1.5 cfs.

• Use screen sizes described by NOAA 

specifications for steelhead (1/8 inch mesh 

size) for rainbow trout.

All Alternatives: All 

Water Drafting Sites

National Core BMP 

WatUses-3 (R5 BMP 

2.5)

Watershed33

Drafting from non-fish-bearing waters

• Drafting rate should not exceed 350 

gallons per minute for stream flow greater 

than or equal to 2.0 cfs.

• Drafting rate should not exceed 50 percent 

of surface flow.

• Drafting should cease from when bypass 

surface flow drops below 10 gallons per 

minute.

All Alternatives: All 

Water Drafting Sites

National Core BMP 

WatUses-3 (R5 BMP 

2.5)

Watershed34

Water drafting sites located in non-fishbearing waters only may include minor 

instream modification, such as fine 

sediment removal and building of 

board/plastic dams, at the discretion of the 

project fish biologist or hydrologist. All 

boards and plastic will be removed after 

use. Approaches may be rocked.

Water drafting sites located within fishbearing stream segments may not be 

modified, except rocking the approach to 

prevent sedimentation.

All Alternatives: All 

Water Drafting Sites

National Core BMP 

WatUses-3 (R5 BMP 

2.5)

Watershed35

Ignition of underburns will generally not 

occur in riparian reserves, except to 

minimize the potential for burning material 

to roll down into a riparian reserve that 

would increase the potential for moderate or 

high intensity burns. Ignition will generally 

occur outside of riparian reserves (in upland 

areas) to avoid possibility of drip torch fuel 

entering stream courses. Fire will be 

allowed to back into riparian reserves to 

allow for a low intensity fire.

All Alternatives: All 

Underburn Units 6.3
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

30

Design 

Feature Description

Applicable Action 

Alternatives/

Areas or Units

Rationale or

Applicable Standard 

and Guideline

Watershed36

Restrictions for hand pile construction

• Place in a checkerboard pattern whenever 

possible (not one pile directly above 

another).

• Hand piles must be small in size, 6 feet or 

less in diameter.

• No hand piles within 15 feet of any 

perennial or intermittent stream channel.

• Between 15 and 30 feet, hand piles may 

be constructed if the following conditions 

exist: (1) not granitic soils, (2) slope is less 

than 35 percent, or (3) ground cover is 

greater than 50 percent. If the condition 

cannot be met, then slash should be lopped 

and scattered.

All Alternatives: All Fuel 

Break and Thinning 

Units

National Core BMP 

Fire-2 (R5 BMP 6.3)

Watershed37

Burning hand piles within riparian reserves

• See Watershed-36 for hand pile 

construction description.

If perennial streams are greater than 1 foot 

in width

• Only hand piles greater than 30 feet from 

the channel may be burned. 

If intermittent and small (less than 1 foot in 

width) perennial streams

• Hand piles greater than 15 feet from the 

channel may be burned.

All Alternatives: All Fuel 

Break and Thinning

Units

National Core BMP 

Fire-2 (R5 BMP 6.3)

Watershed38

For underburning, construction of handlines 

in riparian reserves closer than 25 feet to a 

watercourse shall be avoided where 

practical. Handline construction in riparian 

vegetation shall be avoided where practical. 

Handlines will be mitigated (waterbarred 

and covered with organic material) 

immediately following prescribed burning, 

when safe to do so.

All Alternatives: All 

Underburn Units

National Core BMP 

Fire-2 (R5 BMP 6.3)

Watershed39

When underburning in riparian reserves, at 

least 90 percent of the large woody debris 

will not be consumed, both standing and on 

the ground.

All Alternatives: All 

Underburn Units

National Core BMP 

Fire-2 (R5 BMP 6.3)

Wildlife-1

Retain at a minimum two to five snags on 

an average per acre where available. This is 

to be assessed on a landscape level. Snag 

retention may not be met equally on every 

acre but will be met at a landscape scale. 

Retain snags in clumps or groups, situated 

around the largest and live trees where 

possible. Select snags with broken tops as 

first priority.

All Alternatives: All Units Forest Plan S&G 8-

22

Wildlife-2

Maintain existing snag and coarse woody 

debris levels across the landscape where 

fuel loading is not excessive; average five to 

20 pieces, greater than 12 inches in

diameter, per acre.

All Alternatives: All Units Forest-wide S&G 6-

16
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

31

Design 

Feature Description

Applicable Action 

Alternatives/

Areas or Units

Rationale or

Applicable Standard 

and Guideline

Wildlife-3

A seasonal restriction (limitation of 

operations) of February 1st to September 

15th will apply to all activities that modify 

habitat (including activities that degrade or 

are beneficial) within 0.25 miles of a NSO 

activity center or un-surveyed 

nesting/roosting/foraging habitat. The 

limiting operating period (LOP) may be lifted 

if protocol surveys determine NSOs are not 

nesting in the year of action.

All Alternatives: All 

Applicable Units

Forest Plan S&G 8-1, 

8-2

Wildlife-4

A seasonal restriction will be applied from

February 1st through July 9th for activities 

that are not in suitable habitat but will 

potentially produce noise above ambient

noise levels within 0.25 miles of an 

occupied NSO activity center or unsurveyed suitable nesting/roosting/foraging 

habitat. The LOP may be lifted if protocol 

surveys determine NSOs are not nesting in 

the year of action.

All Alternatives: All 

Applicable Units

Forest Plan S&G 8-1, 

8-2

Wildlife-5

When spring burning is conducted within 

0.25 miles and uphill of a known NSO 

activity center or within 0.25 miles of unsurveyed nesting/roosting/foraging habitat 

(separated by a topographic feature), 

smoke will be managed with the objective of

light to moderate, dispersed smoke being

present with a canyon or drainage but 

dissipating or lifting within 24 hours. Ignition 

will be discontinued if heavy, concentrated 

smoke begins to inundate suitable habitat 

late in the afternoon

All Alternatives: All 

Applicable Units

Forest Plan S&G 8-1, 

8-2

Wildlife-6

No known bald eagle nest trees, perch 

trees, or roost trees within winter roost 

areas will be removed or destroyed as a 

result of project activities if discovered.

All Alternatives: All 

Applicable Units

Bald and Golden 

Eagle Act

Wildlife-7

To minimize effects on bald eagles, 

prescribed burning will not occur in or within 

0.5 miles of a known or suspected nest 

territory from January 1st to August 31st. 

Activities that create noise above ambient 

levels within 0.25 miles of active or 

suspected bald eagle nests if discovered, or 

occur within 0.5 miles of line-of-sight of such 

nests, will be seasonally restricted from 

January to August 31. If surveys 

demonstrate that nest sites are not active, 

no seasonal restrictions are required.

All Alternatives: All 

Applicable Units

Bald and Golden 

Eagle Act

Wildlife-9

In known occupied northern goshawk nest 

sites and management areas, no burning or 

use of heavy equipment will occur within 

0.25 miles of the nest site between March 

1st and August 31st. If protocol surveys are 

conducted and the site is found to be 

unoccupied, proposed actions may proceed.

All Alternatives: All 

Applicable Units

Forest Plan S&G 8-

20
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

32

Design 

Feature Description

Applicable Action 

Alternatives/

Areas or Units

Rationale or

Applicable Standard 

and Guideline

Wildlife-10

In order to avoid direct harm to individual 

Siskiyou Mountain salamanders, in 

occupied sites or areas modeled as having 

moderate or high likelihood of occupancy; 

implement burning when salamanders have 

low likelihood of being surface active (midsummer and mid-winter months). Consult 

with the district wildlife biologist to 

determine when there is a low likelihood of 

surface activity.

All Alternatives: All 

Applicable Units

Forest Plan S&G 8-

18

Wildlife-11

Avoid use of heavy equipment on known 

Siskiyou Mountain salamander sites, or on 

suitable talus that has a moderate or high 

likelihood of occupancy for the Siskiyou 

Mountain and Scott Bar salamander and for 

the Tehama chaparral and blue gray tail 

dropper.

All Alternatives: All 

Applicable Units

Forest Plan S&G 8-

18, ROD for Survey 

and Manage species

Wildlife-12

Treatment units containing suitable Siskiyou 

Mountain salamander habitat or known sites

will be flagged and avoided or surveyed 

prior to ground disturbing activities; flagged 

areas will be utilized as "skips" considered 

in variable density thinning prescriptions.

All Alternatives: All 

Applicable Units

Forest Plan S&G 8-

18, ROD for Survey 

and Manage species

Wildlife-13

Greater than 60 percent of the existing 

canopy cover of the larger mature trees, 

large down woody debris, and sufficient 

forest floor litter will be retained within and 

adjacent to known sites of Tehama 

chaparral and blue gray tail dropper.

All Alternatives: All 

Applicable Units

Forest Plan S&G 8-

18, ROD for Survey 

and Manage species

Wildlife-14

Pre-disturbance surveys for Category A

survey and manage species will be 

completed to protocol prior to grounddisturbing activities where suitable habitat 

exists. Known mollusk sites will be flagged 

and buffered by one site tree height by the 

District biologist prior to implementation. No 

treatments will occur within this buffer; 

flagged areas will be used as "skips" 

considered in variable density thinning 

prescriptions.

All Alternatives: All 

Applicable Units

Forest Plan S&G 8-

18, ROD for Survey 

and Manage species

Wildlife-15

Minimize potential logging damage and 

negative effects to retained hardwoods and 

sensitive meadow habitats by using 

techniques such as directional felling away 

from these trees and meadows, and 

restricting equipment use in meadows. For 

hardwoods in tree form, retain except where 

removal is required for operability or fuel 

break function. Include in leave tree 

spacing.

All Alternatives: All 

Thinning, Fuel Break 

and Mastication Units

Forest Plan S&G 8-

31, 8-42. 8-43
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

33

Design 

Feature Description

Applicable Action 

Alternatives/

Areas or Units

Rationale or

Applicable Standard 

and Guideline

Wildlife-16

Retain up to 25% of area in planned fuel 

break and mastication treatments as 

untreated islands and irregular edge to 

retain diversity for wildlife habitat needs 

where fuel break effectiveness would not be 

compromised. Residual hardwood trees and 

conifers count towards untreated area.

All Alternatives: 137-

Mast, 138-Mast-1, and 

544-Mast

Forest Plan S&G 6-2

Wildlife-17

If a gray wolf den site is detected in or near 

the project area during the project 

implementation timeframes, a seasonal 

restriction that restricts above ambient 

noise- and smoke- generating activities 

within one mile of the den will be 

implemented from April 1 through June 30.

While the provision for the den site seasonal 

restriction is expected to provide protection 

from any prolonged or substantial projectrelated disturbance during the critical puprearing period at early rendezvous site(s), a 

similar seasonal restriction for activities 

within one mile of any discovered active 

rendezvous sites from April 1 through 

August 31 will be implemented. Further 

discussions and coordination with USFWS 

may result in modified distances or more 

flexible dates for this specific protection 

measure.

These seasonal restrictions will be 

implemented unless there are topographic 

features or terrain that clearly separates the 

noise- or smoke- generating activity from 

the den or rendezvous site(s).

While there are no known den or 

rendezvous site(s) associated with the 

Craggy Project area at this time, the 

seasonal restriction specific to gray wolf will 

be included in the timber sale contract and 

would be put in place if these sites are 

confirmed. These measures will also be 

included in the burn plan and any other 

implementation contracts or plans.

All Alternatives: All 

Applicable Units

Forest Plan S&G 8-1, 

8-2

2.3 Alternatives Considered But Eliminated From Detailed 

Study

Public comments received in response to the proposed action (as scoped) provided 

suggestions for alternative methods for achieving the purpose and need. Some of these 

alternatives may have been outside the scope of the need for the proposal, duplicative of the 

alternatives considered in detail, or determined to be components that would cause 

unnecessary environmental harm.
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

34

Therefore, a number of alternatives were considered, but eliminated from detailed study for 

reasons summarized below.

Alternative A

This is the project as initially prepared for scoping in 2014. It included fewer acres of 

hazardous fuels reduction activities than what is now proposed in Alternative 2. Legacy road 

sediment site treatment was not included in the initial proposal. The level of proposed 

treatments are listed below:

• Fuel break - 404 acres

• Prescribed underburning - 3,466 acres

• Mastication - 271 acres

• Thinning without forest product removal - 431 acres

• Thinning with forest product removal - 2,402 acres

• Roads likely to be used for forest product removal - 85 miles

• Temporary road on existing roadbed - 12.7 miles

• New temporary road - 0.5 miles

Ongoing consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and CALFIRE, in addition to an 

internal reassessment of the project, determined that the lower level of treatments in the 

wildland urban interface proposed in this alternative would not have been sufficient to meet 

the desired condition for hazardous fuel reduction and forest health. Because it does not meet 

the purpose and need of the project, it has therefore been excluded from more detailed study 

(see a map of this alternative in the Scoping Outcome Summary, available on the project 

website).

Alternative B

This alternative was developed in response to Relevant Issue 1 to address the point of 

discussion about effectiveness of the project for protecting private landowners and private 

property. Treatments proposed in Alternative B are identical to Alternative 2 except fuel 

break treatments are increased to 3,220 acres. This change resulted from interaction with 

CALFIRE representatives at the scoping period open house and a follow-up meeting which 

recommended additional treatment of a 300-foot buffer adjacent to all private land in the 

project area. This area would be treated as a fuel break to reduce hazardous fuels. Including 

treatment on all lands adjacent to private land was determined to be unfeasible because doing 

so is not consistent with standards in the Forest Plan due to one of the following reasons: the 

location of proposed fuel breaks is within riparian reserves or; the location of treatments on 

mid-slope positions is not conducive to wildfire suppression. Additionally, many private 

parcels of land within the project area do not have occupied structures or residences. Fuel 

break treatments adjacent to these non-occupied parcels would not contribute to the safety of 

private landowners who do not reside on their property. For these reasons, this alternative has 

been eliminated from more detailed study and additional fuels treatment adjacent to private 

property in strategic areas has been added to Alternative 3 (see map for Alternative B in 
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

35

Appendix A of the Scoping Outcome Summary on the project website, entitled, “Craggy 

Project Alternative B,” page 11).

Alternative C

A commenter stated that the project should treat all ponderosa pine plantations because they 

are “at risk to bark beetle caused mortality which will add to fuel loading over time” 

(Comment 11-5, Scoping Outcome Summary). In response to the comment, we developed an 

alternative consisting of treatment of all planted areas within the project boundary (because 

spatial records are incomplete as to the original species or range of species planted and field 

survey has determined that most planted areas are stocked with ponderosa pine, all areas 

recorded as planted were included in this alternative). This would total about 6,310 acres of 

treatments (see map in the Scoping Outcome Summary).

Records indicate some of these planted areas have been treated within the past 15 years and 

are not likely susceptible to insect-caused mortality. Other planted areas have been 

determined to be unfeasible for treatment because of the economic and environmental cost of 

opening closed roads formerly used to access these plantations. Finally, some planted areas 

are located on lower slope positions on the landscape and hazardous fuel reduction 

treatments in lower slope positions would not significantly contribute to improving fire 

resiliency since they are not expected to burn at high severity nor contribute to firefighter 

safety.

Alternative C is also redundant because Alternatives 2 and 3 include plantations in need of 

silvicultural treatment that are strategically located on ridgelines, upper slope positions, and 

near ingress and egress routes where treatment would contribute to landscape resilience to 

fire. In total, Alternative 2 would treat 4,170 acres, or 66 percent of the planted area within 

the project boundary; Alternative 3 would treat 5,030 acres or 80 percent of the planted area.

For these reasons, Alternative C will not be analyzed further.

2.4 Monitoring

As project actions are implemented, they are monitored by Forest Service personnel as part 

of normal operating procedures.

As thinning of larger trees (thinning with forest product removal, generally commercially 

marketable trees greater than 10 inches in diameter at breast height) and thinning of smaller 

trees (known as non-commercial or thinning without forest product removal) is implemented, 

projects are monitored by Forest Service personnel as part of normal operating procedures. 

Forest Service employees monitor timber marking of harvest units to ensure that 

prescriptions and marking guides are being followed. Forest Service sale administrators 

monitor the harvest to assure that Forest Plan standards and guidelines, best management 

practices, and project design features are being implemented. Forest Service personnel 

monitor thinning without forest product removal as it is being accomplished to determine if 

objectives are being achieved and to make sure thinning specifications are being followed.

As fuels treatments are implemented, projects are monitored as part of normal operating 

procedures. Prior to prescribed burning, burn plans are developed. Burn plans for prescribed 

fire require monitoring of the burning to ensure that project objectives are being achieved.
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

36

The application of project design features that are identified for wildlife species are 

monitored in implementation and effectiveness monitoring. Assumptions made pertaining to 

effects to species are validated.

Post-project monitoring for the spread of non-native invasive species (noxious weeds) will 

occur as part of Forest Plan monitoring. Results will be documented in the Forest annual 

monitoring reports.

The Best Management Practices Evaluation Program monitoring will occur on a sample of 

the best management practices appropriate for this project which are listed in Appendix D. 

Since many project activities do not occur within the same year, they will be included in Best 

Management Practices Evaluation Program monitoring pool of random sampling for up to a 

decade as needed. The Forest sediment and temperature monitoring plan and quality 

assurance project plan (USDA 2010) will be implemented for Total Maximum Daily Load 

compliance as displayed in the North Coast Region Basin Plan (North Coast Water Board 

2011).

Monitoring to assess the implementation and effectiveness of project design features to meet 

soil standards and guidelines in the Forest Plan may occur in the Craggy Project. Field 

investigations of soil cover, soil compaction, and impacts to soil organic matter will occur on 

a minimum of five percent of activity areas forest wide, as described in Chapter 5 of the 

Forest Plan. Units will be selected randomly from all activity areas across the Forest where 

soil disturbing activities take place; the Craggy Project will be included in the sampling pool 

for soil monitoring. Results will be documented in the Forest annual monitoring reports.

2.5 Comparison of Alternatives

This section provides a summary of the treatments in each alternative and a comparison of 

the effects of implementing each alternative. Information in the tables are focused on 

activities and effects where different levels of effects or outputs can be distinguished 

quantitatively or qualitatively among alternatives.

Table 2-2: Quantitative Comparison of Treatments, Roads, and Access by Alternative Considered in 

Detail

Treatments/Roads/Access Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Total Area Proposed for Treatment (acres) 0 10,600 11,310

Fuel Breaks (acres) 0 1,400 2,190

Adjacent to private property 0 60 650

Roadside 0 780 810

Ridgetop 0 560 730

Prescribed Underburning (acres) 0 4,160 4,430

Mastication (acres) 0 900 760

Thinning Without Forest Product Removal 

(acres) 0 1,270 1,690
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

37

Treatments/Roads/Access Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Thinning With Forest Product Removal (acres) 0 2,870 2,230

Legacy Sediment Site Treatment 0

78 sites as agreed 

upon with the Water 

Board

78 sites as agreed 

upon with the Water 

Board

Roads Potentially Used for Forest Product 

Removal (miles) 0 90 80

Low-water Crossings on System Roads 

Potentially Used for Hauling 0 2 1

Temporary Roads on Existing Roadbed (miles) 0 12 11

New Temporary Roads (miles) 0 2 1

Table 2-3 displays a comparison of how each alternative meets the purpose and need 

components for the project.

Table 2-3: Comparison of Effects of Alternatives Related to Addressing Purpose and Need

Meeting Purpose 

and Need Measurement Indicator Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Defensibility and 

Resiliency to 

Wildfires, Indicator 1

Acres allowing safe direct attack

(flame lengths of 4 feet or less in 

height in the project area)

5,262 (18%) 16,329 (55%) 17,275 (58%)

Defensibility and 

Resiliency to 

Wildfires, Indicator 2

Acres of wildfires with flame

lengths of 4 feet or less in height 

predicted in the defense zone

around communities

207 508 770

Forest Health

Stand density index (measure of 

inter-tree competition, a lower 

value indicates increased 

resiliency to insects and disease, 

and drought.)

265 148 153

Early Seral Habitat Acres of treatment to provide 

early seral habitat5 0 7,728 9,075

Late-successional 

Habitat

Acres of late-successional habitat 

improved in the long term 0 347 426

Sensitive Plant 

Species Habitat

Acres with flame lengths less than 

four feet predicted within the 

management area for Calochortus 

persistens.

376 757 757

 

5 This is a total of all acres of treatment that provide early seral habitat; there are a number of acres of 

overlapping treatments so this number overestimates the footprint of resulting early seral habitat.
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

38

Meeting Purpose 

and Need Measurement Indicator Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Reduce Sediment 

Potential from 

Legacy Sediment 

Sites, Indicator 1

Sites Treated 0 sites

78 sites as 

agreed upon 

with the Water 

Board

78 sites as 

agreed upon 

with the Water 

Board

Reduce Sediment 

Potential from 

Legacy Sediment 

Sites, Indicator 2

Cubic Yards of Potential 

Sediment Removed (cubic yards 

of potential sediment remaining)

0 (49,290) 29,200

(20,090) 29,200 (20,090)
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

39

Table 2-4 and Table 2-5 compare how each alternative addresses the relevant issues identified during public scoping.

Table 2-4: Comparison of Measurement Indicators for Relevant Issue #1:

There is a point of discussion about the effectiveness of the project for adequately protecting private landowners and private property.

Measurement Indicator Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Potential flame length in the wildland urban interface 

defense zone

0-4 feet = 207 acres

4-8 feet = 126 acres

8-11 feet = 297 acres

>11 feet = 405 acres

0-4 feet = 508 acres

4-8 feet = 154 acres

8-11 feet = 12 acres

>11 feet = 361 acres

0-4 feet = 770 acres

4-8 feet = 95 acres

8-11 feet = 28 acres

>11 feet = 142 acres

Acres treated adjacent to (within 300 feet of) private 

land 0

Fuelbreaks = 141 acres

Thinning = 120 acres

Underburn = 142 acres

Mastication = 175 acres

Fuelbreaks = 766 acres

Thinning = 121 acres

Underburn = 197 acres

Mastication = 150 acres

Table 2-5: Comparison of Measurement Indicators for Relevant Issue #2:

There is a point of discussion about the environmental effects of project activities such as temporary road construction, timber haul, landing establishment, and yarding 

activities on soils and aquatic resources.

Response Considerations Measurement Indicator Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Number of new landings Number 0 16 15

Miles of new temporary roads Miles 0 2 1

Miles temporary roads on existing roadbed Miles 0 12 11

Miles of road (all types) used for forest product removal Miles 0 90 80

Number of low-water stream crossings Number of crossings 0 2 1

Modeled environmental effects based on the Equivalent 

Roaded Area (ERA) model Range of ERA risk ratios 0.15 – 0.68 0.24 – 0.73 0.22 – 0.73

Modeled environmental effects based on the landslide

(GEO) model Range of GEO risk ratios 0.29 – 1.37 0.29 – 1.29 0.29 – 1.28

Modeled environmental effects based on the soil erosion

(USLE) model Range of USLE risk ratios 0.24 – 0.66 0.30 – 0.66 0.29 – 0.66
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

40

Response Considerations Measurement Indicator Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Treatment of legacy sediment sites

Cubic Yards of Potential Sediment 

Removed (cubic yards of potential 

sediment remaining)

0 (49,290) 29,200

(20,090) 29,200 (20,090)

Information in Table 2-6 is focused on environmental effects on resources where different levels of effects of outputs can be 

distinguished qualitatively or quantitatively among alternatives. For all resources in all action alternatives, negative effects are 

minimized or eliminated by application of project design features. This table displays the potential environmental effects of 

alternatives themselves, not the cumulative effects of the alternatives plus current and reasonably foreseeable actions. Cumulative 

effects are disclosed in chapter 3 in the environmental effects on each resource.

Table 2-6: Comparison of Effects of Alternative by Resource

Resource Measure Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Fire and Fuels 0-4 feet flame lengths in 

project area (short term) 5,262 acres (18%) 16,329 acres (55%) 17,275 acres (58%)

Fire and Fuels Surface fire type in 

project area (short term) 18,987 acres (64%) 22,437 acres (79%) 23,605 acres (80%)

Fire and Fuels

Fire behavior potential 

(0-4 foot flame lengths on 

dominant vegetation 

types (short term))

5,386 acres 15,008 acres 17,237 acres

Fire and Fuels

Fire behavior potential on 

vegetation size class (0-4 

foot flame lengths on 

current vegetation size 

class

3,373 acres 9,123 acres 10,626 acres

Fire and Fuels

0-4 foot flame length in 

WUI (short term) in the 

defense zone: 207 acres; 

threat zone: (short term))

2,874 acres 8,579 acres 10,540 acres
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

41

Resource Measure Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Silviculture 

(Vegetation)

Forest health measured 

by Stand Density Index 

(SDI)

Current conditions: 265

20 years after no treatment: 301

One year after treatment: 148

20 years after no treatment: 200

One year after treatment: 153

20 years after no treatment: 299

Silviculture 

(Vegetation)

Forest resilience 

measured by 

heterogeneity

Resilience will stagnate and 

heterogeneity will be reduced over time

Resilience will be increased and

heterogeneity of tree species will be 

maintained or enhanced

Meets NFMA requirements by meeting 

Forest Plan standards

Resilience will be increased and

heterogeneity of tree species will be 

maintained or enhanced where stands 

are treated, but to a lesser extent than 

Alternative 2 due to less acres 

treated.

Meets NFMA requirements by 

meeting Forest Plan standards, but to

a lesser extent than Alternative 2

Botany Threatened and 

endangered species No effect. No effect. No effect.

Botany Forest Service Sensitive

Calochortus persistens: No direct 

effects, indirect effects from conifer 

encroachment. Potential indirect effects 

in the event of a stand replacing wildfire.

Calochortus persistens Management 

Area (MA): At least 60% of the area 

would require more than hand tools to 

suppress a fire under modeled 

conditions. About 376 acres (40%)

would be in the 0-4 foot flame length 

category.

Eriogonum ursinum var. erubescens: No 

direct effects. Potential indirect effects in 

the event of a stand replacing wildfire.

Calochortus persistens: Meets the 

purpose and need of this project to 

address known and potential threats to 

this species. Maintains and improves 

habitat by reducing vegetation 

encroachment.

Calochortus persistens MA: About 20% 

of the area would require more than 

hand tools to suppress fire. About 757 

acres (80%) would be in the 0-4 foot 

flame length category.

Eriogonum ursinum var. erubescens:

No direct effects. Reduced indirect 

effects with reduction in risk of stand 

replacing wildfire.

Same as Alternative 2.

Botany Survey and Manage 

Species

No direct or indirect effects because no 

survey and manage species are present 

within the analysis area.

Same as Alternative 1. Same as Alternative 1.
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

42

Resource Measure Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Weeds

Risk of spread or 

introduction of noxious 

weeds

High risk- due to non-project dependent 

vectors.

Risk within Management Area 5 is low.

Same as Alternative 1. Same as Alternative 1.

Wildlife Threatened and 

Endangered No effect.

Northern spotted owl: May affect, not 

likely to adversely affect. 347 acres of 

foraging habitat will be degraded, none 

will be downgraded, and 1.5 will be 

removed. Critical habitat: 203 acres of 

foraging habitat will be degraded, none 

will be downgraded or removed.

Gray wolf: No effect.

North American wolverine (proposed 

for listing): May affect individuals but is 

not likely to lead to a trend towards 

Federal listing. Project activity is 

proposed to occur within about 347

acres (12%) of habitat; however, these 

habitats will continue to be viable after 

treatment.

1.5 acres of habitat will be reduced to 

non-habitat by new landing 

construction.

Northern spotted owl: May affect, 

not likely to adversely affect. 426 

acres of foraging habitat will be 

degraded, none will be downgraded, 

and 1.5 will be removed. Critical 

habitat: same as Alternative 2.

Gray wolf: same as Alternative 2.

North American wolverine: Same as 

Alternative 2, except that Project 

activity is proposed to occur within 

about 426 acres (15%) of habitat; 

however, these habitats will continue 

to be viable after treatment. Same 

effect from landing construction.
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

43

Resource Measure Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Wildlife Forest Service Sensitive 

Species No effect.

Northern goshawk and fisher: May 

affect individuals but is not likely to lead 

to a trend towards Federal listing. 

Project activity is proposed to occur 

within about 347 acres (12%) of 

habitat; however, these habitats will 

continue to be viable after 

treatment.1.5 acres of habitat will be 

reduced to non-habitat by new landing 

construction.

Pacific marten: Degradation of about 

278 acres of marten; habitat will 

continue to be viable after treatment.

Bald eagle and great gray owl: No 

habitat affected

Willow flycatcher, Foothill yellowlegged frog, Cascade frog: This 

alternative will not limit the availability 

of habitat for this species.

Pallid bat, Townsend’s big-eared 

bat, fringed myotis bat: Will not limit 

the availability of large snag 

distribution. Forest-wide standards and 

guidelines for snags will be met or 

exceeded.

Western bumble bee, Tehama 

chaparral snail (also survey and 

manage), Siskiyou Mountain 

salamander (also survey and 

manage): No habitat affected.

Northern goshawk and fisher:

Same as Alternative 2, except that 

Project activity is proposed to occur 

within about 426 acres (15%) of 

habitat; however, these habitats will 

continue to be viable after treatment. 

Same effect from landing 

construction.

Pacific marten: Degradation of about 

319 acres of marten; habitat will 

continue to be viable after treatment.

Bald eagle and great gray owl, 

Willow flycatcher, foothill yellowlegged frog, cascade frog, pallid 

bat, Townsend’s big-eared bat, 

fringed myotis bat, Western bumble 

bee, Tehama chaparral snail, 

Siskiyou Mountain salamander:

Same as Alternative 2.
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

44

Resource Measure Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Wildlife Management Indicator 

Species No effect.

River/stream management indicator 

species: Alternative 2 will not limit the 

availability of riparian habitat 

conditions.

Snag-dependent management 

indicator species: Alternative 2 will 

not limit the availability of large snag 

distribution. Forest-wide standards and 

guidelines for snags will be met or 

exceeded.

River/stream and snag-dependent

management indicator species:

Same as Alternative 2.

Wildlife Survey and Manage 

Species No effect.

Scott Bar salamander, blue-gray tail 

dropper: No known sites. Surveys will 

be done.

Klamath shoulderband: Known sites 

will be managed and surveys will be 

done. Tehama chaparral snail: 

Known site will be managed and 

surveys will be done.

Siskiyou Mountain salamander: No 

known sites, surveys will be done.

Scott Bar salamander, blue-gray 

tail dropper, Klamath 

shoulderband: Same as Alternative 

2.

Aquatic 

Species

Coho Salmon (and 

critical habitat), Chinook 

Salmon, Steelhead and 

Rainbow Trout, Pacific 

and Klamath River 

Lamprey, and Essential 

Fish Habitat

Alternative 1 is not expected to have any 

effects on these aquatic resources.

Coho Salmon: may affect, not likely to 

adversely affect the species or its 

critical habitat.

Chinook Salmon: will not affect the 

species or its critical habitat.

Steelhead and Rainbow Trout: may 

affect individuals, but is not likely to 

lead to a trend towards listing and not 

likely to lead to a decreasing population 

trend.

Pacific and Klamath River Lamprey:

may affect individuals, but is not likely 

to lead to a trend towards listing.

 

Same as Alternative 2.
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

45

Resource Measure Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Hydrology Equivalent Roaded Area

Currently under the threshold of 

concern- desired conditions are met. 

Watershed risk ratios range from 0.13-

0.68. Risk ratios with the potential fire 

scenario range from 0.24-1.04.

Risk ratios increased in the watersheds 

by an average of 73%, indicating that 

risk of erosion or mass wasting from the 

effects of wildfire is more in the event of 

fire without treatment than with 

treatment.

Will remain under the threshold of 

concern- desired conditions will be met.

Risk ratios range from 0.16-0.73.

Risk ratios with the potential fire 

scenario range from 0.03-0.26.

Will remain under the threshold of 

concern- desired conditions will be 

met. The risk ratios range is similar to 

Alternative 2.

Hydrology Temperature

Conditions are currently met and are 

expected to remain the same or improve 

in the absence of a wildfire occurrence 

due to increasing streamside shade.

Effects will not be estimated but 

presumed neutral through 

implementation of best management 

practices and project design features 

that protect streamside canopy.

Same as Alternative 2.

Hydrology Peak flow

Desired conditions are currently met. 

Expected to remain as at present in the 

absence of wildfire but increase 

substantially (negatively) with wildfire.

Desired conditions will be met. Same as Alternative 2.

Hydrology Sediment and Legacy 

Sediment Sites

0 sites will be treated. 49,290 cubic 

yards of sediment from legacy sediment 

sites will remain untreated.

Desired conditions will be met.

78 sites will be treated as agreed upon 

with the Water Board; 29,200 cubic 

yards of sediment will be stabilized.

Same as Alternative 2.
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

46

Resource Measure Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Soils

Soil Stability, Soil 

Organic Matter, and Soil 

Structure

Estimated acres within the project area 

(and percentages of treatment areas) 

not meeting desired conditions for all 

three soil indicators are as follows (soil 

stability, soil organic matter, soil 

structure): 0 acres (0%).

Estimated acres within the project area 

(and percentages of treatment areas) 

not meeting desired conditions for the 

three soil indicators are as follows: soil 

stability 157 acres (1.5%), soil organic 

matter 276 acres (2.6%), soil structure 

105 acres (1.0%); or with the use of 

tethered harvesting equipment in place 

of skyline yarding, 179 acres (1.7%), 

341 acres (3.3%), and 159 acres 

(1.5%) respectively.

Estimated acres within the project 

area (and percentages of treatment 

areas) not meeting desired conditions 

for the three soil indicators are as 

follows: soil stability 129 acres (1.1%), 

soil organic matter 228 acres (2.0%), 

soil structure 90 acres (0.8%); or with 

the use of tethered harvesting 

equipment in place of skyline yarding, 

149 acres (1.3%), 288 acres (2.5%), 

140 acres (1.2%) respectively.

Geology Landslide Risk

Without a fire, the landslide likelihood 

will remain as at present and may 

decrease somewhat overtime. The 

landslide risk will remain high for some 

watersheds.

With a wildfire event, the risk ratios will 

be increased to over the threshold of 

concern for 7 of the 8 watersheds, with 

the eighth watershed elevated 

substantially.

Without a fire, this alternative will not 

lead to a measureable change in the 

landslide risk or likelihood for any of the 

watersheds analyzed.

With a wildfire event, the risk ratios for 

the 7th field watersheds would be 30 to 

68 percent less than Alternative 1. 

Alternative 2 is expected to overall 

have less effects on landslide likelihood 

and landslide risk than Alternative 1.

Same as Alternative 2.

Air Compliance with the 

Regional Haze Rule

Alternative 1 will comply with the 

Regional Haze Rule, and greenhouse 

gas emissions will be zero.

Alternative 2 has a high likelihood of 

compliance with the Regional Haze 

Rule, and greenhouse gas emissions 

will be 10,670 metric tons per year.

Alternative 3 has a high likelihood of 

compliance with the Regional Haze 

Rule, and greenhouse gas emissions 

will be 11,605 metric tons per year.

Scenery Scenic Integrity

Existing visual disturbances are minor 

and widespread. This alternative meets 

the Forest Plan thresholds for all 

sensitive views. There will be no new 

visual impacts; however there will be 

increasing future risk for ecosystem 

disturbances, such as high-severity 

wildfire and insect outbreaks.

There will be widespread new minor 

visual disturbances within designated 

viewsheds for 1-3 years. With project 

design features, Forest Plan VQO 

thresholds for all designated views and 

road/trail travel corridors will be met.

Same as Alternative 2.
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

47

Resource Measure Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Recreation Recreation Opportunity 

Spectrum

Overall designated Recreation 

Opportunity Spectrum classification 

thresholds would not change, as project 

treatments would not be implemented.

Overall designated Recreation 

Opportunity Spectrum classification 

thresholds would not change overall 

due to any proposed treatments, and 

will remain consistent with Forest plan 

direction.

Same as Alternative 2.

Heritage

Resources

Effects to heritage 

resources

Alternative 1 will result in no direct or 

cumulative effects to archaeological 

sites within the Area of Potential Effect 

although it may increase the potential for 

indirect effects over the short and long 

term.

Alternative 2 will have no measurable 

negative direct effects to heritage 

resources are expected for these 

alternatives.

Same as Alternative 2.

Social and 

Economic

Resources

Social

Use of resources: Zero acres of

treatments where forest products will be 

made available.

Fire safety: Zero acres will be treated. 

Zero acres of fuels will be treated 

adjacent to private property.

Use of resources: 2,870 acres of 

treatment where forest products will be 

made available.

Fire safety: 10,600 total acres will be 

treated (all treatments are included). 60 

acres of fuels will be treated adjacent 

to private property.

Use of resources: 2,230 acres of

treatment where forest products will 

be made available.

Fire safety: 11,310 total acres will be 

treated (all treatments are included). 

650 acres of fuels will be treated 

adjacent to private property.

Social and 

Economic

Resources

Economics

Revenue based on estimated timber 

sold (dollars): 0.

Employment (number of jobs): 0.

Direct labor income generated (dollars): 

0.

Revenue based on estimated timber 

sold (dollars): 158,300.

Employment (number of jobs): 45.

Direct labor income generated 

(dollars): 1,919,300.

Revenue based on estimated timber 

sold (dollars): 127,000.

Employment (number of jobs): 37.

Direct labor income generated 

(dollars): 1,550,900.
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

48

This page intentionally left blank
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

49

CHAPTER 3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

3.1 Introduction

This chapter summarizes the physical, biological, social, and economic environments that 

may be affected by the project and the potential changes to those environments due to 

implementation of the alternatives. It also presents the scientific and analytical basis for 

comparison of alternatives presented in chapter 2.

Analysis methods are discussed for each resource, followed by a description of the spatial 

and temporal context used for analysis. The affected environment section describes the 

existing condition against which environmental effects are evaluated and from which 

progress toward the desired condition can be measured.

The environmental consequences section discusses the potential effects to the resource 

associated with the implementation of each alternative. This forms the scientific and 

analytical basis for comparison of the alternatives, including the proposed action. This 

section discloses direct, indirect, and cumulative effects on the resource and discusses the 

potential for significance of these effects. Effects are quantified where possible; qualitative 

discussions are included where appropriate. The proposed action and action alternatives 

include the project design features which were developed to minimize negative effects and 

are included in chapter 2.

Effects are defined as (1) direct effects caused by an action and that occur at the same place 

and time as the action; (2) indirect effects caused by an action but that are later in time, or 

removed in distance, from the action; and (3) cumulative effects resulting from the 

incremental impact of an action when added to other past, present, and reasonably

foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency or person undertakes such actions. 

Direct and indirect effects of an action are often discussed together. Cumulative effects are 

discussed separately. Effects can result from individually minor, but collectively significant, 

actions taking place over a period of time. Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions are assessed along with the effects of the proposed action and alternatives to 

determine whether significant cumulative effects occur.

Analysis areas for determining environmental effects vary by resource, as do the other 

actions included in each cumulative effects analysis. Cumulative effects in an analysis area 

may include estimated effects from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future private or 

public vegetation treatments, road construction, grazing, and wildfire exclusion. A list of 

such potential actions is included in Appendix C of this document.

Resource reports provide background for the analysis, and are referenced and summarized in 

this chapter of the draft environmental impact statement. These reports use resource data 

housed in the geographic information system and other relevant sources. The reports are 

available on the Project website.
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

50

3.2 Fire and Fuels

This section discusses the historic role of fire and how current conditions reflect a departure 

from historic fire return intervals in the Craggy project area and within the wildland urban 

interface. It also provides information on the effects of the project on fire and fuels.

3.2.1 Methodology

Methods of evaluating effects of the Craggy Project to fire and fuels are based on the Forest 

Plan, Forest Service Manual 5100, and Forest Service Manual 2000. The three primary 

variables affecting fire behavior are fuels, weather, and topography. Because fuels are the 

primary variable that management activity can influence, they are the main variable used in 

the analysis of fire hazard. Fire behavior modeling (Finney 2006) provides outputs of fire 

type or crown fire potential (Scott and Reinhardt 2001) and flame length potential (Finney 

1998). In addition, a program which uses a vegetation layer to obtain fuel models and 

predicts fire behavior potential based on elevation, aspect, slope, canopy cover, stand height, 

canopy bulk density, and canopy base height is used (LANDFIRE). Information on historic 

weather conditions were obtained from remote automated weather stations at Oak Knoll and 

Collins Baldy. Fire behavior potential was calculated based on very dry (90th percentile) 

conditions. Additional information is available in the Fire and Fuels Resource Report, 

available on the Project website.

3.2.3 Analysis Indicators and Measures

The following analysis indicators are used to compare effects of alternatives.

• Fire hazard measured by (1) acres of various flame length potential (representing 

how hot it can become and how difficult it will be to suppress the fire) and (2) fire 

type (acres on which a fire is likely to stay on the surface or become a passive crown 

fire or active crown fire). See the Fire and Fuels Resource Report for definitions of 

these terms and additional information.

• Fire behavior potential measured by flame length potential for dominant vegetation 

types and sizes of trees (acres of various flame lengths within vegetation types and 

sizes).

3.2.3 Spatial and Temporal Bounding of Analysis Area

There are two spatial bounds for this analysis. The first will be the project boundary and the 

second will be the area within the wildland urban interface that is associated with the Craggy 

Project (see Appendix D of the Fire and Fuels resource report for a map of these analysis 

area delineations). The effects of alternatives on all analysis indicators will be analyzed for 

the Craggy project area. The effects of treatments on fire hazards as measured by flame 

lengths (a surrogate for fire intensity) for wildland urban interface areas will be disclosed.

The wildland urban interface is divided into three concentric zones: (1) a home ignition zone 

of 100 feet around structures; (2) a defense zone of one-quarter mile around human 

developments; and (3) a threat zone of 1.5 miles. Very little federal lands occur within 100 

feet of structures; therefore, the Craggy Project focuses primarily on the defense and threat 

zones, including areas adjacent to private land and the home ignition zone. More information 

on the goals of these zones is provided in the Fire and Fuels resource report.
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

51

Figure 1: Wildland Urban Interface Zones

*figure not to scale

Short-term effects for all alternatives for the modeled outputs are displayed at five years in 

the future and mid-term effects are ten years. Modeling indicates that in the long term, 20

years or more in the future, fuels treatments no longer display an effect on reducing fire. 

Therefore, even though the Silviculture resource report indicates that the project actions will 

have an effect on stand density for 20 years or more, displaying the results of alternatives on 

fire and fuels for 20 years or more would not provide meaningful information for comparison

of effects on fire hazard and fuel behavior potential.

3.2.4 Affected Environment

As discussed in the Fire and Fuels resource report, management activities, including fire 

suppression, have resulted in uncharacteristically dense vegetation with high fuel loading and 

an elevated risk of high-severity, stand-replacing wildfires in the project area. The project 

area is located in an area of a high concentration of lightning strikes; although numerous fire 

starts occur in the project area, most of the fires are kept small. The over-accumulation of 

vegetation and fuel loading due to a lack of disturbance from fire has created conditions that 

increase the likelihood of larger areas of intense and severe fire (Skinner et al. 2006, Taylor 

and Skinner 2003, Scott and Reinhardt 2001). Most of the Craggy project area has missed 

four or more fire return intervals since suppression began on the Forest; eighty percent is 

moderately or severely departed from historic fire return intervals and 90 percent of the 

project area has not been burned by wildfire since the 1955 Haystack Fire.

Current concerns focus on high fire hazard (as defined by fuel loading and vegetation 

densities) and high fire risk (as defined by fire start occurrence) over time. Fire risk and 

associated fire hazard have led to concerns over fire behavior in and adjacent to private 
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

52

property and fire effects to resource values on Forest land. In addition, smoke from large 

fires that does not disperse has the potential to negatively impact the project area which has a 

high level of human use.

According to the Yreka Area Fire Safe Council’s Community Wildfire Protection Plan 

(Yreka CWPP 2013), more than 80 percent of the fire safe council area is at very high risk of 

significant damage from wildfire. There are approximately 3,655 landowner parcels within 

the fire council area. The Craggy project area encompasses portions of this fire safe council 

area and is aimed at reducing the fire risk as identified within the CWPP on Forest System 

lands.

3.2.5 Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1

Direct and Indirect Effects in the Project Area and Wildland Urban Interface

Under Alternative 1, there will be no direct effects because proposed treatments will not take 

place. Fire hazard potential (flame length potential and fire type) and fire effects to 

vegetation will remain as described in the affected environment.

Without treatment, many stands will continue to have decreasing resilience and increasing

susceptibility to wildfire, insects, and disease, while other stands are likely to continue to lose 

their structural and compositional diversity. Indirectly, this alternative allows the current fuel 

loading conditions to continue and potentially increase due to tree mortality. As vegetation 

continues to grow with no management actions and no reduction in fuel loading, an 

increasing percentage of the project area will gain the potential for high flame lengths which 

correlates with uncharacteristically high-severity fire. Without strategically placed 

treatments, there would continue to be a heightened threat to the communities within and 

adjacent to the project area and within the wildland urban interface.

Cumulative Effects

Other ongoing and reasonably foreseeable actions within the project area, including timber 

harvest on private land and various fuels treatments on private and public land, will likely 

decrease the density of trees in the 7th field watersheds. This will reduce ladder fuels, slightly 

decrease the likelihood of crown fire and flame length potential, and therefore reduce the risk 

of wildfire to private property and resources. However, adding these effects to Alternative 1 

will have less than significant cumulative impacts on the increased fire hazard in the project 

area and the area within the wildland urban interface over the next 20 years because of the 

limited scale of these projects.

Alternative 2

Direct and Indirect Effects in the Project Area

Under Alternative 2, 10,600 acres of treatment in the 29,500-acre project area will lead the 

project area (both in treated areas and in adjacent stands) toward resilient forest conditions. 

These effects to flame length potential, fire type, and fire behavior on dominant vegetation 

are displayed in Table 3-1 through Table 3-4.
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

53

Table 3-1: Flame Length Potential for the Project Area for Alternative 2 in Acres and Percent of the 

Project Area

Flame Length Short-term (5 years) Post-Treatment

(percent) Mid-term (10 years) Post-treatment 

0-4 feet 16,329 (55) 11,178 (38)

4-8 feet 6,264 (21) 9,755 (33)

8-11 feet 1,204 (4) 1,718 (5)

Greater than 11 feet 5,884 (20) 7,029 (24)

Table 3-2: Fire Type Potential for the Project Area for Alternative 2 in Acres and Percent of the Project 

Area

Fire Type Short-term (5 years) Post-Treatment Mid-term (10 years) Post-treatment 

Surface 22,437 (79) 20,140 (68%)

Passive Crown 4,932 (17) 7,633 (26%)

Active Crown 1,311 (4) 1,908 (6%)

Table 3-3: Fire Behavior Potential on Dominant Vegetation Type for the Project Area for Alternative 2, 

in Acres

Dominant Vegetation Type Low (0-4 

feet)

Moderate (4-8 

feet)

High (8-11 

feet)

Very High (greater 

than 11 feet)

Annual Grass 680 199 5 335

Barren 322 0 0 0

Douglas Fir 2,414 297 70 1,316

Mixed Chaparral 3,269 1,692 113 2,182

Montane Chaparral 926 701 90 1,330

Montane Hardwood Conifer 930 265 37 743

Montane Hardwood 973 598 50 1,090

Montane Riparian 51 16 1 30

Perennial Grass 198 107 2 29

Ponderosa Pine 785 142 33 180

Sagebrush 41 2 1 1

Sierran Mixed Conifer 4,230 830 154 1,690

White Fir 189 38 10 60

Total 15,008 4,887 566 8,986

Table 3-4: Fire Behavior Potential on Size Class for the Project Area for Alternative 2 in Acres

Size Class (diameter in 

inches)

Low (0-4 

feet)

Moderate (4-8 

feet)

High (8-11 

feet)

Very High (greater 

than 11 feet)

1-5.9 inches 684 99 1 76

6-10.9 inches 424 200 20 207

11-23.9 inches 3,370 1,037 134 2,090
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

54

Size Class (diameter in 

inches)

Low (0-4 

feet)

Moderate (4-8 

feet)

High (8-11 

feet)

Very High (greater 

than 11 feet)

Greater than 24 inches 4,645 852 158 2,725

Total 9,123 2,188 313 5,098

After completion of the treatments, 37 percent more (55 percent total) of the project area 

would have flame lengths less than four feet (specified in the Forest Plan as being the 

threshold for low fire hazard). Fifteen percent more (79 percent total) of the area would have

surface rather than crown fire types. This is important because these flame lengths and fire 

types allow the use of the most effective strategies for containing wildfires (including direct 

attack with hand crews).

In fuel breaks and thinning without product removal units where pile burning would occur,

fire would be allowed to underburn within the designated unit at low intensity if there is low 

risk of burning onto private property. Measures will be included in the prescribed burn plan 

to minimize the risk of fire escaping designated units. This also applies to the wildland urban 

interface area which is described below.

Direct and Indirect Effects in the Wildland Urban Interface Area

Since the threat zone includes both defense and home ignition zones, the total number of 

acres of wildland urban interface that would be affected by the project is about 17,260 acres. 

Under Alternative 2, 10,600 acres of treatment would help to create resilient forest conditions 

in the wildland urban interface as displayed in Table 3-5 and Table 3-6. Having flame lengths 

of less than four feet is particularly important in the wildland urban interface to allow direct 

attack of wildfires. In 71 percent of the home ignition zone, 50 percent of the defense zone, 

and 50 percent of the threat zone, low flame lengths will be achieved in the short term. Over 

the mid-term, treatment effectiveness for low flame lengths declines to 55 percent for the 

home ignition zone, 38 percent for the defense zone, and 39 percent for the threat zone. Due 

to the Craggy Project focusing primarily on the defense and threat zones (including areas 

adjacent to private land and to the home ignition zone), this allows work on private lands to 

build upon the Craggy Project’s fuels treatments for community and structure protection 

from wildfire.

Table 3-5: Short-term Flame Length Potential within the Wildland Urban Interface under Alternative 2

Flame Lengths Home Ignition Zone (Acres) Defense Zone (Acres) Threat Zone (Acres)

Low (0-4 feet) 35 508 8,579

Moderate (4-8 feet) 3 154 2,870

High (8-11 feet) 1 12 330

Very High (greater 

than 11 feet) 11 361 5,477

Total 49 1,035 17,256
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

55

Table 3-6: Mid-term Flame Length Potential within the Wildland Urban Interface under Alternative 2

Flame Lengths Home Ignition Zone (Acres) Defense Zone (Acres) Threat Zone (Acres)

Low (0-4 feet) 27 396 6,685

Moderate (4-8 feet) 12 342 6,625

High (8-11 feet) 1 72 1,051

Very High (greater 

than 11 feet) 9 225 2,895

Total 49 1,035 17,256

Actions in Alternative 2 provide a substantial benefit to the wildland urban interface by 

increasing the number of acres in which low and moderate flame lengths are expected to 

occur and decreasing substantially the number of acres in which high and very high flame 

lengths are expected. In addition, this would increase firefighter suppression capability 

within the wildland urban interface which would help decrease the likelihood of structures 

being damaged or destroyed. Treatments near routes that allow firefighters and the public to 

enter or leave the project area (ingress and egress), especially roadside fuelbreaks, would

provide increased safety for firefighters entering the area and allow for safer evacuation if 

necessary for the public.

Thinning will increase canopy base heights making it more difficult for fire to get into tree 

crowns and promoting more surface-fire. Mastication, in units that primarily consist of brush, 

changes vegetation from standing brush to finer fuels on the surface floor. These treatments 

lead to decreased likelihood of crown fire types occurring.

Cumulative Effects

Adding the effects of the reasonably foreseeable future fuel reduction treatments displayed in 

Appendix C to the effects of this alternative will decrease flame lengths and move toward 

less crown fire where similar treatments are proposed, but will not produce significant 

cumulative effects. Some future actions such as fuel reduction treatments on the Bureau of 

Land Management lands, and timber harvest and fuels reduction on private lands, will have 

some beneficial effects to the project area and wildland urban interface. These projects are 

anticipated to benefit the analysis indicators as in some locations they tie into work proposed 

in Alternative 2 and the treatments will complement one another.

Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect Effects in the Project Area

Alternative 3 proposes to treat about 11,310 acres. This alternative has similar effects on 

flame lengths and fire type to those of Alternative 2 with some differences due to some 

stands being treated in Alternative 2 that are not treated in Alternative 3, and additional fuels 

treatments adjacent to private lands in Alternative 3. However, these differences are minor in 

effects on fire resiliency over the landscape. Effects of Alternative 3 on flame lengths, fire 

type, type of vegetation, and tree-size classes are displayed in Table 3-7 through Table 3-10.
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

56

Table 3-7: Flame Length Potential for the Project Area for Alternative 3 in Acres and Percent of the 

Project Area

Flame Length Short-term (5 years) PostTreatment 

Mid-term (10 years) Posttreatment 

0-4 feet 17,275 (58%) 16,997 (57%)

4-8 feet 5,704 (19%) 5,969 (20%)

8-11 feet 1,161 (4%) 1,166 (4%)

Greater than 11 feet 5,541 (19%) 5,549 (19%)

Table 3-8: Fire Type Potential for the Project Area for Alternative 3 in Acres and Percent of the Project 

Area

Fire Type Short-term (5 years) PostTreatment 

Mid-term (10 years) Posttreatment 

Surface 23,605 (80%) 21,107 (71%)

Passive Crown 4,852 (16%) 6,859 (23%)

Active Crown 1,215 (4%) 1,714 (6%)

Table 3-9: Fire Behavior Potential on Dominant Vegetation Type for the Project Area for Alternative 3, 

in Acres

Dominant Vegetation Type Low (0-4 

feet)

Moderate (4-8 

feet)

High (8-11 

feet)

Very High (greater 

than 11 feet)

Annual Grass 774 122 5 319

Barren 322 0 0 0 

Douglas Fir 2,513 829 413 342

Mixed Chaparral 3,727 1,313 57 2,159

Montane Chaparral 1,247 921 122 757

Montane Hardwood Conifer 1,080 436 97 362

Montane Hardwood 1,197 682 106 726

Montane Riparian 66 15 0 17

Perennial Grass 252 41 13 30

Ponderosa Pine 878 137 37 88

Sagebrush 43 1 1 0 

Sierran Mixed Conifer 4,871 1,026 298 709

White Fir 267 11 8 11

Total 17,237 5,534 1,157 5,520

Table 3-10: Fire Behavior Potential on Size Class for the Project Area for Alternative 3 in Acres

Size Class (diameter in 

inches)

Low (0-4 

feet)

Moderate (4-8 

feet)

High (8-11 

feet)

Very High (greater 

than 11feet)

1-5.9 inches 685 116 13 46

6-10.9 inches 510 207 13 121

11-23.9 inches 3,942 1,249 259 1,181
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

57

Size Class (diameter in 

inches)

Low (0-4 

feet)

Moderate (4-8 

feet)

High (8-11 

feet)

Very High (greater 

than 11feet)

Greater than 24 

inches 5,489 1,456 567 868

Total 10,626 3,028 852 2,216

After completion of the treatments, 40 percent more (58 percent total) of the project area 

would have flame lengths less than four feet, and 16 percent more (80 percent total) of the 

area would have the surface fire type with this alternative.

Direct and Indirect Effects in the Wildland Urban Interface Area

Under Alternative 3, treatment of 11,310 acres would help to create resilient forest conditions 

in the wildland urban interface as displayed in Table 3-11 and Table 3-12. As noted for 

Alternative 2, having flame lengths of less than four feet is particularly important in the 

wildland urban interface to allow direct attack of wildfires. In 92 percent of the home ignition 

zone, 75 percent of the defense zone, and 61 percent of the threat zone, flame lengths below 

four feet would occur in the short term and midterm.

Table 3-11: Short-term Flame Length Potential within the Wildland Urban Interface under Alternative 3

Flame Lengths Home Ignition Zone (Acres) Defense Zone (Acres) Threat Zone (Acres)

Low (0-4 feet) 45 770 10,540

Moderate (4-8 feet) 1 95 3,111

High (8-11 feet) 0 28 722

Very High (greater 

than 11 feet) 3 142 2,883

Total 49 1,035 17,256

Table 3-12: Mid-term Flame Length Potential within the Wildland Urban Interface under Alternative 3

Flame Lengths Home Ignition Zone (Acres) Defense Zone (Acres) Threat Zone (Acres)

Low (0-4 feet) 43 757 10,406

Moderate (4-8 feet) 3 107 3,238

High (8-11 feet) 0 28 724

Very High (greater 

than 11 feet) 3 143 2,888

Total 49 1,035 17,256

Cumulative Effects

Adding the effects of the reasonably foreseeable future fuel reduction treatments to the 

effects of this alternative will be similar to those described for Alternative 2.

3.2.6 Comparison of Alternatives

Alternatives are compared below for the project area and for the wildland urban interface 

area.
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

58

Comparison of Alternatives for the Project Area

Table 3-13 and Table 3-14 (short-term) and Table 3-15 and Table 3-16 (mid-term) compare 

the potential flame length and fire type for the project area by alternative.

Table 3-13: Flame Length Potential (short-term) in the Project Area for Alternative 1 Compared to 

Action Alternatives

Flame Length Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

0-4 feet 5,262 (18%) 16,329 (55%) 17,275 (58%)

4-8 feet 5,497 (19%) 6,264 (21%) 5,704 (19%)

8-11 feet 7,413 (25%) 1,204 (4%) 1,161 (4%)

Greater than 

11 feet 11,544 (39%) 5,884 (20%) 5,541 (19%)

Table 3-14: Fire Type Potential (short-term) in the Project Area for Alternative 1 Compared to Action 

Alternatives

Fire Type Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Surface 18,987 (64%) 22,437 (79%) 23,605 (80%)

Passive Crown 8,111 (27%) 4,932 (17%) 4,852 (16%)

Active Crown 2,618 (9%) 1,311 (4%) 1,215 (4%)

Table 3-15: Flame Length Potential (mid-term) in the Project Area for Alternative 1 Compared to Action 

Alternatives

Flame Length Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

0-4 feet 5,262 (18%) 11,187 (38%) 16,997 (57%)

4-8 feet 5,497 (19%) 9,755 (33%) 5,969 (20%)

8-11 feet 7,413 (25%) 1,718 (5%) 1,166 (4%)

Greater than 

11 feet 11,544 (39%) 7,029 (24%) 5,549 (19%)

Table 3-16: Fire Type Potential (mid-term) in the Project Area for Alternative 1 Compared to Action 

Alternatives

Fire Type Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Surface 18,987 (64%) 20,140 (68%) 21,107 (71%)

Passive Crown 8,111 (27%) 7,633 (26%) 6,859 (23%)

Active Crown 2,618 (9%) 1,708 (6%) 1,714 (6%)

Table 3-17 and Table 3-18 compare the short-term fire behavior potential on dominant 

vegetation type and size class for the project area under Alternative 1, and for Alternatives 2 

and 3.
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

59

Table 3-17: Fire Behavior Potential (flame length) on Dominant Vegetation Types in Acres, Comparing 

Short-term Effects for Alternatives

Alternatives Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Dominant 

Vegetation 

Type

Low 

(0-4')

Mod.

(4-8’)

High 

(8-11’)

Very 

High

(> 11')

Low

(0-4')

Mod.

(4-8’)

High 

(8-11’)

Very 

High

(> 11')

Low

(0-4')

Mod.

(4-8’)

High 

(8-11’)

Very 

High

(> 11')

Annual 

Grass 235 213 216 556 680 199 5 335 774 122 5 319

Barren 322 0 0 0 322 0 0 0 322 0 0 0

Douglas Fir 848 701 982 1,566 2,414 297 70 1,316 2,513 829 413 342

Mixed 

Chaparral 824 1,867 1,614 2,950 3,269 1,692 113 2,182 3,727 1,313 57 2,159

Montane 

Chaparral 319 441 937 1,350 926 701 90 1,330 1,247 921 122 757

Montane 

Hardwood 

Conifer

324 327 454 870 930 265 37 743 1,080 436 97 362

Montane 

Hardwood 464 416 746 1,091 973 598 50 1,090 1,197 682 106 726

Montane 

Riparian 30 24 14 29 51 16 1 30 66 15 0 17

Perennial 

Grass 80 126 56 74 198 107 2 29 252 41 13 30

Ponderosa 

Pine 302 279 237 322 785 142 33 180 878 137 37 88

Sagebrush 19 12 7 7 41 2 1 1 43 1 1 0

Sierran 

Mixed 

Conifer

1,455 896 1,922 2,633 4,230 830 154 1,690 4,871 1,026 298 709

White Fir 164 43 40 51 189 38 10 60 267 11 8 11

Total 5,386 5,345 7,225 11,499 15,008 4,887 566 8,986 17,237 5,534 1,157 5,520

Table 3-18: Fire Behavior Potential on Vegetation Size Class for Current Condition as Displayed for 

Alternative 1 Compared to Action Alternatives in the Short Term

Alternatives Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Size Class 

(diameter)

Low 

(0-4')

Mod. 

(4-8’)

High 

(8-11’)

Very 

High (> 

11')

Low 

(0-4')

Mod. 

(4-8’)

High 

(8-11’)

Very 

High (> 

11')

Low 

(0-4')

Mod. 

(4-8’)

High 

(8-11’)

Very 

High 

(> 11')

1-5.9 inches 226 357 154 123 684 99 1 76 685 116 13 46

6-10.9 

inches 119 221 222 289 424 200 20 207 510 207 13 121

11-23.9 

inches 1,146 1,069 1,842 2,574 3,370 1,037 134 2,090 3,942 1,249 259 1,181

Greater than 

24 inches 1,882 1,180 2,074 3,244 4,645 852 158 2,725 5,489 1,456 567 868

Total 3,373 2,827 4,292 6,230 9,123 2,188 313 5,098 10,626 3,028 852 2,216
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

60

For the action alternatives, the fuel treatments including re-introducing fire to the project area 

under prescribed conditions will provide the benefits associated with low- to mixed-severity 

fires while minimizing the adverse effects often resulting from uncontrolled high-severity 

wildfires. While Alternative 3 provides more acres of low flame lengths and surface fire type 

than does Alternative 2, the greatest differences in benefits are between Alternative 1 and the 

action alternatives.

Comparison of Alternatives for the Wildland Urban Interface

Table 3-19 (short-term) and Table 3-20 (mid-term) compare the flame length potential within 

the wildland urban interface under the Alternative 1 and post-treatment for action 

alternatives.

Table 3-19: Flame Length Potential (short-term) in the Wildland Urban Interface for Alternative 1 

Compared to Action Alternatives

Alternative Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Flame 

Lengths

(Feet)

Home 

Ignition 

Zone 

(Acres)

Defense 

Zone 

(Acres)

Threat 

Zone 

(Acres)

Home 

Ignition 

Zone 

(Acres)

Defense 

Zone 

(Acres)

Threat 

Zone 

(Acres)

Home 

Ignition 

Zone 

(Acres)

Defense 

Zone 

(Acres)

Threat 

Zone 

(Acres)

Low (0-4') 12 207 2,874 35 508 8,579 45 770 10,540

Moderate 

(4-8') 6 126 3,183 3 154 2,870 1 95 3,111

High (8-11') 9 297 4,387 1 12 330 0 28 722

Very High 

(>11') 22 405 6,812 10 361 5,477 3 142 2,883

Total 49 1,035 17,256 49 1,035 17,256 49 1,035 17,256

Table 3-20: Flame Length Potential (mid-term) in the Wildland Urban Interface for Alternative 1 

Compared to Action Alternatives

Alternatives Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Flame 

Lengths

(Feet)

Home 

Ignition 

Zone 

(Acres)

Defense 

Zone 

(Acres)

Threat 

Zone 

(Acres)

Home 

Ignition 

Zone 

(Acres)

Defense 

Zone 

(Acres)

Threat 

Zone 

(Acres)

Home 

Ignition 

Zone 

(Acres)

Defense 

Zone 

(Acres)

Threat 

Zone 

(Acres)

Low (0-4') 12 207 2,874 27 396 6,685 43 757 10,406

Moderate 

(4-8') 6 126 3,183 12 342 6,625 3 107 3,238

High (8-11') 9 297 4,387 1 72 1,051 0 28 724

Very High 

(>11') 22 405 6,812 19 225 2,895 3 143 2,888

Total 49 1,035 17,256 49 1,035 17,256 49 1,035 17,256

Action alternatives provide a substantial benefit to the wildland urban interface by increasing 

the number of acres on which low and moderate flame lengths are expected to occur and 

decreasing substantially the number of acres on which high and very high flame lengths are 

expected. This will increase firefighter suppression capability within the wildland urban 

interface and decrease the likelihood in which structures are damaged or destroyed. For the 
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

61

wildland urban interface, some of the most important work adjacent to homes is currently 

being planned as noted in Appendix C of this draft environmental impact statement. 

Combined strategically-placed treatments on both private and public lands would ultimately 

reduce the probability of devastating effects from wildfire on homes, infrastructure, and 

resources.

3.2.7 Compliance with law, regulation, policy, and the Forest Plan

All alternatives are consistent with the Forest Plan standards and guidelines related to fire 

and fuels as noted on the Forest Plan consistency checklist, available on the Project website. 

All alternatives are also consistent with the law, regulation and policy referenced in the 

methodology section of the Fire and Fuels Report.

3.3 Silviculture (Vegetation)

3.3.1 Methodology

Field data were collected from a representative sample of forested stands in the project area; 

these data were analyzed using the Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS) model to estimate 

silvicultural conditions and develop silvicultural prescriptions for treatments. Details on 

methodology, including analysis indicator measurement, are provided in the Silviculture 

resource report, available on the Project website.

3.3.2 Analysis Indicators and Measures

Forest health and Forest resilience are the two analysis indicators for effects of the project 

on silviculture (vegetation). Forest health is the ability of trees to utilize available water and 

nutrient resources to grow, increase vigor, and maintain the ability to respond to disturbance 

mechanisms (avoiding early mortality). Forest resilience is the ability of a stand to 

successfully resist disturbances.

Forest health is measured by the stand density index (SDI). Stand density index is a

method for deriving how site resources in stands are being used and the level of competition 

in stands for site resources by measuring tree stocking that uses tree size (diameter) and 

numbers (trees-per-acre). This measure is better for determining density than trees-per-acre 

or basal area alone.

An SDI of 230 defines the lower threshold for a zone of imminent bark beetle mortality 

within which endemic populations kill a few trees but net growth is still positive (Oliver 

1995). Values over this threshold are indicative of an overly dense stand subject to beetleinduced mortality and subsequent risk of high severity wildfire.

Forest resilience is measured by heterogeneity of tree species and composition. 

Heterogeneity of tree species and composition, or species diversity, increases the likelihood 

of maintaining sustainable, forested conditions in the event of a number of disturbances such 

as insect outbreaks or wildfire. For this project, heterogeneity is measured by the modeled 

number of acres on the landscape that are comprised of multiple species without specifying 

particular species. Heterogeneity of particular species will be evaluated qualitatively by 

comparing modeled outcomes of species diversity with the unit-specific written 

prescriptions.
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

62

3.3.3 Spatial and Temporal Bounding of Analysis Area

Spatial bounding is limited to the project area. Silvicultural prescriptions and subsequent 

analysis are applied specifically to the stands within the project area designated as treatment 

units; however, due to the homogeneity of the landscape, effects can be generalized to the 

broader project area.

Temporal bounding for effects extends out to 20 years following inventory conditions. Shortterm analysis will be one year after treatment to assess change in stand conditions 

immediately following implementation. Stand development was modeled for a 20-year 

period and treatment effects are projected 20 years after the treatment year. That is adequate 

time in which to display the long-term differences on stand development between treating 

and not treating stands in the project area. This temporal bound also meets regional forester 

direction to incorporate treatments that are effective for at least 20 years (USDA 2004b).

3.3.4 Affected Environment

Current stand densities, species composition, and recent droughty conditions have led to a 

notable increase of beetle-induced mortality in several stands indicating decreased resilience.

About 1,950 acres of the project are comprised of natural stands and about 3,140 acres are in 

plantations. Both types of stands range in elevation from 2,700 feet to 5,400 feet and are 

densely stocked averaging 210 trees per acre. In natural stands, Douglas-fir dominates the 

species composition. There are lesser amounts of ponderosa pine, white fir, sugar pine, and 

incense cedar as well. The stand density index for these stands currently averages 265 which 

is over the threshold of an SDI of 230 (Oliver 1995). Some stands on the eastside of the 

project are composed of primarily Douglas-fir with sugar pine and ponderosa pine in the 

overstory. These mixed-conifer stands would have a slightly higher SDI threshold (240-330) 

given the species diversity and the ability of Douglas-fir to persist at higher densities. These 

stands are included in the average stand density index measures.

Plantation stands were initiated between 1956 and 2011 following the Haystack Fire of 1955. 

These stands have an average SDI of 245 and are dominated by ponderosa and Jeffrey pines 

with lesser amounts of Douglas-fir, sugar pine, white fir and incense cedar. Due to current 

stand densities and droughty condition, western pine beetles have begun killing small (less 

than a quarter acre) groups of trees with increasing frequency over the last five years in the 

older planted stands and terraced plantations.

3.3.5 Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1

Direct and Indirect Effects

Conifer density and competition, as measured by stand density index, will continue to 

increase within stands in the project area from the current value of 265 to 301 after 20 years. 

This will encourage increasing tree mortality due to insect infestation.

Forest resilience will stagnate as homogenous plantations will continue to occupy most of the 

landscape with little opportunity for other species, particularly hardwoods, to persist. As 

conifers grow and shade out hardwood species, heterogeneity is reduced over time.
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

63

Cumulative Effects

Since no reasonably foreseeable future actions will occur in this resource’s analysis area 

within the 20-year temporal bounding that will have an effect on the indicators, adding the 

effects of this alternative to the effects of past and future actions will not produce 

measureable cumulative effects. The projected stand density index increase to 301 after 20 

years of no treatment will not be further influenced by any reasonably foreseeable future 

actions within the analysis area.

Alternative 2

Direct and Indirect Effects

In general, prescribed treatments are designed to reduce stand density and the potential for 

extreme fire behavior in order to promote growth and development of stands that are 

healthier, structurally diverse, and more resilient to insects, disease, and fire. Both types of 

thinning (thinning with and without product removal) will reduce tree density and the 

likelihood of western pine beetle outbreaks. This alternative will result in an SDI of 148 in 

the short term, and 200 in the long term.

According to modeled outcomes, there will be an increase of stand heterogeneity (species 

diversity) with this alternative. Silvicultural prescriptions address site-specific species 

preference, including hardwoods, to retain diversity on the landscape. This specification will 

result in stand heterogeneity where the site is capable of supporting diverse species. Indirect 

effects of treating stands as described in Alternative 2 will result in the maintenance or 

enhancement of species diversity where compatible with site conditions.

Cumulative Effects

Past actions are reflected in the discussion of the affected environment. No reasonably

foreseeable future actions are expected in treatment areas that would impact forest health and 

forest resiliency. Adding the beneficial effects on forest health and resiliency of Alternative 2 

to the effects of past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions is not expected to 

have any additional effects on the measurement indicators.

Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect Effects

The effects of Alternative 3 are the same as those described in Alternative 2 for the stands 

that are proposed for treatment. Eight stands in this alternative differ in silvicultural 

prescription from Alternative 2 and will have slightly different effects than Alternative 2. For 

stands not treated, effects will be the same as Alternative 1.

Five stands (174 acres) would be changed from thinning with product removal to thinning 

without product removal. Two additional units have a reduction in acres proposed for

thinning with product removal (45 acres). Thinning without product removal results in a 

smaller reduction in the stand density index, which makes this method less effective at 

increasing stand health and resiliency. Stand density will be reduced below the threshold of 

concern (SDI of 230) for susceptibility to bark beetles in the short term, but the efficacy of 

treatment will not make it to the 20 year standard. Although a similar number of acres will be 

treated in both alternatives, fewer acres will meet the purpose and need for stand resiliency 

and forest health than in Alternative 2 due to the decrease in acres of thinning with product 
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

64

removal. The long-term effectiveness of the prescriptions for Alternative 3 treatments is not 

met on approximately eight percent of the stands. All proposed treatment in this alternative

will result in an SDI of 153 in the short term, and 299 in the long term.

Cumulative Effects

Past actions are reflected in the discussion of the affected environment. No reasonably

foreseeable future actions are expected in treatment areas that would impact forest health and 

forest resiliency. Adding the beneficial effects on forest health and resiliency of Alternative 3

to the effects of past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions is not expected to 

have any additional effects on the measurement indicators.

3.3.6 Comparison of Alternatives

Alternative 1 would not increase forest health or resilience. Alternative 2 treats the greatest 

number of acres for forest health and provides the greatest number of acres of forest 

resilience measured by modeled heterogeneity of tree species. Alternative 2 also includes the 

larger number of treatments that have a longer period of effectiveness; this is beneficial for 

getting stands on a trajectory towards the desired conditions which include resilience to 

insects and disease, resilience to wildfire and improved stand health (reduced stand density to 

optimize growing conditions). Alternative 3 proposes a similar number of acres for treatment

but leaves forest health on many acres of plantations in an overstocked condition (susceptible 

to beetle outbreaks and advanced mortality) and without improved forest heterogeneity. 

Alternative 3 would have short-term benefits but would not meet direction for 20-year 

effectiveness of treatment as displayed in Table 3-21.

Table 3-21: Comparison of Effects on Forest Health (measured by SDI).

Measures

Alternative 1 

(affected 

environment 

baseline)

Alternative 1 

20 years

after no 

treatment

Alternative 2

one year 

after 

treatment

Alternative 2 

20 years 

after 

treatment

Alternative 3

one year 

after 

treatment

Alternative 3

20 years after 

treatment

Stand 

Density 

Index

265* 301* 148 200 153 299*

*Above the threshold of concern for susceptibility to insect and disease (230 SDI)

3.3.7 Compliance with law, regulation, policy, and the Forest Plan

All alternatives comply with law, regulation, policy and the Forest Plan as noted in the Forest 

Plan Consistency Checklist, available on the Project website.

3.4 Botany

This section evaluates the Craggy Project in sufficient detail to determine its effects on 

federally listed endangered, threatened, proposed, Forest Service sensitive, and survey and 

manage botanical species, and assess the risk of spread or introduction of non-native invasive 

plant species. The Craggy Vegetation Management Project Biological Assessment/Biological 

Evaluation, Survey and Manage Review, Noxious Weed Risk Assessment, and pre-field 

documents: Appendices A-1, A-2, and A-3 are summarized below, incorporated by reference 

and available on the Project website as part of the Botany Resource Report.
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

65

3.4.1 Methodology

An office pre-field review was conducted to determine if the project is within the range of 

any federally listed threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate, sensitive, or survey and 

manage plant species (collectively the botanical species of concern) for the Klamath National 

Forest, and if suitable habitat for any species of concern existed in the project area. 

Additionally, the review indicated whether any species of concern or invasive plant species 

were known to be present within the proposed project area (Appendix D of the Botany 

Resource Report). All species listed for the Forest were considered for this review (USDA

and USDI 2001, USDA 2015, and USDI 2017). The Forest Noxious Weed and Non-native 

Invasive Plant List (Appendix B of the Botany Resource Report) was used for the invasive 

species review.

3.4.2 Analysis Indicators and Measures

The analysis indicators for measuring the effects of the Craggy Project are based on law, 

policy, and direction. The significance of management activities upon species of concern and 

invasive species depends upon many factors; the alternatives are evaluated in terms of how 

they would affect the analysis indicators for species of concern and non-native invasive 

species (weeds) using the following indicators.

Threatened and Endangered Species

• Likelihood of jeopardizing the continued existence of threatened, endangered, 

proposed, or candidate species populations.

Sensitive Species (General)

• Trend of sensitive species population viability measured as increasing, declining, or 

static.

Sensitive Species (Calochortus persistens) – Analysis indicators specifically 

for this species are in response to the Conservation Agreement (USDI

USDA 2013) that outlines specific management actions to reduce the known 

threats to this species.

• The maintenance or improvement of habitat conditions within occupied Calochortus

persistens sites; measured by ground disturbance, the risk of noxious weed

introduction or spread, and the level of conifer encroachment.

• The likelihood that a wildfire could be suppressed using minimum suppression 

techniques within Management Area 5 (Calochortus persistens) measured by 

comparing the fire and fuels Haul Chart6 between alternatives.

 

6 The Haul Chart is a table prepared by fire and fuels specialists to display the relationship of flame lengths to 

suppression techniques.
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

66

Survey and Manage Species

• Compliance with survey and manage guidelines as defined by the 2001 Record of 

Decision (USDA and USDI 2001).

Non-native Invasive Plant Species

• Risk of introducing or spreading non-native invasive species measured by a rating of 

high, moderate, or low risk (this indicator will be measured separately within 

Management Area 5).

Assumptions Specific to Species of Concern and Invasive Species

Species of Concern: Survey and manage guidelines will be used to analyze effects on 

botanical species that fall under both sensitive and survey and manage categories because 

they provide for a more protective management strategy.

Invasive Species: Not all existing weed infestations are currently mapped. It is assumed 

that high priority weed species in this project area have been discovered and mapped through 

the noxious weed program and project specific survey. There are, however, large infestations 

of low and moderate priority species that are not mapped within the project area; roadside 

weed infestations that are low or moderate priority species in this project area are expected to 

continue to spread along road systems regardless of project activities. Inclusions of privately 

owned lands within the project boundary may contain infestations of weeds that could spread 

to National Forest System lands regardless of Forest activities and once established, weed

infestations are likely to persist long term.

3.4.3 Spatial and Temporal Context

The analysis area for botanical species of concern and non-native invasive species is the 

project area because it is the most relevant to changes to population viability and the risk of 

spread from project activities. The temporal bounding for botanical species of concern and 

non-native invasive species will be less than five years for short-term and greater than five 

years for long-term effects. The temporal bounding was chosen to account for species 

recovery times, seed dormancy and germination requirements, and the difficulty of 

identifying biennial and perennial vegetative life stages (rosettes).

3.4.4 Affected Environment

Threatened and Endangered Species

The preliminary botanical field review determined that this project is not within the range or 

habitat for the federally listed species Astragalus applegatei, Fritillaria gentneri, 

Chamaesyce hooveri, Pinus albicaulis, or Orcuttia tenuis. The Project is within range and 

contains potentially suitable habitat for Phlox hirsuta. Project surveys specifically designed 

to target Phlox hirsuta resulted in no additional populations discovered (for details see the 

field survey section in the Biological Evaluation in the Botany Resource Report). There are 

no documented populations of Phlox hirsuta within any proposed Project activities. Field 

surveys conducted for the Craggy Vegetation Management Project were adequate to 

determine presence of threatened, endangered, and proposed botanical species.
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

67

Sensitive Species

The proposed project area was determined to contain documented occurrences or suitable 

habitat for the following species listed in Table 3-22 below.

Table 3-22: Documented Occurrences or Suitable Habitat for Sensitive Plant Species

SPECIES CODE STATUS FIELD SURVEY RECOMMENDED

Known Occurrences

Calochortus persistens CAPE Sensitive Yes

Eriogonum ursinum var. erubescens ERURE Sensitive Yes

Suitable Habitat

Cypripedium fasciculatum CYFA Sensitive/Survey & 

Manage – Vascular

Yes – low probability in project 

area; but survey recommended.

Cypripedium montanum CYMO2 Sensitive/Survey & 

Manage – Vascular

Yes – low probability in project 

area; but survey recommended.

Project specific surveys were conducted in September of 2010; April, May, July, and August 

of 2011, and May of 2013. These surveys were in addition to past field work for other 

projects that also located sensitive plants. All field surveys were performed at a time 

appropriate to make positive identifications of plant species of concern. Surveys were 

intuitively controlled; only project activity areas with suitable habitat were surveyed for the 

target species (CAPE, ERURE, CYFA, and CYMO2). Previously documented populations of 

Calochortus persistens and Eriogonum ursinum var. erubescens were relocated during 

project specific surveys.

As a result of field surveys no new locations of any sensitive species were discovered.

Species that were not located during survey for this project will not be addressed further in 

this document; the species that are addressed further in this document are: Calochortus 

persistens and Eriogonum ursinum var. erubescens.

The trend of sensitive species population viability: Populations of Calochortus persistens 

within the Craggy Vegetation Management Project area are currently viable. The trend is 

somewhat difficult to estimate because there appears to be great yearly variation in numbers 

of plants in each population. However, based on recent observations the sub-populations 

within the project area appear to be static. Threats to Calochortus persistens including 

competition from trees, shrubs, and invasive species are present within and adjacent to 

populations within the analysis area. Populations of Eriogonum ursinum var. erubescens

within the Craggy Vegetation Management Project area are currently static, there are no 

threats currently observed to these species within the analysis area.

The maintenance or improvement of habitat conditions within occupied Calochortus

persistens sites: The habitat for the nine sub-populations along the Gunsight-Humbug Ridge 

is in functioning condition. There is little ground disturbance occurring within these 

populations. The main threats to the condition of the habitat comes from conifer 

encroachment and competition from non-native invasive species. Conifer encroachment has 

been observed in a number of sub-populations along the Gunsight-Humbug Ridgeline; the 

removal of this encroachment would improve the habitat condition of each site. Currently 

Dyer’s woad, an invasive species, occurs throughout the area; the competition from this 
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

68

invasive species is undesirable within the sub-populations. Current management efforts are 

reducing the amount of competition from Dyer’s woad in the Management Area.

The likelihood that a wildfire could be suppressed using minimum suppression 

techniques within Management Area 5: As described in Table 3-23 below, approximately 

60 percent of the Management Area 5 would currently require suppression tactics that require 

some use of machinery and significant soil disturbing activities, should a wildfire occur in 

the area.

Table 3-23: Current Flame Length Potential of Management Area 5 with Acres and Percent of the 

Management Area

Flame Length Short-term (Current Condition)

0 to 4 feet 376 (40%)

4 to 8 feet 140 (15%)

8 to 11 feet 160 (17%)

greater than 11 feet 270 (28%)

Survey and Manage Species

The pre-disturbance surveys and review of known sites resulted in no populations of any 

survey and manage botanical species discovered within the project area. During field review 

it was determined that there was a low likelihood of finding any of these species due to the 

habitat that exists in the project area. There are no stands that are old enough and contain the 

habitat characteristics required for the survey and manage botanical species.

Non-native Invasive Species

The Klamath National Forest has a list of noxious and non-native invasive plants that are a 

concern on the Forest (Appendix B of the Botany Resource Report). A high priority weed 

species is one that is of important local management concern because it has a limited 

distribution on the Forest, highly invasive nature, and demonstrated potential to displace 

large geographic areas of native plant communities. Emphasis for inventory and treatment is 

given primarily to high priority weed species. Low and moderate priority species are of lesser 

concern and may be addressed in a project if those species are a priority locally. Priority for 

treatment is also given geographically, and can include high, medium, and low priority 

species if they occur in areas that are subject to high probability of dispersal, or are 

vulnerable to invasion.

The high level of infestation within this project area is primarily due to the high level of 

recreational use and a long history of disturbance. The non-native invasive species that are 

documented in the project area are: lens-podded white top (Cardaria chalapensis), white top 

(Cardaria draba), spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa), yellow star thistle (Centaurea 

solstitialis), squarrose knapweed (Centaurea squarrosa), Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), 

Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius), Dyer’s woad (Isatis tinctoria), and sulphur cinquefoil 

(Potentilla recta). There is currently a high risk of weed spread or introduction in the project 

area due to non-project dependent vectors. The risk of weed spread or introduction is reduced 

within Management Area 5 due to continuing efforts to control non-native invasive species 

infestations within the Management Area.
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

69

3.4.5 Environmental Effects

Alternative 1

Direct and Indirect Effects

Threatened and Endangered Species

No populations of federally listed threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate botanical

species have been recorded either from previous surveys or surveys specifically for this 

project. Therefore, there will be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to these species. 

Additionally, there are no activities that are interrelated or interdependent to the proposed 

action that will affect these species.

Sensitive Species

Under Alternative 1 (no action alternative), there would be no direct effects to sensitive plant 

species in the project area because there would be no implementation of the proposed 

activities or associated actions. Indirect effects to sensitive plant species would occur in the 

form of continued threats to sensitive plant species habitat including conifer and shrub 

encroachment and competition from non-native and invasive plant species. Wildfire 

suppression leads to continued fuels buildup until an uncontrolled burn takes place despite 

the best efforts of suppression crews to stop it. Such an event would have a high likelihood of 

having a severe negative impact to Calochortus persistens and Eriogonum ursinum var.

erubescens habitat. There would be no management in the project area to reduce the 

likelihood of high intensity wildfire and more aggressive suppression tactics would likely 

take place in the event of a wildfire.

Survey and Manage Species

Under Alternative 1 there will be no direct or indirect effects because there are no known 

populations of survey and manage plant species within the Craggy project area from 

management activities; Alternative 1 is therefore in compliance with the survey and manage 

direction.

Non-native Invasive Species

Under Alternative 1 there will be no direct introduction of new weed species or spread of 

existing weed species infestations from project activities. The risk of spread and introduction 

of weed species in the project area would remain high under this alternative due to nonproject dependent vectors. Management efforts to control non-native invasive species within 

Management Area 5 would continue to reduce the risk within this portion of the project area.

Cumulative Effects

There will be indirect effects to sensitive plant habitat under the no action alternative because 

conifer encroachment will continue to occur and fuels reduction would not occur. However,

there are no reasonably foreseeable future actions proposed in the locations where sensitive 

plants occur to cumulatively add to these indirect effects. There will be no cumulative effects

to survey and manage plant species from the no action alternative because there are no direct 

or indirect effects on these species. The risk of introducing or spreading weeds is unchanged 

under the no action alternative. Ongoing and future actions within the project area could 

continue to introduce and spread noxious weeds species, so the risk of weed spread and 
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

70

introduction in the project area remains high when considering all actions for cumulative 

effects (See Appendix C for the list of actions considered for cumulative effects).

Alternatives 2 and 3

Alternatives 2 and 3 will be analyzed jointly for the effects to sensitive plant species of 

concern, since the proposed treatment effects to sensitive plant species is the same between 

Alternatives 2 and 3. Alternative 3 has more acres of fuel breaks (790 acres) and prescribed 

underburning (270 acres) incorporated into the prescription than Alternative 2, but not 

enough difference to be analyzed individually for effects to sensitive plant species of 

concern, this is primarily because the added acres are not within areas where sensitive plant 

species occur.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Threatened and Endangered Species

No populations of federally listed threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate plant 

species have been recorded in botanical records or identified in previous surveys within the 

Craggy Project area. Therefore, there will be no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to these 

species.

Sensitive Species

Alternatives 2 and 3 incorporate actions that would help to address threats to Calochortus 

persistens while incorporating project design features to reduce the threat of further invasion 

from non-native invasive species. Thinning vegetation in the special habitat management 

area outside of the Calochortus persistens population boundaries would reduce fuels so that 

the threat of high intensity wildfire would be reduced and the need for heavy fire suppression 

tactics would not be needed or could be reduced should a fire occur. Furthermore, 

Alternatives 2 and 3 meet the purpose and need to address known and potential threats to the 

sensitive plant species Calochortus persistens in order to maintain habitat so that random 

natural events and environmental variation can occur without a negative effect on the future 

viability of the species. There will be no direct effects to the sensitive plant species 

Eriogonum ursinum var. erubescens as a result of Alternative 2 or 3 because of project 

design features that specify complete project avoidance within these populations.

Analysis Indicators for Alternatives 2 and 3:

• The trend of sensitive species population viability: Alternatives 2 and 3 meet the 

purpose and need to address known and potential threats to the sensitive plant species 

Calochortus persistens in order to maintain habitat so that random natural events and 

environmental variation can occur without a negative effect on the future viability of 

the species. Eriogonum ursinum var. erubescens populations within the project area 

will remain viable because direct disturbances to these populations will be avoided 

with the implementation of the project design features; these populations are expected 

to remain static after implementation of either Alternative 2 or 3.

• The maintenance or improvement of habitat conditions within occupied 

Calochortus persistens sites: Reducing conifer and shrub encroachment within two 

subpopulations of Calochortus persistens by hand cutting would improve habitat and 

provide an opportunity for monitoring the plant response to this kind of activity. This 
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

71

work would create a small amount of ground disturbance that may cause direct effects 

to a few individuals. These effects are unlikely to kill individual plants because of the 

deep seated bulb and the project design feature that specifies this work to be 

completed during the dormant season.

• The likelihood that a wildfire could be suppressed using minimum suppression 

techniques within Management Area 5: Flame lengths greater than four feet 

typically create a need for greater fire suppression forces as well as the need for 

equipment and aircraft in order to suppress the fire. Table 3-24 below shows the 

benefits of implementing Alternative 2 or 3 compared to Alternative 1 (no action) 

within the management area for Calochortus persistens. Implementing Alternative 2

or 3 increases the acres in the zero to four foot flame length category from 376 acres 

to 757 acres which is about 80 percent of Management Area 5. The action alternatives

greatly reduce the need for fire suppression tactics such as dozers from 60 percent as 

shown in the no action alternative above to 20 percent.

Table 3-24: Flame Length Potential of Management Area 5 for Alternatives 2 and 3 with Acres and 

Percent of the Management Area

Flame Length Short-term Post-Treatment (%) Mid-term Post-treatment

(%)

0 to 4 feet 757 (80) 626 (66)

4 to 8 feet 91 (10) 209 (22)

8 to 11 feet 18 (2) 18 (02)

greater than 11 feet 79 (8) 92 (10)

Survey and Manage Species

Under Alternatives 2 and 3 there will be no direct or indirect effects because there are no 

known populations of survey and manage plant species within the Craggy Vegetation 

Management Project area; Alternatives 2 and 3 are therefore in compliance with the survey 

and manage direction.

Non-native Invasive Species

Overall, there would be a moderate risk of introduction or spread of non-native and invasive 

plant species as a result of habitat alteration and increased vectors as a result of project 

implementation of either Alternative 2 or 3. When combined with the baseline pre-project 

risk rating the risk of introduction or spread due to Alternative 2 or 3 is high due to the nonproject dependent vectors that exist in this project area. Within Management Area 5 this risk 

is greatly reduced because the activities that are proposed (fuelbreaks, underburn, and skyline 

harvest) have lower risk ratings associated with weed spread than other proposed activities 

such as tractor harvest. Additionally, no new landing construction or new temporary road 

construction would occur within the management area. This risk is even further reduced in 

Management Area 5 due to the extensive monitoring and treatment that occurs and will 

continue to occur as part of the Forest Noxious Weed Program. Considering these factors and 

the effectiveness of the proposed project design features, the risk of introduction and spread 

specifically within the Management Area for Calochortus persistens is low.
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

72

Cumulative Effects

There is the potential for minor direct and indirect effects to occur to sensitive plant species 

as a result of implementing Alternative 2 or 3. There are no current plans to conduct 

vegetation management activities in this area beyond the scope of this project in the near 

future on Forest lands. There is the potential for timber harvesting to occur on private land, 

however, this does not overlap with any locations of sensitive plants within the project area. 

Therefore, this project, foreseeable future projects, and those that have occurred in the recent 

past, are not likely to contribute any cumulative adverse effects to sensitive plant species or 

habitat. There will be no cumulative effects to survey and manage plant species from 

Alternative 2 or 3 because there are no direct or indirect effects to these species. Introduction 

of new weeds through natural processes such as wind, water, and wildlife would proceed 

unchanged in Alternative 2 or 3. New weed sites may still be introduced through recreational 

vehicular use or livestock use of the project area. Any future projects proposed by the Forest 

in this project area would include project design features to reduce the risk of introduction or 

spread of noxious weeds. Future projects in this area on private land have a high risk of 

introducing or spreading noxious weeds into the project area because it is unknown how or if 

mitigation measures would be applied to reduce this risk. High priority weed species would 

be detected and treated through the Forest Noxious Weed Program. Overall, when project 

design features are applied, there would be a moderate potential risk for cumulative effects.

Determination of Effects

Threatened and Endangered Species

The Craggy Vegetation Management Project will not affect Astragalus applegatei, Pinus 

albicaulis, Fritillaria gentneri, Phlox hirsuta, Chamaesyce hooveri, or Orcuttia tenuis.

Sensitive Species

Under all alternatives, the Craggy Vegetation Management Project may affect individuals, 

but is unlikely to result in a trend toward federal listing or a loss of viability for the sensitive 

plant species Calochortus persistens and Eriogonum ursinum var. erubescens.

Survey and Manage Species

Under all alternatives, The Craggy Vegetation Management Project will comply with survey 

and manage regulations.

3.4.6 Comparison of Alternatives

Table 3-25 below displays a comparison of effects to botanical resources between 

alternatives as compared using the analysis indicators.
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

73

Table 3-25: Comparison of Effects to Botanical Resources between Alternatives

Analysis Indicator Alternative 1 Alternatives 2 and 3

Likelihood of jeopardizing 

the continued existence 

of threatened, 

endangered, proposed, 

or candidate species 

populations.

No direct, indirect, or cumulative 

effects to any threatened, 

endangered, proposed, or 

candidate plant species.

No direct, indirect, or cumulative effects to 

any threatened, endangered, proposed, or 

candidate plant species.

The trend of sensitive 

species population 

viability

No direct effects; potential for 

indirect effects with continued 

risk of stand replacing wildfire.

Meets the purpose and need to address 

known and potential threats to the sensitive 

plant species. Maintains habitat so that 

random natural events and environmental 

variation can occur without a negative effect 

on the future viability of the species.

The maintenance or 

improvement of habitat 

conditions within 

occupied Calochortus 

persistens sites

No direct effects; indirect effect 

from continued level of conifer 

encroachment. This can 

negatively affect populations 

because there is more 

competition for space, water, 

and nutrients.

Reduces conifer and shrub encroachment

within two subpopulations of Calochortus 

persistens by hand cutting. This would

improve habitat and provide an opportunity 

for monitoring the plant response to this kind 

of activity.

The likelihood that a 

wildfire could be 

suppressed using 

minimum suppression 

techniques within 

Management Area 5

No direct effects; indirect effects 

if a wildfire were to occur. At 

least 60% of the Management 

Area would require more than 

hand tools to suppress a fire 

under current modeled 

conditions. Fire suppression 

ground-disturbing activities, such 

as using bulldozers, can have 

negative impacts to Calochortus 

persistens.

Implementing Alternative 2 or 3 would

increase the acres in the 0 to 4 foot flame 

length category from 376 acres to 757 acres 

which is about 80% of the Management 

Area. This alternative greatly reduces the 

need for fire suppression tactics such as 

using bulldozers from 60% as shown in the 

no action alternative to 20%.

Compliance with survey 

and manage guidelines 

for botanical species

Complies Complies

Risk of introducing or 

spreading non-native 

invasive species 

measured by a rating of 

high, moderate, or low 

risk.

High risk of introduction or

spread of non-native invasive 

plant species due to non-project 

dependent vectors. Risk is 

reduced within Management 

Area 5 due to ongoing control 

efforts.

High risk of introduction or spread of nonnative invasive plant species due to nonproject dependent vectors. Project design 

features reduce the risk of introduction or 

spread due to Project activities. The risk is 

reduced within Management Area 5 due to 

ongoing control efforts and additional project 

design features.

3.4.7 Compliance with Law, Regulation, Policy, and the Forest Plan

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Botanical Species

The Craggy Project complies with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 as 

amended, and Forest Service Policy (FSM 2670). The Project will not affect any threatened, 

endangered, proposed, or candidate botanical species.

Survey and Manage Botanical Species

The Craggy Project complies with the 2001 Record of Decision and Standards and 

Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other 
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

74

Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines, by assessing the project area and determining 

that there is no habitat or known sites of survey and manage plant species or fungi that will 

be affected by the project.

Non-native Invasive Species

The Craggy Project complies with Forest Service Manual 2900 and Forest Plan standards and 

guidelines require that all projects be evaluated for the risk of noxious weed introduction and 

spread as a result of project activities. In addition, projects must be designed to reduce the 

risk of weed introduction or spread. In the action alternatives, project design features have 

been incorporated which are expected to reduce the risk of weed introduction or spread. 

Forest Plan standards and guidelines and Forest Service Manual direction will be met.

3.5 Wildlife (Terrestrial)

3.5.1 Methodology

For all terrestrial wildlife species that are federally-listed as threatened or endangered (or 

proposed for listing), Forest Service sensitive, survey and manage, and management indicator 

species, analysis indicators include the effects to habitat (quantified by acres affected) or to

individuals if known.

3.5.2 Analysis Indicators and Measures

Threatened and endangered species (northern spotted owl) and critical habitat

Analysis indicators for determining effects to the northern spotted owl are acres of nesting and 

roosting or foraging habitat maintained or improved, degraded, downgraded, or removed. 

Effects to habitat are described as either no effect, degraded, downgraded, or removed. No 

effect means that the action will not measurably affect the quality of habitat. Degrade

signifies that treatments have a negative influence on the quality of habitat due to the 

removal or reduction of northern spotted owl habitat elements but not to the degree where 

existing habitat function is changed. Downgrade applies to treatments that reduce habitat 

elements to the degree that the habitat will not function in the capacity that exists pretreatment but activities will not remove habitat entirely (i.e., downgrade from nesting or 

roosting to foraging habitat). Removal pertains to treatments that reduce habitat elements to 

the degree that habitat will no longer function as suitable for northern spotted owl. 

Qualitative and quantitative attributes were considered in this process including the 

anticipated change in habitat structure after treatment. Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS) 

modeling predictions were used in combination with considerations of the size of parcel 

treated, homogeneity of the stand conditions pre- and post-treatment, adjacent habitat 

conditions, slope position and aspect of parcel to be treated, distribution of untreated riparian 

areas, and the distribution of leave areas retained. The combination of these factors was 

considered in the determination of degrading, downgrading, or removal of habitat conditions 

predicted after treatment.

Northern spotted owl isthe only federally-listed species known to exist in the project and 

analysis area. Effects to critical habitat for the northern spotted owl will also be indicated as

number of acres of habitat affected. Habitat for the gray wolf, an endangered species, is 
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

75

available in the project and analysis area but there is no known sighting of the wolf. 

Therefore, acres of effects to wolf habitat will not be included as an analysis indicator. Project 

design features will provide protection to the wolf if it is sighted in the area. The North 

American wolverine is a species currently proposed for listing as threatened; since this species 

is also on the Forest Service sensitive list, effects to it and its habitat are disclosed under the 

Forest Service sensitive section of this chapter.

Forest Service Sensitive, Survey and Manage, Management Indicator Species,

and Migratory Birds

Forest Service sensitive species are identified as such by the Pacific Southwest Regional 

Forester; effects to these species are disclosed in this section of the environmental impact 

statement. Additional information is available in the Terrestrial Wildlife Biological 

Evaluation.

Analysis indicators for sensitive species will be acres of habitat maintained or improved,

degraded, and removed or lost. Management indicator species are identified in the Forest 

Plan; effects to these species are disclosed in this section of the environmental impact 

statement and as part of the Management Indicator Species Report, Parts I and II. Analysis 

indicators for management indicator species will be acres of habitat maintained or improved 

and acres lost. For survey and manage species the analysis indicator is compliance with 

survey and manage direction. Compliance is determined through following the guidance for 

survey protocols and protection of known sites (USDA USDI 2001). Information on all of 

these species, plus migratory birds and survey and manage species, and methodology used 

for this analysis are included in the Wildlife Resource Report and detailed in separate reports.

All of these reports are incorporated by reference and are available on the Project website.

3.5.3 Spatial and Temporal Context

The analysis area for effects on wildlife varies by species and reflects the area within which

the species could be directly or indirectly affected by the proposed Project.

Northern spotted owl and its critical habitat

The analysis area consists of the project area plus a distance representing a median home 

range in the California Klamath Province. The project area is defined in chapter 1 of this 

document. The analysis area was established by a 1.3-mile buffer around treatment units plus 

all northern spotted owl home ranges that intersect the treatment unit buffers. For this project, 

the analysis area includes about 57,300 acres, of which about 39,000 are acres managed by 

the Forest. The treatment area is the area in which actions will occur (about 10,600 to 11,310 

Forest acres, depending on the alternative being analyzed). The short-term temporal bound is 

the time during implementation (about five years). Temporal bounds for long-term effects are 

up to 30 years following implementation.

Forest Service Sensitive, Survey and Manage, Management Indicator Species, 

and Migratory Birds

For species with larger home ranges such as wolverine, fisher, or goshawk, the analysis area 

consists of the project area plus a distance representing a median home range in the 

California Klamath Province. For other species, the analysis area consists of the area of 
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

76

potential treatment. The short-term temporal bound is the time during implementation (about 

five years). Temporal bounds for long-term effects are up to 30 years following

implementation.

3.5.4 Affected Environment

Federally-listed as threatened or endangered, or proposed for federally-listing

Northern Spotted Owl

One federally-listed threatened species, the northern spotted owl, is known to occur within 

the analysis area. The critical habitat (revised) for the northern spotted owl was designated on 

December 4, 2012. Although habitat can and does occur on private land, critical habitat is 

only on federally-managed land. The following table displays the amount and type of 

northern spotted owl habitat that exists in the Craggy analysis area. As noted, there are no 

acres of nesting or roosting habitat in the analysis area. The “suitable habitat” for this 

analysis area is all foraging habitat (although dispersal habitat is useful to the owl for moving 

through the area, dispersal habitat is not considered as suitable habitat by definition).

Table 3-26: Northern Spotted Owl Habitat Acres within the Analysis Area

Northern Spotted Owl Habitat in Analysis Area Acres of Habitat (acres 

managed by the Forest)

Acres of Critical 

Habitat

Non-habitat 44,350 (29,200) 1,890

Dispersal 10,150 (8,010) 1,580

Foraging 2,790 (1,870) 970

Nesting and Roosting 0 (0) 0

Grand Total 57,300 (39,000) 4,440

Table 3-27: Northern Spotted Owl Survey Summary by Activity Centers in the Analysis Area

Activity Center 

Number

Activity Center 

Name Historical Status Recent Survey Status 

2011 through 2015

KL0268 Clear Creek Non-Reproductive Pair 

1992 and 1998; Single 2001 No Response 2011-2017

KL0382 Deadwood Reproductive Pair 2001;

Single 2003

No Response 2011-2016 

Single Male 2017

KL4103 Deadwood Baldy Reproductive Pair 1992 No response 2011-2017

Table 3-28: Home Range and Core Acres of Northern Spotted Owl Activity Centers

Activity 

Center 

Number

Activity 

Center 

Name

Core Area (0.5 mi Radius) Home Range (entire 1.3 mi Radius,

includes the acres in the core)

Nesting and 

Roosting Foraging Total Nesting and Roosting Foraging Total

KL0268 Clear Creek 0 112 112 0 210 210

KL0382 Deadwood 0 44 44 0 159 159
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

77

Activity 

Center 

Number

Activity 

Center 

Name

Core Area (0.5 mi Radius) Home Range (entire 1.3 mi Radius,

includes the acres in the core)

Nesting and 

Roosting Foraging Total Nesting and Roosting Foraging Total

KL4104 Deadwood 

Baldy 0 106 106 0 295 295

Gray Wolf

There are no recorded gray wolf den sites and no rendezvous sites within the Craggy Project 

analysis area, despite many reported observations of wolves in recent years made to the 

California Department of Fish and Wildlife. The likelihood of wolves persisting in the 

analysis area is low because of high road densities and concentrated human use. The area is 

also close to the community of Yreka, California and has relatively high use (compared to 

other areas of the Forest) by hunters, off-highway vehicle users, and woodcutters. There is 

evidence that OR-7 passed through a portion of the planning area in the spring of 2013.

North American Wolverine

No den sites for wolverines are known in the Craggy analysis area although there are ten 

documented detections on the Forest. Surveys for wolverines have not been conducted within 

the analysis area. Sightings of this species are rare in Northern California but some sightings 

have occurred from Del Norte and Trinity Counties east through Siskiyou and Shasta 

Counties. Habitat distribution in California is poorly known for the North Coast. In northern 

California, wolverines range from 500-1,500 meters in elevation (1,600 to 4,800 feet) in 

Douglas-fir and mixed conifer and true fir habitats (Zeiner et al. 1990). Camera stations and 

track plate surveys have been conducted on the Forest but these surveys did not find 

wolverines.

Species that are Federally-listed or Proposed, Sensitive, or Survey and 

Manage

Habitat conditions for species known to exist in the project area or species for which habitat 

occurs (for federally-listed and proposed species, Forest Service sensitive species, and survey 

and manage species) are provided in the following table.

Table 3-29: Status, Habitat Description and Known Sites for Terrestrial Species

Species Status Known to Occur in Analysis Area General Habitat Description

Northern spotted 

owl

Federally- listed as 

Threatened

Known territories and designated

critical habitat.

Nests in complex forested habitats 

with multi-layered canopies, large 

overstory trees, snags, and downed

wood

North American 

wolverine

Proposed for 

federal listing and 

Forest Service 

Sensitive

No known locations but species 

could occur based on available 

habitat.

Uses meadows, forests, riparian 

habitats and montane chaparral; 

mature, structurally complex high 

elevation conifer and mixed coniferhardwood forests
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

78

Species Status Known to Occur in Analysis Area General Habitat Description

Bald eagle

Forest Service 

Sensitive

No known nest sites but have 

been observed roosting and 

foraging along the Klamath

River.

Nests in conifer forests containing 

old-growth components typically 

within one mile of water

Northern

goshawk

Forest Service 

Sensitive

One designated goshawk 

management area. No known 

nest sites.

Nests in dense, mid-mature and late

successional conifer forests

Great Gray Owl Forest Service 

Sensitive

Habitat above 5,000 elevation 

occurs in analysis area. No 

known nest sites.

Nests in dense mid mature and late 

successional conifer forests in high 

elevations with proximity to 

meadows and openings

Willow

flycatcher

Forest Service 

Sensitive

No known locations but small 

areas of potential riparian 

habitat occur along Klamath 

River.

Nests in river valleys or lush 

meadows in willows or other 

riparian tree/shrub species

Fisher Forest Service 

Sensitive

Known incidental locations and

species could occur based on

available habitat.

Mature, structurally complex 

conifer and mixed coniferhardwood forests; requires multiple 

rest sites that are often tree cavities,

squirrel/raptor nests, mistletoe

platforms or brush piles

Pacific marten

Forest Service 

Sensitive

No known locations but species 

could occur at higher 

elevations of the project.

High-elevation true fir stands; use 

large logs, snags and live trees for 

denning/resting

Pallid bat Forest Service 

Sensitive

No known locations, but 

occurrence is likely based on 

available snag habitat; large 

rocky outcrops, caves or mines 

are not known within or adjacent

to the project.

Utilizes a variety of arid and or 

wooded habitats often in 

association with caves for 

roosting; will use caves, large 

trees, mines, buildings and bridges

for roosting

Townsend’s bigeared bat

Forest Service 

Sensitive

No known locations, but 

occurrence is likely based on 

available snag habitat; caves or 

mines are not known within or 

adjacent to the project.

Variety of wooded habitat often in 

association with caves for roosting;

will use caves, large trees, mines,

buildings and bridges for roosting

Fringed Myotis 

bat

Forest Service 

Sensitive

No known locations, but 

occurrence is likely based on 

available snag habitat; large 

rocky outcrops, caves or mines 

are not known within or adjacent

to the project.

Utilizes a variety of arid and or 

wooded habitats often in association

with caves for roosting; will use

caves, large trees, mines, buildings

and bridges for roosting

Foothill yellowlegged frog

Forest Service 

Sensitive

No known locations but 

potential habitat occurs along 

tributaries of the Klamath River.

Shallow, slow moving streams 

with gravel or rocky substrate

Cascade frog

Forest Service 

Sensitive

No known locations in higher 

elevations but potential habitat 

occurs along tributaries of the 

Klamath River.

Higher elevation lakes and 

tributaries
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

79

Species Status Known to Occur in Analysis Area General Habitat Description

Western bumble 

bee

Forest Service 

Sensitive

No known locations. Potential 

habitat in higher elevations of 

analysis area.

Open wet meadow habitats

Tehama

chaparral snail

Forest Service 

Sensitive and 

Survey and 

Manage

(Category A)

One known location but 

potential habitat may occur in 

the analysis area

Talus and outcrops within mature 

conifer forests

Klamath

shoulderband 

(Trinity 

shoulderband)

Survey and 

Manage (Category 

A)

Three known sites in the analysis 

area.

Closed canopy, moist forest 

typically near talus refugia

Siskiyou 

Mountain 

Salamander

Forest Service 

Sensitive and 

Survey and 

Manage (Category 

A)

No known sites in analysis area. Moist forest typically near talus 

refugia

Scott Bar 

Salamander

Survey and 

Manage (Category 

A)

No known sites in analysis area. Moist forest typically near talus 

refugia

Blue-gray tail 

dropper

Survey and 

Manage (Category 

A)

No known locations but potential

habitat occurs in the analysis 

area.

Moist conifer and mixed conifer 

and hardwood forests high levels of 

shade and moisture

Management Indicator Species

Additional information on terrestrial management indicator species and their associations that 

exist in the project area and may be affected by the project is provided in the Wildlife 

Resource Report. Information on river and stream species and their associations is provided 

in the Aquatic Resources Report. Information on both is also provided in the Management 

Indicator Species Report, Parts I and II. A summary is provided on the following table.

Table 3-30: Management Indicator Species Relevant to the Craggy Project

Species

Habitat 

Association Habitat Description Reasons for Selection as a Management Indicator Species

Rainbow 

Trout

River/

Stream

Cool, clear, fast-flowing 

permanent streams and 

rivers

Indicator for water quality, in-stream woody 

debris, bottom substrate, flows and channel 

condition.

Steelhead River/

Stream

Cool, clear, fast-flowing 

permanent streams and 

rivers with opportunities to 

migrate to and from 

estuaries and ocean 

habitats

Indicator for water quality, in-stream woody 

debris, bottom substrate, flows and channel 

condition.

Tailed frog River/

Stream

Perennial montane streams 

with dense vegetation

Indicator for water quality, in-stream woody 

debris, bottom substrate, flows and channel 

condition.
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

80

American 

dipper

River/

Stream

Cold, swift, perennial 

streams

Indicator for water quality, instream woody 

debris, bottom substrate and flows.

Northern 

water shrew

River/

Stream

Riparian w/dense grassforb coverIndicator of riparian vegetation including canopy, 

deciduous vegetation, and grass/forb.

Redbreasted 

sapsucker

Snagdependent

Mid-to-late seral mixed 

conifer and riparian 

deciduous vegetation.

This species is an Indicator of snags as a habitat 

element and of other species which depend on 

sap wells.

Whiteheaded 

woodpecker

SnagdependentPonderosa pine and high 

elevation mixed-conifer

This species is an Indicator of snags as a habitat 

element and for other species which depend on 

woodpeckers for cavities or as prey.

Vaux’s swift Snagdependent

Late-successional forests 

with large hollow snags Indicator of large snags as a habitat element.

Hairy 

woodpecker

Snagdependent

Riparian deciduous 

habitats with large trees for 

cavities

Indicator of snags as a habitat element and for 

other species which depend on woodpeckers for 

cavities or as prey.

Downy 

woodpecker

Snagdependent

Riparian deciduous 

habitats with large trees for 

cavities

Indicator of snags as a habitat element and for 

other species which depend on woodpeckers for 

cavities or as prey.

Pileated 

woodpecker

SnagdependentLate-successional 

coniferous forests

Indicator of snags as a habitat element and for 

other species which depend on woodpeckers for 

cavities or as prey.

Blackbacked 

woodpecker

SnagdependentHigh elevation fir and 

lodgepole pine

Indicator of snags as a habitat element and for 

other species which depend on woodpeckers for 

cavities or as prey.

Migratory Birds

Migratory birds are identified in the memorandum of understanding that directs agencies 

under the Migratory Bird Act to focus on species of management concern along with their 

priority habitats and key risk factors. For the Forest, the migratory bird species of 

management concern are identified as species designated by the Regional Forester as 

sensitive species and the species listed under Standard and Guidelines 8-21 through 8-34 of 

the Forest Plan as management indicator species for project level assessment. Although 

federally-listed threatened or endangered species would be species of management concern, 

no migratory birds on the Forest are currently federally-listed as threatened or endangered so 

none are identified as species of management concern for this project.

3.5.5 Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1

Direct and Indirect Effects:

Species that are Federally-listed or Proposed, Sensitive, Survey and Manage, 

or Migratory Birds

Alternative 1 will result in no changes and, therefore, no direct effects to individual wildlife 

species or wildlife habitats (for threatened, endangered, and sensitive species, survey and 
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

81

manage species, management indicator species, and migratory birds). The indirect effects 

expected would be those effects related to the continued increase of density-related mortality 

and disease. Habitat conditions would remain as described in the existing condition for an 

undetermined amount of time trending towards less healthy stand conditions. Overall, effects 

to wildlife and wildlife habitats of no action will result in 1) reduced availability and 

distribution of stands that could develop into suitable habitat for late successional habitat 

related species (northern spotted owl, wolverine, fisher, and goshawk); and 2) increased fuel 

loadings and increased risk of stand-replacing fire resulting in the potential loss of forested 

habitats in the project area. This will result in a decreased quality of forest habitat conditions 

(dense small diameter understory with few openings for stand diversity). Habitat for the 

threatened gray wolf will not be affected.

The Migratory Bird Act is followed through adherence to the memorandum of understanding 

that directs agencies to evaluate the effects of proposed actions on migratory birds. Specific 

effects of the project on species listed as sensitive or management indicator species are

addressed in detail in the Terrestrial Wildlife Resource Report and the Management Indicator 

Species Report, Parts I and II; these are available on the Project website. Since Alternative 1 

does not propose action, there would be no direct effects of this alternative on migratory 

birds. Indirect effects would be the same as described in the previous paragraph.

Cumulative Effects:

Adding the effects of this alternative to the effects of reasonably foreseeable future actions 

will not lead to significant cumulative effects because adding the minor short-term or nondiscernible effects of the future actions to the indirect effects of this alternative would not 

result in significant cumulative effects.

Alternative 2

Direct and Indirect Effects:

Federally-listed and proposed species

Northern Spotted Owl

The proposed treatment for all stands emphasizes reduction of present stocking levels to 

enhance development of the residual mid-mature and younger stems and increase the 

longevity of the mature stems. Treatment areas would retain snags and coarse woody debris 

in stream-course riparian leave areas. Large snags would be retained as long as snags do not 

pose a safety hazard; if felled, snags would be left in the treatment unit as woody debris. 

Other large snags would be retained with live trees in areas called “skip areas.”

Effects of this alternative are addressed as effects on foraging habitat; since there is no 

known nesting or roosting habitat in the analysis area, none is affected. Implementing 

proposed treatment activities in Alternative 2 would degrade 347 acres of foraging habitat; 

about 1.5 acres of foraging habitat will be removed through construction of one new landing 

(this landing is not within an owl activity center or in critical habitat). No acres will be 

downgraded to dispersal habitat in the analysis area. Definitions of degrade, downgrade, and 

remove are provided in the “analysis indicators” section (3.5.2) above. There would be long-
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

82

term beneficial effects to late-successional habitat on these acres as described in the effects 

analysis in the Silviculture Report for this project.

In critical habitat, 203 acres of foraging habitat would be degraded but none would be 

downgraded or removed; no nesting or roosting habitat would be affected since none is 

known to exist in critical habitat in the analysis area. The proposed treatments occurring 

within critical habitat will maintain primary constituent elements throughout the analysis area

for the northern spotted owl to sustain essential life history functions.

The following table displays the acres affected in owl activity centers.

Table 3-31: Foraging Habitat in Home Range and Core Acres of Northern Spotted Owl Activity Centers 

Affected by Alternative 2

Activity 

Center 

Number

Core

0.5 mile radius around center

Home Range Plus Core

Entire 1.3 mi Radius (includes the acres in the core)

Degrade Downgrade Remove Degrade Downgrade Remove

KL0268 0 0 0 35 0 0

KL0382 0 0 0 62 0 0

KL4104 0 0 0 0 0 0

Gray Wolf

As discussed in the affected environment section, no known wolf dens occur in the analysis 

area. If a wolf was present in the project area, it would likely avoid noise that is created by 

human activity. Therefore, Alternative 2 is likely to have “no effect” on gray wolf. If, during 

the implementation of this project, wolf activity is detected in the project area, then project 

design features specific to wolves will apply (Chapter 2, section 2.2) and the presence of 

wolves on the landscape may require coordination and potentially new consultation under 

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act with the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service.

North American Wolverine

Although there are no known den sites in the analysis area, it is possible that wolverine 

may be present. However, due to habitat fragmentation and limited availability of older 

forest conditions, wolverines are not expected to be abundant. Effects on wolverine and 

its habitat are discussed further under the Forest Service sensitive section.

Forest Service Sensitive Species, Survey and Manage, Management Indicator 

Species, and Migratory Birds

Due to the proposed actions within Alternative 2 either not occurring in known species 

ranges or not affecting any habitat, there are no expected direct or indirect effects on the 

following species: bald eagle, great gray owl, Siskiyou Mountain salamander, foothill 

yellow-legged frog, Cascade frog, and Tehama chaparral snail.

With the implementation of snag-related project design features and the limited activities 

proposed in older forested habitats in the watershed, Alternative 2 would not limit the 
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

83

availability of large snag distribution for the pallid bat, fringed myotis, Townsend’s big-eared 

bat, or the snag associated management indicator species in the analysis area.

With the implementation of riparian reserve related project design features and the limited 

activities proposed in the riparian habitat in the watershed, Alternative 2 would not limit the 

availability of riparian habitat conditions for the willow flycatcher, or the riparian associated 

management indicator species in the analysis area.

Pacific Marten: Alternative 2 would degrade about 278 acres of potential marten habitat but 

will retain habitat quality after treatment because the functioning of foraging habitat will 

continue as at present even though there will be some reduction in quality of habitat. There 

may be some loss of habitat structure after treatment; however, marten are expected to

remain viable in treated areas and well distributed in the analysis area. The proposed 

treatments are not expected to have any effect on this species since these actions are either 

not occurring in suitable habitat or will not measurably alter habitat conditions.

Northern Goshawk, Fisher, and North American Wolverine: Suitable northern spotted 

owl foraging habitat is used as a proxy to evaluate the potential effects to northern goshawk, 

fisher, and wolverine habitat. The proposed thinning with product removal (thinning larger 

trees that can be sold as sawlogs) in Alternative 2 would occur on about 87 acres of foraging 

habitat. Thinning without product removal (thinning of small trees) in Alternative 2 would

occur on about 78 acres of foraging habitat. The total affected acres of foraging habitat would

retain suitable character for northern goshawk, fisher, and wolverine after treatment. The 

fuels reduction treatments associated would degrade but not downgrade 17 acres of foraging 

habitat. The total affected acres of habitat would retain suitable character for northern 

goshawk, fisher, and wolverine after treatment. Proposed underburning would occur on about 

163 acres of foraging habitat. The proposed actions within dispersal and non-habitat are not 

expected to have any effect on northern goshawk, fisher, or wolverine since these actions are 

not going to occur in suitable northern goshawk, fisher, or wolverine habitat. About 1.5 acres 

of foraging habitat would be reduced to non-habitat (removed) by construction of one new 

landing. Removal of such a small number of acres of habitat will not measurably affect the 

species.

Migratory Birds

Specific effects of the project on species listed as sensitive or management indicator species 

are addressed above as sensitive or management indicator species. They are also addressed in 

detail in the Terrestrial Wildlife Resource Report and the Management Indicator Species 

Report, Parts I and II; these are available on the Project website.

Cumulative Effects

Adding the effects of this alternative to the effects of reasonably foreseeable future actions 

will not lead to significant cumulative effects.

Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect:
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

84

Federally-listed and proposed species

Northern Spotted Owl

Effects to northern spotted owl in the project area are similar to those of Alternative 2 except 

that about 426 acres of foraging habitat would be degraded (compared to 347 acres degraded 

in Alternative 2), about 1.5 acres of foraging habitat will be removed through construction of 

one new landing (this landing is not in an owl activity center or in critical habitat). No acres 

of foraging habitat will be downgraded to dispersal habitat in the analysis area. The number 

of acres affected by this alternative increases over those of Alternative 2 (as displayed in 

Chapter 2, section 2-5) and more foraging habitat is affected, primarily because fuel 

reduction treatment acres are increased in Alternative 3 to provide more clearance around 

private land.

As in Alternative 2, in critical habitat 203 acres of foraging habitat would be degraded but 

none would be downgraded or removed; no nesting or roosting habitat would be affected 

since none is known to exist in critical habitat in the analysis area. The proposed treatments 

occurring within critical habitat would maintain primary constituent elements throughout the 

analysis area for the northern spotted owl to sustain essential life history functions.

The following table indicates the differences for owl activity centers.

Table 3-32: Foraging Habitat in Home Range and Core Acres of Northern Spotted Owl Activity Centers 

Affected by Alternative 3

Activity 

Center 

Number

Core

0.5 mile radius around center

Home Range Plus Core

Entire 1.3 mi Radius (includes the acres in the core

Degrade Downgrade Remove Degrade Downgrade Remove

KL0268 0 0 0 35 0 0

KL0382 0 0 0 59 0 0

KL4104 0 0 0 0 0 0

Gray Wolf

Effects are the same as for Alternative 2.

North American wolverine

Effects are the same as for Alternative 2 except about 426 acres of wolverine foraging habitat 

would be degraded (compared to 347 acres of foraging habitat that would be degraded in 

Alternative 2). As in Alternative 2, no acres of foraging habitat will be downgraded. About 

1.5 acres of foraging habitat would be reduced to non-habitat (removed) by construction of 

one new landing. Removal of such a small number of acres of habitat will not measurably 

affect the species.

Forest Service Sensitive Species, Survey and Manage, Management Indicator 
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

85

Species and Migratory Birds

Effects of Alternative 3 would be the same as for Alternative 2 with the following 

exceptions:

Pacific Marten: Alternative 3 would degrade about 319 acres of potential marten foraging 

habitat (compared to 278 acres of foraging habitat downgraded in Alternative 2) but habitat 

quality would be retained.

Northern Goshawk, Fisher, and Wolverine: Proposed thinning with product removal 

would occur on about 104 acres of foraging habitat in Alternative 3. Thinning without 

product removal would occur on about 112 acres of foraging habitat. Fuel reduction 

treatments would degrade about 45 acres of foraging habitat and proposed underburning 

would occur on about 165 acres of foraging habitat. As in Alternative 2, no acres of foraging 

habitat will be downgraded to dispersal habitat. About 1.5 acres of foraging habitat would be 

reduced to non-habitat (removed) by construction of one new landing. Removal of such a 

small number of acres of habitat will not measurably affect the species

Cumulative Effects

Adding the effects of this alternative to the effects of reasonably foreseeable future actions 

would not lead to significant cumulative effects.

3.5.6 Comparison of Alternatives

Determination of Effects

The following conclusions led to the Forest’s determination of effects that the proposed 

Craggy Project would have on federally-listed species:

Gray Wolf: Based on the above assessment of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects 

displayed in the Wildlife Resource Report, it is the Forest’s determination that 

implementation of the Project will result in “no effect to the gray wolf.”

Northern spotted owl: Based on the above assessment of direct, indirect, and cumulative 

effects, the Forest’s preliminary determination for implementation of the Craggy Project is

“May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect (MANLAA) NSO and NSO Critical 

Habitat.” This determination is based on the following factors:

• No treatment will occur in nesting or roosting habitat as none of this habitat is 

identified in the analysis area.

• No acres of foraging habitat will be downgraded to dispersal habitat in Alternative 2 

or Alternative 3. About 347 acres of foraging habitat in Alternative 2 and 426 acres of 

foraging habitat in Alternative 3 will be degraded but will retain foraging quality after 

treatment.

• Application of project design features will minimize effects to northern spotted owl

habitat and the likelihood that owls will be harassed, killed, or injured during project 

implementation.
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

86

• There will be an estimated 1.5 acres of foraging habitat removed with the proposed 

construction of one new landing with both action alternatives; this landing will not 

remove foraging habitat in an owl activity center or in critical habitat.

For the proposed species, the following is the determination:

North American Wolverine: Based on the assessment of direct, indirect, and cumulative 

effects, it is the Forest’s conclusion that implementation of the Craggy Project will “Not 

result in jeopardy to the North American wolverine.”

Table 3-33: Comparison of Effects of Alternatives on Federally Listed, Forest Service Sensitive, 

Management Indicator, and Survey and Manage Wildlife Species

Species Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Northern 

spotted owl

No Effect May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely 

Affect

347 acres of foraging habitat will be 

degraded, none will be 

downgraded, and 1.5 will be 

removed by construction of one 

new landing.

May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely 

Affect

426 acres of foraging habitat will be 

degraded, none will be downgraded, 

and 1.5 will be removed by 

construction of one new landing.

Northern 

spotted owl 

critical habitat

No Effect May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely 

Affect

203 acres of foraging habitat will be 

degraded, none will be 

downgraded or removed.

May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely 

Affect

203 acres of foraging habitat will be 

degraded, none will be downgraded 

or removed.

Gray wolf No Effect No Effect No Effect

Northern 

goshawk, 

fisher, and 

North 

American 

wolverine

No Effect May affect individuals but is not 

likely to lead to a trend towards 

Federal listing. Project activity is 

proposed to occur within about 347

acres (12%) of habitat; however,

these habitats will continue to be 

viable after treatment.

1.5 acres of habitat will be reduced 

to non-habitat by new landing 

construction.

May affect individuals but is not 

likely to lead to a trend towards 

Federal listing. Project activity is 

proposed to occur within about 426

acres (15%) of habitat; however,

these habitats will continue to be 

viable after treatment.

1.5 acres of habitat will be reduced 

to non-habitat by new landing 

construction.

Pacific marten No Effect Degradation of about 278 acres of 

marten; habitat will continue to be 

viable after treatment.

Degradation of about 319 acres of 

marten; habitat will continue to be 

viable after treatment.

Bald eagle and 

Great gray owl

No Effect No habitat affected No habitat affected

Willow 

flycatcher

No Effect With the implementation of riparian 

reserve related project design 

features and limited activities within 

habitat in the watershed this 

alternative will not limit the 

availability of habitat for this 

species.

With the implementation of riparian 

reserve related project design 

features and limited activities within 

habitat in the watershed this 

alternative will not limit the 

availability of habitat for this species.

Pallid bat, 

Townsend bigeared bat, and 

fringed myotis

No Effect Alternative 2 will not limit the 

availability of large snag 

distribution. Forest-wide standards

and guidelines for snags will be 

met or exceeded.

Alternative 3 will not limit the 

availability of large snag distribution. 

Forest-wide standards and 

guidelines for snags will be met or 

exceeded.
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

87

Species Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Yellow-legged 

frog and 

Cascade frog

No Effect With the implementation of riparian 

reserve related project design 

features and the limited activities 

proposed in riparian habitat in the 

watershed, Alternative 2 will not 

limit the availability of habitat for 

these species.

With the implementation of riparian 

reserve related project design 

features and the limited activities 

proposed in riparian habitat in the 

watershed, Alternative 3 will not limit 

the availability of habitat for these 

species.

Siskiyou 

Mountain and 

Scott Bar 

Mountain 

salamanders

No Effect No habitat affected. No known 

sites.

No habitat affected. No known sites.

Blue-gray 

taildropper, 

Tehama 

chaparral snail, 

and western 

bumble bee

No Effect No habitat affected. No known 

sites.

No habitat affected. No known sites.

Klamath 

Shoulderband

No effect With the implementation of project 

design features, survey for the 

species, and management of 

known sites, there will be no effect 

on this species.

With the implementation of project 

design features, survey for the 

species, and management of known 

sites, there will be no effect on this 

species.

River/stream 

management 

indicator 

species

No Effect With the implementation of riparian 

reserve related project design 

features and the limited activities 

proposed within riparian habitat in 

the watershed, Alternative 2 will not 

limit the availability of riparian 

habitat conditions.

With the implementation of riparian 

reserve related project design 

features and the limited activities 

proposed within riparian habitat in 

the watershed, Alternative 3 will not 

limit the availability of riparian 

habitat conditions.

Snagdependent 

management 

indicator 

species

No Effect Alternative 2 will not limit the 

availability of large snag 

distribution. Forest-wide standards 

and guidelines for snags will be 

met or exceeded.

Alternative 3 will not limit the 

availability of large snag distribution. 

Forest-wide standards and 

guidelines for snags will be met or 

exceeded.

3.5.7 Compliance with Law, Regulation, Policy and the Forest Plan

All action alternatives will comply with the Forest Plan and Survey and Manage Guidelines 

aimed at minimizing short-term impacts to individuals and providing for long-term wildlife 

population persistence as noted in the Wildlife Resource Report, Terrestrial Wildlife 

Biological Evaluation, Management Indicator Species Report, Parts I and II, and the Forest 

Plan Consistency Checklist. The design of this project is consistent with Recovery Actions 

described in the 2011 Northern Spotted Owl Recovery Plan, the 2012 northern spotted owl

critical habitat designation, and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act as well as Forest Service

sensitive species direction.

3.6 Aquatic Species

3.6.1 Methodology

The analysis of the potential effects to aquatic species and their habitat is based on analysis 

indicators that originate from the “Analytical Process for Developing Biological Assessments 

for Federal Actions Affecting Fish within the Northwest Forest Plan Area” (USDI, USDA, 

and NOAA 2004). Effects of project elements to an indicator may be positive (beneficial) or 

negative, and be (1) neutral (no effect), (2) discountable (extremely unlikely to occur) or 
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

88

insignificant (effects are not able to be meaningfully measured, detected, or evaluated), or (3) 

significant (effects able to be measured). After the appropriate indicators have been 

evaluated, the resulting information is used to determine overall effects on aquatic species.

3.6.2 Analysis Indicators and Measures

The eight indicators that are potentially affected by the Craggy Project and will undergo 

further discussion are listed below along with measurements for each indicator. Information 

on reasons for the elimination of other potential indicators is presented in the Aquatic Species 

Resource Report, available on the Project website.

Temperature of fish-bearing reaches of stream channels can affect aquatic species; lower 

temperatures are more beneficial to fish. This indicator is measured by the amount of shade 

adjacent to streams because increased shade keeps temperatures low.

Sediment and Substrate- the percentage of substrate composition that is of fine material can 

affect aquatic species because a high percentage of fine material disrupts survival of young 

fish. Both the composition of surface and subsurface of non-pool units, and volume of pools 

filled with fine material, affect fish. In the absence of survey data, cumulative watershed 

effects (CWE) models and professional judgment are used to measure this indicator. The 

universal soil loss equation (USLE) and mass wasting (GEO) models are used; see Bell 2012 

for information on these models.

Turbidity – This indicator is rated by professional judgment following observation of 

conditions after high water events, amount of substrate fines, cumulative watershed effects 

models (USLE and GEO), and condition of riparian reserves. In addition, the distance to fish 

habitat and the likelihood of activities to introduce fine sediment into fish-bearing streams 

will also be incorporated into the effects analysis.

Large Woody Debris – This indicator is rated using amount of “large wood” per linear 

length of stream; it is only applicable in 3rd or larger order stream systems. The Forest Plan 

(which incorporates the Northwest Forest Plan) provides a definition of large wood (see the 

glossary in chapter 4 of this EIS) and guidelines as to an acceptable amount of such wood. If 

it is determined, through the use of professional judgment, that guidelines are inadequate or 

do not capture the nature of the system under consideration, channel width and potential of 

the site to produce and retain woody debris may be used. Potential for future large woody 

debris recruitment in both the short and long term should also be considered. Recruitment 

will be determined using the likelihood of the removal of standing trees that have a high 

probability of becoming large woody debris in the stream channel based on professional 

judgment and scientific literature.

Disturbance History and Regime – This indicator is primarily rated using CWE (equivalent 

roaded area (ERA), USLE and GEO) models. If professional judgment concludes that these 

models are not fully capturing disturbance risk, road density and location, current impacts 

from past stand-replacing timber harvest and wildfire, fire regime, vegetation regime, and 

development on private property may also be considered.

Peak and Base Flows – For the watershed-level, this indicator is rated using elements of 

ERA, road density, vegetation and riparian reserve condition, and other associated 

components. Any potential effects to flows due to a site-specific project element are 

considered individually.
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

89

Drainage Network – This indicator is rated by increase or decrease in drainage network as 

related to roads, ditches, and other similar structures.

Riparian Reserves – This indicator is a consideration of the riparian environs, and extends

into the near uplands. It is rated as a synthesis of shade, large woody debris recruitment, and 

disturbance to the riparian reserve management area.

3.6.3 Spatial and Temporal Bounding of Analysis Area

The analysis area for aquatic resources includes effects at the site-specific and watershedscale extent. Watersheds used in the analysis are at the 5th and 7th field level.

Site-specific analysis discussion will focus on water drafting within the range of anadromous 

and resident fish. For the remainder of the project area, project components are outside the 

distribution of analysis species, habitat is not present, or distance to occupied or suitable 

habitat is too distant for an effect to occur.

The temporal analysis timeframe includes effects during implementation, short-term effects 

expected to occur within the first year following implementation, and long-term effects 

(greater than one year).

3.6.4 Affected Environment

The only threatened or endangered fish in the analysis area is the Southern Oregon/Northern 

California Coasts Coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), including critical habitat. Sensitive 

fish species for the Klamath National Forest in the Project are the Upper Klamath-Trinity 

Rivers Chinook (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), Klamath Mountains Province Steelhead 

(Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus), Klamath River lamprey (Entosphenus similis), and Pacific 

lamprey (Entosphenus tridentatus). Both steelhead and resident rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus 

mykiss) are management indicator species in the Forest Plan. Additionally, designated 

essential fish habitat is associated with Coho salmon and Chinook salmon.

Table 3-34 displays a summary of actual and potential occupancy by analysis species of 

creeks and rivers within 5th and 7th field watersheds.

Table 3-34: Actual and Potential Occupancy of Aquatic Species by 7th and 5th Field Watershed

Species

7th Field Watershed 5th Field Watershed

Humbug Creek

Middle Fork 

Humbug Creek

South Fork 

Humbug Creek

Punch Creek

Sucker Creek

Klamath River

Coho X,T T T X

Chinook X

Steelhead X,T X, T X, T X T X

Resident Rainbow Trout X X X X X X

Pacific Lamprey X P P X

Klamath River Lamprey P P P X
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

90

Species

7th Field Watershed 5th Field Watershed

Humbug Creek

Middle Fork 

Humbug Creek

South Fork 

Humbug Creek

Punch Creek

Sucker Creek

Klamath River

X - confirmed present

P - potential presence

T - thermal refugia

For the analysis indicators, baseline existing condition – “Properly Functioning,” 

“Functioning-at-Risk,” and “Not Properly Functioning” – applies principally to creeks which 

directly or indirectly support anadromous species.

Table 3-35 displays the baseline for analysis indicators for anadromous streams in the project 

area.

Table 3-35: Baseline for Project Area Aquatic Resources Indicators

Stream/River

TemperatureSubstrateTurbidityLarge Woody DebrisDist. History/RegimePeak/Base FlowsDrainage NetworkRiparian Reserves

Humbug Creek NF* P P NF FAR P FAR FAR

Middle Fork Humbug Creek P P P NF FAR P P FAR

South Fork Humbug Creek P P P NF P P FAR FAR

Middle Klamath River NF NF FAR NF FAR NF FAR FAR

P - "Properly Functioning"

FAR - "Functioning-at-Risk"

NF - "Not Properly Functioning"

*The lower 4.5 miles of Humbug Creek are “Not Properly Functioning”

3.6.5 Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1

Direct and Indirect Effects

Under Alternative 1, the Project would not occur and no management actions would be 

taken. Legacy sediment sites identified for the Craggy Project would not be addressed. The 

effect to fish and fish habitat of not addressing the Craggy Project legacy sediment sites is 

insignificant to not measurable. While there are several sites present throughout the project 

area, most are distant from fish-occupied waters, and the current or potential sediment impact 

to their respective watershed is minimal. As all major streams in the project area, with the 

exception of the Klamath River, are considered to have good baseline water quality, even 
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

91

with the continued existence of the legacy sites, if one or more sites were to experience 

catastrophic failure the impact downstream is likely to be minimal and short-term.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative impact occurs when the effect of one project overlaps with or compounds the 

effects of another. The Craggy Project does not influence the implementation of any nearby 

project, nor visa-versa. The primary consequence to fish and aquatic habitat of not doing the 

project is related to legacy site impacts. However, the legacy site risk is part of the existing 

baseline; because the other projects are physically separate from the Project, their activities 

will neither influence nor exacerbate the existing condition. Therefore, without direct effects 

or a compounding indirect effect, there cannot be cumulative effects for Alternative 1.

Alternative 2

Direct Effects

Potential direct impacts to aquatic resources may occur as a result of water drafting and a 

temporary stream crossing. No other project elements include instream activities within fishbearing waters. Fish screens, resource protection measures, best management practices, and 

fish mobility would preclude impingement. Fish temporarily avoiding water drafting 

activities are not likely to experience reduced feeding success, nor result in a significantly 

higher probability of exposure to predators.

Indirect Effects

Potential indirect impacts to aquatic resources would occur as a result of harvest and 

silviculture activities, prescribed fire, legacy site treatment, and water drafting. The indirect 

effects to indicators which may be affected by project activities are as follows:

Temperature – The Project would have a minor, short-term effect to stream flow during 

water drafting operations. However, the effects are not likely to have any detectable change 

to stream temperature in fish-bearing reaches or have any meaningful impact to fish habitat, 

including thermal refugia. There would be no meaningful effect to stream temperature from 

commercial harvest or silviculture activities because effective stream shade would be

maintained. Similarly, prescribed fire would not impact stream temperature because overstory riparian vegetation would be maintained.

Sediment/Substrate – Most sediment which is mobilized by Project activities is expected to 

remain localized near to the site of disturbance due to the location of the project upon the 

landscape, functionality of riparian reserve buffers, project design features, and best 

management practices considered adequate to control overland movement of sediment. 

Because there would be no measurable transport of sediment to fish-occupied areas above the 

background level, indicators which directly or indirectly rely upon this metric (turbidity, pool 

frequency and quality) would not be affected. Neither fish nor their habitat would be affected 

by changes to the sediment regime caused by Project activities.

Turbidity – Only work associated with a temporary stream crossing and water drafting 

would occur within a stream channel, potentially creating turbidity.

There is one proposed temporary stream crossing located within a stream channel containing 

anadromous fish; this crossing would be treated to reduce possible sediment input using 

rocks, small culverts, and landscape fabric. The amount of ground disturbance and associated 
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

92

stream turbidity likely as a result of this crossing upgrade is limited in scope and intensity. 

The Forest Service has consulted with National Marine Fisheries Service both

programmatically (USDA 2004a) and on a project-specific basis on this type of work since 

Coho salmon was listed under the Endangered Species Act in 1997. As part of project 

planning and implementation, resource specialists design, and monitor the use of, projectspecific best management practices to ensure that short-term impacts to fish habitat resulting 

from crossing upgrade work, especially related to sediment, are sufficiently minimized.

There are two legacy sites located within 300 feet of anadromous fish-bearing streams and 

five sites located within 300 feet of resident fish-bearing streams. Treatment of these sites, 

using project-specific best management practices, is likely to have only short-term, minimal 

impacts to fish and fish habitat. Other legacy sediment sites are well above habitat occupied 

by fish, and potential sediment generated from these activities is likely to be undetectable 

greater than 300 feet downstream of the site and, therefore, would not have any effect to fish 

or their habitat (USDA 2004a).

Where drafting sites are within fish-occupied waters, a small plume of suspended sediment is 

expected during operations, but turbidity would be localized, minimal in extent and duration, 

with the most likely fish behavior to be one of avoidance. No measurable increase in 

turbidity is expected beyond the immediate area where drafting occurs.

Large Woody Debris – Effects to recruitment and transport of large woody debris of an 

appropriate size to affect habitat attributes of fish-bearing streams is not expected. Creeks 

with fish and fish habitat adjacent to harvest units would retain similar rates of current large 

woody debris recruitment due to buffer width. Where a decreased input of smaller debris 

may affect function of fishless headwater systems, the impact would be short-term, localized, 

and unlikely to be noticeable downgradient within fish-occupied reaches. In the long term, 

benefits are expected throughout the project area via the growth of larger trees which may 

contribute to future large woody debris input.

Disturbance History/Regime – While there are some small CWE model increases as a 

result of this Project (see section 3.7of this document for ERA results and all CWE model 

results on the Project website), there would be no significant effects to aquatic habitat from 

any Project activities. Model estimates for ERA and USLE remain below the threshold of 

concern, and this analysis concludes that the functional level of this indicator would not 

change. Model estimates for GEO, although over threshold for two 7th field watersheds, are 

not increased as a result of the Project. Additionally, indicators which directly or indirectly 

use this metric– peak or base flows, substrate, and turbidity - would not be measurably 

affected.

Peak/Base Flows – There would be no watershed-scale changes to peak or base flows as a 

result of Project activities due to treatment unit location on the landscape, minimal and 

localized impacts, and functioning buffering capacity of intervening riparian reserve habitat. 

This is reflected in ERA model output, which remains below the threshold of concern.

Drainage Network – In the short term, there would be an insignificant increase in the 

drainage network from landing and skid trail construction, with these impacts neutral in the 

long term due to subsequent rehabilitation and natural stabilization. Long term, there would

be an insignificant decrease in the drainage network following hydrologic stabilization of 

temporary roads and legacy sediment site repair.
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

93

Riparian Reserves – Project activities would have both a short-term and a long-term effect 

to riparian reserves. In the short term, individual components which comprise the riparian 

reserve indicator would impart insignificant, mostly localized, effects which would not alter 

the functional level of the riparian reserve in the project area. In the long-term, harvest and 

silviculture treatments are expected to provide a landscape-scale benefit to riparian reserves 

in the form of larger trees and increased size of in-stream wood. However, this positive may 

be offset by prescribed fuels treatments which are insufficiently aggressive to fundamentally 

modify the existing riparian condition of an altered fire regime. Therefore, it is the 

professional judgment of the fish biologist that the long-term effect to riparian reserves is 

neutral.

Cumulative Effects

There would be minimal cumulative impacts to aquatics from current and reasonably 

foreseeable future projects within the vicinity of the Craggy Project. Cumulative impact 

occurs when the effects of one project overlaps with or compound the effects of another. In 

the project area, although projects may overlap project boundaries (Westside Fire Recovery, 

and Fuels Reduction Projects on Bureau of Land Management lands), or share a common 

watershed without physical boundary overlap (Yreka Flood Hazard Reduction Project and 

Lower Yreka Creek Full Restoration Project), there would be no significant adverse additive 

effects to aquatic habitat indicators. Cumulative watershed effects models either remain 

below the threshold of concern, or else are not exacerbated, when the effects of Alternative 2

and all current and reasonably foreseeable future projects are included in the model.

Alternative 3

Direct Effects

Direct effects are the same as described in Alternative 2; the same temporary stream crossing

of an anadromous fish-bearing stream would be improved and used as in Alternative 2 and 

the same water drafting sites are available for use.

Indirect Effects

Potential indirect impacts to aquatic resources would occur as a result of harvest and 

silviculture activities, prescribed fire, legacy sediment site treatment, temporary stream 

crossing and water drafting. Even though there are different numbers of various treatments in 

the action alternatives, the indirect effects to aquatic species indicators which may be 

affected by project activities are the same as in Alternative 2.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects are the same as in Alternative 2.

3.6.6 Comparison of Alternatives

Alternative 1 is not expected to have any effects on aquatic resources. Table 3-36 displays

determinations concerning the effects of action alternatives on aquatic resources.

Table 3-36: Summary of Determinations on Aquatic Resources for Alternatives 2 and 3

Species Special Status 1Determination

Fish Species
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

94

Species Special Status 1Determination

Coho Salmon (and critical habitat) Federally 

Threatened NLAA

Chinook Salmon (Spring/Fall runs)

(Upper Klamath-Trinity Rivers) FSS NE

Steelhead Trout

(Klamath Mountains Province) FSS, MIS MANL

Rainbow Trout (resident) MIS MANL

Pacific Lamprey FSS MANL

Klamath River Lamprey FSS MANL

Other Habitat

Essential Fish Habitat (Coho/Chinook) Will Not Affect 

1Federally Listed Species

NE - Will not affect the species or its Critical Habitat

NLAA - May affect, not likely to adversely affect the species or its Critical Habitat

LAA - May affect, likely to adversely affect the species or its Critical Habitat

Forest Sensitive Species (FSS) / Management Indicator Species (MIS)

NE - No effect to the species (FSS and MIS)

MANL - May affect individuals, but is not likely to lead to a trend towards listing (FSS); and/or

 May affect individuals, but is not likely to lead to a decreasing population trend (MIS)

MALT - May affect individuals, and is likely to result in a trend towards listing (FSS); and/or

 May affect individuals, and is likely to lead to a decreasing population trend (MIS)

Table 3-37 displays the effects of all alternatives on analysis indicators.

Table 3-37: Effects of Alternatives on Analysis Indicators for Aquatic Resources

Indicator Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Temperature 0 -/0 -/0

Substrate/Sediment 0 -/+ -/+

Turbidity 0 -/0 -/0

Large Woody Debris 0 -/0 -/0

Disturbance History/Regime 0 -/0 -/0

Peak/Base Flow 0 -/0 -/0

Drainage Network 0/- -/+ -/+

Riparian Reserves 0 -/+ -/+

0 = Neutral effects

- = Insignificant or discountable negative effects

+ = Insignificant or discountable positive effects

S-= Significant negative effects

S+ = Significant positive effects

*/* = Short-term/long-term effects
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

95

3.6.7 Compliance with law, regulation, policy, and the Forest Plan

All alternatives will meet Forest Plan standards and guidelines, and comply with the 

Endangered Species Act, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act,

and all other relevant regulations, laws, and policies. Section 7 consultation will be 

completed with the National Marine Fisheries Service for the preferred alternative when it is 

identified.

3.7 Hydrology

This section analyzes the effects of the Craggy Project on water quality in the project area 

and eight relevant 7th field watersheds.

3.7.1 Methodology

Water quality is dependent on many interconnected processes that are influenced by both 

upslope and in-stream conditions. The analysis of existing conditions and potential effects of 

the alternatives considered the following: field reviews and inventories, monitoring data, 

scientific literature, specialist reports, geographic information system (GIS) data analysis and 

modeling, and best professional judgment. Riparian reserve area widths on perennial streams 

were checked in the field on April 26, 2016 for a number of proposed units.

The risk assessment for peak stream flow uses one of the three cumulative watershed effects 

(CWE) models: the equivalent roaded area model (ERA). The models are a tool to estimate 

the direct, indirect and cumulative watershed effects of management activities. The 

equivalent roaded area concept was initially based on formulations by Harr et al. (1975) that 

drew correlations between reduction in canopy and water yield increases on experimental 

forested watersheds.

The model “... provides a simplified accounting system for tracking disturbances that affect 

watershed processes, in particular, estimates in changes in peak runoff flows influenced by

ground-disturbing activities” (Bell 2012). This model provides a baseline by using the 

current level of disturbance, which includes past events and actions in the project area. The

level of disturbance from various proposed Project activities (e.g., road construction, 

landings, thinning, etc.) within a given watershed is compared to the baseline to estimate 

effects of the proposed activities. This is expressed as percent equivalent roaded area

(percent ERA); the theoretical maximum disturbance level acceptable is expressed as percent 

threshold of concern (percent TOC).

“The threshold of concern (TOC) is a measure of watershed sensitivity” (Bell 2012). It is a 

designated percent beyond which there may be measureable or observable evidence of 

impacts to channels and floodplains. These impacts may include the increase of fine grain 

sediment delivery to streams and the increase of some peak flows due to canopy reduction.

The percent threshold of concern is calculated based on soil erodibility, hydrologic response, 

slope stability, channel sensitivity, and beneficial uses of each watershed. The thresholds for 

percent equivalent roaded area are listed by watershed in Table 3-38. For example, a 

watershed with high sensitivity would have a low threshold of concern for percent equivalent 

roaded area.

Percent equivalent roaded area is used to calculate a risk ratio for the ERA model. The model 

is named a “cumulative watershed effects” model because it adds up the effects of all the 
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

96

activities being proposed for a project and provides a risk ratio for a set of activities in the 

proposed project or alternatives. A risk ratio greater than or equal to 1.0 (the threshold of 

concern for risk ratios for all watersheds) is a yellow flag and calls for a closer look at 

mitigation opportunities. Cumulative Watershed Effects: the Abridged Version (Bell 2012) 

provides a more detailed description of the model, its uses and limitations. The model can 

also estimate the cumulative risk ratio of adding the effects of past, present and reasonably

foreseeable future actions to the effects of a set of proposed activities or alternatives. It is 

only this last modeled risk ratio that is the “cumulative effect” of the project according to the 

NEPA definition of cumulative effects.

The equivalent roaded area model was also run under a wildfire scenario for Alternatives 1 

and 3. Potential wildfire watershed effects for Alternative 1 represent the effects of not 

implementing the Project; Alternative 3 results represent the effects of implementing 

treatments. Since there are only very small differences between Alternatives 2 and 3 in risk 

ratios, the model results for Alternative 3 under the wildfire scenario will be used as a proxy 

for the effects of Alternative 2. The modeling was generated using the FlamMap modeling 

for fire potential for zero to five years after Project implementation (see the Fire and Fuels 

Report for detailed methods). The resulting flame lengths were used with the equivalent 

roaded area modeling as proxy for fire severity in the project area units.

3.7.2 Analysis Indicators and Measures

Water quality indicators used in this analysis are stream temperature as determined by stream 

shade, sediment, and peak flow. Quantifiable estimation of effects to indicators will be based 

on field data collection and compared with regulatory benchmarks, as well as ERA model 

results where effects are difficult to observe and measure.

Changes in stream shade due to each set of activities is measured using a solar pathfinder (an 

instrument that can measure percent shade and can be used to estimate effects to shade from 

Project alternatives at the site scale). This indicator uses change to potential effective shade 

of the proposed action on perennial and late-flowing intermittent streams as a proxy for 

stream temperature.

Effects to the sediment indicator in the watersheds will be estimated using the ERA model 

results and road condition. Road condition has been assessed through field inventory of 

human-caused active or potential sediment sources to streams (legacy sediment sites) 

between February 2017 and May 2017.

The effects to peak flow in the watersheds are estimated using the ERA model and methods 

described in Grant et al. (2008) to translate the percent of a watershed with disturbance to 

changes in the hillslope water runoff that leads to changes in in-stream peak flows. 

Generally, peak flow increases are not measurable if less than 20 percent of basal area in a 

watershed is removed (Troendle et al. 2010).

3.7.3 Spatial and Temporal Bounding of Analysis Area

The watershed spatial scale is bound by eight 7th field watersheds that intersect the project 

area: Clear Creek, Greenhorn Creek, Upper Humbug Creek, Lower Humbug Creek, Middle 

Fork Humbug Creek, Rocky Gulch-Yreka Creek, Yreka City-Yreka Creek, and Long Gulch.

As noted earlier in this environmental impact statement, there are several other 7th field 
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

97

watersheds that are within the Craggy Project area but they total less than one percent of the 

project area and, therefore, are not included in this analysis.

The site scale is bound by the area proposed for treatment and the extent to which a treatment 

could affect channel reaches immediately downstream. Appendix B of this document 

displays maps of the analysis area 7th field watersheds and the legacy sediment site locations

and the treatment plan for them.

The temporal scale for effects to stream shade in regard to percent of canopy reduction, is 

considered short-term for effects lasting less than 10 years or long-term where they persist 

for 10 years or more. Ten years is the time frame by which most effects of vegetation 

management are naturally recovered through re-growth (Grant et al. 2008).

Non-road-related equivalent roaded area modeled disturbances recover gradually over forty 

years. Since roads are “forever” and do not recover like vegetative disturbance, road-related 

sedimentation is constant year after year (Bell 2012). Equivalent roaded area results that are 

provided are for the effects immediately post-treatment for action alternatives. The combined 

effects to water quality of various management activities were assessed in combination with 

past and foreseeable future activities through the watershed effects process modeling.

3.7.4 Affected Environment

The Project is within the Yreka Creek-Shasta River and Humbug Creek-Klamath River 5th

field watersheds. The Shasta River, a major tributary of the Klamath River, was listed as 

impaired for organic enrichment/dissolved oxygen in 1992, and as impaired for temperature 

in 1994, pursuant to Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (State Water Resource Control 

Board 2012). Dissolved oxygen concentrations are regularly too low to comply with the 

Basin Plan dissolved oxygen objectives. Water temperature conditions regularly exceed 

temperature thresholds that are protective of salmonids. Low dissolved oxygen 

concentrations and elevated water temperatures in the Shasta River and its tributaries have 

resulted in degraded water quality conditions that do not meet applicable water quality 

objectives, and impair designated beneficial uses. The designated beneficial uses that are not 

fully supported in the Shasta River include: cold freshwater habitat; rare, threatened, and 

endangered species; migration of aquatic organisms; spawning, reproduction, and early 

development of fish; commercial and sport fishing; and contact and non-contact water 

recreation.

The Klamath River is also listed as impaired for low dissolved oxygen, high water 

temperature, and high nutrient levels (State Water Resource Control Board 2012). The 

Klamath River has additional beneficial uses that are not designated for the Shasta River that 

may be adversely affected by inputs from the Shasta River. These beneficial uses include the 

Native American cultural use that supports cultural and traditional rights of indigenous 

people, such as ceremonial uses, and the subsistence fishing use.

North and east of Craggy Mountain the majority of riparian vegetation is on private land and 

has been altered by mine tailings. The lower third of Humbug Creek is dominated by willows 

with a scattered overstory of cottonwoods. The stream gradient is relatively shallow with a 

wide floodplain.

Alluvium deposits at the mouth of Humbug Creek are a combined result of 19th century mine 

tailings and the subsequent construction of dams on the Klamath River which reduce the 
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

98

force of high flows. The creek commonly runs subsurface through the private land adjacent 

to the mouth of Humbug Creek in Section 16 of Township 45 North, Range 7 West, of 

Mount Diablo Meridian.

South and west of Craggy Mountain, including the headwaters of Humbug Creek and 

Cousins Gulch, the channel is constrained and a relatively narrow floodplain supports a 

riparian community of conifers, alders, and maples.

Stream Temperature and Shade

The North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (North Coast Water Board 2011) 

uses lack of stream shade as an indicator for stream temperature impairment. The regulatory 

standard requires that site-specific potential effective shade (shade on a watercourse 

equivalent to that provided by topography and potential vegetation conditions at a site) must 

be maintained unless it can be demonstrated that the proposed activities will result in a net 

long-term benefit to water quality and stream temperatures (North Coast Water Board, 2015). 

The justification for reducing stream shade must include the proposed canopy reduction, 

estimated recovery time, and an estimate of the pre- and post- project shade or solar impacts.

Stream shade was estimated generally for perennial streams on the Forest using a solar 

pathfinder (an instrument that can measure percentage of shade) with inputs for vegetation 

derived from remote sensing data in 2011. Air photo interpretation was used to verify the 

remote sensing data, and to identify reaches where stream shade has been reduced by human 

activities. The amount of shade loss due to human activities was estimated by comparing the 

modeled shade in altered reaches with nearby stream reaches that lack human disturbance

(reference streams). Of the 84.4 percent of stream length of Humbug Creek assessed, the 

watershed average for existing shade was 88.5 percent (USDA 2011a), well above desired 

conditions (see stream temperature monitoring information in USDA 2012a). However, sitespecific potential effective shade is still required to be determined within each project unit 

proposed within a riparian reserve to ensure no long term loss of shade occurs, as that would

violate the 2015 Waiver.

Units within riparian reserves mentioned in Appendix A of the hydrology report have been 

assessed by the district hydrologist who determined that these riparian reserves could benefit 

from project activities: thinning or fuel reduction. Aquatic conservation strategy objectives 

would be maintained or restored in these riparian reserves (see Appendix F), shade buffers 

have been designed so as to have no negative effect to shade.

Not all activities proposed within riparian reserves have currently been assessed by a district 

hydrologist. In these cases, either standard Forest Plan riparian reserve widths will be applied 

(300 feet for fish bearing perennial streams, 150 feet for non-fish bearing perennial streams 

and intermittent streams), or if it is determined that treatment within outer portions of these 

riparian reserves would be beneficial to aquatic conservation strategy objectives and have no 

effect to shade, modified riparian reserve buffer and equipment exclusion zones will be fully 

divulged in the application for Waiver coverage under the 2015 Waiver. Such site-specific 

recommendations will only decrease treatment unit size over their existing extent. No 

increases will be proposed.
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

99

Stream Sedimentation and Channel Stability

Streams adjacent to proposed treatment areas are mostly small, first order intermittent 

streams (and a few perennial streams) at the middle to upper slope position. Modeled results 

that are lower than the threshold of concern by watershed indicate that upslope conditions are 

presently not contributing negative effects to water quality in the analysis area (Table 3-38).

Table 3-38: Equivalent Roaded Area Modeled Results for the Current Condition in 7th Field Watersheds

7th Field Watersheds

7th field 

Watershed Area 

(acres)

Percent ERAs Percent TOC Current ERA 

Risk Ratio*

Upper Humbug Creek 8,037 2.8 9.5 0.30

Middle Fork Humbug Creek 4,978 2.9 10.0 0.29

Clear Creek 2,781 3.6 10.5 0.35

Lower Humbug 7,830 1.6 10.5 0.15

Greenhorn Creek 7,734 6.1 9.0 0.68

Yreka City-Yreka Creek 7,054 2.8 12.0 0.23

Long Gulch 2,834 3.0 11.0 0.27

Rocky Gulch-Yreka Creek 2,102 1.5 11.5 0.13

*Threshold of concern for risk ratios is 1.0 for all 7th field watersheds.

Forest roads within highly erosive granitic soils have resulted in erosion problems throughout 

portions of the landscape and erosion can lead to sediment in streams. The legacy sediment 

sites, if not repaired and rehabilitated, have the potential to fail or divert as the result of a 

100-year or smaller flood. Altogether the 293 legacy sites in the project area have an 

estimated volume of over 49,290 cubic yards, available to be discharged to project area 

streams (see Appendix B for maps of legacy sediment sites in the project area and their

treatment plan). The most frequently observed, but usually low risk type of legacy site is rill 

and gully erosion from off-highway vehicle trails (mostly), system roads, and unauthorized 

routes resulting from improper, nonexistent, or malfunctioning drainage structures. Typically 

the higher risk sites are road crossings of large intermittent or perennial streams in undersized 

or failing culverts under large fill volumes. These sites often exhibit diversion potential (the 

potential for flow to divert down the road in the event that a large storm plugs the culvert), 

which can be the cause of large quantities of sediment discharge. All legacy sites are 

prioritized based upon a complex risk rating formula developed under the Road Sediment 

Source Inventory (USDA, 2012b). Treatment of legacy sites as required by the 2015 Waiver 

for total maximum daily load implementation will be detailed in the discussion of 

Alternatives 2 and 3 below.

Peak Stream Flow

Annual precipitation rates follow a steep gradient, decreasing west to east from about 50 

inches per year to 20 inches per year. Snow frequently occurs in winter months above 4,000 

feet. The north facing peaks such as McKinley Mountain and Mahogany Point retain the 

greatest amount of snowpack in early spring (USDA 1993).

No stream-gauging stations have been installed on streams in the analysis area to provide 

direct measurements of stream flow. Streams in the area that have recorded stream flows 
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

100

respond quickly to rainfall events with prolonged low-flow recession limbs (rates of decrease 

in discharge as a stream’s level falls after a rain). Historically, rain on snow events typically 

result in the largest peak flow, flood, and debris flow events (de la Fuente and Elder 1998).

Table 3-39 outlines existing versus desired condition in the project area for the analysis 

indicators. Stream temperature as maximum weekly temperature is not met in Humbug 

Creek, though shading throughout the project area exceeds desired levels by a large margin.

Table 3-39: Craggy Project Area Current Indicator Conditions vs. Desired Conditions

Indicator Measure Existing 

Condition

Desired 

Condition

Are desired 

conditions being met?

Stream 

Sedimentation

CWE model: ERA (% 

of watershed roaded) 1.5% to 6.1% <0.4% No

Road Condition 293 Legacy Sites 0 Legacy Sites No

Overall Average

Shade

Percent shade average 

for watersheds 88.50% > 69.7% Yes*

Peak Flow Equivalent roaded area 1.7% to 6.3% < 6.5% to 9.0% Yes

*Shade-a-lator model provides overall shade conditions. Site specific solar pathfinder measurements have been (and will 

be) taken within riparian reserves in treatment units. In some specific areas, shade is not meeting desired conditions.

3.7.5 Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1

Direct and Indirect Effects

In terms of temperature, it would be expected that conditions would remain the same or 

improve due to increasing streamside shade in the absence of a wildfire occurrence. Peak 

streamflow is expected to remain as at present in the absence of wildfire but increase 

substantially with wildfire.

Alternative 1 would not address any of the legacy sediment sites in the project area. Those 

sites would remain with the potential to deliver sediment into channels. The amount of 

potential sediment that would remain in the watershed and at risk of being delivered to 

stream-courses if no action is taken to address the legacy sites is 49,290 cubic yards.

This alternative would not reduce the severity of negative effects to water quality from a 

potential wildfire in the project area. The equivalent roaded area model was run for a wildfire 

scenario to help illustrate how a wildfire under this alternative could affect the watershed 

health including changes to sediment regimes, peak flow and changes to shade (see Table 3-

40).

The effects of this alternative in the short term, without the occurrence of a wildfire, are the 

same as what was stated previously as current condition. The ERA risk ratios for Alternative

1 are below in Table 3-40. It may be expected that, in the event of a wildfire, stream shading 

and temperature would possibly be affected negatively; that is, a decrease in shading from 

burned riparian areas would lead to an increase in stream temperature.
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

101

Table 3-40: Alternative 1 - Equivalent Roaded Area Modeling Results

7th field Watershed Name Current ERA 

Risk Ratios

ERA Risk Ratios 

with future wildfire

Upper Humbug Creek 0.30 0.78

Middle Fork Humbug Creek 0.29 0.65

Clear Creek 0.35 0.76

Lower Humbug 0.15 0.94

Greenhorn Creek 0.68 1.04

Yreka City-Yreka Creek 0.23 0.24

Long Gulch 0.27 0.77

Rocky Gulch-Yreka Creek7 0.13 0.85

Cumulative Effects

Past actions are accounted for in the affected environment description and Table 3-38

through Table 3-40. The ongoing or reasonably foreseeable future actions that have the 

potential for positive or negative effects to sediment, temperature, or peak flow are the Yreka 

Flood Hazard Reduction project, the Lower Yreka Creek Full Restoration Project and Side 

Channel Project, the City of Yreka Wildland Urban Interface Project, the Soap Creek 

Fuelbreak Maintenance, and the fuels reduction on Bureau of Land Management lands (see 

Appendix C of this document for the list of actions considered for cumulative effects).

The fuelbreak projects by the Bureau of Land Management lands (Long Gulch and Rocky 

Gulch-Yreka Creek 7th field watersheds), the City of Yreka Wildland Urban Interface (Rocky 

Gulch-Yreka Creek, Long Gulch, Yreka City-Yreka Creek, Greenhorn and Middle Humbug 

7th field watersheds), and the Soap Creek Fuelbreak Maintenance (Greenhorn Creek 7th field 

watershed) may have minor short-term negative effects on analysis indicators while they are 

being implemented but the treatments performed by these fuel reduction projects will also 

have beneficial effects to the hydrology analysis indicators by reducing negative effects if a 

fire were to occur without the Craggy Project being implemented.

The Yreka Flood Hazard Reduction Project, Lower Yreka Creek Full Restoration Project and 

Side Channel Project will have long-term positive effects on peak flows in Yreka Creek. 

During the implementation of these projects there is likely a small increase in short-term 

sediment delivery to the stream systems. The change in sediment regimes is likely to last 

only through the first winter after implementation. These projects may reduce shade in the 

short term because of the activities proposed in the floodplain. They are also likely to 

improve conditions over all in the long term for Yreka and Greenhorn Creek.

The effects of the above projects are taken into account within the equivalent roaded area 

model runs (Table 3-40). Excluding the event of wildfire (the equivalent roaded condition 

 

7 Data are not available for Rocky Gulch so it is assumed that this 7th field watershed is similar enough to Long 

Gulch that data for that watershed are used as a starting point. The effects of the recent Grade Fire in Rocky 

Gulch are added.
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

102

model does not actually predict probabilities of stochastic events that cannot be precisely 

predicted) the threshold of concern would not be exceeded in any Project watershed, 

currently or from the cumulative future effects of planned projects.

Adding the effects of Alternative 1 to the effects of other projects is not likely to produce 

significant cumulative effects.

Alternative 2

The following effects from Project activities would be reduced through implementation of 

project design features and best management practices (see chapter 2 and Appendix D 

respectively of this document). Project design features and best management practices are 

used to prevent or minimize negative effects to the extent that is possible and there are 

specific ones in place for protecting various indicators for water quality.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Direct effects include loss of ground cover, compaction and displacement of soil, and loss of 

canopy cover. Indirectly, loss of cover and displacement in the form of rutting can lead to 

surface runoff and erosion of soil surface layers. More information on the effects of this 

alternative on soil compaction and displacement are provided in the Soil Resource Report.

Periodic review of research on the effect of streamside buffers has found consistent results in 

terms of maintaining water quality (Castelle et al. 1994). Forest floors present a relatively 

high resistance to shallow surface flow. Contiguous buffers of any vegetative type, of about 

100 feet will remove 80 to 90 percent of nutrient and sediment load, largely through 

resistance and dispersal of the transporting sheet wash.

Loss of canopy cover can increase evaporation because of shading reduction, but research 

has shown the greater effect is in fact a decrease in transpiration, leading to increased soil 

moisture (Jones 2000). While increased soil moisture increases soil weight, and under the 

right conditions it can lead to landslips, a more typical response is an increase in small peak 

flows, often in the autumn months, with recurrence intervals of well under one year (Grant et 

al. 2008). However, the amount of canopy reduction needed for measureable gain in peak 

flows in areas that have transient snow cover is a minimum of greater than 20 percent of the 

watershed.

There is also evidence that canopy reduction from uplands can lead to increased runoff

during snow melt, both in total yield and peak flow (Troendle and King 1987, Burton 1997, 

Troendle et al. 2001). Open spaces frequently accumulate greater snow depth on the ground 

than a forest canopy by exposing less of it to solar radiation and wind (Geddes et al. 2005, 

Musselman et al. 2008). The canopy structure spreads snowfall over a greater surface area 

than it would occupy on the ground below. Also, the larger proportion of snow melt occurs 

while soil temperatures are cold enough to suppress plant activity and transpiration. Again 

these effects evidently occur only when at least 20 percent or more of the total watershed 

canopy is removed (Grant et al. 2008).

Over the past century paired catchment studies, many in the Pacific Northwest, have been 

conducted detailing impacts of canopy reduction on stream flow. These studies have been 

reviewed, with progressively more cases (Bosch and Hewlett 1982, Stednick 1996, Brown et 

al. 2005, Grant et al. 2008). These reviews have come to similar conclusions summarized as 

follows:
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

103

• Reducing cover has the greatest effect to increased runoff;

• However, canopy reduction of less than 20 percent does not typically have a 

measureable effect;

• Effects are greatest in runoff months; and

• Effects are greatest for small peaks with recurrence intervals of much less than 1 year.

The total canopy reduction in the Craggy Project watersheds, after project implementation, 

which may be approximated by the percent equivalent roaded area, would be between 1.9 

and 4.75 percent if no wildfire should occur; this is well below the level typical to initiate 

changes in peak flow or yield.

The equivalent roaded area method of the cumulative watershed effects modeling process 

provides an accurate, if proxy, estimate of canopy reduction and thus of primary Project 

effects to hydrology. In both logging systems (ground-based and skyline) there would be a 

certain amount of disturbed ground adjacent to felled trees and their subsequent cabling 

along skid trails or cable corridors, though the effects will likely be of less intensity for cable 

corridors than for ground-based systems. It is also possible that amount of traveled ground in 

ground-based units would exceed the initial planning. Tepp (2002) showed in research from

northeast Washington that supplemental skid trails are necessary when planned travel 

corridors were at 130 foot intervals, and the end result was little different than corridors set at 

40 foot intervals, although detrimental disturbance is likely much less on supplemental 

corridors because of fewer passes.

The main objective for watershed project design features in regards to logging operations is 

to maintain integrity of the riparian reserves and connected network of small zero-order 

draws and swales that may be only ephemeral in nature. As displayed in the project design 

features in chapter 2, yarding of logs will completely avoid perennial channels and cross only 

intermittent channels at designated channels. Swales and small draws will not be used for 

yarding routes, nor approached closer than 20 feet except for purpose of crossing. Landings

would not be constructed in riparian reserves, nor existing landings used that are less than 50 

feet from a stream. Implementation of these project design features would minimize or 

eliminate negative effects to water quality.

The effects of the Project on shade (and therefore, stream temperature) would be very 

minimal. Shade has been measured on several streams within active treatment units (see the 

table in Appendix A of the Hydrology Report). Equipment exclusion and no cut boundaries 

have been set at distances that would eliminate any reduction in shade to streams. As 

mentioned above, several treatment units which are within or very near (with allowance for 

some mapping error) riparian reserves have not yet been assessed. In these cases either of the 

two scenarios on a site scale, will be implemented:

1. Forest Plan, riparian reserve widths of 300 feet for perennial fish bearing streams, or 

150 feet for perennial (non-fish bearing) and intermittent streams.

2. In riparian reserves not meeting desired conditions for shade or vegetation 

composition, the outer portions may be treated by hand thinning or thinning from 

below. Equipment exclusion and no cut buffers would be set to prevent removal of 
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

104

shade, and those locations (along with the precise buffer widths) would be divulged 

within the application for coverage under the 2015 Waiver.

The effects to in-stream sediment would be significant and positive from addressing the 

legacy sediment sites in the watersheds. Approximately 29,200 cubic yards of potential 

sediment would be treated through the implementation of a legacy site treatment plan in 

compliance with the 2015 Waiver. This plan would treat 78 of the 293 legacy sites (but over 

half of the total potential sediment from all legacy sites in the project area) by stormproofing

and hydrologic stabilization.

Stormproofing would involve all or some of the following activities:

• Installation of critical dips over stream crossings to eliminate diversion potentials.

• Replacement of undersized culverts.

• Outsloping to restore natural drainage patters.

• Installation of rolling dips to restore natural drainage patterns.

• Maintenance or removal of inboard ditches and cross drains.

• Spot rocking and surface hardening.

• Fill reduction over culverts.

• Any other action necessary to reduce the risk of water quality degradation from 

human-caused sediment sources.

Hydrologic stabilization of unauthorized routes and mining related structures:

• Removal of all fill from stream crossings.

• Redirection of diverted springs.

• Stabilization of sliver fill failures on over-steepened road fill.

• Significant outsloping of old road surfaces enough to restore nearly natural drainage 

patterns.

• Removal of old culverts.

• Any other actions necessary to reduce the risk of water quality degradation from road 

sediment and fills.

The legacy site treatment plan will not be finalized until after enrolled under the 2015 

Waiver, which will take place soon after the Record of Decision is signed. Hydrologic 

stabilization indicated on the map of the legacy sediment site treatment plan in Appendix B

and stormproofing on 46N22 and 45N39 are certain, however the other roads indicated on 

this map as “potential stormproofing” are less certain. This is because the 2015 Waiver 

requires the treatment of a certain number of legacy sites, those within the project activities. 

There are 78 legacy sites that intersect with project units, and therefore 78 legacy sites will 

be treated in compliance with the 2015 Waiver. However, the Waiver allows for trading of 

those legacy sites for those that are higher risk within the larger planning boundary of a 

project (or adjacent HUC12 watershed). Though not finalized, this is the Forest’s plan for 

compliance with the Waiver requirements for legacy site treatment. Roughly 50 legacy sites 
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

105

will be treated via hydrologic stabilization. The rest of the required legacy sites (roughly 28) 

will be treated via stormproofing two or more sections of the roads indicated as such on this 

map.

Please see the discussion under Alternative 3 for the results for the equivalent roaded area 

model that was run using a modeled wildfire scenario.

Table 3-41: Equivalent Roaded Area (ERA) Results for Alternative 2 (in acres)

7th field Watershed Name ERAs added by 

Alternative 2

Total ERAs for 

Alternative 2

Upper Humbug Creek 292 519

Middle Fork Humbug Creek 55 200

Clear Creek 88 189

Lower Humbug 71 196

Greenhorn Creek 34 508

Yreka City-Yreka Creek 16 210

Long Gulch 20 104

Rocky Gulch-Yreka Creek 8 39

Cumulative Effects

Only in the Lower Humbug 7th field watershed are ongoing and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions expected to result in any cumulative effects for the Craggy Project. Therefore, risk 

ratios are the same as for direct and indirect effects for all other 7th field watersheds as 

displayed on Table 3-42.

The effects are the same for Alternative 2 as for Alternative 1 from ongoing and reasonably

foreseeable future actions. These projects will not measurably increase the magnitude of 

effects to water quality when added to actions in Alternative 2 from the Craggy Project.

Table 3-42: Cumulative Risk Ratios for Alternative 2

7th field Watershed Name

ERA risk ratios for Alternative 2 from 

direct and indirect effects and past 

actions and events

ERA risk ratios for Alternative 2 when 

the effects of ongoing and future 

actions are added

Upper Humbug Creek 0.68 0.68

Middle Fork Humbug Creek 0.40 0.40

Clear Creek 0.65 0.65

Lower Humbug 0.24 0.26

Greenhorn Creek 0.73 0.73

Yreka City-Yreka Creek 0.25 0.25

Long Gulch 0.34 0.34

Rocky Gulch-Yreka Creek 0.16 0.16

Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect Effects
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

106

This alternative was developed in response to concerns related to hazardous fuels reduction 

adjacent to private lands and sediment displacement resulting from log-haul and road 

construction. For a description of the differences between alternatives see chapter 2.

The direct and indirect effects from Project activities would be the same generally, as for 

Alternative 2. Legacy site treatment would not change between alternatives because the same 

requirements from the 2015 Waiver apply to both alternatives because the alternatives have a 

very similar overall footprint. Table 3-43 below displays the model results for equivalent 

roaded area for alternative 3.

Table 3-43: Equivalent Roaded Area Model Results for Alternative 3

7th field Watershed Name ERAs added by Alternative 3 Total ERAs for Alternative 3

Upper Humbug Creek 248 475

Middle Fork Humbug Creek 36 181

Clear Creek 76 178

Lower Humbug 57 182

Greenhorn Creek 34 508

Yreka City-Yreka Creek 10 204

Long Gulch 18 102

Rocky Gulch-Yreka Creek 8 39

Cumulative Effects

As for Alternative 2, only in the Lower Humbug 7th field watershed are ongoing and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions expected to result in any cumulative effects for 

Alternative 3 of the Craggy Project. Therefore, risk ratios are the same as for direct and 

indirect effects for all other 7th field watersheds as displayed on Table 3-44.

Table 3-44: Cumulative Risk Ratios for Alternative 3

7th field Watershed Name

ERA risk ratios for Alternative 3 

from direct and indirect effects 

and past actions and events

ERA risk ratios for Alternative 3 

including effects of ongoing and 

reasonably foreseeable actions

Upper Humbug Creek 0.62 0.62

Middle Fork Humbug Creek 0.36 0.36

Clear Creek 0.61 0.61

Lower Humbug 0.22 0.24

Greenhorn Creek 0.73 0.73

Yreka City-Yreka Creek 0.24 0.24

Long Gulch 0.33 0.34

Rocky Gulch-Yreka Creek 0.16 0.16

3.7.6 Comparison of Alternatives

Table 3-45 below displays a comparison of the equivalent roaded area model results between 

alternatives. The wildfire scenario for modelling was run with Alternative 3 vegetation 

thinning treatments considered as described in the methodology section. Risk ratios were 
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

107

reduced in the watersheds by an average of 20 percent, indicating that risk of erosion or mass 

wasting from the effects of wildfire is less after treatment than in the event of a fire without 

treatment. The exercise was not repeated for Alternative 2 because of the relative similarity 

of the two alternatives. It is assumed that the results will be similar for Alternative 3 as for 

Alternative 2. See Table 3-46 below for the risk ratios results for each watershed.

Table 3-45: Comparison of Equivalent Roaded Area (ERA) Risk Ratios for Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 

7th field Watershed Name ERA risk ratios for 

Alternative 1

ERA risk ratios for 

Alternative 2

ERA risk ratios for 

Alternative 3

Upper Humbug Creek 0.30 0.68 0.62

Middle Fork Humbug Creek 0.29 0.40 0.36

Clear Creek 0.35 0.65 0.61

Lower Humbug 0.15 0.24 0.22

Greenhorn Creek 0.68 0.73 0.73

Yreka City-Yreka Creek 0.23 0.25 0.24

Long Gulch 0.27 0.34 0.33

Rocky Gulch-Yreka Creek 0.13 0.16 0.16

Table 3-46: Equivalent Roaded Area (ERA) Model Results Due to Wildfire for Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 

under the Wildfire Scenario

7th field Watershed Name ERA risk ratios under wildfire 

scenario for Alternative 1

ERA risk ratios under wildfire 

scenario for Alternative 2 or 3

Upper Humbug Creek 0.78 0.26

Middle Fork Humbug Creek 0.65 0.04

Clear Creek 0.76 0.25

Lower Humbug 0.94 0.06

Greenhorn Creek 1.04 0.03

Yreka City-Yreka Creek 0.24 0.01

Long Gulch 0.77 0.05

Rocky Gulch-Yreka Creek 0.85 0.03

The thresholds for tree canopy removal that would actually result in measureable changes to 

peak flow regime are far in excess of the Project proposals, as well as the cumulative total of 

those proposals with current conditions and foreseeable future management (see Appendix C 

for a description of foreseeable future impacts). The result of equivalent roaded area

modeling is that no more than 4.75 percent total tree canopy would be removed in any 

watershed in the analysis area with implementation of action alternatives (Alternatives 2 or

3). Vegetation manipulation effects are short-term as re-growth occurs and in some cases 

exceeds pre-project levels. Canopy cover for Alternative 1 is expected to remain the same or 

increase due to natural growth without the event of a wildfire. It is expected to decrease in 

the event of a wildfire.

Riparian reserve buffers have minor effects on flow regime, they are effective in preventing

some amount of erosion that would occur in their absence. Stream shading is an important 

factor in maintaining water temperatures, and will be maintained despite some activities in 
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

108

riparian reserves. Project design features that minimize negative effects to analysis 

indicators, including those related to management of riparian reserves, are displayed in 

chapter 2.

Fine grain, largely suspended sediment from road runoff will continue, and is probably the 

largest component of negative direct effects on water quality (Bilby et al. 1989, Luce and 

Black 1999, Sugden and Woods 2007). The availability of material to move from roads is 

strongly and positively correlated to traffic and maintenance level and so is impossible to disentangle from the need for roads to access resources. Addressing legacy sediment sites will 

reduce sediment from roads, either by stabilizing potential fill and cut slope failures that 

constitute potential mass wasting or attending through maintenance to minor issues such as 

rills on the road surface from small seeps.

3.7.7 Compliance with law, regulation, policy and the Forest Plan

The conditions in the Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements for Nonpoint Source 

Discharges Related to Certain Federal Land Management Activities on National Forest 

System Lands in the North Coast Region will be met for this project as described in the 

Hydrology Report. Details about compliance including legacy site treatment plan and no 

effect to shade determination and complete CWE modeling results will be included in the 

application for coverage under the 2015 Waiver. Meeting the Waiver requirements equals 

compliance with the Clean Water Act. Forest Plan standards are met by consistency with the 

Aquatic Conservation Strategy (Appendix F) and the Forest Plan Consistency Checklist, 

available on the Project website. More information about compliance with law, regulation, 

and policy may be found in the Hydrology Report.

3.8 Soils

3.8.1 Methodology

The analysis of the effects of individual management activities on the soil resource (soil 

productivity and soil ecosystem functionality) is guided by the Forest Plan’s standards and 

guidelines and Forest Service Manual 2500, Chapter 2550, Supplement 2500-2012-1. Both 

these sources indicate that soils in at least 85 percent of treatment areas must achieve desired 

conditions to meet standards for soil productivity (15 percent or less not meeting desired soil 

conditions is the acceptable threshold). Soil productivity is affected by the amount of coarse 

woody debris that is present as well as other organic material in the soil cover.

The proposed activities for the project were categorized into similar activity types. For 

example, all of the various silviculture treatments that use ground-based equipment were 

lumped into “Ground-based Tractor Logging with Associated Landings.” Treatment areas 

proposed for skyline cable yarding were also assessed separately for tethered harvesting 

equipment for the purposes of comparing its effects with skyline cable yarding, assuming 

similar potential disturbance as ground-based tractor logging. The projected acres not 

meeting desired conditions for each indicator and activity type were determined from data 

collected from previous projects on the Forest using the National Forest Soil Disturbance 

Monitoring Protocol. More detailed information is available in the soil resource report, 

available on the Project website.
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

109

Standards and thresholds for soil erosion are also provided in the Forest Plan and Forest 

Service Manual; these thresholds vary from 50 percent soil cover to 80 percent based on the 

type of activity and soil type in each unit. An erosion hazard rating, a relative measure of the 

soil’s sensitivity to erosion processes and levels of soil cover, was calculated for each of the 

proposed treatment units to estimate the potential erosion hazard for a given soil type. Soil 

disturbance has the potential to increase the erosion hazard because soil cover is generally 

reduced. A maximum erosion hazard rating was calculated for soil that is completely bare to 

determine the risk of soil loss in areas without protection from soil cover. Then the erosion 

hazard rating for the current conditions of treatment areas was calculated using data collected 

on existing conditions of soil cover.

Using a unit selection strategy based on soil sensitivity and type of management activities 

planned, a sample of the treatment units were selected for survey of existing soil conditions.

3.8.2 Analysis Indicators and Measures

Three indicators of soil productivity and soil erosion were chosen that address relevant issues 

in the project and measure compliance with Forest Plan standards and guidelines. The 

indicators include soil stability, soil organic matter, and soil structure.

The unit measures for each indicator are acres not meeting desired conditions. Soil stability 

desired conditions are not met when major portions of the area lack soil cover, effective 

erosion control measures, or both. Soil organic matter desired conditions are not met when 

major portions of the area have had the upper soil layer displaced or removed to a depth and 

area large enough to affect productivity for the desired plant species. Soil structure desired 

conditions are not met when major portions of the area have reduced infiltration and 

permeability capacity indicated by soil structure and macro-porosity changes.

3.8.3 Spatial and Temporal Context

For all three soil indicators, the analysis area is bounded by the potential treatment units 

within the project area where soil-disturbing activities may take place. The analysis is further 

bounded in time by the foreseeable future period during which effects of this project could 

persist as detectable, significant effects. Soil cover, as it affects soil stability, can recover 

quickly as needles and other organic debris are deposited on the forest floor. The temporal 

boundary for soil stability is five years. Soil organic matter can take years to decades to 

rebuild after it is lost through displacement or erosion. Once compacted, structure can remain 

affected for decades. The temporal boundary for soil organic matter and soil structure is 30 

years.

3.8.4 Affected Environment

Soils in the project area have developed from meta-sedimentary and granitic parent materials. 

Soil textures are generally gravelly to very gravelly loams on meta-sediment parent material, 

with the more developed soils having clay loam subsoils. The granitic parent material 

developed loamy sand to sandy loam soils. Geomorphic landforms are predominately steep 

mountain sideslopes and more gently sloping dormant landslide landforms. Soil depths range 

from moderately deep to very deep (from 24 to more than 60 inches deep).

Soil productivity is a measure of a soil’s ability to produce vegetation. Generally, deeper and 

finer textured soils are more productive than shallower and coarser textured soils. Overall, 
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

110

the soils in the treatment area are generally moderate to highly productive with small areas of 

low productivity. Current soil erosion hazard ratings for soils in treatment areas, based on 

existing conditions, are low.

The slope within proposed treatment units ranges from zero to 100 percent with an overall 

average of 47 percent. Average existing total soil cover ranges from 80 to 100 percent and 

averages 97 percent overall in the project area.

Calculated from 1,021 soil plots, approximately ten percent of the treatment units have soil 

disturbance from past activities excluding system roads (for information on how soil 

disturbance is classified, see Table 1 and the discussion under analysis indicators in the Soils 

report on the Project website). In plantations, 62 percent of the disturbance is on existing 

terraces that were built after the 1955 Haystack fire in the 1960s, 16 percent is on existing 

skid trails, one percent is on old temporary roads, seven percent is on off-highway vehicle 

trails, two percent is on established skyline corridors, and five percent is on old established 

landings. Desired conditions for soil stability were met across all of the treatment units as no 

signs of erosion were found. Desired conditions for soil organic matter and soil structure 

were met on an average of 97 percent of the treatment units.

3.8.5 Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1

Direct and Indirect Effects

There are no direct effects from Alternative 1, as soil-disturbing project activities would not 

take place. Soil cover, and therefore soil stability, for erosion protection would not change in 

the treatment areas. Soil organic matter would continue to accumulate faster than 

decomposition rates, with no additional benefit to soil fertility. Soil structure conditions 

would remain the same in the short term, with very slow long-term natural recovery of old 

skid trails and landings. Indirect effects of Alternative 1 would be the increased accumulation 

of organic matter. Increases in organic matter may lead to intense wildfire with high soilburn severity effects, especially on soils with granitic parent material; see the Fire and Fuels 

Resource Report for additional information.

Cumulative Effects

Past actions including timber harvest, tractor piling, and terracing, are evident on the 

landscape in the treatment area and are reflected in the discussion of the affected 

environment. Since no reasonably foreseeable future actions that affect soils will occur in the 

proposed treatment areas, and past actions are part of the affected environment, there will be 

no cumulative effects on soil beyond the indirect effects above.

Alternative 2

Direct and Indirect Effects

The proposed activities that may impact soil stability, soil organic matter, and soil structure 

include ground-based tractor logging, temporary road construction on existing road beds, 

new temporary road construction, and mastication. Soil stability and soil organic matter are 

also affected by skyline yarding, prescribed fire, and pile burning. See chapter 2 of this 

document for more details on these activities. Implementation of project design features will 

reduce the potential for negative effects from these activities. Alternative 2 will maintain 
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

111

adequate soil cover, protect soil organic matter, and maintain soil structure at levels sufficient 

to protect soil productivity and prevent soil erosion. The total treatment area not meeting 

desired conditions for soil stability, soil organic matter, and soil structure is 157 acres (1.5 

percent), 276 acres (2.6 percent), and 105 acres (1.0 percent) respectively, totaling 5.1 

percent which is below the threshold of concern. The potential use of tethered harvesting 

equipment in place of skyline yarding is expected to increase the percentages of the total 

treatment area not meeting desired conditions for soil stability, soil organic matter, and soil 

structure are 179 acres (1.7 percent), 341 acres (3.3 percent), and 159 acres (1.5 percent), 

respectively; for a total of 6.5 percent which remains below the threshold of concern. A full 

description of how the proposed activities may impact soil function can be found in the soil 

resource report.

Cumulative Effects

Past actions including timber harvest, machine piling, and thinning are evident on the 

landscape in the treatment areas and are reflected in the discussion of the affected 

environment. No reasonably foreseeable future actions are expected in treatment areas that 

would impact soil stability, soil organic matter, or soil structure. Adding the effects of 

Alternative 2 to the effects of past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions will not 

have measurable effects on surface and soil organic matter, stability or structure, and, 

therefore, no cumulative effects will exceed the analysis indicator thresholds in the Forest 

Plan.

Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect Effects

The proposed activities that have a potential to impact soil stability, soil organic matter, and 

soil structure are similar to Alternative 2. Alternative 3 has fewer acres of mastication, the 

ground-based yarding portion of thinning with forest product removal, miles of new 

temporary road constructed and temporary road constructed on existing roadbeds than 

Alternative 2. However, Alternative 3 has more acres of fuelbreaks, underburning, and 

thinning without forest product removal than Alternative 2. A full description of how the 

proposed activities may impact soils can be found in the soil resource report.

For Alternative 3 the percent of the total treatment area not meeting desired conditions for 

soil stability, soil organic matter, and soil structure is 129 acres (1.1 percent), 228 acres (2.0 

percent), and 90 acres (0.8 percent) respectively, for a total of 3.9 percent which is below the 

threshold of concern. The potential use of tethered harvesting equipment in place of skyline 

yarding is expected to increase the percentages of the total treatment area not meeting desired 

conditions for soil stability, soil organic matter, and soil structure are 149 acres (1.3 percent), 

288 acres (2.5 percent), and 140 acres (1.2 percent), respectively, for a total of 5 percent 

which is below the threshold of concern.

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects of Alternative 3 will be similar to those of Alternative 2. No 

cumulative effects will exceed the analysis indicator thresholds.
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

112

3.8.6 Comparison of Alternatives

Action alternatives would maintain adequate soil cover, protect soil organic matter, and 

maintain soil structure at levels sufficient to protect soil productivity and minimize soil 

erosion. The acres that do not meet desired conditions will be minor compared to the total 

treatment acres in the Project. These acres will account for minor portions of any one stand 

so stand productivity will not be negatively affected. The following table compares each 

alternative for each analysis indicator by the measure of total acres and the percent of the 

project area affected.

Table 3-47: Summary of Estimated Acres (and percentages of treatment areas) Not Meeting Desired 

Conditions for Soil Indicators as a Result of Project Activities

Analysis Indicators Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Total Acres and Percent of the Treatment Area Not Meeting Desired Conditions With Skyline

Soil Stability 0 acres (0%) 157 acres (1.5%) 129 acres (1.1%)

Soil Organic Matter 314 acres (3%) 276 acres (2.6%) 228 acres (2.0%)

Soil Structure 314 acres (3%) 105 acres (1.0%) 90 acres (0.8%)

Total Acres and Percent of the Treatment Area Not Meeting Desired Conditions With Tethered 

Equipment

Soil Stability 0 acres (0%) 179 (1.7%) 149 (1.3%)

Soil Organic Matter 314 acres (3%) 341 (3.3%) 288 (2.5%)

Soil Structure 314 acres (3%) 159 (1.5%) 140 (1.2%)

3.8.7 Compliance with law, policy, regulation and the Forest Plan

Forest Plan standards and guidelines for soils will be met for all alternatives as displayed in 

the Forest Plan consistency checklist, available on the Project website. The number of acres 

that do not meet desired conditions for soil stability, soil organic matter, and soil structure is 

minor in relation to the total treatment area, and is minimized by implementation of project 

design features.

3.9 Geology

The Forest Service Manual Chapter 2880 (Geologic Resources, Hazards and Services) 

requires the assessment of the risk of loss of life, property and natural resources from both 

naturally-occurring and management related landslides. The risk must be minimized or 

mitigated when possible. The Forest Plan directs the interdisciplinary team to manage 

vegetation on unstable lands to maintain or enhance slope stability (Forest Plan Standard and 

Guideline 2-1). Project-level review of the unstable lands is required to validate the current 

mapping (Forest Plan Standard and Guideline 2-2). Unstable lands are defined as active 

landslides, inner gorges, toe zones of dormant landslides and severely-weathered and 

dissected granitic lands. These features are considered riparian reserves (Forest Plan Standard 

and Guideline, Management Area 10-2).

3.9.1 Methodology

Landslide volume is estimated by the cumulative watershed effects (CWE) Geology (GEO) 

model (CWE report-available on the Project website) and represents the magnitude of a 
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

113

landslide event. Although this model is labeled as a “cumulative watershed effects” model, it 

does not measure cumulative effects as defined by the Council of Environmental Quality for 

NEPA analysis (CEQ 2005). Instead, it provides information on the effects of alternatives by 

adding the effects of various activities proposed for each alternative (i.e. road construction, 

landings, thinning, etc.) to result in a risk ratio for the process model. It also provides 

information on the added effects of past activities and events to provide a baseline risk ratio 

to which to compare the effects of proposed alternatives. For the GEO model the threshold of 

concern for the risk ratio is 1.0. A risk ratio greater than or equal to 1.0 is a yellow flag and 

calls for a closer look at mitigation opportunities. Cumulative Watershed Effects: the 

Abridged Version (Bell 2012) provides a more detailed description of the model.

Landslide volume is obtained using the empirical mathematical GEO model to estimate the 

volume of sediment delivered to the mouth of a 7th field watershed due to all types of 

landsliding during a 10-year storm event. The coefficients in the mathematical equation were 

developed in the Salmon River basin and the model assumes the geomorphic landforms react 

identically regardless of elevation. The indirect effects will be analyzed using the landslide 

volume estimates attributed to the alternative relative to the existing condition volume 

estimates in terms of landslide risk and a landslide risk ratio.

3.9.2 Analysis Indicators and Measures

Landslide risk is the chance of effects of injury or loss as a measure of the probability and 

adverse consequences to safety, property, or natural resources (see the Geology Resource 

Report available on the Project website for additional information). Landslide risk is a 

combination of landslide likelihood, determined by geomorphic landform, disturbance, 

landslide modeling and road density, and the potential consequences to human safety, 

infrastructure, property, recreation or visitor use, and environmental resources. The analysis 

uses existing geomorphic mapping, bedrock mapping and historical landslide information, 

and project-level field review to validate current mapping, in order to determine the 

likelihood of landsliding.

A very high risk means that there is an immediate and urgent need to reduce the likelihood of 

landsliding or mitigate the consequence to the elements at risk. A high risk means that 

project-wide and global mitigations need to be in place to minimize impacts to landslide 

processes for actions in these watersheds. A moderate risk means strategic or localized 

mitigations need to be in place to minimize impacts to landslide processes for actions in these 

watersheds. A low or very low risk means that remediation of landsliding consequences, if 

needed at all, may be the most cost effective method of dealing with these areas. Project 

effects are also comparable in terms of their risk ratios, with a higher risk ratio being more 

negative than a lower risk ratio.

3.9.3 Spatial and Temporal Context

The spatial scale for analysis is the 7th field watershed scale for the direct, indirect, and 

cumulative effects. The models used for analysis are calibrated at a 7th field scale. The 

temporal scale is zero to 10 years for short-term and greater than 10 years for long-term 

effects. Elevated landslide rates due to forest management have been shown to begin to 

decrease around seven to 12 years after disturbance in Northern California (Ziemer 1981).
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

114

3.9.4 Affected Environment

Upper Humbug Creek, Middle Fork Humbug and Lower Humbug Creek have a high

landslide risk. They have a highly likely, highly likely and likely landslide likelihood,

respectively. A landslide event would have potential effects to endangered fish habitat and

the potential for damage to private property with a low probability of a landslide affecting an 

occupied residence and the primary ingress and egress route for the community of Humbug, 

California. Clear Creek has a moderate landslide risk because of a likely potential for 

landsliding and the potential for damage to private property with a low probability of a 

landslide affecting an occupied residence. Greenhorn Creek has a very low landslide risk 

primarily because landslides are unlikely in the watershed. Yreka City-Yreka Creek and Long 

Gulch will have a low landslide risk because it is unlikely that they will experience a 

landslide event during a 10-year storm event and consequences would be minor. Rocky

Gulch-Yreka Creek has a moderate landslide risk as a result of disturbance from the Grade 

Fire in August 2016.

3.9.5 Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1

Direct and Indirect Effects

No treatment in the project area would lead to decreased tree vigor and in some stands 

increased tree mortality due to competition in the timber stands over time. Without treatment 

the species diversity of the timber stands would decrease, making the stand more likely to be 

impacted by highly intense and severe wildfire (see Fire and Fuels Report and Silviculture 

Report). If no wildfire should occur within the spatial and temporal boundaries of this 

analysis the landslide likelihood would decrease slightly over time as the areas affected by 

past disturbances recover. However, the risk will remain high for Upper, Middle, and Lower 

Humbug because of the high road densities in the watersheds.

If a wildfire should occur in the project area and no treatment is implemented, the GEO risk 

ratios would be increased to over the threshold of concern of 1.0 for Upper, Middle, and 

Lower Humbug, Clear Creek, Greenhorn Creek, Long Gulch and Rocky Gulch-Yreka Creek. 

This would lead to landslide risk for Middle Humbug Creek moving from a high landslide 

risk to a very high landslide risk. It would also lead to Clear Creek moving from a moderate

landslide risk to a high landslide risk. Upper Humbug and Lower Humbug Creeks would 

continue to have a high landslide risk even with a wildfire event. Greenhorn Creek would 

remain very low. Long Gulch and Yreka City-Yreka Creek would remain at low. Rocky 

Gulch-Yreka Creek would have a moderate landslide risk if the rest of the watershed were to 

burn as the fuels model predicts. To see the change in risk ratio for the analysis area with no 

action with or without a wildfire event, see Table 3-48.

Cumulative Effects

The only action considered a reasonably foreseeable event that will have an effect on 

landslide risk is a timber harvest plan on private land in Lower Humbug Creek. The timber 

harvest plan covers a small area and will only increase the risk ratio in the watershed by 0.01. 

This is not enough to increase the landslide risk for the watershed. This means that the 

cumulative landslide risk remains the same for all watersheds in the analysis area as 

described in the direct and indirect effects section above.
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

115

Alternative 2

Direct and Indirect Effects

The direct and indirect effects of Alternative 2 will not measurably affect (change) the 

landslide risk or risk ratios of any of the watersheds; most of the effect displayed in Table 3-

38 is a decrease in risk ratios. The silvicultural prescriptions are mainly thinning from below 

in plantations which will have little effect on the root support in the watershed. The logging 

systems are a combination of tractor logging and skyline or tethered systems and have been 

designed either with project design features or project design components (i.e. silvicultural 

prescriptions, location of new landings, fuels treatment placement, etc.) to minimize effects 

to landslide processes.

Chatwin (1994) found scheduling activities with the use of wet weather operation standards 

and normal operating seasons was effective at reducing negative effects to hillslope 

hydrology especially on the occurrence of rilling and gullying, the implementation of which 

will indirectly minimize effects to landslide risk. Cristan et al. (2016) concluded that roads, 

skid trails, and stream crossings have the highest impact on hillslope hydrology changes 

including rilling and gullying. Madej et al. (2012) found that the rate of sediment delivered to 

creeks from landslides was reduced by improved road and landing construction standards, 

reduced ground disturbance from tractors for ground-based harvest and from treating legacy 

sediment sources. Litschert and MacDonald (2009) found that using best management 

practices meant only 19 of 200 sites that had undergone timber harvest had rills or gullies in 

the Sierra Nevada Forest Service lands.

There are more than 20 project design features that are intended to reduce the probability of 

hillslope hydrology changes and changes to root support. The protection of riparian reserves 

including landslides, inner gorges, and swales in combination with partial harvest techniques 

that leave some understory vegetation intact have been found to substantially reduce the 

increase in landslide probability after timber harvest (Sidle 1992; Dhakal and Sidle 2003). 

Cristan et al. (2016) concluded that implementation of best management practices were most 

effective in reducing effects to watershed processes when implemented both during treatment 

activities and at the close of the project. The overall effectiveness of project design to 

maintain sufficient root strength for slope stability is extremely high. This alternative will not 

lead to a change in the landslide risk for any of the watersheds analyzed.

Should a wildfire occur in the project area after Alternative 2 treatments, any negative effects 

(negligible in some of the watersheds, not measurable in others) will be easily outweighed by 

the benefits to the landslide processes; treatments reduce the greater negative effects from a 

wildfire event that would occur without treatment. The risk ratios for the watersheds would 

be reduced by 30 to 68 percent from what they would be with no action (Alternative 1). 

Upper Humbug would see the greatest benefit to landslide processes with the risk ratio being 

40 percent lower under Alternative 2 than for Alternative 1.

Should a wildfire event occur in the project area Alternative 2 is expected to overall have 

fewer effects on landslide processes than Alternative 1. As far as the analysis indicators are 

concerned Alternative 2 will reduce the landslide likelihood for Upper, Middle Fork, and 

Lower Humbug Creek and Clear Creek from almost certain to highly likely. Greenhorn 

Creek and Long Gulch would be reduced from highly likely to likely, and Yreka City-Yreka 

Creek is reduced to an unlikely landslide likelihood. Rocky Gulch-Yreka Creek landslide 
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

116

likelihood results stay the same as described under Alternative 1. For Alternative 2, Middle 

Fork and Lower Humbug Creek will move to a high landslide risk instead of going to a very 

high risk as it would under Alternative 1 if a wildfire event takes place. Greenhorn Creek will 

move to a very low risk; the landslide risks for the other watersheds remain the same as in 

Alternative 1 with a wildfire.

However, even though the risk categories do not change for every watershed, the risk ratios 

with Alternative 2 treatments and then a wildfire event are much lower than is described for 

Alternative 1 with a wildfire (see Table 3-48).

Cumulative Effects

The only action considered a reasonably foreseeable event that will have an effect on 

landslide risk is the same timber harvest plan mentioned in Alternative 1 and it will have the 

same effects on Alternative 2. The 0.01 increase to the risk ratio or the Lower Humbug Creek 

watershed is not enough to increase the landslide risk category for the watershed. This means 

that the cumulative landslide risk remains the same for all watersheds in the analysis area as 

described in the direct and indirect effects section above.

Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect Effects

The effects on landslide risk of Alternative 3 are the same as for Alternative 2 even though 

the GEO risk ratio is 0.01 less for the Upper Humbug Creek watershed under Alternative 3 

than under Alternative 2.

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects are the same as described in Alternative 2.

3.9.6 Comparison of Alternatives

Implementation of the action alternatives do not measurably change the landslide risk in a 

negative manner. The increase in risk ratios from the implementation of either Alternative 2 

or 3, compared to Alternative 1, result in no more than a 0.01 increase. On average there is a 

substantially increased landslide risk if no action is taken (Alternative 1) and a wildfire event 

occurs, than if the action alternatives are implemented and then a wildfire event occurs after 

their implementation.

Table 3-48: Summary of GEO results for 7th Field Watersheds under Alternative 1 with a Modeled 

Wildfire Event and Action Alternatives with a Modeled Wildfire Event for Zero to Five Years after 

Project Implementation

7th Field Watershed Name

Existing 

Risk 

Ratio

Alternative 2 

or 3 Risk 

Ratios (Indirect 

Effects)

Alternative

1 Risk 

Ratio with 

Wildfire

Alternative

2 or 3 Risk 

Ratio with 

Wildfire

Reduction in 

Risk Ratio 

from Fire 

Effects Under 

Alternative 2 

or 3

Upper Humbug Creek 1.37 1.28 4.23 1.97 53%

Middle Fork Humbug Creek 1.10 0.89 2.48 1.54 38%

Lower Humbug Creek 0.52 0.47 1.82 1.09 40%
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

117

7th Field Watershed Name

Existing 

Risk 

Ratio

Alternative 2 

or 3 Risk 

Ratios (Indirect 

Effects)

Alternative

1 Risk 

Ratio with 

Wildfire

Alternative

2 or 3 Risk 

Ratio with 

Wildfire

Reduction in 

Risk Ratio 

from Fire 

Effects Under 

Alternative 2 

or 3

Clear Creek 0.61 0.62 1.86 1.10 41%

Greenhorn Creek 0.49 0.49 1.12 0.53 52%

Yreka City-Yreka Creek 0.29 0.29 0.77 0.25 68%

Long Gulch 0.59 0.59 2.16 1.38 36%

Rocky Gulch-Yreka Creek 0.75 0.75 2.94 2.06 30%

Table 3-49: Percent of Watershed that is Likely to Burn with High or Moderate Soil Burn Severity for 

All Alternatives

7th Field Watershed Name

Alternative 1 Percent of 

Watershed Likely to Burn With 

High or Moderate Soil Burn 

Severity

Alternative 2 or 3 Percent of 

Watershed Likely to Burn 

With High or Moderate Soil 

Burn Severity

Upper Humbug Creek 25% 9%

Middle Fork Humbug Creek 25% 18%

Lower Humbug Creek 25% 20%

Clear Creek 25% 16%

Greenhorn Creek 10% 9%

Yreka City-Yreka Creek 1% 1%

Long Gulch 10% 9%

Rocky Gulch-Yreka Creek 10% 9%

Table 3-50: Summary of Effects to Landslide Risk with and without Wildfire Scenario

Indicator Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Landslide Risk with 

no wildfire scenario

There are three 7th field watersheds 

with high landslide risk (Upper, 

Middle Fork, and Lower Humbug 

Creek), two with a moderate risk 

(Clear Creek and Rocky GulchYreka Creek), two with a low risk 

(Yreka City-Yreka Creek and Long 

Gulch), and one with a very low risk 

(Greenhorn Creek).

Same as Alternative 1. Same as 

Alternative 1.
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

118

Indicator Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Landslide Risk with 

wildfire scenario

There are two 7th field watersheds 

with a very high landslide risk 

Middle Fork and Lower Humbug 

Creek), three with high risk (Upper 

Humbug Creek, Clear Creek and 

Rocky Gulch-Yreka Creek), and 

three with low risk (Greenhorn 

Creek, Yreka City-Yreka Creek, 

and Long Gulch).

There are five 7th field 

watersheds with high 

landslide risk (Upper, Middle 

Fork, and Lower Humbug 

Creek, Clear Creek and 

Rocky Gulch-Yreka Creek), 

two with a low risk (Yreka 

City-Yreka Creek and Long 

Gulch), and one with a very 

low risk (Greenhorn Creek).

Same as 

Alternative 2.

3.9.7 Compliance with Law, Policy, Regulation, and the Forest Plan

Existing mapping was field-verified by the Forest geologist and unstable lands were removed 

from treatment areas where slope stability was not benefited. The landsliding magnitude and 

risk were analyzed for all of the alternatives in the Project. The risk associated with the 

direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the Project have been minimized by project design 

features and best management practices. The Project is consistent with Forest Plan standards 

and guidelines as described in the Forest Plan Consistency Checklist in the project record, 

which is available on the Project website.

3.10 Air Quality

The purpose of this report is to analyze the effects of the project and its alternatives on air 

quality including the ambient air quality standards. The analysis will also include discussion 

on haze impacts on wilderness values associated with good air quality.

3.10.1 Methodology

Ambient Air Quality Standards

Siskiyou County is identified as in attainment for ozone, carbon monoxide, sulfur oxides, 

lead, respirable particulate matter, and fine particulate matter (criteria pollutants) for both 

state and federal standards. Under the Conformity Rule, there is no further state or federal 

regulation for project activities that generate criteria emissions and these criteria pollutants 

do not need to be analyzed further.

Regional Haze Rule

The Regional Haze Rule (1999) requires a Regional Haze Plan for Class 1 designated 

airsheds. These include National Parks and Wilderness established before 1977. Humanrelated sources of haze include industry, motor vehicles, agricultural and forestry burning, 

and dust from disturbed soils. The primary concern is the reduction of visibility in wilderness 

areas.

The Regional Haze Rule requires that states make reasonable progress towards achieving 

natural visibility conditions in Class 1 areas. Reasonable progress means that the worst haze 

days get less hazy and that visibility does not deteriorate on the best days when compared 

with the baseline period of 2000 to 2004 (California Air Resource Board, 2009). Federal 

agencies should not prevent this progress through management activities. The analysis will 

include an evaluation of the estimated residence time of smoke from Project activities and its 

impact to the worst days’ haze to determine compliance with the Regional Haze Rule.
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

119

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Prescribed burning activities for the Craggy Project include prescribed underburning and pile 

burning. Pile burning may occur in any of the treatment units except for mastication. 

Prescribed burning activities release greenhouse gases including carbon dioxide and methane

into the air which can contribute to climate change. Currently there are no thresholds for 

greenhouse gas emissions for prescribed burning activities. Emissions of greenhouse gases 

are commonly expressed in a common metric which is the carbon dioxide equivalent. Some 

greenhouse gases are more potent than others and this metric allows for the direct 

comparison of impacts between different activities with different ratios of greenhouse gases 

emissions.

The average greenhouse gas emissions from prescribed fire are estimated using the First 

Order Fire Effects Model. The modeling is based on a Douglas-fir - tanoak - madrone forest 

under moderate weather conditions with a natural or activity fuel load. The defaults of the 

model in this mode are used for the model runs. The First Order Fire Effects Model is 

recognized by the Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region as being the most current and 

accurate analysis tool available for emissions prediction (Reinhardt et al. 1997). It is based on 

extensive research in western forest ecosystems.

3.10.2 Analysis Indicators and Measures

• Compliance with the Regional Haze Rule

 Estimated days of visibility impacted in the Wilderness

 Likelihood of preventing progress of the California Regional Haze Plan

• Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emission

3.10.3 Spatial and Temporal Context

It is difficult to determine the spatial analysis area for effects to air quality due to the 

mobility of air. For this project, the spatial boundary includes the project area and the Marble 

Mountain Wilderness Class I airshed under the Clean Air Act. Temporally, emissions from 

mobile sources such as logging trucks and tractors, as well as from prescribed burning, are 

transient and the impacts are short-lived and the air quality regulations are in terms of oneyear emissions. In light of this, the temporal analyses are on an annual basis and this is 

considered short-term. Impacts are considered long-term if they persist for more than a year. 

The cumulative effects of these emissions will be addressed at the project scale including the 

Marble Mountain Wilderness which is about 16 miles away from the Project.

3.10.4 Affected Environment

According to the California Air Resources Board website (http://www.arb.ca.gov/), Siskiyou 

County is in attainment for all criteria air pollutants.

The project area is primarily forested federally-managed lands with no substantial humancaused emission sources within the area other than emission and fugitive dust from logging 

and recreation. Other emission contributions will be smoke and haze from seasonal wildland 

and prescribed fires from both within and outside the County. According to the California 

Air Resources Board, the nitrogen oxide emissions in the County are primarily from heavy-
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

120

duty diesel trucks (such as from the I-5 corridor). This report was run using the following 

website: http://www.arb.ca.gov/app/emsinv/emssumcat.php (California Air Resources Board 

2012).

The Marble Mountain Wilderness is designated as a Class 1 wilderness by the Clean Air Act. 

The haze species concentrations are measured as part of the IMPROVE (Interagency 

Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments) monitoring network deployed throughout the 

United States. The 24 days with the worst visibility are averaged each year and used to 

determine the worst days’ visibility. The visibility conditions for the Marble Mountain 

Wilderness are currently monitored by an IMPROVE monitor in the Trinity Alps. The worst 

air quality days are dominated by organic aerosols (they are particulate matter associated and

cause a haze in the air). Organic aerosols peak during the summer months and are strongly

correlated with the incidence of wildfires (California Air Resource Board, 2009). The amount 

of light extinction affects visibility or the clarity of objects viewed at a distance by the human 

eye. This is measured in “deciviews” which are the amount of obstruction the haze in the air 

causes; higher numbers mean you cannot see as far into the distance.

3.10.5 Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1

Direct and Indirect Effects

Under this alternative no management action will be taken that will emit greenhouse gases or 

impact the visibility in the Marble Mountain Wilderness.

Cumulative Effects

There are no direct or indirect effects for this alternative and therefore no cumulative effects.

Alternative 2

Direct and Indirect Effects

The prescribed fire proposed in the project area will occur over a few days of any given year. 

Burning will occur in the spring or fall, outside of the wildfire season. Since the wildfire 

season is the time of the year when haze is at its worst, the Project won’t impact visibility on 

the worst haze days. The likelihood that prescribed burning on a few days any given year will 

affect the average visibility on the best days over an entire year is small. The likelihood of 

preventing the progress of the Regional Haze Plan is very low for this alternative.

The greenhouse gas analysis uses the same assumptions as the Ambient Air Quality 

Standards analysis. An estimated 0.26 metric tons per acre and 31 metric tons per acre of 

emissions of methane and carbon dioxide respectively from prescribed fire in activity fuels 

will be created. One metric ton of methane is equivalent to 21 metric tons of the carbon 

dioxide equivalent. Therefore, prescribed fire on one acre of activity fuels will emit about 5.5 

metric tons per acre of carbon dioxide equivalent. This alternative proposes prescribed fire on 

about 9,700 acres of activity fuels. Therefore, the greenhouse gas emissions will be about 

10,670 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year (assuming five years for

implementation of activity fuels).

It is not currently feasible to quantify the indirect effects of individual or multiple projects on 

global climate change and, therefore, determining significant effects of those projects or 
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

121

project alternatives on global climate change cannot be made at any scale (USDA 2009). 

Because greenhouse gases mix readily into the global pool, it is not currently possible to 

ascertain the indirect effects of emissions from single or multiple sources (projects). Also, 

because the large majority of Forest Service projects are extremely small in the global 

atmospheric carbon dioxide context, it is not presently possible to conduct quantitative 

analysis of actual climate change effects based on individual or multiple projects (USDA

2009).

Cumulative Effects

Adding the effects on air quality from Alternative 2 to effects of ongoing or reasonably 

foreseeable future actions in the project area is expected to have minimal cumulative effects 

at the spatial analysis scale. Criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions will degrade air 

quality cumulatively with activities occurring in the surrounding area. However, these 

emissions are expected to be minimal and able to disperse readily. Compliance with Burn 

Day, Marginal Burn Day, and No Burn Day designations, and coordination with and 

permitting from the Siskiyou County Air Pollution Control District, will minimize 

cumulative effects of prescribed fire.

As greenhouse gas emissions are integrated across the global atmosphere, it is not possible to 

determine the cumulative impact on global climate from emissions associated with any 

number of particular projects. Nor is it expected that such disclosure would provide a 

practical or meaningful effects analysis for project decisions (USDA 2009).

Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect Effects

The effects of Alternative 3 are the same as for Alternative 2 except there are 10,550 acres of 

burning proposed instead of 9,700 as is proposed in Alternative 2. The likelihood of the 

progress of the Regional Haze Plan will remain the same as in Alternative 2. Greenhouse gas 

emissions will be increased to 11,605 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year.

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects are the same as in Alternative 2.

3.10.6 Comparison of Alternatives

Table 3-51: Comparison of the Effects of Alternatives on Air Resources and Greenhouse Gas Emissions.

Indicator Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Compliance with Regional 

Haze Rule Complies High likelihood of 

Compliance

High likelihood of 

Compliance

Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

(metric tons/year) 0 10,670 11,605

3.10.7 Compliance with law, policy, regulation, and the Forest Plan

The Project is not anticipated to result in an adverse impact to air quality because compliance 

with Siskiyou County Air Pollution Control District burn day designations and permits has 

resulted in continued attainment status designations for both federal and state standards. The 
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

122

Project meets requirements for the General Conformity Rule and the Regional Haze Rule 

under the Clean Air Act.

3.11 Scenery

3.11.1 Methodology

This evaluation applies current National Forest Landscape Management methodology in 

conjunction with existing Forest Plan direction. It relies on geospatial information system 

analysis, field observations from sensitive viewpoints, modeling to determine visibility of 

Project activities, and a literature review of public preferences for scenic quality.

3.11.2 Analysis Indicators and Measures

Indicators

Visual Quality Objectives

Proposed landscape treatments are measured against the Forest Plan identified thresholds for 

acceptable visual change. Visual quality objectives, per Agricultural Handbook 462 are 

defined below:

• Retention: Management activities are not visually evident, and may only repeat form, 

line, color, and texture, which are frequently found in the landscape. Changes in their 

qualities of size, amount, intensity, direction, pattern, etc., should not be evident.

• Partial Retention: Management activities are noticeable, but remain visually 

subordinate to the characteristic landscape, and may repeat form, line, color, or 

texture common in the landscape.

• Modification: Vegetation and landform management activities may visually dominate

the original characteristic landscape; however, they must borrow from the naturallyestablished form, line, color, or texture at a level and scale that the visual 

appearance of the activity mimics those natural features occurring within the 

surrounding area.

• Maximum Modification: Vegetation and landform management activities may 

dominate the characteristic landscape; however, when viewed in the background zone 

(three to five miles), the visual appearance must mimic those natural features within 

the surrounding area or character type. When viewed in foreground or middle 

ground, the activity may not appear to completely borrow from the naturallyestablished form, line, color, or texture.

Measures

Scenic resources are evaluated from Forest Plan-designated sensitive viewpoints, roads, 

trails, as well as recreation points with extended viewing times. Distance Zones are 

evaluated as follows:

Foreground: The detailed landscape found within 0-0.25 and 0.5 miles from the observer.
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

123

Middleground: The landscape located between 0.25 and 0.5 miles to three to five miles from 

the observer.

Background: The distant landscape located between three to five miles and infinity.

Table 3-52 displays sites identified as evaluation viewpoints for the Project, including the 

visual sensitivity level and distance zones.

Table 3-52: Evaluation Viewpoints and how they are considered

Viewpoint/Road/Trail Visual Sensitivity Level Distance Zone

County Road 7J002 (Hawkinsville) Moderate Foreground, Middleground

County Road 7H01 (Greenhorn)

High (first 1.3 miles – the highsensitivity designation ends 0.4 miles 

west of the junction of Bennett Drive)

Foreground, Middleground 

County Road 7H01 (Greenhorn)

Moderate (8.5 miles to analysis area 

boundary at the junction of Deadwood 

Creek Road)

Foreground, Middleground 

Forest Road 45N28 Moderate Foreground, Middleground, 

Background

Forest Road 45N39 Moderate Foreground, Middleground

Humbug OHV Area (and associated trails) Moderate Foreground, Middleground

Yreka (Community) High Middleground, Background

Visual Sensitivity Level:

High: High public use, corresponding with a high level of visual scenery interest.

Moderate: Moderate public use, corresponding with a moderate level of visual scenery interest.

3.11.3 Spatial and Temporal Bounding of Analysis Area

The spatial bounding includes the entire project area up to the boundary for direct, indirect, 

and cumulative effects, and also includes the following areas beyond the boundary:

• The community of Yreka, and,

• Those portions of County Road 7H01 (Greenhorn Road) affected by a proposed 

fuelbreak.

Short-term scenery contrast (effects) may range between three and 10 years. Generally, 

beyond 10 years, the effects of soils and vegetation contrasts, slash, and stumps decrease, 

depending on decomposition rates and vegetation response. Long-term effects are also 

variable, and may be longer than 10 years up to 45 years for all distance viewing zones. 

While some visual effects may be seen beyond 45 years, it is assumed here that all proposed 

treatments in the Project area without intervening treatments will appear natural to the public

after that time. Note that as required by Forest Plan analysis, these are the treatments seen in 

all distance zones from Level 1 and 2 (high and moderate) visual sensitivity roads, the 

Humbug Off-Highway Vehicle Recreation Area and associated trails. Because Visual 

Quality Objectives cover every acre of the Forest, effects include all seen areas affected by 

proposed project alternatives within and outside of the project area, regardless of visual 

sensitivity levels. See the Scenery Report for a more detailed explanation about the temporal 

bounding.

3.11.4 Affected Environment

Current Topography, Hydrology, and Vegetation:
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

124

The Craggy Project consists of rugged topography with elevations ranging from just under 

2,000 feet along the Klamath River to approximately 6,200 feet near McKinley Mountain. 

Topography is heavily influenced by the ridgeline that bounds the project area at all cardinal 

points, except for a break at the confluence of Humbug Creek and the Klamath River. 

Humbug Creek and associated tributaries also influence the topography of deeply-incised 

drainages. Major peaks along the ridgeline include China Peak and Vesa Bluffs to the north, 

Deadwood Baldy Peak, McKinley Mountain, Gunsight Peak, Mahogany Point, and Montana 

Peak to the west and south, and Badger Mountain to the east.

The eastern ridgeline boundary and east-facing slopes of the project area form the sense of 

place backdrop (for background on the multiple meanings of “sense of place” within a forest 

management context, refer to Stedman 2003) for those living within the community of Yreka 

and its immediate surroundings. Throughout the project area, and especially as seen from 

Yreka, slope vegetation patterns, natural and created openings, road lines, and other 

landscape details become more visible under appropriate atmospheric conditions, such as 

when highlighted by sunlight or by snow events. Conversely, they become less visible during 

precipitation, or when concealed by low cloud cover or fog.

Vegetation patterns are pronounced throughout the project area, and the appearance is either 

one of textures, such as interspersed mixed conifers and brush across the slopes in 

foreground and middleground views, or a dense and continuous conifer, and oak and brush 

canopy in middleground and background views. The landscape elements of the watershed 

can be best characterized as heterogeneous, fragmented, patchy, and finely-textured (USDA 

1993).

Culture and Disturbance:

A network of Siskiyou County and Forest Service roads traverse the project area, facilitating 

access to the Humbug Off-highway Vehicle area. Evidence of road lines and scattered private 

residences, or other evidence of human habitation are seen in middleground views across the 

project area.

Most of the project area lies within the extent of the 1955 Haystack Fire, and much of the 

post-fire area was salvage logged and reforested (refer to the Silviculture Report for more 

details). Part of these timber operations resulted in the visual evidence of terrace forestry, as 

revealed in unnatural-appearing vegetation patterns as seen in middleground and background. 

In foreground views, the terraced slopes are prominent, as are the planted tree rows.

Before Forest Service stewardship, the Humbug landscape was heavily disturbed by mining 

activities beginning with hand placer mining in the early 1850s to 1860s. Hydraulic mining 

began in the 1870s and played out during the 1880s. Miners then moved upslope out of 

drainages to mine lode deposits, creating the scattered adits and tailings now seen throughout 

the watershed (Stumpf 1979).

Human-caused and natural fire was the main disturbance mechanism that dominated the 

appearance of vegetation in the Klamath Mountains (Whitaker 1960). Overall, the project 

area was affected by frequent fires of low to mixed severity (Skinner and Taylor 2006, 

Taylor and Skinner 1998). Original vegetation patterns were likely characterized by complex 

mosaics of age, size, and spatial structure (Wills 1991). Early 20th century accounts of pine 

and mixed conifer forests noted similar spatial structure patterns of wide tree spacing, denser 
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

125

tree clumps or groupings, small dense patches of seedlings and saplings, non-forested 

openings, shrub fields and meadows (Larson and Churchill 2012).

Overall, past disturbance patterns of fire suppression, mining, logging, and replanting have 

altered the project area vegetation from the more irregular, open, and structurally diverse 

patterns ecologically established by the historic fire regimes. The current condition 

comparatively is a much more uniform and dense forest and shrub habitat, with smaller 

openings. This condition trends away from meeting forest ecological health objectives and 

the Forest Plan standard of perpetuating ecologically-established scenery.

3.11.5 Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1

Direct and Indirect Effects

This alternative would not produce any short- or long-term visual contrasts, or directly 

change the project area’s existing disturbances as viewed from all inventoried moderately 

and highly sensitive travel routes and viewpoints. Visual quality objectives would not 

negatively be affected to the scale or intensity that would detract from its natural or sociallyvalued appearance.

Long-term indirect effects may include gradually decreasing views into the forest understory, 

or decreasing views from open viewpoints as seen from former landing sites, or along lineof-sight vistas, as seen from road and riparian corridors. Barring any major future natural or 

cultural disturbances, a combination of natural and culturally-created openings along 

ridgelines, as seen in middleground and background views may gradually decrease in size, 

eventually creating the appearance of an unbroken forest canopy. Project area existing visual 

disturbances that are noticeable from all viewing distances may generally reduce over time 

through revegetation, in the absence of future human or natural disturbances.

Additional long-term effects include the general decrease of vegetation structural diversity 

over time, and the density of vegetation would increase through cumulative growth cycles.

The effects of Alternative 1 will negatively move the analysis area for this indicator further 

away from what is identified as its ecologically-established landscape character. All visual 

quality objectives will be unaffected by this alternative.

With increased vegetation density, there will be the potential decline of fire-adapted 

vegetation, as well as the decline of forest ecological resiliency to insects and disease. Within 

the project area and beyond, the probability will increase for future strong landscape visual 

contrasts created by non-ecologically or historically established high-severity wildfire, insect 

infestation outbreaks, or a combination of insect infestation and subsequent tree mortality, 

followed by high-severity wildfire events. These potential events could negatively affect the 

natural or socially-valued appearances of visual quality objectives.

Cumulative Effects

Adding the effects of Alternative 1 to the effects of the past, current and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions described in Appendix C will not result in measureable cumulative 

effects on scenery.
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

126

Alternatives 2 and 3

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 2 proposes treatments on approximately 36 percent of the project area’s 29,500 

acres through a combination of fuel breaks, brush mastication, underburning, and thinning 

with and without forest product removal. Alternative 3 proposes treatments on approximately 

38 percent of the Project area’s 29,500 acres through a similar combination of fuel breaks, 

brush mastication, underburning, and thinning with and without forest product removal as 

seen in Alternative 2; however, there will be an acreage increase proposed for fuel breaks and 

thinning without removal, and acreage decrease for mastication and thinning with removal. 

Additionally, there will be a decrease in temporary roads for Alternative 3. See chapter 2 for 

specific details. For scenic resources, the direct and indirect effects will be the same for 

Alternative 2 and Alternative 3.

Collectively, these treatments will create minor short-term visual contrasts, along with shortand long-term scenic resource and ecosystem benefits, and will not negatively affect visual 

quality objectives to the scale or intensity that would detract from its natural or sociallyvalued appearance. These benefits will visually improve the spatial and structural 

characteristics of scenic resources, as well as increasing insect, disease and fire resiliency of 

those treated portions of the forest. Desired visual characteristics include a more diverse 

vegetation structure as well as a more open forest understory, which are two of the attributes 

the general public considers aesthetically pleasing. These characteristics benefit from the 

improved forest ecological function that will be a result of implementing the treatments in 

Alternative 2 or 3. Increased tree spacing will increase resilience to insect and disease 

outbreaks and wildfire, and the same irregular spatial structure will mimic the ecologicallyestablished landscape character historically created by a low-mixed severity fire regime.

As previously mentioned in the methodology section above, although the short-term visual 

evidence of low-intensity (and the assumption of medium and high-intensity) prescribed 

burning is generally perceived as negative, the short and long term ecological benefits 

outweigh these negative short-term visual perceptions.

Foreground view effects: short-term direct and indirect management effects in foreground 

views for all project area visual quality objectives, as seen from Forest Plan inventoried 

viewpoints, trails, and along designated highly and moderately traveled roads. These may 

include tangible and intangible elements associated with active forest management during 

project implementation, such as harvesting activity, noise, dust, and traffic along haul routes. 

Additional short-term effects include the change in vegetation density and spacing during and 

immediately upon project completion, cut stumps, tree paint and flagging as seen from 

project area trails and moderately-traveled roads, exposed soils (such as decomposed granite, 

which tends to have a greater visual color contrast than the surrounding terrain), large 

concentrated slash piles in new and existing landings or along trails and moderately traveled 

roads, skyline corridors and ground-based units, as well as linear evidence of skyline 

corridors, as expressed through soil disturbance. Additional short-term effects from 

underburning include tree bole (trunk) scorching, mortality of small trees, and mosaic burn 

patterns on the forest floor.

Long-term effects in foreground views for all project area visual quality objectives may 

include cut stump patterns as seen from project area non-designated high and moderately 
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

127

sensitive (traveled) roads, tree paint and flagging, exposed soils with greater visual color 

contrasts than surrounding terrain, large concentrated slash piles in new and existing landings 

or along trails and roads, skyline corridors and ground-based units, as well as linear evidence 

of skyline corridors.

Long-term underburning effects will gradually decrease over time, as will the contrast 

change in vegetation massing, as vegetation growth responds to increased sunlight in the 

gaps.

Short-term effects in middleground and background views for all project area visual quality 

objectives may include: change in vegetation massing (form and texture, when contrasted 

against non-treated stands), exposed soils from landings, and linear evidence (seen in both 

line and color contrast) of skyline corridors or skid roads and existing road alignments 

exposed by a decrease in vegetation.

Long-term effects in middleground and background views for all project area visual quality 

objectives may include change in vegetation massing (form and texture, when compared 

against non-treated stands), linear evidence of skyline corridors or skid roads and existing 

road alignments exposed by a decrease in vegetation.

Project design features will guide the implementation of treatments so the respective visual 

quality objectives will be met within the designated time-frame, especially those foreground 

areas along designated moderate sensitivity roads, trails, and forest plan-designated 

viewpoints, and in middleground views as seen from the Yreka community and surrounding 

area. Overall, the quality of the ecologically-established landscape character will be 

improved through Alternative 2 or 3 treatments.

Cumulative Effects

Past actions are described in the affected environment section above. The following are 

ongoing and reasonably foreseeable future actions considered within the project area that 

have bearing on scenic resources and the analysis indicator.

There are no ongoing actions by the Forest Service within the project area, other than current 

ongoing use and maintenance of roads and trails.

The Badger timber harvest plan will treat approximately 48 acres through a combination of 

clearcutting and shelterwood removal with tractor logging. Located along the north slope of 

Badger Mountain, it is expected that there will be strong line visual contrasts associated with 

this project between 10 and 20 years after it is complete, or until the vegetation grows to the 

extent to reduce the contrasts. The public may be able to view these contrasts from California 

State Highway 96 coming eastbound in the western vicinity of the Tree of Heaven 

Campground, but this depends on the actual location of the harvest units. Due to topography, 

Alternative 2 or 3 treatments for the Craggy Project will not be seen in combination with the 

Badger timber harvest plan treatments. Additionally, with project design features, 

Alternatives 2 and 3 will not induce non-natural line or textural visual contrasts, and will not 

negatively affect visual quality objectives to the scale or intensity that would detract from its 

natural or socially-valued appearance.

Therefore, no cumulative effects in time and space are expected in association with the 

Badger timber harvest plan.
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

128

3.11.6 Comparison of Alternatives

Table 3-53: Scenery Comparison of Effects

Indicator Alternative 1 Alternatives 2 and 3

Visual Quality 

Objectives

Existing visual disturbances are minor and 

widespread. This alternative meets the 

Forest Plan thresholds for all sensitive 

views. There will be no new visual impacts; 

however there will be increasing future risk 

for ecosystem disturbances, such as highseverity wildfire, and insect outbreaks.

There will be widespread new minor visual

disturbances within designated viewsheds 

for 1-3 years.

With project design features, Forest Plan 

visual quality objective thresholds for all 

designated views and road/trail travel 

corridors will be met.

3.11.7 Compliance with law, regulation, policy, and the Forest Plan

Alternatives 2 and 3 will comply with relevant law, regulation, and policy. Alternative 1 will 

negatively affect the project area’s existing scenic resources and will continue the trend away 

from vegetation spatial patterns established by a low to mixed severity fire regime, which is 

not consistent with Forest-wide Klamath National Forest Plan Standard 11-4, which gives 

direction to “perpetuate the ecologically established landscape character.”

3.12 Recreation

3.12.1 Methodology

The effects of the Craggy Project on recreation are based on recreation opportunity spectrum 

classes and place-based settings in the project area. Available literature review, professional 

judgment, geographic information system data and other software were used to identify the 

affected environmental and environmental consequences for recreation.

3.12.2 Analysis Indicators and Measures

Indicator

Determining if the project will alter the recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS) settings 

(place-based physical settings) designated in the Forest Plan for the project area.

Measures

Designated ROS classes for the project area are (1) rural and (2) roaded natural. A rural area

is characterized by a substantially modified natural environment. A roaded natural area is 

characterized by predominantly natural-appearing environments with moderate evidence of 

the sights and sounds of man; such evidence usually harmonizes with the natural 

environment.

3.12.3 Spatial and Temporal Bounding of Analysis Area

The spatial bounds for analyzing direct, indirect, and cumulative effects for recreation 

resources is the boundary of the Craggy project area.

The temporal bounds are defined by the expected time frame for project implementation 

which may occur over a few years (approximately one to five years) from beginning to end. 

Longer term effects are not expected for recreation resources.
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

129

3.12.4 Affected Environment

Recreational opportunities and uses include camping at three designated dispersed (without 

formal improvements) sites, hunting, driving for pleasure, viewing scenery, and collecting 

forest products. These opportunities occur on the Humbug Off-Highway Vehicle open riding 

area which includes a children’s riding area, a day use area, and a vault toilet, and on 

approximately 14 miles of trail and a number of Forest system roads available for motorized 

vehicle use. One recreation special-use event occurs within the project area during the 

Memorial Day weekend, when the Siskiyou County Off-Road Riders hosts the annual 

Craggy Mountain Poker Run on Saturday and Sunday.

The three dispersed camps in the project area exist in the roaded natural recreation 

opportunity spectrum setting. 51D025 and 51D028 are located along the western ridgeline of 

the project boundary. 51D027 is located about one mile west of the Badger Mountain 

summit. All three camps are above 4,500 feet in elevation, are most likely occupied during 

the hunting season, and are typically accessed by short routes which are “open to all 

vehicles,” as displayed on the 2012 Motor Vehicle Use Map and identified with road signs.

Within the project area, only two recreation opportunity spectrum settings are classified: 

Roaded Natural and Rural. The majority of the area is classified as Roaded Natural, and the 

minority is Rural.

The majority of the existing recreational setting is consistent with the classification of 

Roaded Natural. The majority of the environment appears natural, with cultural disturbances 

scattered throughout, such as roads, evidence of past mining, logging, past terrace forestry, 

and year-round or seasonal residences on private inholdings. In general, the cultural 

disturbances and resource modification and utilization practices, although evident, generally 

harmonize with the natural environment.

The Rural classification also applies to the project area. These areas display substantial 

modification and utilization, and in the case of the Humbug Off-Highway Vehicle area 

(which is classified in both categories), exhibits the characteristics of the Rural classification. 

These Rural characteristics include physical developments specifically for larger group size 

motorized recreation within the designated riding area. Away from the more developed 

designated riding area, the recreating public experiences the Roaded Natural classification, 

with more natural appearing physical settings along the designated trail system.

Recreation resources and recreation opportunity spectrum settings for the Project are 

depicted on the maps in Appendix A of the Recreation Report.

3.12.5 Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1

Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be no substantial changes to the existing Forest Plan designated ROS physical 

or experiential settings to the project area. There would be no direct or indirect effects of 

management from thinning, mastication, creation of fuel breaks, or underburning. Existing 

recreational use and distribution patterns are anticipated to continue.

Cumulative Effects
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

130

Because there are no direct or indirect effects to designated ROS settings, recreation use or 

distribution anticipated under Alternative 1, there will be no cumulative effects for this 

alternative.

Alternatives 2 and 3

Direct and Indirect Effects

Professional judgment determines there will be no direct or indirect alterations to the existing 

ROS settings designated in the Forest Plan activities associated with Alternative 2 or 3. Both 

ROS settings are characterized by resource modification and utilization practices, and all 

proposed actions for both alternatives will harmonize with the natural environment over time.

Effects upon the dispersed campsites are the same for both Alternatives 2 and 3. Dispersed 

Camps 51D025 and 51D028 may be directly affected by thinning operations, necessitating 

temporary public safety closures. 51D025 would be affected by Units 134-107 and 134-34, 

as well as fuelbreak treatments. 51D028 would be affected by Unit 134-33, fuelbreak 

treatments, and Underburn Unit-1. 51D027 may be affected by fuelbreak treatments only.

For Alternatives 2 and 3, underburning operations associated with Underburn Unit 1 and 

thinning with forest product removal operations associated with Unit 134-240 would cause 

temporary public safety closures along Trail 96.

For Alternatives 2 and 3, thinning without forest product removal operations associated with 

Unit 138-56 will temporarily close Trail 109.

For both Alternatives 2 and 3, the combination of fuelbreak treatments, Underburn Unit-1, 

and both kinds of thinning operations associated with Units 134-55, 134-245, 134-244, 134-

58, 134-242, and 133-89; would temporarily close Trail 94 for short periods. Table 3-54

below displays the recreation resources that are directly affected by the proposed project 

treatments.

Table 3-54: Recreation Resources Directly Affected by Proposed Project Treatments

Recreation 

Resource Miles ROS Proposed Alternative 2 Treatments Within or Directly 

Adjacent to Recreation Resources

Trail 5594 

(94) 2.6 Roaded Natural Units 134-55, 134-244, 134-245, 134-58, and 134-242, 133-

89; fuelbreak treatments, and Underburn Unit-1

Trail 5596 

(96) 3.0 Roaded Natural Underburn Unit-1 and Unit 134-240

Trail 55109 

(109) 0.3 Rural Unit 138-56

Dispersed 

site accessed 

by 51D025

N/A Roaded Natural Units 134-107, 134-34, and fuelbreaks treatments

Dispersed 

site accessed 

by 51D028

N/A Roaded Natural Unit 134-33, fuelbreak treatments, and Underburn Unit-1

Dispersed 

site accessed 

by 51D027

N/A Roaded Natural Fuelbreak treatments
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

131

Cumulative Effects

See Appendix C for more detailed information about ongoing and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions considered for cumulative effects for the Craggy Project. Effects from current 

management activities, such as the use and maintenance of roads and trails, are consistent 

with Recreation Opportunity Spectrum classification thresholds.

The Badger Timber Harvest Plan, currently being implemented by the Michigan California 

Timber Company, is treating approximately 48 acres through a combination of clearcutting 

and shelterwood removal with tractor logging. Located along the north slope of Badger 

Mountain, this project may affect dispersed site 51D027 (in the roaded natural setting) as it 

exists immediately along the main timber haul access route, but is not expected to affect 

overall Recreation Opportunity Spectrum classification thresholds in conjunction with the 

Project.

3.12.6 Comparison of Alternatives

Table 3-55: Comparison of Effects on Recreation Analysis Indicators for all Alternatives

Indicator Alternative 1 Alternatives 2 and 3

Designated Recreation 

Opportunity Spectrum 

classifications for all 

Management Areas in the 

project boundary.

Overall designated Recreation 

Opportunity Spectrum classification 

thresholds would not change, as 

project treatments would not be 

implemented.

Overall designated Recreation Opportunity 

Spectrum classification thresholds would not 

change overall due to any proposed 

treatments, and will remain consistent with 

Forest plan direction.

3.12.7 Compliance with law, regulation, policy, and the Forest Plan

Proposed action alternatives for the Craggy Project will meet and maintain all of the 

designated recreation opportunity spectrum settings for all management areas in the project 

area. Save for temporary closures during implementation, all proposed alternatives are not 

expected to impact the overall dispersed and seasonal nature of recreational opportunities 

within the boundary. Integration of recreation project design features assures this Project is 

consistent with the Forest Plan, law, policy and regulation.

3.13 Heritage Resources

3.13.1 Methodology

The Forest is required to take into account the effects of all Forest undertakings on historic 

properties pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the 

Programmatic Agreement among the USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region 

(Region 5), California State Historic Preservation Officer, Nevada State Historic Preservation 

Officer, and Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Regarding the Process for 

Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for Management of 

Historic Properties by the National Forests of the Pacific Southwest Region (Regional PA). 

The following summarizes the effects of implementation of the Craggy Project on historic 

properties located within the project area.

The methodology used for this analysis consists of two components. The first is determining 

the area within which implementation of an alternative has the potential to have an effect. 
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

132

The second is establishing whether or not there are historic properties present within this area 

which may be affected by Project implementation.

Establishing the area within which there is potential to have an effect resulted in the 

development of the Area of Potential Effect. The Area of Potential Effect was developed 

primarily based upon the actions associated with proposed alternatives. The Area of Potential 

Effect was also used to guide efforts associated with historic property identification.

Identification of historic properties within the Area of Potential Effect forms the second 

component of analysis. This effort involved three elements: pre-field research, field surveys, 

and consultation. Pre-field research involved a thorough review of existing and available 

information on known historic properties within the Area of Potential Effect. Field surveys 

were conducted within the Area of Potential Effect to locate and identify any previously 

unknown historic properties. Consultation efforts included soliciting information on historic 

properties from tribal organizations, the general public, and within the Forest Service.

3.13.2 Analysis Indicators and Measures

Impacts are assessed using criteria defined by regulations for Protection of Historic 

Properties (36 CFR Part 800). If an action could change in any way the characteristics that 

qualify the resource for inclusion on the National Register for Historic Places, it is 

considered to have an effect. An effect is a direct or indirect alteration of the characteristics 

of a historic property that qualifies it for inclusion on the National Register of Historic 

Places.

Effects to historic properties are classed into four categories based upon relative intensity:

• Negligible: The effect on archaeological sites would be at the lowest levels of 

detection—barely measurable with any perceptible consequences.

• Minor: The effect on archaeological sites would be measurable or perceptible, but it 

would be slight and localized within a relatively small area for a site or group of sites.

• Moderate: The effect would be measurable and perceptible. The action would change 

one or more character-defining features of a resource, but it would not diminish the 

integrity of the resource to the extent that its National Register of Historic Places 

eligibility would be jeopardized.

• Major: The effect on archaeological sites would be substantial, noticeable, and 

permanent. For National Register of Historic Places eligible or listed archaeological 

sites, the action would change one or more character-defining features of an 

archaeological resource, diminishing the integrity of the resource to the extent that it 

no longer would be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.

3.13.3 Spatial and Temporal Context

The spatial bounding of the analysis area for the Craggy Project is the Area of Potential 

Effect. The Area of Potential Effect is defined as any area within the Project in which 

activities are proposed to occur, as well as areas utilized in support of those activities. The 

Area of Potential Effect differs from the more general project area in that it specifically refers 

to localized areas in which project-related activities are proposed. The Area of Potential 

Effect is used for effects analysis rather than the project area because archaeological sites are 

static resources. Because these resources are present at fixed locations, an action has to occur 
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

133

at or near that location to cause an effect. Thus, the Area of Potential Effect refines the 

analysis to only areas which are identified for actions in order to eliminate extraneous 

analysis.

Temporal bounding of this analysis is composed of two effects classifications: short- and 

long-term. Short-term effects are those which occur during or up to the first five years 

following implementation. Long-term effects are those which occur after the five year period 

following implementation. Effects are classified as short- and long-term in order to

distinguish between those effects most immediately associated with Project implementation 

relative to effects considered for indefinite resource management purposes.

3.13.4 Affected Environment

The Craggy Project is located within an area known to have historic archaeological sites. 

Thirty-two archeological sites have been identified within the Area of Potential Effect. 

Archaeological sites are irreplaceable resources; damage or destruction of sites is permanent 

and irreversible.

The project area is within the Shasta ancestral territory. No traditional cultural properties,

traditional or contemporary use areas, or specific areas of spiritual significance have been 

identified within the Area of Potential Effect of this project.

3.13.5 Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1

Direct and Indirect Effects

Implementation of Alternative 1 proposes that no management actions be taken. Therefore, 

there will be no direct effects to sites. However, with the implementation of this alternative, 

the potential for indirect effects may be increased. The increase in potential for indirect 

effects stems from leaving a higher vegetative fuel loading within sites and surrounding 

areas.

Leaving a higher fuel loading within a site increases the risk that the site will burn more 

intensely during a wildfire. Intense fire may damage or destroy combustible artifacts or 

permanently alter materials susceptible to heat or flame within a site. The effects from fire 

are difficult to predictively analyze since they are specific to an individual site, fire behavior, 

and fuel conditions. Fire effects are also difficult to anticipate because it is not known where, 

when, or under what conditions they might occur. Potential indirect effects from wildfire 

may range from negligible to major through the short and long term.

Implementation of Alternative 1 will not necessarily result in the indirect effects described 

above. However, it may increase the potential for these effects to occur by creating 

conditions which give rise to a higher probability of such effects occurring.

Cumulative Effects

Fuel loading within and adjacent to the boundaries of historic properties will not change as a 

result of future actions outside the Area of Potential Effect. Taking no management actions in 

the project area, in combination with past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, 

will not result in cumulative effects to historic properties.
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

134

Alternative 2

Direct and Indirect Effects

Standard Resource Protection Measures as outlined in Appendix E of the Region 5 

Programmatic Agreement will be used in this alternative to avoid direct effects to sites. 

However, use of protection measures may increase the probability for indirect effects in both 

the short and long term.

Implementation of Alternative 2 involves taking actions that have the potential to affect 

archaeological sites. However, using Standard Resource Protection Measures referred to as 

project design features during implementation, when effectively applied, will prevent any 

direct effects to historic properties. The Standard Resource Protection Measures or project 

design features for this undertaking include the physical demarcation and avoidance of all 

historic properties during implementation. Where appropriate and when approved by the 

district archaeologist, protection measures may include the removal of fuels from within

historic properties when removed by hand, and when piled and burned outside the boundaries 

of these properties.

Indirect effects of implementing Alternative 2 may result even with the application of project 

design features. Use of project design features to mitigate direct effects to sites may promote 

conditions where indirect effects are more likely to occur. As an effect of avoiding historic 

properties, pockets of vegetation are formed that are clearly visible on the landscape. These 

pockets both draw attention to the site and have higher fuel loads compared to surrounding 

areas; both of these increase the potential for indirect effects on the properties.

An increase in site visibility in turn increases the likelihood that sites will be subjected to 

looting and vandalism. The effects from these types of impacts are difficult to predictively 

analyze since they are specific to an individual site and situation. They are also difficult to 

anticipate because it is not known where or when they might occur, or to what extent. 

Potential indirect effects from looting or vandalism may range from negligible to major 

through the short and long term.

Leaving a higher fuel loading within a site increases the risk that the site will burn more 

intensely during a wildfire than does the surrounding area. Intense fire may damage or 

destroy combustible artifacts or permanently alter materials susceptible to heat or flame

within a site. The effects from fire are difficult to predictively analyze since they are specific 

to an individual site, fire behavior, and fuel conditions. Fire effects are also difficult to 

anticipate because it is not known where, when, or under what conditions they might occur. 

Potential indirect effects from wildfire may range from negligible to major through the short 

and long term. However, when fuels can be removed from within historic properties as 

provided in the project design features, the potential for indirect effects decreases, albeit by 

an unquantifiable amount.

Implementation of Alternative 2 will not necessarily result in the indirect effects described 

above. It may increase the potential for these effects to occur by creating conditions which 

give rise to a higher probability of such effects occurring.

Cumulative Effects

Because effects to archaeological sites are location-specific, implementation of past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable future actions associated with other projects will not result in a 
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

135

cumulative effect to sites within the Area of Potential Effect for the Craggy Project unless

those actions occur within site boundaries. There are no ongoing or future actions that 

overlap with the Area of Potential Effect within the Craggy project. At this time, the project 

design features eliminate the possibility of present or upcoming actions taking place within 

the boundaries of sites in the Craggy Area of Potential Effect. Therefore, implementation of 

Alternative 2 will not have a cumulative effect on archaeological sites within the Area of 

Potential Effect.

Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 3 is the same as Alternative 2 except treatments will occur on an additional 710 

acres. Implementation of project design features will protect heritage resources on these 

additional acres as described in Alternative 2; the direct and indirect effects of Alternative 3 

are the same as for Alternative 2.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects of Alternative 3 on heritage resources will be the same as for Alternative 

2.

3.13.6 Comparison of Alternatives

Implementation of Alternative 1 would result in no direct or cumulative effects to 

archaeological sites within the Area of Potential Effect although it may increase the potential 

for indirect effects over the short and long term. Implementation of Alternative 2 or 3 would

not result in any direct or cumulative effects to sites but these alternatives may also result in 

an increased potential for indirect effects over the short and long term. Comparison tables in 

chapter 2 display the acreage on which treatments are proposed that may affect heritage 

resources. Because implementation of Alternative 2 or 3 only increases the potential for these 

effects, the nature and extent of such effects cannot be effectively analyzed or predicted. 

Therefore, indirect effects from Alternatives 2 and 3 are not fully understood as these effects, 

if they were to occur at all, will result from unanticipated or uncontrolled events occurring 

independently of management decisions. Since project design features to mitigate effects to 

heritage resources will be applied for Alternatives 2 and 3, no measurable negative direct

effects to heritage resources are expected for these alternatives.

3.13.7 Compliance with law, regulation, policy and the Forest Plan

Regardless of the alternative selected, historic properties identified within the project area 

will be managed in accordance with the guidelines set forth in the Programmatic Agreement 

Among the U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region (Region 5), California State 

Historic Preservation Officer, Nevada State Historic Preservation Officer, and the Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation Regarding the Process for Compliance with Section 106 of 

the National Historic Preservation Act for Management of Historic Properties by the 

National Forests of the Pacific Southwest Region (Region 5 PA). Management of historic 

properties according to the provisions set forth in the Region 5 PA is consistent with Forest 

Plan direction, as displayed in the Forest Plan Consistency Checklist, and is in compliance 
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

136

with the National Historic Preservation Act. Therefore, implementation of the Project is 

consistent with Forest Plan direction and in compliance with law, regulation, and policy.

3.14 Social and Economic Resources

The purpose of this section is to analyze the effects of the Craggy Project on social and 

economic health, and identify any disproportionate effects to minorities and disadvantaged 

groups, in Siskiyou County.

3.14.1 Methodology

Social

Information from federal data sources is used to compare the social status of Siskiyou County 

to the State of California and the United States to provide background information for effects 

of the project on minorities and disadvantaged groups. The Economic Profile System, Human 

Dimensions Toolbox, compiles statistics from federal data sources and is used as a source of 

information for this analysis.

Social and Civil Rights analysis is based on the quality of life of people affected by this 

project. Safety is an important value to people in Siskiyou County and an important part of 

quality of life; therefore, one purpose of this analysis is to gain a better understanding of how 

safety relates to the purpose and need of this project and its proposed actions. Quality of life 

also depends on an economic element, for people to sustain themselves and their families,

which is analyzed in the economic portions of this document.

Economic

Forest Service created models were used to analyze economic effects comparisons between 

alternatives proposed by the Craggy Vegetation Management Project. These models assist in 

a cost-benefit socio-economic analysis based on the proposed treatments of each alternative. 

Two different economic models were used: (1) the Region 5 Timber Sale Economic 

Evaluation model and (2) the Treatments for Restoration Economic Analysis Tool (TREAT) 

model. The Region 5 Timber Sale Economic Evaluation model calculates the approximate 

residual value of the timber sale to the purchaser after completion of the project. The TREAT 

model calculates approximate present net value which is shown as potential employment in 

number of jobs and the potential income these jobs may provide. These models will provide 

an effective comparison between Project alternatives concerning economic resources, in 

particular the volume and value of forest products and employment and labor income 

provided in the timber products sector. To provide input to the model, the approximate 

volume per acre of forest product removals was calculated, for each alternative, by the 

district silviculturist using the Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS). Inputs such as haul 

distance, skid distance, slope, and road and landing construction were developed by local 

knowledge of the project area and spatial analysis in ESRI ArcGIS software. Annual forest 

product volumes and sold values were retrieved from the Forest Products Cut and Sold 

database (USDA 2016a). All calculations and models are a best estimate and may differ from 

actual results.
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

137

3.14.2 Analysis Indicators and Measures

Social

Social and Civil Rights analysis is based on the quality of life of people affected by this 

project.

The indicators used for the social analysis include lifestyles, values, beliefs, health and safety 

of individuals and communities. For this project, there are two measures for evaluating the 

effects of the project on quality of life for Siskiyou County residents:

1. The value of using the resources of the Forest, and project area in particular, for the 

benefit of county residents (Siskiyou County Land and Resource Management Plan 

1996). This will be analyzed by the jobs provided and value of the estimated volume 

of timber products the action alternatives will produce. Other beneficial uses are 

discussed in other resource reports, especially in the aquatic resources, hydrology, 

recreation, and wildlife reports.

2. Changes to the “fire-safe character of communities” in the project area. This will be 

analyzed by the acres of treatment, primarily fuels treatments, and location of 

treatments in relation to private property in each alternative. It is assumed that 

treatments, primarily but not exclusively fuels treatments, have the indirect effect of 

creating more fire-safe communities.

Assumptions made in this analysis include that it is probable that any portion of the project 

area will be accessed by the public, firefighters, or Forest workers.

Economic

The Forest Plan includes a Forest-wide goal to promote the economic stability of local 

communities (Forest Plan page 4-9). Economic analysis indicators for this report are:

1) Revenue generated based on forest product value,

2) Employment supported; and

3) Direct labor income revenue generated.

3.14.3 Spatial and Temporal Bounding of Analysis Area

Siskiyou County is used as the spatial analysis area for social effects and for fiscal effects 

(timber receipts) because the project area is entirely within the county and data are available 

at this scale. Siskiyou County will be used as the analysis area for economics because the 

project’s direct economic effects through manufacturing, logging, log hauling and forestry 

support services are primarily realized through this larger area. Although direct effects to 

safety, and treatments proposed to improve safety, are entirely within the project area, overall 

safety of communities outside the project area such as Yreka may be affected so the 

boundaries of the eight 7th field watersheds are used to analyze safety.

This analysis considers one to five years as the short-term time period for effects analysis on 

safety and other social and economic indicators. This temporal bounding approximates when 

treatments would be completed and products from implementation have entered the wood 

products market. Five to ten years is the long-term time period for effects analysis on safety 
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

138

and other social and economic effects because the majority of social and economic effects are 

not likely to be noticeable after that time period.

3.14.4 Affected Environment

The closest sizeable community to the project area is the City of Yreka which is located one 

mile east of the project area. Fort Jones is within 10 miles south of the project area. Some 

private residences and property occur within the project area. Much of the project area is 

within the wildland urban interface, an area or zone where structures and other human 

development meet or intermingle with undeveloped wildland or vegetative fuels. The density 

of vegetation, discussed in the Silviculture Resource Report, and the potential for high 

severity wildfire, discussed in the Fire and Fuels Resource Report, provide support for the 

concern that wildfires would destroy or damage residences in this area.

According to the latest demographic results from the Economics Profile of Siskiyou County 

(USDA, USDI and Headwaters 2016), the Siskiyou County population consists of Caucasian, 

African American, American Indian, Hispanic, Asian, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, 

and other races. The American Indian population is a greater percentage of the population in 

Siskiyou County than in the State of California. A larger percentage of the population of 

Siskiyou County is unemployed or below the poverty line than in the state of California or 

the United States as a whole. From 1970 to 2014, employment grew from 14,085 to 20,478

jobs, about a 45 percent increase from 1970. The number of jobs in 2014 is the same as in 

2000. A high in population and employment was reached in 2010 and has declined slightly 

since then. Since 1990, the annual unemployment rate ranged from a low of 7.5 percent in 

2000 to a high of 16.6 percent in 2010; the unemployment rate for 2015 was 9.4 percent 

compared to 6.2 percent for the United States. Labor income in Siskiyou County has held 

relatively constant since 1970; non-labor income has been on a steady rise and was almost 57 

percent of personal income in 2014. Unlike the nation as a whole, the highest average annual 

wages in Siskiyou County are for government-related jobs.

Lifestyles, attitudes, beliefs and values of Siskiyou County residents are similar to those of 

rural residents in other counties in the western United States (Siskiyou County 2005). Many 

local residents depend on the environment to support them, and they want forest products to 

be used for the benefit of the county. The concern regarding the fire-safe character of the 

communities in and adjacent to the project boundary and for the general safety of the public, 

forest workers, and firefighters is high. Conditions related to safety have changed in the last 

few years due to drought and high intensity wildfires that have left many acres of the Forest 

in an unsafe condition and are of particular concern to communities within and adjacent to 

the project area boundaries.

In 1998, timber represented more than seven percent of total employment of Siskiyou 

County; by 2014, timber represented less than six percent of total employment. The 

percentage of total employment in the nation as a whole related to timber is less than one 

percentage. Jobs in the timber sector in the county decreased to about 480 jobs in 2014. 

“Although National Forests account for more than 60 percent of the county’s land base, the 

share of the county’s timber harvest off federal lands has decreased from roughly 50 percent 

to less than 20 percent since the northern spotted owl was listed as threatened in 1990. Since 

1990, the number of wood products manufacturing facilities in the county has declined by 

half” (Dennis 2012).
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

139

2015 is the most recent year for which data is available on timber products sold by the Forest 

(USDA 2016a). It also was the highest producing year in both volume and value over the 

five-year period (Figure 2). In fiscal year 2015 (October 2014 – September 2015), forest 

product sales amounted to about 7,897,900 cubic feet for a sold value of $1,780,200 ($0.23 

per cubic foot). Average sold value for forest products over the 2010-2015 period are $0.15 

per cubic foot. Volumes sold over this period have fluctuated, often due to emergency 

salvage of trees killed by wildfire, but averaged about 6,500,000 cubic feet. Planned annual 

targets for 2014 to 2016 have been slightly lower, ranging from 4,800,000 to 6,000,000 cubic 

feet. The Forest has set annual forest product volume targets for 2016 to 2018 at 5,400,000 

cubic feet per year, well within the allowable sale quantity of 7,600,000 cubic feet sawlog 

volume established by the Forest Plan (USDA 1995). The value of the annual forest product 

volume target is estimated to be $810,000 per year based on the average selling rate. This is 

lower than the five-year average of $988,000 per year. As evidenced by the five-year 

averages, the Forest has a record of exceeding targets on both value and volume of forest 

products offered to the public.

Figure 2: Forest Product Sales by the Klamath National Forest.

For 2014, the Forest is estimated to have supported 232 direct jobs in the timber products 

sector. This employment represents a direct labor income of $10,611,000 (USDA 2016b). 

The estimate of labor income includes income to sole proprietors of businesses. Employment 

has slightly increased over the five year period from 2009 to 2014 with 158 jobs as the fiveyear average. Labor income followed the same trend with a five-year average of $8,114,000 

(Figure 3).

 $-

 $200,000.00

 $400,000.00

 $600,000.00

 $800,000.00

 $1,000,000.00

 $1,200,000.00

 $1,400,000.00

 $1,600,000.00

 $1,800,000.00

 $2,000,000.00

 -

 1,000,000

 2,000,000

 3,000,000

 4,000,000

 5,000,000

 6,000,000

 7,000,000

 8,000,000

 9,000,000

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Cubic Feet (CF)

Fiscal Year (Oct. - Sept.)

Klamath National Forest

Forest Product Sales 2010-2015

Volume (CF) Value ($)
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

140

Figure 3: Direct Employment and Labor Income Supported by the Klamath National Forest.

3.14.5 Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1

Direct and Indirect Effects

Social

Under this alternative, no treatments would be implemented so there would be no change 

from the current situation in terms of the use of resources of the project area for the benefit of 

Siskiyou County residents and property owners in the short term or long term. Without any 

treatments being implemented in this alternative, the fire-safe character of residents, property 

owners, or communities within or adjacent to the project area would not improve in the short 

term. In the long term, fire safety is expected to decrease with no treatment since dense 

vegetation would continue to grow and the likelihood of high intensity wildfire would

increase (see the Fire and Fuels Resource Report for additional information). There would be 

no disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on American 

Indians or those below the poverty level.

Economic

This alternative has no economic impacts because no treatments generating economic effects 

would be implemented. No forest products or revenues would be generated from timber 

sales. Similarly, no employment or labor income is created as a result of this alternative. 

Volumes and values of sold forest products are estimated to remain within the range of past 

variability as the Klamath National Forest makes administrative decisions on how to meet 

forest product targets.

Cumulative Effects

$0

$2,000,000

$4,000,000

$6,000,000

$8,000,000

$10,000,000

$12,000,000

0

50

100

150

200

250

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Direct Employment

Fiscal Year (Oct. - Sept.)

Klamath National Forest Economic Impact

Timber Products Sector 

2009-2014

Jobs Labor Income
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

141

Social

Adding the effects of past, current and reasonably foreseeable future actions as noted in 

Appendix C to the effects of no treatment in this alternative would not have significantly 

cumulative effects on the use of resources for the benefit of Siskiyou County nor on the firesafety of communities.

Economic

Adding the effects of past, current and reasonably foreseeable future actions as noted in 

Appendix C to the effects of no treatment in this alternative would not have significantly 

cumulative effects on revenue generated, employment, or labor income.

Alternative 2

Direct and Indirect Effects

Social

Under this alternative, treatments that provide revenue to the County would be implemented 

on about 2,870 acres. This would increase the use of resources of the project area for the 

benefit of Siskiyou County residents and property owners in the short term. The fire-safe 

character of residents, property owners, or communities within or adjacent to the project area 

would be improved on a total of about 10,600 acres in the short term. Of these acres, 1,400

would be in fuel breaks (including 60 adjacent to private property), 4,160 in prescribed 

underburning, 900 in mastication, 1,270 in thinning without product removal, and thinning 

with removal of forest products on about 2,870 acres (these 2,870 acres are the same ones 

that would provide revenue and use resources as mentioned above). In the long term, fire 

safety is expected to increase since dense vegetation would be thinned and the likelihood of 

high intensity wildfire would decrease (see the Fire and Fuels Resource Report for additional 

information). There would be no disproportionately high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on American Indians or those below the poverty level.

Economic

Alternative 2 would make available an estimated 3,305,500 cubic feet of forest products, 

with 68 percent of this volume as sawlog products. Other products include biomass for 

energy generation and commercial firewood. This amounts to 55 percent of the 5,400,000 

cubic feet annual target planned for the Forest. The appraised base value of these forest 

products, subtracting logging and hauling costs, is estimated at $158,300 (Region 5 Timber 

Sale Economic Evaluation model). Although 55 percent of the planned volume, the value 

amounts to only 20 percent of the projected $810,000 annual value of forest products sold by 

the Forest. The difference between relative value and relative volume of forest products 

produced by the alternative is due to the proportion and value of sawlog products. In this 

alternative, much of the thinning with forest product removal would occur in 40 to 50 year 

old plantations which have lower stocking of sawlogs relative to older natural stands and are 

composed primarily of ponderosa pine, a low economic value species. Further information on 

the size and species of trees anticipated for removal may be found in the Silviculture 

Resource Report.
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

142

Direct employment in the timber products sector supported by forest product removals is 

estimated at 45 jobs with a direct labor income value of $1,919,300. This employment would 

be supported for the period of four years which is the estimated period over which forest 

products would be produced and jobs created. The majority of employment is in mill 

processing (32 jobs) and timber harvesting (10 jobs). The direct labor income value includes 

the compensation and benefits for employees, as well as the income earned by sole 

proprietors of businesses employed in implementation. Direct employment through this 

project is estimated at 28 percent of total jobs annually supported in the timber products 

sector by the Forest, based on the five-year average of 158 jobs. Labor income value is the 

same proportion, about 24 percent of the approximately $8,114,000 in direct labor income 

supported by the Forest.

Alternative 2 has an overall positive economic effect. The planned forest product outputs 

would be about half of the annual target of the Forest, although they would yield only a fifth 

of the relative total value. Direct employment and labor income in the timber industry 

supported by this alternative would both be about a quarter of the Forest’s annual economic 

impact. The small job creation effect would last for only the four year period in which forest 

products would be produced. Since the positive effect is so short-lived, there would be no 

long-term impact on employment in the county.

Cumulative Effects

Social

Adding the effects of past, current and reasonably foreseeable future actions as identified in 

Appendix C to the effects of this alternative would have positive effects but these are not 

likely to be significant cumulative effects on the use of resources for the benefit of Siskiyou 

County nor on the fire-safety of communities.

Economic

Adding the effects of past, current and reasonably foreseeable future actions as identified in 

Appendix C to the effects of this alternative would have positive effects but these are not 

likely to be significant cumulative effects on revenue generated, employment or labor 

income. Private timber harvests in Siskiyou County have amounted to an average value of 

$28,600,000 over the 2007 to 2011 period (Dennis 2012). The Forest’s forest product sales 

produced only three percent of this value in the 2010 to 2015 period. Alternative 2 would 

produce only 0.5 percent of the average private timber sale value, and then only for the sale 

year. Similarly, the alternative would support only nine percent of the total 480 jobs in the 

timber products sector within Siskiyou County.

Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect Effects

Social

Under this alternative, treatments that provide revenue to the County would be implemented 

on about 2,230 acres. This would increase the use of resources of the project area for the 

benefit of Siskiyou County residents and property owners in the short term. The fire-safe 
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

143

character of residents, property owners or communities within or adjacent to the project area 

would be improved on a total of about 11,310 acres in the short term. Of these acres, 2,190 

would be in fuel breaks (including 650 adjacent to private property), 4,430 in prescribed 

underburning, 760 in mastication, 1,690 in thinning without product removal and thinning 

with removal of forest products on about 2,230 acres (these 2,230 acres are the same ones 

that would provide revenue and use resources as mentioned above). In the long term, fire 

safety is expected to increase since dense vegetation would be thinned and the likelihood of 

high intensity wildfire would decrease, especially adjacent to private property (see the Fire 

and Fuels Resource Report for additional information). There would be no disproportionately 

high and adverse human health or environmental effects on American Indians or those below 

the poverty level.

Economic

Alternative 3 would make available an estimated 2,651,300 cubic feet of forest products, 

with the same proportion of products as Alternative 2. This amounts to 20 percent less 

volume of forest products produced than in Alternative 2. Compared to the Forest annual 

forest product target, Alternative 3 would be 49 percent of the planned 5,400,000 cubic foot 

volume. The appraised base value of these forest products, subtracting logging and hauling 

costs, is estimated at $127,000 (Region 5 Timber Sale Economic Evaluation model). 

Although 49 percent of the planned volume, the value amounts to only 16 percent of the 

projected $810,000 annual value of forest products sold by the Forest. The magnitude in 

difference between relative volume and value of forest products is not significantly different 

than in Alternative 2; each metric has declined about four to five percent.

Direct employment in the timber products sector supported by forest product removals is 

estimated at 37 jobs with a direct labor income value of $1,550,900. This employment would 

be supported for the period of four years which is the estimated period over which forest 

products would be produced and jobs created. The majority of employment supported is in 

mill processing (26 jobs) and timber harvesting (eight jobs). Direct employment through this 

project is estimated at 23 percent of total jobs annually supported in the timber products 

sector by the Forest, based on the five-year average. Labor income value is the same 

proportion, about 19 percent of the approximately $8,114,000 in direct labor income 

supported by the Forest.

Alternative 3 has an overall positive economic effect. The planned forest product outputs 

would be half of the Forest’s annual target, though five percent less of the relative total than 

Alternative 2. Value relative to the total value of Forest annual target is similarly less, about a 

decline of five percent to only 15 percent of the annual total. Employment and labor income 

are about a fifth of the Forest’s annual economic impact, again about five percent less than in 

Alternative 2. The small job creation effect would last for only the four year period in which 

forest products would be produced and have no long-term impact on employment in the 

county.

Cumulative Effects
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

144

Social

Adding the effects of past, current and reasonably foreseeable future actions as noted in 

appendix C to the effects of this alternative would have positive effects but these are not 

likely to be significant cumulative effects on the use of resources for the benefit of Siskiyou 

County nor on the fire-safety of communities.

Economic

Adding the effects of past, current and reasonably foreseeable future actions as identified in 

Appendix C to the effects of this alternative would have positive effects but these are not 

likely to be significant cumulative effects on revenue generated, employment or labor 

income. Private timber harvests in Siskiyou County have amounted to an average value of 

$28,600,000 over the 2007 to 2011 period (Dennis 2012). The Forest’s forest product sales 

produced only three percent of this value in the 2010 to 2015 period. Alternative 3 would 

produce only 0.5 percent of the average private timber sale value, and then only for the sale 

year. This proportion is not significantly different than Alternative 2. Similarly, Alternative 3 

would support only eight percent of the total 480 jobs in the timber products sector within 

Siskiyou County, a decline of one percent from Alternative 2.

3.14.6 Comparison of Alternatives

Social

Table 3-56 provides a comparison of alternatives on social analysis indicators. As noted, the 

beneficial effects to fire-safety are greater for Alternative 3 than for Alternative 2, and both 

action alternatives are more beneficial than Alternative 1. Beneficial effects to the use of 

resources are greater for Alternative 2 than for Alternative 3, and both action alternatives 

have greater benefits than Alternative 1.

Table 3-56: Comparison of Alternatives on Social Analysis Indicators

Indicator Measurement Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Use of Resources Acres of product removed 0 2,870 2,230

Fire Safety Total acres treated (all 

treatments included) 0 10,600 11,310

Fire Safety Acres of fuels treated 

adjacent to private property 0 60 650

Economic

Table 3-57 provides a comparison of alternatives on economic analysis indicators. Beneficial 

economic effects are greater for both action alternatives than for Alternative 1. Alternative 2 

would provide a slightly greater economic benefit in terms of revenue, jobs and direct labor 

income generated than Alternative 3.
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

145

Table 3-57: Comparison of Alternatives on Economic Analysis Indicators

Indicator Measurement Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3

Revenue based on 

estimated timber sold Dollars 0 158,300 127,000

Employment Number of jobs 0 45 37

Direct labor Income 

generated Dollars 0 1,919,300 1,550,900

3.14.7 Compliance with law, regulation, policy, and the Forest Plan

All alternatives comply with relevant laws, regulations, policy and the Forest Plan as noted in 

the Forest Plan Consistency Checklist, available on the Project website. Compliance with 

Executive Order 12898 on Environmental Justice and the USDA Civil Rights policy are as 

disclosed in the social environmental effects sections of this report.

3.15 Climate Change

Increasingly, the relationships between human-caused emissions, climate change, and the

role of the forests as carbon sinks (carbon sequesters) are being documented (IPCC 2007, 

U.S. EPA 2013, USGCRP 2014); it is generally agreed that human activities are now the 

dominant agents of climate change (USGCRP 2014, Appendix 3, page 736). Scientific 

understanding of observed temperature changes in the United States has improved; the latest 

estimates are that average temperatures in the United States are expected to increase by about 

4.4 degrees centigrade if current greenhouse gas emissions continue and by about 1.4 degrees 

centigrade if immediate and rapid greenhouse gas reductions occur (USGCRP 2014, chapter 

2, figure 7). Trends in heat waves, drought, and fire risk are increasing in many regions as 

temperatures and evaporation rates rise (USDA 2011b, USGCRP 2014, Appendix 3, pages 

736 and 769-772); these trends have affected and are likely to continue to affect the project 

area.

Although climate change simulations vary in making future predictions of climate change in 

regard to projected precipitation, in most observations precipitation events have become 

more extreme (USGCRP 2014, Appendix 3, page 770, figure 32). Most precipitation in the 

western United States has been occurring, and is projected to continue to occur, during winter 

storms. However, if winter temperatures increase in Northern California as they have before 

the winter of 2016-2017, this may mean that more of the winter precipitation falls as rain and 

less as snow. Snow accumulations may decrease as was observed in the project area in 2014 

and 2015; spring snow melt may occur earlier than in the past. These findings may increase 

the likelihood of continued drought and risk of wildfire.

Although there is little local scientific information to help predict whether or not storms may 

increase in size or frequency, since 1964 there have been major channel-altering events about 

once per decade in the Klamath Mountains (Cover et al. 2010 ). There is national evidence 

that storms are more extreme than in the past (USGCRP 2014). If these trends are indicative 

of what would happen locally, extreme storm events may occur in the project area in the 

future.

The use of future climate scenarios and ecological models suggests that the impact of climate 

change on ecosystems in the United States may include increases in ecosystem productivity 
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

146

in the short term and shifts in the distribution of plants and animals in the long term (Joyce 

and Birdsey 2000, Anderson and Palik 2011). Although there is no local scientific 

information to predict what changes will occur in the project area, there is an opportunity 

with this project for some adaptation to climate change effects on the local level.

Adapting to climate change and its potential impacts poses challenges and opportunities to 

managing resources. Forests and rangelands are seen as part of the solution to reducing 

atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases due to their ability to sequester or 

store carbon (U.S. EPA 2013). Forest ecosystems and the associated wood products industry 

currently serve as a “carbon sink,” offsetting about 16 percent of carbon dioxide emitted by 

fossil fuel burning in the United States in 2011 (USGCRP 2014, chapter 7, page 176). 

Climate change, combined with current societal trends in land use, is projected to reduce this 

rate of forest carbon uptake (USGCRP 2014, chapter 7, page 179) but forest management 

practices that increase forested areas (planting or encouraging growth of forests) have the 

potential to increase carbon sinks (USGCRP, chapter 7, page 181).

Some uncertainty continues to exist in quantifying the impact of project-level emissions on 

climate. Although down-scaling techniques are in use to assess global climate change 

impacts at regional levels, there are uncertainties in these approaches especially in applying 

them to the project level. Projecting climate change impacts at the local level is a resource 

intensive approach with methodological limitations (USGCRP 2014, Appendix 3, page 761). 

Local information concerning precipitation and temperature in the vicinity of the project area 

suggests that national predictions on increasing temperature and erratic precipitation trends 

may be reflected at the project level (Butz and Safford 2011 and Butz et al. 2015). 

Specifically, the following may occur:

• Increases in average temperatures, with earlier snowmelt, may cause fuels to grow 

more rapidly and also dry more rapidly (predicted by many future climate scenarios), 

and may lead to an increase in the size and frequency of wildfires with warmer, drier 

and longer fire seasons as was evident in 2014;

• Thinning of overly dense stands can reduce fuels, especially those larger fuels that are 

slow to ignite but burn at high intensities which lead to heated soils and damaged soil 

productivity; and

• From our current state of understanding, climate change may bring about increases in 

insect and pathogen outbreaks.

Based on regional predictions of a warming climate and increases in disturbances such as 

wildfire and insect infestations, it is expected that treatments proposed in the action 

alternatives for this project would benefit forests by reducing the amount and severity of 

future high intensity fire and promoting resilient and healthy forests. Some adaptation 

measures such as assisted migration of vegetative and animal species are not proposed due to 

both difficulty in anticipating climate-related changes at local scales (USGCRP 2014, chapter 

28, page 671) and lack of knowledge about the impacts to the species and ecosystem from 

such migration (Millar et al. 2007).

The contribution of this project to factors that may affect climate change such as greenhouse 

gas emissions is disclosed in the Air Quality section of this chapter and referenced Air 

Quality Resource Report. Knowledge about how to effectively manage forests for carbon 
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

147

sequestration is evolving; active forest management is believed to be an effective method of 

long-term carbon sequestration (IPCC 2007, USGCRP 2014, and USDA 2011b). Although 

there are models to calculate carbon storage for forests, using these models for this project 

does not seem to be cost-efficient due to the small scale of the project in regard to it affecting 

carbon storage, and the ability of such modeling results to demonstrate a difference between 

the action and no action alternatives. Thinning with and without forest product removal and 

additional fuel-reduction treatments would not eliminate wildfire from the project area but 

can help change fire behavior (as discussed in the Fire and Fuels section of this chapter and 

Fire and Fuels Resource Report) thereby likely reducing carbon dioxide emissions resulting 

from wildfire. Short-term negative effects on carbon storage from prescribed burning are 

balanced by long-term carbon storage negative effects from wildfire. Effects on future global 

climate change from this project are too small to measure but mitigation and adaptation 

techniques (USGCRP, chapters 27 and 28) are expected to be beneficial.

3.16 Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity

NEPA requires consideration of “the relationship between short-term uses of man’s 

environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity” (40 CFR 

1502.16). As declared by Congress, this includes using all practicable means and measures, 

including financial and technical assistance, in a manner calculated to foster and promote the 

general welfare, to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in 

productive harmony, and fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements of present and 

future generations of Americans (NEPA Section 101).

Short-term uses and their effects are those that occur within the first few years of project 

implementation as discussed in resource sections of this chapter. Long-term productivity 

refers to the capability of the land and resources to continue producing goods and services 

long after the project has been implemented. Under the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act, 

and the National Forest Management Act, all renewable resources are to be managed in such 

a way that they are available for future generations. Harvesting trees by thinning, and use of 

the timber that results from the thinning, can be considered a short-term use of a renewable 

resource. As a renewable resource, trees can be maintained and continue to grow on the 

project area if the long-term productivity of the land is maintained. This long-term 

productivity is maintained through the application of the project design features described in 

chapter 2 in Table 2-1, especially those applying to the soil, water, and geology resources 

(Watershed).

The action alternatives (2 and 3) both would provide for the long-term productivity of the 

project area through removal of biomass and other fuel reduction actions creating a resilient 

forest where areas can recover from future fire effects naturally.

Harvesting trees through thinning in the action alternatives would reduce stocking levels 

(trees per acre and stand density index), leading to reductions in density-related mortality 

including those from some types of insect and disease infestations. The resulting stand 

conditions would be more sustainable over the long term from the standpoints of vegetative 

diversity and ecological processes. Treatments in the action alternatives are expected to 

promote the development of healthier and more resilient stands.
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

148

Mastication, in which units primarily consist of brush, re-arranges the fuel bed from standing 

brush to finer fuels on the surface floor. In comparing pre- versus post- treatments in these 

units, fire type in treated and maintained areas are anticipated to stay a surface fire with 

flame lengths less than four feet. Fuel loads of masticated fuel beds for previous projects 

have not shown to be a concern for undesired fire effects in the event of a wildfire or during 

prescribed fire for the project area. Both action alternatives would improve the chances of 

successful direct attack during suppression of a wildfire. The ridgetop and roadside 

treatments would improve the effectiveness and safety of fighting fires. The action 

alternatives would improve the defensibility of the communities of Yreka and Hawkinsville

against wildfire.

In the action alternatives, hydrologic stabilization of temporary roads on existing roadbeds

and the treatment of legacy sediment sites may cause short-term risks to water quality from 

displaced soils but these risks would be minimized by application of project design features.

In the long term, closing temporary roads after use and hydrologic stabilization would avoid 

impacts of erosion and sedimentation as described in the soils and hydrology sections of this 

chapter.

The action alternatives would degrade foraging habitat used by northern spotted owl by a 

small amount in the short term; however, this is offset by reducing the density of vegetation 

and improving stand health and ecological processes in the long term as described in the 

wildlife section of this chapter. Long-term beneficial effects would occur as desired tree 

species and currently mid-sized trees grow.

Alterations in scenery would be slightly noticeable in the short term in all action alternatives 

but these would be minimized by the application of project design features. In the long term, 

the scenery mosaic would have a substantially greater likelihood of being perpetuated by 

action alternatives than with taking no action.

3.17 Unavoidable Adverse Effects

Implementation of either of the action alternatives is not expected to cause any adverse 

environmental effects that cannot be effectively mitigated or avoided by design features. 

Unavoidable adverse effects often result from managing the land for one resource at the 

expense of the use or condition of other resources; this is not the case for the Craggy Project. 

Some negative effects are short-term and necessary to achieve long-term beneficial effects. 

Many negative effects can be reduced, mitigated, or avoided by limiting the extent or 

duration of effects. Applying specific design features from Table 2-1 in chapter 2, and 

following standards and guidelines from the Forest Plan including implementation of best 

management practices, further limit the extent, severity, and duration of potential negative

effects. Full descriptions of the effects of implementing alternatives can be found in the 

resource sections of this chapter.

3.18 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of 

Resources

Irreversible commitments of resources are those that cannot be regained, such as the 

extinction of a species or the removal of mined ore. No irreversible commitments of 

resources are identified for this project.
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

149

Irretrievable commitments are those that are lost for a period of time such as the use of 

renewable resources. The temporary loss will be irretrievable but the action will not be 

irreversible. Under Alternative 1 the potential for a highly intense and severe wildfire would

continue to exist, which could have adverse effects to more than one resource (see chapter 3 

resource sections). Under action alternatives, the risk of loss of forest vegetation due to a 

potential wildfire, and the impact of this loss to resources associated with forest vegetation, 

would be reduced but not eliminated. Vegetation removed as a byproduct of thinning and 

fuel reduction treatments would constitute loss of individual trees that are harvested but this 

would not result in a loss of productivity of entire stands of vegetation. Functionality of 

forest habitats would continue and conditions are expected to improve ranging from 

immediately post-project activities for certain resources, and within several decades for 

others. Effects are in accordance with the goals as described in chapter 1, purpose and need, 

and as disclosed in chapter 3 resource sections

3.19 Other Required Disclosures

NEPA at 40 CFR 1502.25(a) directs “to the fullest extent possible, agencies shall prepare 

environmental impact statements concurrently with and integrated with other environmental 

review laws and executive orders.

Clean Water Act

The Clean Water Act, as amended, regulates the dredging and filling of freshwater and 

coastal wetlands. Section 404 (33 USC 1344) of the Clean Water Act prohibits the discharge 

of dredged or fill material into waters (including wetlands) of the United States without first 

obtaining a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Wetlands are regulated in 

accordance with federal Non-Tidal Wetlands Regulations (Section 40). No dredging or filling 

is proposed as part of any action alterative considered under this project, and no permits are 

required. The Craggy Project is in compliance with the Clean Water Act. Temperature is the 

relevant water quality objective for this project as defined in the North Coast Regional Water 

Quality Control Board’s Water Quality Control Plan Basin Plan (Streams within the Craggy 

Project are listed within the 303(d) list for multiple impairments, as it is a tributary of the 

Middle Klamath River; however, temperature is most relevant to streams within the Craggy 

Project, as sources for the other pollutants are rare or non-existent. North Coast Water Board, 

(State Water Resources Control Board, 2012). The Basin Plan is available on the web (see 

Literature Cited section below). Project-specific best management practices to maintain 

water quality for those beneficial uses during project implementation are contained in 

Appendix D. The project-specific best management practices would be used to meet water 

quality objectives specified in the Basin Plan as discussed in this draft environmental impact 

statement and the Craggy Fisheries and Hydrology Resource Reports, available on the 

Project website.

Compliance with the Clean Water Act is regulated by the North Coast Regional Water 

Quality Control Board through a Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements for Nonpoint 

Source Discharges Related to Certain Federal Land Managed Activities on National Forest 

System Lands (Order No. R1-2015-0021). Compliance with the conditions of the Waiver 

equals compliance with the Clean Water Act and related total maximum daily loads for each 

impaired watercourse (North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, 2015). The 
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

150

Forest intends to comply with the 2015 Waiver, which will be fully divulged within the 

application for coverage under the Waiver, to be submitted immediately following the 

Record of Decision for the Craggy Project.

The project is also in compliance with the National Forest Management Act of 1976 as 

implemented by the Forest Plan, particularly to the requirements of the Aquatic Conservation 

Strategy. Disclosure of compliance with the Aquatic Conservation Strategy is available in 

Appendix F. More information on compliance with the Klamath National Forest Plan is 

found in the Forest Plan Consistency Checklist, also on the Project website.

Clean Air Act

The Clean Air Act of 1970, as amended, provides for the protection and enhancement of the 

Nation’s air resources. No exceeding of federal or state ambient air quality standards is 

expected to result from any action alternative considered in this project, as disclosed in 

chapter 3 (Section 3.10) and in the Air Quality Report.

Environmental Justice (Executive Order 12898)

Executive Order 12898 relating to environmental justice requires an assessment of whether 

minorities or low-income populations will be disproportionately affected by any proposed 

action. As discussed in the social and economic report in chapter 3, Siskiyou County has a 

disproportionate number of low-income residents and a slightly larger percentage of Native 

Americans than the State of California. Job creation associated with action alternatives would

be beneficial to low-income people who are seeking jobs. The alternatives would have no 

adverse effects on human health or the environment that are significant, unacceptable, or 

above generally accepted norms and; therefore, there would be no disproportionate effects on 

minorities or low income population.

Non-native Invasive Species (Executive Order 13112)

This executive order directs federal agencies to prevent the introduction of invasive species; 

detect and respond rapidly to and control such species; not authorize, fund, or carry out 

action that the agency believes are likely to cause or promote the introduction or spread of 

invasive species unless the agency has determined and made public its determination that the 

benefits of such actions clearly outweigh the potential harm caused by invasive species; and 

take all feasible and prudent measures to minimize risk of harm in conjunction with the 

actions. Project design features minimize the environmental effects of action alternatives, as 

disclosed in chapter 2, Table 2-1, and meet the requirements of this executive order.

National Historic Preservation Act

Consultation with federally-recognized tribes was initiated early on in the project planning 

stage in accordance with the Region 5 Programmatic Agreement, National Historic 

Preservation Act, and other laws and regulations. No concerns were expressed regarding the 

proposed action. This project is in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act. Consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office for the State of 

California is ongoing as discussed in the Heritage Resources section of chapter 3.

Implementation of project design features will protect any heritage resources. Scoping did 

not reveal any concerns from the public in this regard. No known properties eligible for the 
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

151

National Register of Historic Places would be affected by action alternatives (see the 

Heritage Resources section of this chapter).

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act

Because the Wild and Scenic River Corridor of the Klamath River occupies a very small 

portion of the project area, all on private land at the confluence with Humbug Creek, and that 

portion is located away from project activities, no wild and scenic river report is included as 

a part of this analysis.

Action alternatives would not adversely affect the Klamath Wild and Scenic River.

Endangered Species Act

Compliance with the Endangered Species Act is disclosed in the Wildlife and Aquatic 

Resources sections of this chapter and related resource reports. Consultation with the 

National Fisheries Marine Service for fisheries and with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

for wildlife species is ongoing. 

Energy Requirements, Conservation Potential, Depletable Resource 

Requirements

Consumption of fossil fuels would occur with the action alternatives during logging and 

hauling trees that have been cut, during mastication and thinning, and during the hydrologic 

stabilization of temporary roads on existing and new roadbeds. No unusual requirements are 

included in action alternatives nor do opportunities exist to conserve energy at a large scale. 

Application of standards and guidelines from the Forest Plan for soils, and project design 

features identified in chapter 2, Table 2-1, would conserve soil productivity. Supporting 

information can be found in the Craggy Soils Report, incorporated by reference and available 

on the Project website. The project is consistent with the Northern Spotted Owl Recovery 

Plan as disclosed in the Wildlife section of this chapter and the Wildlife Resource Report. 

National Forest Management Act

Consistency with the Forest Plan meets the requirements of compliance with the National 

Forest Management Act. Consistency with the Forest Plan is disclosed throughout this 

chapter and in the Forest Plan Consistency Checklist available on the Project website. 

Prime Farmland, Rangeland, and Forest Land

The project area does not contain any prime farmland or rangeland. Prime forest land does 

not apply within the National Forest System lands.

Possible Conflicts with Other Land Use Plans

The action alternatives are entirely on National Forest System lands. The action alternatives 

are not in conflict with planning objectives for Siskiyou County or local Indian tribes as 

discussed in the Heritage and Social and Economic sections of this chapter and in referenced 

resource reports.
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

152

Incomplete or Unavailable Information

Applicable scientific information is discussed in the resource sections of this chapter and 

related resource reports. The unavailability of definitive scientific information is discussed in 

the “Climate Change” section of this chapter. Incomplete or unavailable information will not 

influence the disclosure of effects on other resources in this project.
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

153

CHAPTER 4 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

4.1 Preparers and Contributors

The Forest Service consulted the following Federal, State, and local agencies, tribes, other 

organizations, and individuals during the development of this environmental impact 

statement:

Interdisciplinary Team Members

Patricia A. Grantham, Forest Supervisor; responsible official for decision; Klamath National 

Forest

Ted McArthur, Salmon and Scott River District Ranger; responsible for managerial 

leadership; Klamath National Forest

Andrew Mueller, Team Lead and Forester

Education: Graduated from Michigan State University with a Bachelor of Science in 

Forestry. Attended graduate school at Virginia Polytechnic and State University from 2009-

2010, studying for a Master’s of Science in Forestry.

Experience: Seven years’ experience with the Forest Service in timber management. Three 

years as a forester (sale preparation), four years as forestry technician (timber sale 

preparation).

Angie Bell, Forest Geologist

Education: Graduated from the University of Montana with a Master’s of science in 

Geology. Graduated from Edinboro University of Pennsylvania with a Bachelor of Science in 

Geology.

Experience: Eight years’ experience with the Forest Service. Two years as a geologist and 

six years as the Forest geologist on the Klamath National Forest.

Margaret Boland, Sociologist

Education: Graduated from the University of Michigan with a Masters of Art in Sociology; 

graduated from the University of Michigan with a Bachelor of Arts in Sociology.

Experience: Twenty-five years in the Forest Service as a sociologist, planner, environmental 

coordinator, and line officer. Eight years with Northern California Resource Center as an 

environmental coordination trainer.

Amaria Crocoll, NEPA Planner and Writer/Editor

Education: Graduated from the State University of New York at Albany with a Bachelor of 

Arts in English. Geographic information systems certified from Shasta College.

Experience: Nine years’ experience with the US Forest Service. Four years as an 

archaeological technician, four years as a forestry technician for timber stand improvement. 

One year experience as a NEPA planner contracted to the Forest Service.

Danika Carlson, Botanist and NEPA Planner
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

154

Education: Graduated from Southern Oregon University with Bachelor of Science in 

Environmental Studies and a botany certificate.

Experience: Seven years of experience with the Forest Service in botany.

Jason Coats, Archeologist

Education: Graduated from the University of Maine with dual Bachelor of Arts in 

Anthropology and English.

Experience: Ten years’ experience with the Forest Service Heritage Resources program and 

the private sector. Two years as an Archeological Technician (Forest Service and private), 

and eight years as a Forest Service Archeologist.

Sam Cuenca, Wildlife Biologist

Education: Graduated from Humboldt State University with Bachelor of Science in Wildlife 

Management and a minor in Fisheries.

Experience: Twenty-seven years of experience with the Forest Service in wildlife 

management. Specialty in threatened, endangered, and sensitive species management.

Regional coordinator for Naturewatch outreach education program. Regional liaison for the 

California Deer Association.

Karl Dietzler, Landscape Architect

Education: Graduated from University of Oregon with a Master’s of Landscape Architecture 

and a Master’s of Science in Historic Preservation. Graduated from the University of 

Massachusetts, Amherst with a Bachelor’s of Science in Natural Resources.

Experience: Six years with the U.S. Forest Service; one as a Landscape Architect, and five in 

Recreation and Special Uses.

Chris Ester, Hydrologist

Education: Graduated from the University of Wisconsin – Stevens Point with a Bachelor of 

Science in Hydrology.

Experience: Going on two years with the Forest Service on the Klamath as district 

Hydrologist. Previously, three years of experience in various hydrology technician positions 

and six months as a water supply engineer for an NGO in Kenya.

Marissa Jones, Forester

Education: Graduated from Humboldt State University with a Bachelor of Science in 

Wildland Fire Management. Graduated from University of California, Los Angeles with a 

Bachelor of Art in Psychology

Experience: Fifteen years of experience with the US Forest Service. Six years as a forester, 

two years in timber sale preparation, and seven years in fuels, fire and aviation management

Clint Isbell, Fuels Planner;

Education: Graduated from University of Idaho with a Master’s of Science in Fire Ecology. 

Graduated from California Polytechnic State University with a Bachelor of Science in 

Natural Resources
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

155

Experience: Seventeen years’ experience with the US Forest Service in fire and aviation 

management, with ten of those years as a fire ecologist.

William Tripp, Soil Scientist

Education: Graduated from the University of Wyoming with a Bachelors in Agroecology 

with a minor in Soils. Graduated from Sheridan Wyoming Community College with an 

Associates in Agriculture Science.

Experience: Nine months with the Forest Service (2016 to the present). Five and a half years 

in Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) performing soil surveys in Stephenville, 

TX; three months performing soil surveys in Lyman, WY.

Carl Varak, District Timber Management Officer/Silviculturist;

Education: Graduated from Michigan Technological University with a Bachelor of Science 

in Forest Management degree.

Experience: Three and a half years’ experience as a Forester with private industry. Thirty-six 

years with the US Forest Service on the Klamath National Forest: timber sale preparationforester (1980-85); reforestation culturist (1985-2007); silviculturist (certified 1989-present); 

district timber management officer (2007-present)

Reviewers

Lauren McChesney, Forest Environmental Coordinator; Klamath National Forest

Consulted Federal, State, and Local Agencies and Governments

United States Fish and Wildlife Service

United States Environmental Protection Agency

United States Bureau of Land Management

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

National Marine Fisheries Service

Northern Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board

California State Historic Preservation Office

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CALFIRE)

Consulted Recognized Tribes

Karuk Tribe of California

Quartz Valley Indian Reservation

Others: Non-recognized Tribes, Organizations, and Individuals

Shasta Indian Nation

Shasta Nation, Inc.

George Jennings, Yreka Area Fire Safe Council

Steve Baker, city manager, Yreka City
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

156

Mayor and City Council members, Yreka City Council

George Sexton, Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Center

4.2 Distribution of the Environmental Impact Statement

This environmental impact statement has been distributed to individuals who specifically 

requested a copy of the document. In addition, notice of availability of the document, or 

copies if requested, have been sent to the following Federal agencies, federally recognized 

tribes, State and local governments, and organizations representing a wide range of views.

Federal, State, and Local Agencies

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

California Department of Fish and Wildlife

Federal Aviation Administration

National Marine Fisheries Service, Arcata Office

North Coast Region Water Quality Control Board

Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors

Siskiyou County Fish and Game Commission

State Historic Preservation Officer

U.S. Army Engineer Division, South Pacific

U.S. Coast Guard

U.S. Navy

USDA APHIS PPD/EAD

USDA National Agriculture Library

USDA National Resources Conservation Service

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service

Yreka Office Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9

Federally Recognized Tribes

Karuk Tribe of California

Quartz Valley Indian Reservation 

Organizations, Individuals and Other Tribes

Kimberly Baker, Klamath Forest Alliance and Environmental Protection Information Center

Thomas Wheeler, Environmental Protection Information Center

Gerard van Hees, American Forest Resources Council
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

157

George Sexton, Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Center

Shasta Indian Nation

Shasta Nation, Inc.
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

158

This page intentionally left blank
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

159

4.3 Acronyms, Glossary, Literature Cited and Index

4.3.1 Acronyms

ACS ......................................................................................aquatic conservation strategy

BMP ..........................................................................................best management practice

CALFIRE .......................................California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection

CEQ ..............................................................................Council on Environmental Quality

CFR ........................................................................................Code of Federal Regulations

CWE .....................................................................................cumulative watershed effects

DEIS .........................................................................draft environmental impact statement

EPA .......................................................................U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

ERA ................................................................................................equivalent roaded area

ESA ...............................................................................................Endangered Species Act

FSH .............................................................................................Forest Service Handbook

FSM .................................................................................................Forest Service Manual

GEO ....................................................................................geology model (mass-wasting)

GIS .....................................................................................geographic information system

IPCC................................................Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

IMPROVE ...............................Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments

LOP ..............................................................................................Limited Operating Period

MA ..........................................................................................................Management Area

MIS ......................................................................................Management Indicator Species

MVUM ...........................................................................................Motor Vehicle Use Map

NEPA ..........................................................................National Environmental Policy Act

NFMA ............................................................................National Forest Management Act

NMFS ............................................................................National Marine Fisheries Service
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

160

NOA ...................................................................................................Notice of Availability

NOAA .................................................National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NRCS ..................................................................National Resources Conservation Service

NWFP ................................................................................................Northwest Forest Plan

NOS .............................................................................................Normal Operating Season

NSO ...................................................................................................Northern Spotted Owl

S&G..........................................................................Standard and Guideline

USDA ...................................................................United States Department of Agriculture

USDI .....................................................................United States Department of the Interior

USGCRP........................................United States Global Change Research Program

USFS ........................................................................................United States Forest Service

USFWS...................................................United States Fish and Wildlife Service

USLE ..........................................................................................universal soil loss equation

VQO ...............................................................................................Visual Quality Objective

WUI ...............................................................................................Wildland Urban Interface
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

161

4.3.2 Glossary

Anadromous Fish: Species of fish that are born in freshwater, move to the ocean to mature, 

and return to freshwater to reproduce

Aquatic: Living or growing in water

Aquatic Conservation Strategy: A strategy “developed to restore and maintain the 

ecological health of watersheds and aquatic ecosystems contained within them on public 

lands”

Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives: Objectives that “define the context for the 

agency review and implementation of management activities. Complying with the Aquatic 

Conservation Strategy objectives means that an agency must manage the riparian dependent 

resources to maintain the existing condition or implement actions to restore conditions. The 

baseline from which to assess maintaining or restoring the condition is developed through a 

watershed analysis. Improvement relates to restoring biological and physical processes 

within their ranges of natural variability.”

Basal Area: The term used in forest management that defines the area of a given section of 

land that is occupied by the cross-section of tree trunks and stems at their base

Beneficial Uses: “Beneficial uses” of the waters of the state that may be protected against 

water quality degradation include, but are not necessarily limited to, domestic, municipal, 

agricultural, and industrial supply; power generation; recreation; aesthetic enjoyment; 

navigation; and preservation and enhancement of fish, wildlife, and other aquatic resources 

or preserves (from Section 13050(f) of California’s Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control 

Act)

Best Management Practices: Measures certified by the California State Water Quality 

Control Board and approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as effective 

means of reducing water quality impacts from non-point sources of pollution

Canopy: Tree crowns in a stand

Coarse Woody Debris: Woody material at least 20-inches in diameter from whatever source 

that is dead and lying on the forest floor. Term used for terrestrial species habitat. (See Large

Woody Debris for aquatic species habitat)

Commercial Thinning: any type of thinning producing merchantable material at least equal 

to the value of the direct costs of harvesting

Compacted Soils: Soils with reduced porosity

Critical Habitat: Defined in the Endangered Species Act as (1) the specific areas within the 

geographical area occupied by the species, at the time it is federally listed, on which are 

found those physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species, and 

which may require special management considerations or protection; and (2) specific areas 

outside the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is listed, when it is 

determined by the Secretary of the Interior that such areas are essential for the conservation

of the species.

Cubic Foot: A unit of volume that measures one foot by one foot by one foot (30.48 by 

30.48 by 30.48 centimeters).
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

162

Cumulative Effects: Those effects resulting from incremental effects of actions, when added 

to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency or 

person undertakes such other actions.

Cumulative Watershed Effects Model: A model for Cumulative Watershed Effects with 

three components: Equivalent Roaded Area (ERA), sediment delivery from surface erosion 

(USLE), and sediment delivery from mass wasting (GEO). The model quantifies 

disturbances and land sensitivity at the 7th field watershed scale and can calculate them at 

larger scales. The estimated results fall on a continuum. As disturbances increase over time 

and space, at some point the risk of initiating or contributing to existing adverse cumulative 

watershed impacts becomes a cause for concern. Concern thresholds have been identified for 

each component based on field observations in the Forest.

Direct Attack: Any treatment applied directly to burning fuel such as wetting, smothering, 

or chemically quenching the fire or physically separating the burning from unburned fuel.

Direct Effects: Those effects occurring at the same time and place as the initial cause or 

action.

Dispersal: The relatively permanent movement of individual animals from one location to 

another. Usually dispersal is the movement of young animals from where they were born to a 

site where they eventually settle to breed.

Dispersed Recreation Site: Where few facilities or developments are provided; those 

provided are for access and protection of the environment more than comfort or convenience 

of people.

Distance Zones (for scenery)

Foreground: The detailed landscape found within 0 to 1⁄4 and 1⁄2 mile from the observer.

Middleground: The landscape located between 1⁄4 and 1⁄2 miles to 3-5 miles from the 

observer.

Background: The distant landscape located between 3-5 miles and infinity.

Early Seral: The biotic community that develops immediately following the removal (from 

harvest or disturbance such as wildfire, insect or disease) of vegetation in an area.

Ecosystem: A dynamic community of biological organisms, including humans, and the 

physical environment with which they interact

Effects: Impacts; physical, biological, economic, and social results (or expected results) from 

implementing an activity

Endangered Species: Any species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a 

significant portion of its range

Environmental Justice: Executive Order 12898 requires an assessment of whether 

minorities or low-income populations would be disproportionately affected by proposed 

actions

Equivalent Roaded Area (ERA): An index of average watershed disturbance expressed in 

road equivalent acres relative to a “threshold of concern” assigned for the watershed.
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

163

Erosion: A general term for movement of soil particles on the surface of the land initiated by 

rainfall and running water. This includes surface erosion and channel erosion, as opposed to 

landsliding

Evapotranspiration: A sum of precipitation that is lost to the atmosphere through 

transpiration by the stomata of plants as well as evaporation from plant and ground surfaces

Fire Behavior: The manner in which a fire reacts to fuels, weather, and topography. This 

may be measured using a range of flame lengths and fire’s effects upon vegetation type and 

size

Fire Return Interval: Number of years between two successive fire events in a given area

Fire Risk: The statistical probability of a fire start occurring over a ten-year period for a 

given thousand-acre area

Fire Suppression: All work and activities associated with extinguishing a fire

Forest Health: The perceived condition of a forest derived from concerns about such factors 

as its age, structure, composition, function, vigor, presence of unusual levels of insects or 

disease, and resilience to disturbance

Forest Plan: The Klamath National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, approved 

in 1995. The Forest Plan provides land allocations, Standards and Guidelines, and direction 

for management of the Klamath National Forest

Fuel Loading: The quantity of fuel per acre.

Fuel Treatment: The process of removing or modifying natural or human created fuels to 

reduce fire hazard and achieve other resource objectives

Fuels: Anything within the forest that will burn; usually live and dead woody vegetation

Ground-based Equipment: Equipment that runs on the ground, like tractors, rubber tired 

skidders, and masticators

Ground Fuels: Loose combustible material on the soil surface, consisting of fallen leaves, 

twigs, bark, and small branches, as well as grasses, small plants, seedlings trees, dead 

branches, and logs

Hydrologic: Dealing with the movement and properties of liquid water in environmental 

systems. Includes the circulation patterns of water in the biosphere from condensation and 

precipitation to movement both on and under the ground surface to evaporation back into the 

atmosphere

Impacts: Physical, biological, economic, and social results (or expected results) from 

implementing an activity

Incorporation by Reference: A technique used to cut down on the bulk in environmental 

documents without impeding agency and public review of the action. The material included 

as part of the document must be cited in the document and its content briefly described

Indirect Effects: Those effects occurring later in time or that are spatially removed from the 

activity
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

164

Inference Point: The midpoint of a zone where disturbances become great enough to cause 

concern about initiating or contributing to adverse cumulative watershed effects

Infiltration (soil): The movement of water through the soil surface into the soil

Interdisciplinary: The utilization of individuals representing two or more areas of 

knowledge and skills focusing on the same subject

Irretrievable: An irretrievable commitment of resources entails a loss of production, 

harvest, or use of natural resources. Such decisions are reversible, but the production 

opportunities foregone are irretrievable (50 Federal Register 26082)

Irreversible: An irreversible commitment of resources entails a loss of future options. This 

applies primarily to the effects of use of non-renewable resources such as minerals or 

heritage resources, or to those factors, such as soil productivity, that are renewable only over 

a long period of time (50 Federal Register 26082)

Issue: Point of discussion, debate, or dispute about the environmental effects of the proposed 

action

Land Allocation: The assignment in the Forest Plan of a management emphasis to particular 

land areas with the purpose of achieving goals and objectives

Large Woody Debris: Downed wood that is 40 cubic feet or larger to be left in Riparian 

Reserves for recruitment into 3rd to 5th order streams.

Late-successional characteristics: Characteristics of a stand of trees indicative of maturity, 

including mature and over-mature trees in the overstory; multi-layered canopy with trees of 

several age classes; and standing dead trees and down material

Late-successional habitat: Older forested stands with moderate to high canopy closure; 

often containing a multilayered, multispecies canopy dominated by large overstory trees; 

large trees with broken tops or other indications of old and decaying wood; numerous large 

snags; and moderate to heavy accumulations of large logs on the ground

Late-successional reserves (LSR): Large blocks of habitat that are distributed across the 

range of the northern spotted owl and spaced closely enough to facilitate dispersal of owls.

Late-successional reserves are managed to provide habitat for late successional and “old 

growth” species

Legacy Sediment Site: Sites or sources with existing discharge or potential discharge into 

water courses that are the result of human activity from the past and can reasonably and

feasibly be remedied (Water Board 2010).

Management Area (MA): A distinct geographical area with specified objectives and 

prescriptions

Management Direction: A statement of multiple use and other goals and objectives, along 

with the associated management prescriptions and Standards and Guidelines to direct 

resource management

Masticator: Equipment that grinds or chews up vegetative material
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

165

Monitoring: Process of collecting information to evaluate if objective and anticipated or 

assumed results of a management plan are being realized or if implementation is proceeding 

as planned

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): The act that governs how federal agencies 

assess impacts of management actions on public lands. The process is interdisciplinary and 

requires consideration of the environmental effects of alternatives and disclosure of those 

effects

National Forest Transportation System Road: A classified Forest road under the 

jurisdiction of the Forest Service. The term “National Forest System Roads” is synonymous 

with the term “forest development roads” as used in 23 U.S.C. 205

Non-commercial Thinning: thinning that does not produce merchantable material

Noxious Weed: Any plant so designated by the Weed Control Regulations and identified on 

a regional district noxious weed control list. They are generally non-native and resistant to 

control efforts

Overstory: The portion of trees in a forest which forms the uppermost layer of foliage

Peak Flow: The greatest stream or river flow occurring in a year from a single storm event

Phreatic: The zone of saturation, or the ground water aquifer, where all pores between soil 

particles are completely saturated.

Project Design Feature: elements of the project that are applied in treatment areas. These 

features are developed based on Forest Plan direction and site specific evaluations in order to 

reduce or avoid negative environmental impacts of the proposed action.

Quadratic Mean Diameter: the measure of average tree diameter conventionally used in 

forestry.

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Classes in Project Area:

Rural: An area characterized by a substantially modified natural environment. Resource 

modification and utilization practices are to enhance specific recreation activities and to 

maintain vegetative cover and soil. Sights and sounds of humans are readily evident and 

the interaction between users is often moderate to high. A considerable number of 

facilities are designed for use by a large number of people. Facilities are often provided 

for special activities. Moderate densities are provided far away from developed sites. 

Facilities for intensified motorized use and parking are available.

Roaded Natural: An area characterized by predominantly natural-appearing 

environments with moderate evidences of the sights and sounds of man. Such evidences 

usually harmonize with the natural environment. Interaction between users may be low to 

moderate, but with evidence of other users prevalent. Resource modification and 

utilization practices are evident, but harmonize with the natural environment.

Record of Decision: A document separate from but associated with an environmental impact 

statement that states the management decision and provides the rationale for that decision

Residual: The trees remaining after harvesting; also known as the crop trees
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

166

Resilience: An ecosystem’s ability to maintain structure and patterns of behavior in the face 

of disturbance

Riparian Area: In general, characterized by being situated on the bank of a river or other 

body of water; in ecology, the term is applied both to species that live near streams and to the 

area adjacent to streams where vegetation and microclimate are influenced by the presence of 

the stream

Riparian Reserves: A land allocation in the Forest Plan that includes an aquatic ecosystem 

and the adjacent upland areas directly affecting it. It also includes unstable and potentially 

unstable lands that are not associated with aquatic areas. Specific Standards and Guidelines 

provide direction for these areas as outlined in Management Area 10 of the Forest Plan

Risk: The chance of loss

Risk Ratio (for cumulative watershed effects model): Amount of the disturbance in the 

watershed relative to the hydrologic or sediment inference point

Road: A motor vehicle travel way over 50 inches wide, unless classified and managed as a 

trail. A road may be classified (a National Forest Transportation System road) or temporary 

(36 CFR 212.1)

Silviculture: The art and science of growing and tending forest vegetation. It includes 

controlling the establishment, composition, and growth of forests for specific management 

goals.

Silviculture Prescription: A site-specific operational plan that described the forest 

management objectives for an area. It prescribes the method for harvesting the existing forest 

stand, and a series of silviculture treatments that will be carried out to establish a free 

growing stand in a manner that accommodates other resource values as identified.

Stand Density Index: A relative measure of the amount of stocking on a forest area. Based 

on the number of trees per unit area and the diameter at breast height of the average sized tree 

within the stand.

Temporary Roads: Roads authorized by contract, permit, lease, other written authorization, 

or emergency operation, not intended to be a part of the forest transportation system and not 

necessary for long-term resource management (36 CFR 212.1). For purposes of this project, 

temporary roads are assumed to have a ten to 15-foot-wide driving surface, with an average 

driving surface width of 12 feet and a 15 to 30-foot-wide road prism width, depending on 

steepness of slope.

Tethered Harvesting Equipment: Ground-based equipment designed for steep slope 

operations that operates anchored by a cable to increase traction and reduce wheel or track 

slippage.

Road Maintenance: The ongoing upkeep of a road necessary to retain or restore the road to 

the approved road management objective.

Scoping: The process used to identify the scope of issues to be addressed and to determine 

the relevant issues related to a proposed action.

Sediment: Soil particles in water. Suspended sediment consists of small soil particles carried 

along by the water’s turbulent flow.
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

167

Silviculture: The art and science of growing and tending forest vegetation. It includes 

controlling the establishment, composition, and growth of forests for specific management 

goals

Silviculture Prescription: A site-specific operational plan that describes the forest 

management objectives for an area. It prescribes the method for harvesting the existing forest 

stand, and a series of silviculture treatments that will be carried out to establish a free 

growing stand in a manner that accommodates other resource values as identified

Skyline Yarding System: Moving logs from the stump to the landing either partially or fully 

suspended by a cable

Snag: A standing dead tree

Social Analysis: Analysis that uses social science information to determine how proposed 

actions would affect humans

Soil Porosity: State of having pores or holes in the soil that hold air or water; permeability

Soil Productivity: The capability of a soil to produce a specific crop such as fiber, forage, 

etc., under defined levels of management

Stand: A community of trees or other vegetation uniform in composition, constitution, age, 

spatial arrangement, or condition to be distinguishable from adjacent communities

Stand Density Index: A relative measure of the amount of stocking on a forest area. Often 

described in terms of stems per acre

Standard and Guideline: A principle requiring a specific level of attainment, a rule to 

measure against

Stocking: The degree to which trees occupy the land, measured by BA and/or number of 

trees by size and spacing, compared with a stocking standard; that is, the BA and/or number 

of trees required to fully utilize the land's growth potential. Where tree growth is inhibited 

due to competition from too many trees, the site is said to be overstocked

Stocking Control: See thinning

Suppression Forces: Resources used to fight a fire, consisting of firefighters with hand tools 

at a minimum; may also include fire engines and bulldozers, helicopters and tanker planes

Suppressed Trees: Smaller trees in the lower canopy layer

Thinning: Removing trees from a stand to redistribute the growth potential or to benefit the 

quality of the residual stand

Threatened Species: Any species that is likely to become an endangered species within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range

Torching: Ignition and subsequent flare-up of a fire, usually burning from the bottom to the 

top of a tree or small group of trees

Tree Crown: Leafy portion

Turbidity: Deposition of substrate material suspended in water

Understory: Vegetation (trees or shrubs) growing under the canopy formed by taller trees.
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

168

Vadose Flows: Soil water movement within the first few feet of the surface that is not 

connected with groundwater. It is controlled by different sources than groundwater

Vertical Fuels: Standing vegetation, either live or dead

Visual Quality Objectives:

Retention: Management activities are not visually evident, and may only repeat form, line, 

color, and texture, which are frequently found in the landscape. Changes in their qualities 

of size, amount, intensity, direction, pattern, etc., should not be evident.

Partial Retention: Management activities remain visually subordinate to the characteristic 

landscape, and may repeat form, line, color, or texture common in the landscape.

Modification: Vegetation and Landform management activities may visually dominate the 

original characteristic landscape; however, they must borrow from the naturally-established 

form, line, color, or texture at a level and scale that the visual appearance of the activity 

mimics those natural features occurring within the surrounding area.

Maximum Modification: Vegetation and Landform management activities may dominate

the characteristic landscape; however, when viewed in the background zone (three to five 

miles), the visual appearance must mimic those natural features within the surrounding 

area or character type. When viewed in foreground or middle ground, the activity may not 

appear to completely borrow from the naturally-established form, line, color, or texture.

Watershed: The entire land area that drains to a specific point

5th field watershed: A watershed that ranges from about 40,000 to 250,000 acres in size

6th field watershed: A watershed that ranges from about 10,000 to 40,000 acres in size

7th field watershed: A watershed or drainage that ranges from about 2,500 to 10,000 acres 

in size

Watershed Analysis: Watershed analysis is a systematic procedure for characterizing 

watershed and ecological processes to meet specific management and social objectives

Wet Weather Operation Standards: Specific information used to help determine when 

activities are at risk of not meeting best management practices. The guidelines are used to 

determine if conditions are favorable for wet weather or winter operations, and to provide 

guidance as to when conditions warrant suspension of operations, when operations may 

begin or resume, or when and what remedy may be appropriate.
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

169

4.3.3 Literature Cited

Anderson, P. and B. Palik. 2011. Silviculture for Climate Change (October 2011). U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Climate Change Resource Center. 

www.fs.usda.gov/ccrc/topics/silviculture.

Bell, A. 2012. Cumulative Watershed Effects Modeling: The Abridged Version. Prepared for the 

Klamath National Forest.

Bilby, R.E., K. Sullivan, and S.H. Duncan. 1989. The Generating and Fate of Road-Surface 

Sediment in forested Watersheds in Southwestern Washington. Forest Science 35(2) 453-

468.

Bosch, J.M., and J.D. Hewlett. 1982. A review of catchment experiments to determine the effect 

of vegetation changes on water yield and evapotranspiration. Journal of Hydrology (55) 

3-23.

Brown, A.E., L. Zhang, T.A. McMahon, A.W. Western, and R.A. Vertessy. 2005. A review of 

paired catchment studies for determining changes in water yield resulting from alterations 

in vegetation. Journal of Hydrology. 310: 28-61

Burton, T.A. 1997. Effects of basin-scale timber harvest on water yield and peak streamflow. 

Journal of the American Water Resources Association. (33)6 1187-1196.

Butz, R.J. and H. Safford. 2011. A summary of current trends and probably future trends in 

climate and climate-driven process for the Klamath National Forest and surrounding 

lands. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region.

Butz, R.J., S. Sawyer, and H. Safford. 2015. A summary of current trends and probably future 

trends in climate and climate-driven processes for the Klamath National Forest and 

surrounding lands. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region.

California Air Resources Board. 2009. Regional Haze Plan. Retrieved from 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/reghaze/rhplan.htm on 4 April 2014.

California Air Resource Board. 2012. Almanac Emissions Projection Data – 2012 Estimated 

Annual Average Emissions: Northeast Plateau Air Basin. Retrieved on 16 April 2014 

from 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/app/emsinv/2013/emssumcat_query.php?F_YR=2012&F_DIV=-

4&F_SEASON=A&SP=2013&F_AREA=AB&F_AB=NEP#8

Castelle, A.J., A.W. Johnson, and C. Conolly. 1994. Wetland and stream buffer size 

requirements—A review. Journal of Environmental Quality 23:878-882

Chatwin, S. 1994. Measures for Control and Management of Unstable Terrain. In: A Guide for 

Management of Landslide-prone Terrain in the Pacific Northwest, edited by S. Chatwin, 

D. Howes, J. Schwab, and D. Swanston. Land Management Handbook No. 18. British 

Columbia Ministry of Forestry, Crown Publications Inc., Victoria, Canada.

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 2005. Guidance on the Consideration of Past Actions 

in Cumulative Effects Analysis. Prepared by James L. Connaughton. 

Cover, M.R., J.A. de la Fuente, and V.H. Resh. 2010. Catastrophic disturbances in headwater 

streams: the long-term ecological effects of debris flows and debris floods in the Klamath 

Mountains, northern California. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 67: 1596–1610.
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

170

Cristan, R., Aust, W., Bolding, M., Barrett, S., Munsell, J., Schilling, E. 2016. Effectivenes of 

Forestry Best Management Practices in the United States: Literature Review. Forest 

Ecology and Management. 133-151.

de la Fuente, J., and D. Elder. 1998. The flood of 1997 Klamath National Forest Phase I Final 

Report: November 24, 1998. Yreka, CA.

Dennis, N. 2012. The Siskiyou County Forest Sector Model. Prepared for Siskiyou County 

Board of Supervisors. Yreka, CA.

Dhakal, A, and Sidle, R. 2003. Long-term Modeling of Landslides for Different Forest 

Management Practices. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms. Issue. 28.

Finney, Mark. A. 1998. FARSITE: Fire Area Simulator – model development and evaluation. 

USDA Forest Service Research Paper – Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Finney, M. A. 2006. An overview of FlamMap fire modeling capabilities. In: Fuels 

management—how to measure success: conference proceedings. 2006 March 28-30; 

Portland, Oregon. Proceedings RMRS-P-41. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 213-220.

Geddes, C.A., D.A. Brown, and D.B. Fagre. 2005. Topography and vegetation as predictors of 

snow water equivalent across the alpine treeline ecotone at lee ridge, Glacier National 

Park, Montana, U.S.A. 37(2): 197-205

Grant, G.E., S.L. Lewis, F.J. Swanson, J.H. Cissel, and J.J. McDonnell. 2008. Effects of forest 

practices on peakflows and consequent channel response: a state-of-science report for 

western Oregon and Washington. USDA, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research 

Station, GTR-760. Reston, VA.

Harr, R.D., W.C. Harper, J.T. Krygier, and F.S. Hsieh. 1975. Changes to Storm Hydrographs 

after Roadbuilding and Clearcutting in the Oregon Coast Range. Water Resources 

Research 11 436-444.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change: Fourth assessment report, climate change 2007. Synthesis Report.

Jones, J.A. 2000. Hydrologic Processes and Peak Discharge Response to Forest Removal, 

Regrowth, and Roads in 10 Small Experimental Basins, Western Cascades, Oregon.

Water Resources Research. 36(9) 2621-2642.

Joyce, Linda A. and R. Birdsey, eds. 2000. The impact of climate change on America’s forests: A 

technical document supporting the 2000 USDA Forest Service RPA Assessment. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-59. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Larson, A.J., & Churchill, D. 2012. Tree spatial patterns in fire-frequent forests of western North 

America, including mechanisms of pattern formation and implications for designing fuel 

reduction and restoration treatments. Forest Ecology and Management, 267, 74-92.

Litschert, S.E., MacDonald, L.H., 2009. Frequency and Characteristics of Sediment Delivery 

Pathways from Forest Harvest Units to Streams. Forest Ecology Management. 259 (2), 

143–150.
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

171

Luce, C.H., and T.A. Black. 1999. Sediment Production from forest Roads in Western Oregon. 

Water Resources Research 35(8) 2561-2570.

Madej, M.A., Bundros, G., Klein, R., 2012. Assessing effects of changing land use practices on 

sediment loads in Panther Creek, North Coastal California. In: Proceedings of Coast 

Redwood Forests in a Changing California: A Symposium for Scientists and Managers. 

USDA Forest Service General Technical Report. PSW-GTR-238, pp. 101–109.

Millar, C.I., N.L Stephenson, and S.L. Stephens. 2007. Climate Change and Forests of the 

Future: Managing in the Face of Uncertainty. Ecological Applications, Vol. 17, No. 8 

(December 2007), pp. 2145-2151.

Musselman, K.N., N.P. Molotch, and P.D. Brooks. 2008. Effects of vegetation on snow 

accumulation and ablation in a mid-latitude sub-alpine forest. Hydrological Processes 22. 

2767-2776, published online 21 April 2008 in Wiley InterScience.

North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. 2011. Water Quality Control Plan for the 

North Coast Region. California Regional Water Quality Control Board, North Coast 

Region. Santa Rosa, CA.

North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. 2015. Order No. R1-2015-0021, Waiver of 

Waste Discharge Requirements for Nonpoint Source Discharges on Federal Lands. Santa 

Rosa, CA.

Oliver, W.W. 1995. Is Self-thinning in Ponderosa Pine Ruled by Dendroctonus Bark Beetles? 

Pages 213-218 in Lane G. Eskew, comp. 1995. Forest Health through SilvicultureProceedings of the 1995 National Silviculture Workshop; 1995 May 8-11; Mescalero, 

New Mexico. General Technical Report. RM-GTR-267. Fort Collins, CO: US 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Range and Experiment 

Station. 246 p.

Olson, D.L. and J.K. Agree. 2005. Historical fires in Douglas-fir dominated riparian forests of 

the southern Cascades, Oregon. Fire Ecology, Vol. 1, No. 1.

Reinhardt, E., Keane, R., Brown, J. 1997. First Order Fire Effects Model: FOFEM 4.0 User’s 

Guide. USDA, US Forest Service. Intermountain Research Station General Technical 

Report. INT-GTR-344.

Scott, J. H., Reinhardt, E. D. 2001. Assessing crown fire potential by linking models of surface 

and crown fire behavior. Pap. RMRS-RP-29. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Sidle, R. 1992. A Theoretical Model of the Effects of Timber Harvesting on Slope Stability. 

Water Resource Research. Vol. 28, Issue 7.

Siskiyou County, CA. 1996. Siskiyou County Comprehensive Land and Resource Management 

Plan. Yreka, CA.

Siskiyou County, CA. 2005. The Code of the West: The Realities of Rural Living. Office of the 

County Administrator. Yreka, CA.

Skinner, Carl N., Taylor, Alan H., Agee, James K. 2006. Klamath Mountains Bioregion. In: 

Sugihara, Neil G., Van Wagtendonk, Jan W., Shaffer, Kevin E., Fites-Kaufman, Joann, 

Thode, Andrea E. (eds.) Fire in California’s ecosystems.170-194.
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

172

State Water Resources Control Board. 2012. California Integrated Report. Clean Water Act 

Sections 303(d) and 305(b) Staff Report dated April 8, 2015.

Stedman, R. C. 2003. Sense of Place and Forest Science: Toward a Program of Quantitative 

Research. Forest Science, 49(6), 822-828.

Stednick, J.D. 1996. Monitoring the effects of timber harvest on annual water yield. Journal of 

Hydrology. 176: 79-95.

Stumpf, G. 1979. Gold Mining in Siskiyou County, 1850-1900. Yreka, CA: Siskiyou County

Historical Society

Sugden, B.D., and S.W. Woods. 2007. Sediment Production for Forest Roads in Western 

Montana. Journal of the American Water Resources Association. 43(1) 193-206.

Taylor, A.H., & Skinner, C.N. 1998. Fire history and landscape dynamics in a late-successional 

reserve, Klamath Mountains, California, USA. Forest Ecology and Management, 111(2-

3), 285-301.

Taylor, A. H., Skinner, C. N. 2003. Spatial Patterns and Controls on Historical Fire Regimes and 

Forest Structure in the Klamath Mountains. Ecological Applications, 704-719.

Tepp, J.S. 2002. Assessing Visual Soil disturbance on eight Commercially Thinned Sites in 

Northeastern Washington.

Troendle, C.A., and R.M. King. 1987. The effect of partial and clearcutting on streamflow at 

Deadhorse Creek, Colorado. Journal of Hydrology (90) 145-157.

Troendle, C.A., M.S. Wilcox, G.S. Bevenger, and L.S. Porth. 2001. The Coon Creek water yield 

augmentation project: implementation of timber harvesting technology to increase 

streamflow. Forest Ecology and Management (143) 179-187.

Troendle, C.A., L.H. MacDonald, C.H. Luce, and I.J. Larsen. 2010. Cumulative Watershed 

Effects of Fuel Management in the Western United States, Chapter 7, Fuel Management 

and Water Yield. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station General 

Technical Report. RMRS-GTR-231.

USDA Forest Service. 1993. Klamath National Forest, Humbug Landscape Analysis and Design. 

Yreka, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Klamath National Forest.

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. 1995 (updated through 2010). Land and 

Resource Management Plan: Klamath National Forest. Yreka, CA.

USDA Forest Service. 1999. Forest-wide Late Successional Reserve Assessment, Klamath 

National Forest. Yreka, CA.

USDA Forest Service. 2000. Water Quality Management for Forest System Lands in California, 

Best Management Practices. Pacific Southwest Region, September 2000.

USDA Forest Service. 2002. Wet Weather Operation Standards, Klamath National Forest. 

Yreka, CA.

USDA Fire Plan National Fire Plan 2001 – Federal Register (list of communities at risk)

available at: 

http://osfm.fire.ca.gov/fireplan/fireplanning_communities_at_risk?filter_field=place_nam

e&filter_start=Y)
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

173

USDA Forest Service. 2004a. Biological Assessment/Evaluation for Threatened, Endangered, 

Proposed, Petitioned and Sensitive Species that may be affected by Facility Maintenance 

and Watershed Restoration. Klamath National Forest, Yreka, CA. 45 pp + appendices.

USDA Forest Service. 2004b. Pacific Southwest Regional Forester letter of July, 14, 2004.

Vallejo, CA.

USDA Forest Service. 2007. Compliance with the Aquatic Conservation Strategy. Direction 

Memo. Letter of May 22, 2007.

USDA Forest Service. 2009. Climate Change Considerations in Project-Level NEPA Analysis. 

National Headquarters, Washington, DC.

USDA Forest Service. 2010. Sediment and temperature monitoring plan and quality assurance 

project plan, Klamath National Forest. Yreka, CA.

USDA Forest Service. 2011a. Stream Shade Monitoring on the Klamath National Forest, 2010. 

Yreka, CA.

USDA Forest Service. 2011b. National Roadmap for Responding to Climate Change, FS-957, 

February 2011, Washington, DC.

USDA Forest Service, Klamath National Forest. 2012a. Stream temperature monitoring on the 

Klamath National Forest: 2010 - 2011. Yreka, CA.

USDA Forest Service, Klamath National Forest. 2012b. Road Sediment Source Inventory and 

Risk Assessment. Klamath National Forest. Yreka, CA.

USDA Forest Service 2012c. National Best Management Practices for Water Quality 

Management on National Forest System Lands, Volume 1: National Core BMP Technical 

Guide, Washington, DC. April 2012.

USDA Forest Service. 2015. Survey and Manage Category B Fungi Strategic Survey Report, 

Pacific Southwest Region, Northwest Forest Plan Area. Hoover, Lisa et al. May 2015.

USDA Forest Service, National Office. 2016a. Forest Products Cut and Sold from the National 

Forests and Grasslands. Accessed online 11/04/2016. 

https://www.fs.fed.us/forestmanagement/documents/ptsar/2016/2016_Q1-

Q4_PTSAR_R05.pdf.

USDA Forest Service. 2016b. Klamath National Forest: Economic Contributions for 2014. At a 

Glance.

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2001. Record of Decision and 

Standards and Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, 

and other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines in Forest Service and Bureau of 

Land Management Planning Documents within the Range of the northern spotted owl.

USDA Forest Service, USDI Bureau of Land Management, and Headwaters Economics. 2016. 

Economic Profile System-Human Dimensions Toolkit: A Profile of Socioeconomic 

measures, Selected Geographies: Siskiyou County CA (Summary, Selected 

Demographics, and Timber).
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

174

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2017. Memorandum: List of threatened and endangered species 

that may occur in the Craggy proposed project area. Consultation Code 08EYRE00-2017-

SLI-0141 (from ECOS-IPaC) June 20, 2017.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, USDA Forest Service, and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 

2013. Conservation Agreement between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S 

Forest Service and U.S. Bureau of Land Management for Calochortus persistens

(Siskiyou mariposa lily). November 19, 2013.

USDI, USDA, and NOAA. 2004. Analytical process for developing biological assessments for 

federal actions affecting fish within the Northwest Forest Plan area. November 2004. 17 

pp. + appendices.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2013. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions and Sinks, 1990-2011. Washington, D.C. April 12, 2013.

United States Global Change Research Program (USGCRP). 2014. Climate Change Impacts in 

the United States. Chapters 2, 7, 27, 28, 30, and Appendix 3.

Whittaker, R.H. 1960. Vegetation of the Siskiyou Mountains, Oregon and California. Ecological 

Monographs, 30(3), 279-338.

Wills, R.D. 1991. Fire history and stand development of Douglas-fir/hardwood forests in 

northern California (Unpublished master’s thesis.)

Yreka Area Fire Safe Council. 2013. (Yreka CWPP). Community Wildfire Protection Plan.

Ziemer, R. 1981. The Role of Vegetation in the Stability of Forested Slopes. Pacific Southwest 

Research Station. Arcata, CA.

Zeiner, D.C. (editor). 1988-1990. California’s Wildlife. Updates available at:

https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CWHR
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

175

4.3.4 Index of Key Words

A

Affected Environment.............1, 48, 50, 62, 66, 76, 89, 97, 110, 115, 121, 125, 130, 135, 139

Air Quality............................3, 17, 119, 149, 152

Criteria pollutants................119

Emissions........................46, 119, 147

General Conformity Rule.......123

Alternative 1........................ii, 13, 37, 39, 40, 51, 57, 59, 62, 64, 69, 71, 73, 81, 86, 91, 94, 101, 106, 108, 11, 

113, 115, 117, 119, 121, 123, 126, 131, 133, 135, 137, 142, 146, 151

Alternative 2........................vi, 9, 13, 16, 34, 37, 39, 40, 52, 53, 56, 57, 63, 64, 70, 73, 82, 83, 85, 86, 91, 93, 95, 

102, 105, 106, 107, 108, 111, 113, 116, 117, 118, 121, 123, 127, 129, 131, 132, 135, 137, 143, 146, 147, 177, 191

Alternative 3........................ii, vii, 13, 16, 35, 37, 39, 40, 55, 59, 63, 64, 70, 84, 86, 93, 95, 105, 106, 108, 112, 

113, 117, 119, 122, 123, 127, 137, 144, 146, 147, 183, 195

Anadromous........................28, 29, 89, 90, 92, 93, 162, 217

Aquatic..............................vi, 7, 12, 25, 26, 28, 39, 44, 80, 88, 98, 109, 139, 152, 160, 162, 205, 212, 236

Aquatic Conservation Strategy...7, 25, 26, 99, 109, 152, 162, 213, 215

B

Basal Area...........................61, 97, 162

Beneficial Uses......................96, 98, 139, 152, 162

Best Management Practices........16, 36, 45, 91, 92, 102, 116, 119, 151, 152, 162, 169, 211

Biological Assessment...............64, 88, 153, 174, 175

Biological Evaluation...............64, 66, 75, 88

Botany.................................17, 41, 64

Forest Service Sensitive..........ii, v, 4, 6, 8, 9, 36, 41, 64, 67, 69, 74

Survey and Manage..............41, 64, 65, 66, 69, 71, 73, 74

Endangered Species..................65, 66, 69, 70, 72, 74

C

Canopy...............................32, 45, 49, 54, 79, 80, 95, 96, 98, 102, 103, 108, 125, 126, 162, 165, 168

Coarse Woody Debris........22, 30, 82, 109, 162, 219

Comparison of effects.........37, 40, 64, 73, 86, 129, 133

Compliance.......................v, 1, 8, 16, 46, 60, 64, 66, 71, 74, 75, 87, 95, 104, 109, 113, 119, 120, 123, 129, 133, 

137, 147, 152, 153, 154

Consultation.....................11, 26, 34, 83, 95, 133, 153, 155

Coordination.....................14, 33, 83, 122, 155, 156

Critical Habitat...................42, 44, 74, 75, 76, 78, 82, 84, 86, 88, 89, 94, 162

Cultural Resources..............See Heritage

Cumulative Effects..............40, 46, 48, 51, 54, 57, 62, 63, 69, 72, 81, 84, 85, 91, 93, 94, 102, 106, 107, 111, 112, 

116, 117, 121, 122, 127, 128, 131, 132, 135, 136, 137, 142, 144, 146, 163

Cumulative Watershed Effects Model...88, 89, 92, 93, 95, 100, 103, 109, 114, 160, 163, 167, 203
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

176

D

Desired Condition.................4, 5, 8, 14, 34, 45, 48, 63, 64, 99, 100, 104, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113

Diameter...........................4, 8, 13, 14, 17, 22, 30, 35, 53, 56, 59, 61, 81, 162, 166

Direct Effects......................41, 46, 48, 51, 52, 53, 55, 56, 62, 63, 69, 70, 81, 82, 91, 93, 101, 102, 106, 111, 112, 

115, 116, 117, 121, 122, 126, 127, 131, 135, 137, 142, 143, 145, 163

Dispersal...........................76, 82, 84, 86, 103, 163

E

Economics..........................47, 139, 140

Ecosystem...........................7, 46, 109, 120, 127, 148, 149, 162, 163, 166

Environmental Justice............147, 152, 163

Equivalent Roaded Acres (ERA)...12, 39, 89, 92, 93, 95, 96, 97, 99, 100, 101, 105, 106, 107, 160, 163, 164

Erosion..............................4, 12, 15, 22, 28, 40, 45, 99, 100, 102, 107, 150, 163, 212, 220

Existing Condition..................3, 8, 48, 81, 90, 91, 95, 100, 110, 111, 114, 162

F

Fire and Fuels.......................11, 40, 49, 65, 96, 111, 115, 140, 142, 149

Fire risk.........................51, 147, 164

Fire Return Intervals..........49, 51, 164

Flame Length..................3, 5, 6, 12, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 68, 71, 

73, 96, 150, 164

Ground Fuels..................164, 209

Fuel Breaks.....................vi, vii, 8, 9, 13, 16, 18, 30, 33, 34, 35, 37, 53, 70, 127, 131, 143, 145

Roadside fuel treatments......vi, vii, 9, 13, 14

Prescribed underburning......vi, vii, 9, 14, 17, 18, 34, 36, 37, 70, 91, 112, 120, 121 143, 145, 184, 185, 191, 221

Fish or Fisheries...................2, 6, 11, 16, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 34, 44, 88, 89, 91, 92, 93, 94, 98, 104, 115, 152, 

153, 152

Disturbance History and Regime...89

Drainage Network.....................44, 89, 90, 93, 95

Forest Service Sensitive..............90

Peak and Base Flow...................44, 90, 93, 95

Sediment and Substrate..............92

Temperature...........................4, 44, 88, 90, 91, 95

Turbidity...............................44, 88, 90, 92, 93, 95, 168

Forest Plan.................................4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 30, 31, 32, 35, 36, 41, 46, 49, 

53, 60, 64, 74, 75, 81, 87, 88, 89, 95, 99, 104, 109, 110, 112, 113, 119, 123, 124, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 133, 

137, 139, 141, 151, 153, 154, 164

G

Geology...................................46, 113, 114, 149, 160

Active Landslides..................24, 27, 113, 213, 217

Dormant Landslides................24, 110, 113, 213

Inner Gorges.........................24, 26, 113, 116, 213, 215, 216, 228

Slope Stability.......................96, 113, 116, 119

Ground Based Equipment.............178

H

Healthy Stand........................... 81

Heritage..................................vi, 15, 18, 46, 133, 137, 153, 154, 165

Hydrologic......................vi, vii, 2, 15, 22, 24, 26, 28, 93, 96, 104, 105, 150, 153, 164, 167, 212, 222
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

177

I

Incorporation by Reference...48, 64, 70, 75, 153

Indirect Effects..................41, 46, 48, 51, 52, 53, 55, 56, 62, 63, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 81, 82, 91, 94, 101, 102, 106, 

111, 112, 115, 116, 117, 121, 122, 126, 127, 131, 137, 142, 143, 145

Inference Point..................165, 167

Interdisciplinary.................ii, vi, 11, 13, 113, 155, 165, 166, 212

Irretrievable..................151, 165

Irreversible...................135, 151, 165

L

Land Allocation...............6, 164, 165, 167

Late-successional characteristics...165

Late-successional habitat......4, 6, 8, 9, 38, 82, 165

Late-successional reserves......165

Legacy sediment site.............v, vi, vii, 4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 15, 37, 38, 40, 45, 91, 92, 93, 94, 97, 99, 100, 101, 104, 

105, 109, 150, 165, 214, 223

M

Management Area...............5, 6, 7, 14, 17, 32, 41, 65, 66, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 78, 89, 113, 133, 160, 165

Masticator.........................25, 26, 164, 165, 217, 218

Mastication.......................vi, 9, 14, 16, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 33, 34, 37, 39, 54, 112, 120, 127, 131, 143, 

145, 150, 153, 182, 183, 184, 188, 189, 190, 208

Monitoring..............................17, 35, 36, 71, 72, 73, 95, 99, 109, 121, 166, 213

N

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)...1, 12, 13, 48, 96, 114, 120, 149, 151, 156, 157, 158, 160, 166

National Forest Transportation System Road...vi, vii, 9, 15, 16, 27, 37, 100, 111, 130, 166, 167, 220

Non-Native Invasive Species.................6, 19, 36, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 73, 74, 152, 161

Northern spotted owl.........................ii, v, 4, 7, 8, 9, 16, 42, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 88, 140, 

150, 153, 161, 165

Noxious weeds............................See Non-native invasive species

O

Overstory...............................62, 78, 98, 165, 166

P

Project Design Features.............vi, vii, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 36, 40, 45, 46, 48, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 83, 86, 87, 92, 

102, 104, 108, 112, 113, 116, 119, 128, 129, 133, 136, 137, 149, 150, 153, 166, 213

Proposed Action.....................ii, 1, 9, 10, 11, 13, 16, 32, 34, 48, 152

Public Involvement..................10

Purpose and Need for Action........vi, 1, 8, 9, 10, 13, 34, 37, 41, 63, 70, 73, 138, 151

Q

Quadratic Mean Diameter............166
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

178

R

Record of Decision....................10, 66, 74, 105, 152, 166, 203

Recreation.............................20, 21, 22, 46, 68, 72, 98, 114, 121, 124, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 139, 157, 162, 

163, 166

Relevant Issues.......................vi, vii, 11, 12, 16, 34, 39, 110, 167

Residual...............................2, 14, 24, 33, 82, 138, 166, 168, 214, 216

Resilience.............................6, 7, 35, 41, 51, 61, 62, 64, 127, 164, 166

Riparian Reserves...............6, 7, 14, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 35, 44, 88, 89, 90, 93, 95, 99, 100, 104, 108, 

109, 113, 116, 165, 167, 212

Road Maintenance................167, 214, 218

S

Scenery.............................6, 7, 19, 20, 21, 46, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 129, 130, 150, 163

Scoping.............................v, 1, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 16, 34, 35, 39, 153, 167

Silviculture...........................2, 14, 41, 50, 61, 64, 82, 91, 93, 94, 109, 115, 125, 140, 144

Forest Health.....................ii, v, 3, 5, 8, 34, 37, 41, 61, 63, 64, 164

Species Composition............62, 63

Stand Density.....................ii, v, 8, 37, 50, 61, 62, 63, 64, 150, 168

Stand Structure...................5

Soils.................................4, 12, 15, 24, 27, 30, 39, 45, 99, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 120, 128, 148, 150, 153, 

162, 216, 218, 220, 221

Compacted....................110, 162

Soil Cover.....................22, 36, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 213, 221

Soil Organic Matter..........36, 45, 110, 111, 112, 113

Soil Stability...................3, 45, 110, 111, 112, 113

Soil Structure...................45, 110, 111, 112, 113

Standard and Guideline................17, 81, 113, 161, 168

Stocking..................................3, 5, 7, 61, 82, 143, 150, 168

T

Temporary Roads.........................vi, vii, 9, 12, 15, 16, 21, 27, 28, 34, 37, 39, 72, 93, 111, 112, 127, 150, 153, 

167, 217, 219

Terrestrial Wildlife.......................74, 75, 81, 84, 87

Thinning with Removal of Forest Products...vi, vii, 9, 15, 16, 143, 145

Thinning without Removal of Forest Products...vi, vii, 9, 14, 16

Threatened species......................7, 41, 42, 64, 65, 66, 67, 69, 72, 74, 74, 75, 76, 78, 81, 89, 94, 98, 140, 168

Tree Crown..............................5, 54, 162, 168

U

Understory........................81, 116, 126, 127, 168

V

Vegetation.........................See Silviculture
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

179

W

Water Quality......................v, vi, 4, 6, 9, 10, 15, 26, 80, 91, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 

109, 150, 151, 152, 157, 158, 162

Watershed..........................ii, v, 2, 12, 16, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 45, 46, 51, 83, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 

93, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 125, 139, 149, 160, 

162, 163, 164, 165, 167, 169

Wet Weather Operations Standards...22, 116, 169, 215
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

180

This page intentionally left blank
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

181

APPENDIX A: TREATMENT PRESCRIPTIONS BY UNIT

Table A-1: Alternative 2 Treatment Prescriptions

Unit 

Number Type of Treatment Primary Treatment Removal Method Follow up Treatment Acres

133-89G Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment Underburn 14

134-2S Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Skyline or Tethered 

Equipment Underburn 42

134-21S Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Skyline or Tethered 

Equipment

Manual Thin Trees <10", 

Scatter or Pile and Burn 30

134-23P Thinning w/o 

Removal

Manual Thin Brush 

and Trees <10 in N/A Manual Thin Trees <10", Scatter or Pile and Burn 119

134-27S Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Skyline or Tethered 

Equipment Underburn 10

134-28S Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Skyline or Tethered 

Equipment Underburn 9

134-29P Thinning w/o 

Removal

Manual Thin Brush 

and Trees <10 in N/A Manual Thin Trees <10", Scatter or Pile and Burn 10

134-29S Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Skyline or Tethered 

Equipment Underburn 5

134-31P Thinning w/o 

Removal

Manual Thin Brush 

and Trees <10 in N/A Manual Thin Trees <10", Scatter or Pile and Burn 9

134-32G Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment Underburn 11

134-32P Thinning w/o 

Removal

Manual Thin Brush 

and Trees <10 in N/A Manual Thin Trees <10", Scatter or Pile and Burn 10

134-32S Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Skyline or Tethered 

Equipment Underburn 16

134-33G Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment Underburn 11

134-33S Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Skyline or Tethered 

Equipment Underburn 42

134-34G Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment Underburn 34

134-34S Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Skyline or Tethered 

Equipment Underburn 27

134-36S Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Skyline or Tethered 

Equipment

Manual Thin Trees <10", 

Scatter or Pile and Burn 32

134-38S Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Skyline or Tethered 

Equipment Underburn 20

134-39S Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Skyline or Tethered 

Equipment Underburn 59

134-40G Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment Underburn 16

134-41G Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment Underburn 24

134-41S Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Skyline or Tethered 

Equipment Underburn 18

134-42G Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment

Manual Thin Trees <10", 

Scatter or Pile and Burn 12
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

182

Unit 

Number Type of Treatment Primary Treatment Removal Method Follow up Treatment Acres

134-42S Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Skyline or Tethered 

Equipment

Manual Thin Trees <10", 

Scatter or Pile and Burn 7

134-44G Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment

Manual Thin Trees <10", 

Scatter or Pile and Burn 20

134-44S Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Skyline or Tethered 

Equipment

Manual Thin Trees <10", 

Scatter or Pile and Burn 18

134-47S Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Skyline or Tethered 

Equipment Underburn 19

134-55E Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees Endline Underburn 5

134-55G Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment Underburn 24

134-58G Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment Underburn 12

134-58S Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Skyline or Tethered 

Equipment Underburn 6

134-59G Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment Underburn 121

134-70E Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees Endline Manual Thin Trees <10", Scatter or Pile and Burn 13

134-70G Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment

Manual Thin Trees <10", 

Scatter or Pile and Burn 7

134-70P Thinning w/o 

Removal

Manual Thin Brush 

and Trees <10 in N/A Manual Thin Trees <10", Scatter or Pile and Burn 78

134-83G Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment Underburn 13

134-83S Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Skyline or Tethered 

Equipment Underburn 68

134-107S Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Skyline or Tethered 

Equipment Underburn 80

134-131P Thinning w/o 

Removal

Manual Thin Brush 

and Trees <10 in N/A Manual Thin Trees <10", Scatter or Pile and Burn 22

134-240G Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment Underburn 92

134-240P Thinning w/o 

Removal

Manual Thin Brush 

and Trees <10 in N/A Manual Thin Trees <10", Scatter or Pile and Burn 68

134-242G Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment Underburn 59

134-242S Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Skyline or Tethered 

Equipment Underburn 15

134-244P Thinning w/o 

Removal

Manual Thin Brush 

and Trees <10 in N/A Manual Thin Trees <10", Scatter or Pile and Burn 20

134-244S Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Skyline or Tethered 

Equipment Underburn 8

134-245G Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment Underburn 14

134-246P Thinning w/o 

Removal

Manual Thin Brush 

and Trees <10 in N/A Manual Thin Trees <10", Scatter or Pile and Burn 70

134-247G Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment Underburn 29
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

183

Unit 

Number Type of Treatment Primary Treatment Removal Method Follow up Treatment Acres

134-247S Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Skyline or Tethered 

Equipment Underburn 7

134-248E Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees Endline Underburn 1

134-248G Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment Underburn 77

134-248S Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Skyline or Tethered 

Equipment Underburn 55

134-249G Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment Underburn 27

134-250G Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment Underburn 57

134-250P Thinning w/o 

Removal

Manual Thin Brush 

and Trees <10 in N/A Manual Thin Trees <10", Scatter or Pile and Burn 20

134-251P Thinning w/o 

Removal

Manual Thin Brush 

and Trees <10 in N/A Manual Thin Trees <10", Scatter or Pile and Burn 37

134-299G Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment Underburn 13

134-299S Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Skyline or Tethered 

Equipment Underburn 24

136-2G Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment

Manual Thin Trees <10", 

Scatter or Pile and Burn 45

136-18G Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment Underburn 79

136-21G Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment

Manual Thin Trees <10", 

Scatter or Pile and Burn 54

136-22G Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment Underburn 103

136-24G Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment Underburn 44

136-25G Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment

Manual Thin Trees <10", 

Scatter or Pile and Burn 39

136-26S Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Skyline or Tethered 

Equipment

Manual Thin Trees <10", 

Scatter or Pile and Burn 30

136-47G Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment Underburn 11

136-57G Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment Underburn 144

136-61P Thinning w/o 

Removal

Manual Thin Brush 

and Trees <10 in N/A Manual Thin Trees <10", Scatter or Pile and Burn 57

136-145G Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment Underburn 59

136-146G Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment Underburn 37

136-147G Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment

Manual Thin Trees <10", 

Scatter or Pile and Burn 105

136-302P Thinning w/o 

Removal

Manual Thin Brush 

and Trees <10 in N/A Manual Thin Trees <10", Scatter or Pile and Burn 44

136-400M Mastication Masticate Brush, Thin 

Trees <10 in N/A Masticate 19
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

184

Unit 

Number Type of Treatment Primary Treatment Removal Method Follow up Treatment Acres

136-401M Mastication Masticate Brush, Thin 

Trees <10 in N/A Masticate 31

136-402M Mastication Masticate Brush, Thin 

Trees <10 in N/A Masticate 13

136-917M Mastication Masticate Brush, Thin 

Trees <10 in N/A Masticate 43

136-926P Thinning w/o 

Removal

Manual Thin Brush 

and Trees <10 in N/A Manual Thin Trees <10", Scatter or Pile and Burn 75

137-5G Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment Underburn 32

137-5S Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Skyline or Tethered 

Equipment Underburn 46

137-6S Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Skyline or Tethered 

Equipment Underburn 43

137-8S Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Skyline or Tethered 

Equipment Underburn 33

137-Mast Mastication Masticate Brush, Thin 

Trees <10 in N/A Masticate 139

138-1G Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment Underburn 49

138-3S Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Skyline or Tethered 

Equipment Underburn 12

138-11G Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment Underburn 33

138-11S Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Skyline or Tethered 

Equipment Underburn 20

138-12G Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment Underburn 28

138-13S Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Skyline or Tethered 

Equipment

Manual Thin Trees <10", 

Scatter or Pile and Burn 41

138-23G Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment

Manual Thin Trees <10", 

Scatter or Pile and Burn 31

138-23S Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Skyline or Tethered 

Equipment

Manual Thin Trees <10", 

Scatter or Pile and Burn 14

138-46E Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees Endline Underburn 19

138-53P Thinning w/o 

Removal

Manual Thin Brush 

and Trees <10 in N/A Manual Thin Trees <10", Scatter or Pile and Burn 31

138-53S Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Skyline or Tethered 

Equipment

Manual Thin Trees <10", 

Scatter or Pile and Burn 23

138-54S Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Skyline or Tethered 

Equipment

Manual Thin Trees <10", 

Scatter or Pile and Burn 20

138-56P Thinning w/o 

Removal

Manual Thin Brush 

and Trees <10 in N/A Manual Thin Trees <10", Scatter or Pile and Burn 274

138-56S Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Skyline or Tethered 

Equipment

Manual Thin Trees <10", 

Scatter or Pile and Burn 37

138-70P Thinning w/o 

Removal

Manual Thin Brush 

and Trees <10 in N/A Manual Thin Trees <10", Scatter or Pile and Burn 99

138-71S Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Skyline or Tethered 

Equipment Underburn 51
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

185

Unit 

Number Type of Treatment Primary Treatment Removal Method Follow up Treatment Acres

138-74M Mastication Masticate Brush, Thin 

Trees <10 in N/A Masticate 33

138-91G Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment Underburn 35

138-91S Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Skyline or Tethered 

Equipment Underburn 9

138-102P Thinning w/o 

Removal

Manual Thin Brush 

and Trees <10 in N/A Manual Thin Trees <10", Scatter or Pile and Burn 225

138-151G Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment

Manual Thin Trees <10", 

Scatter or Pile and Burn 22

138-155S Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Skyline or Tethered 

Equipment

Manual Thin Trees <10", 

Scatter or Pile and Burn 13

138-501G Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment

Manual Thin Trees <10", 

Scatter or Pile and Burn 86

138-532G Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment

Manual Thin Trees <10", 

Scatter or Pile and Burn 10

138-Mast1 Mastication Masticate Brush, Thin 

Trees <10 in N/A Masticate 80

138-Mast2 Mastication Masticate Brush, Thin 

Trees <10 in N/A Masticate 39

138-Mast3 Mastication Masticate Brush, Thin 

Trees <10 in N/A Masticate 26

544-17S Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Skyline or Tethered 

Equipment

Manual Thin Trees <10", 

Scatter or Pile and Burn 19

544-19S Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Skyline or Tethered 

Equipment Underburn 46

544-20E Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees Endline Underburn 26

544-222S Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Skyline or Tethered 

Equipment Underburn 5

544-Mast Mastication Masticate Brush, Thin 

Trees <10 in N/A Masticate 479

FBP1 Fuel Break-Adjacent 

to Private Land

Manual Thin Brush 

and Trees <10 in N/A Manual Pile & Burn Piles 63

FBR1 Fuel Break-Roadside Manual Thin Brush 

and Trees <10 in N/A Manual Pile & Burn Piles 34

FBR2 Fuel Break-Roadside Manual Thin Brush 

and Trees <10 in N/A Manual Pile & Burn Piles 207

FBR3 Fuel Break-Roadside Manual Thin Brush 

and Trees <10 in N/A Manual Pile & Burn Piles 203

FBR4 Fuel Break-Roadside Manual Thin Brush 

and Trees <10 in N/A Manual Pile & Burn Piles 262

FBR5 Fuel Break-Roadside Manual Thin Brush 

and Trees <10 in N/A Manual Pile & Burn Piles 71

FBS1 Fuel Break-Ridge Manual Thin Brush 

and Trees <10 in N/A Manual Pile & Burn Piles 136

FBS2 Fuel Break-Ridge Manual Thin Brush 

and Trees <10 in N/A Manual Pile & Burn Piles 195

FBS3 Fuel Break-Ridge Manual Thin Brush 

and Trees <10 in N/A Manual Pile & Burn Piles 157
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

186

Unit 

Number Type of Treatment Primary Treatment Removal Method Follow up Treatment Acres

FBS5 Fuel Break-Ridge Manual Thin Brush 

and Trees <10 in N/A Manual Pile & Burn Piles 71

UB1 Prescribed Fire 

Underburn

Low Intensity 

Prescribed Fire N/A Underburn 2,249

UB2 Prescribed Fire 

Underburn

Low Intensity 

Prescribed Fire N/A Underburn 901

UB3 Prescribed Fire 

Underburn

Low Intensity 

Prescribed Fire N/A Underburn 210

UB4 Prescribed Fire 

Underburn

Low Intensity 

Prescribed Fire N/A Underburn 667

UB5 Prescribed Fire 

Underburn

Low Intensity 

Prescribed Fire N/A Underburn 137

Table A-2: Alternative 3 Treatment Prescriptions

Unit 

Number Type of Treatment Primary Treatment Removal Method Follow-up Treatment Acres

133-89G Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment Underburn 14

134-2S Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Skyline or 

Tethered 

Equipment

Underburn 42

134-21S Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Skyline or 

Tethered 

Equipment

Manual Thin Trees <10", 

Scatter or Pile and Burn 30

134-23P Thinning w/o 

Removal

Manual Thin Brush and 

Trees <10 in N/A Scatter or Manual Pile & Burn Piles 110

134-27S Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Skyline or 

Tethered 

Equipment

Underburn 10

134-28S Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Skyline or 

Tethered 

Equipment

Underburn 7

134-29G Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment Underburn 16

134-29P Thinning w/o 

Removal

Manual Thin Brush and 

Trees <10 in N/A Scatter or Manual Pile & Burn Piles 19

134-31G Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment Underburn 9

134-32G Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment Underburn 11

134-32P Thinning w/o 

Removal

Manual Thin Brush and 

Trees <10 in N/A Scatter or Manual Pile & Burn Piles 19

134-32S Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Skyline or 

Tethered 

Equipment

Underburn 16

134-33G Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment Underburn 11

134-33S Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Skyline or 

Tethered 

Equipment

Underburn 52

134-34G Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment Underburn 50
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

187

Unit 

Number Type of Treatment Primary Treatment Removal Method Follow-up Treatment Acres

134-34S Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Skyline or 

Tethered 

Equipment

Underburn 27

134-36S Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Skyline or 

Tethered 

Equipment

Manual Thin Trees <10", 

Scatter or Pile and Burn 32

134-38S Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Skyline or 

Tethered 

Equipment

Underburn 14

134-39G Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment Underburn 7

134-39S Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Skyline or 

Tethered 

Equipment

Underburn 54

134-40G Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment Underburn 16

134-41G Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment Underburn 24

134-41S Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Skyline or 

Tethered 

Equipment

Underburn 18

134-42G Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment

Manual Thin Trees <10", 

Scatter or Pile and Burn 12

134-42S Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Skyline or 

Tethered 

Equipment

Manual Thin Trees <10", 

Scatter or Pile and Burn 7

134-44G Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment

Manual Thin Trees <10", 

Scatter or Pile and Burn 20

134-44S Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Skyline or 

Tethered 

Equipment

Manual Thin Trees <10", 

Scatter or Pile and Burn 18

134-47S Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Skyline or 

Tethered 

Equipment

Underburn 19

134-55E Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees Endline Underburn 4

134-55G Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment Underburn 28

134-58G Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment Underburn 12

134-58S Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Skyline or 

Tethered 

Equipment

Underburn 6

134-59G Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment Underburn 97

134-70E Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees Endline Manual Thin Trees <10", Scatter or Pile and Burn 13

134-70G Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment

Manual Thin Trees <10", 

Scatter or Pile and Burn 7

134-70P Thinning w/o 

Removal

Manual Thin Brush and 

Trees <10 in N/A Scatter or Manual Pile & Burn Piles 78

134-83G Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment Underburn 13
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

188

Unit 

Number Type of Treatment Primary Treatment Removal Method Follow-up Treatment Acres

134-83S Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Skyline or 

Tethered 

Equipment

Underburn 68

134-107S Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Skyline or 

Tethered 

Equipment

Underburn 80

134-131P Thinning w/o 

Removal

Manual Thin Brush and 

Trees <10 in N/A Scatter or Manual Pile & Burn Piles 22

134-240G Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment Underburn 12

134-240P Thinning w/o 

Removal

Manual Thin Brush and 

Trees <10 in N/A Scatter or Manual Pile & Burn Piles 145

134-242G Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment Underburn 33

134-242P Thinning w/o 

Removal

Manual Thin Brush and 

Trees <10 in N/A Scatter or Manual Pile & Burn Piles 26

134-242S Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Skyline or 

Tethered 

Equipment

Underburn 15

134-244P Thinning w/o 

Removal

Manual Thin Brush and 

Trees <10 in N/A Scatter or Manual Pile & Burn Piles 20

134-244S Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Skyline or 

Tethered 

Equipment

Underburn 8

134-245G Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment Underburn 12

134-246P Thinning w/o 

Removal

Manual Thin Brush and 

Trees <10 in N/A Scatter or Manual Pile & Burn Piles 68

134-247G Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment Underburn 29

134-247S Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Skyline or 

Tethered 

Equipment

Underburn 7

134-248E Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees Endline Underburn 1

134-248G Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment Underburn 77

134-248S Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Skyline or 

Tethered 

Equipment

Underburn 55

134-249G Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment Underburn 27

134-250G Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment Underburn 57

134-250P Thinning w/o 

Removal

Manual Thin Brush and 

Trees <10 in N/A Scatter or Manual Pile & Burn Piles 20

134-251P Thinning w/o 

Removal

Manual Thin Brush and 

Trees <10 in N/A Scatter or Manual Pile & Burn Piles 37

134-299G Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment Underburn 13
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

189

Unit 

Number Type of Treatment Primary Treatment Removal Method Follow-up Treatment Acres

134-299S Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Skyline or 

Tethered 

Equipment

Underburn 24

136-2P Thinning w/o 

Removal

Manual Thin Brush and 

Trees <10 in N/A Scatter or Manual Pile & Burn Piles 45

136-18G Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment Underburn 63

136-21G Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment

Manual Thin Trees <10", 

Scatter or Pile and Burn 30

136-21P Thinning w/o 

Removal

Manual Thin Brush and 

Trees <10 in N/A Scatter or Manual Pile & Burn Piles 24

136-22G Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment Underburn 103

136-24G Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment Underburn 38

136-25P Thinning w/o 

Removal

Manual Thin Brush and 

Trees <10 in N/A Scatter or Manual Pile & Burn Piles 38

136-26G Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment Underburn 4

136-26P Thinning w/o 

Removal

Manual Thin Brush and 

Trees <10 in N/A Scatter or Manual Pile & Burn Piles 29

136-47G Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment Underburn 14

136-57G Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment Underburn 135

136-61P Thinning w/o 

Removal

Manual Thin Brush and 

Trees <10 in N/A Scatter or Manual Pile & Burn Piles 57

136-145G Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment Underburn 9

136-146G Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment Underburn 8

136-147G Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment Underburn 41

136-302P Thinning w/o 

Removal

Manual Thin Brush and 

Trees <10 in N/A Scatter or Manual Pile & Burn Piles 44

136-

400M Mastication Masticate Brush, Thin Trees <10 in N/A Masticate 19

136-

401M Mastication Masticate Brush, Thin Trees <10 in N/A Masticate 31

136-

402M Mastication Masticate Brush, Thin Trees <10 in N/A Masticate 13

136-

917M Mastication Masticate Brush, Thin Trees <10 in N/A Masticate 43

136-926P Thinning w/o 

Removal

Manual Thin Brush and 

Trees <10 in N/A Scatter or Manual Pile & Burn Piles 75

137-5S Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Skyline or 

Tethered 

Equipment

Underburn 28

137-6S Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Skyline or 

Tethered 

Equipment

Underburn 40
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

190

Unit 

Number Type of Treatment Primary Treatment Removal Method Follow-up Treatment Acres

137-8S Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Skyline or 

Tethered 

Equipment

Underburn 33

137-Mast Mastication Masticate Brush, Thin 

Trees <10 in N/A Masticate 140

138-1G Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment Underburn 45

138-3S Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Skyline or 

Tethered 

Equipment

Underburn 12

138-11G Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment Underburn 33

138-11S Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Skyline or 

Tethered 

Equipment

Underburn 20

138-12G Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment Underburn 7

138-13S Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Skyline or 

Tethered 

Equipment

Underburn 41

138-23P Thinning w/o 

Removal

Manual Thin Brush and 

Trees <10 in N/A Scatter or Manual Pile & Burn Piles 45

138-46E Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees Endline Underburn 19

138-53P Thinning w/o 

Removal

Manual Thin Brush and 

Trees <10 in N/A Scatter or Manual Pile & Burn Piles 73

138-53S Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Skyline or 

Tethered 

Equipment

Manual Thin Trees <10", 

Scatter or Pile and Burn 23

138-54S Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Skyline or 

Tethered 

Equipment

Manual Thin Trees <10”, 

Scatter or Pile and Burn 20

138-56P Thinning w/o 

Removal

Manual Thin Brush and 

Trees <10 in N/A Scatter or Manual Pile & Burn Piles 289

138-56S Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Skyline or 

Tethered 

Equipment

Manual Thin Trees <10", 

Scatter or Pile and Burn 37

138-70P Thinning w/o 

Removal

Manual Thin Brush and 

Trees <10 in N/A Scatter or Manual Pile & Burn Piles 99

138-71S Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Skyline or 

Tethered 

Equipment

Underburn 38

138-74M Mastication Masticate Brush, Thin 

Trees <10 in N/A Masticate 33

138-91S Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Skyline or 

Tethered 

Equipment

Underburn 16

138-102P Thinning w/o 

Removal

Manual Thin Brush and 

Trees <10 in N/A Scatter or Manual Pile & Burn Piles 225

138-151G Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment

Manual Thin Trees <10", 

Scatter or Pile and Burn 22
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

191

Unit 

Number Type of Treatment Primary Treatment Removal Method Follow-up Treatment Acres

138-155S Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Skyline or 

Tethered 

Equipment

Manual Thin Trees <10", 

Scatter or Pile and Burn 13

138-501P Thinning w/o 

Removal

Manual Thin Brush and 

Trees <10 in N/A Scatter or Manual Pile & Burn Piles 86

138-532G Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment Underburn 10

138-

Mast-1 Mastication Masticate Brush, Thin Trees <10 in N/A Masticate 80

138-

Mast-4 Mastication Masticate Brush, Thin Trees <10 in N/A Masticate 24

544-17S Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Skyline or 

Tethered 

Equipment

Manual Thin Trees <10", 

Scatter or Pile and Burn 19

544-19S Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Skyline or 

Tethered 

Equipment

Underburn 46

544-20E Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees Endline Underburn 26

544-222S Thinning w/ Removal Thin from Below, 

Remove Cut Trees

Skyline or 

Tethered 

Equipment

Underburn 5

544-Mast Mastication Masticate Brush, Thin 

Trees <10 in N/A Masticate 382

FBP1 Fuel Break-Adjacent 

to Private Land

Manual Thin Brush and 

Trees <10 in N/A Scatter or Manual Pile & Burn Piles 295

FBP2 Fuel Break-Adjacent

to Private Land

Manual Thin Brush and 

Trees <10 in N/A Scatter or Manual Pile & Burn Piles 115

FBP3 Fuel Break-Adjacent 

to Private Land

Manual Thin Brush and 

Trees <10 in N/A Scatter or Manual Pile & Burn Piles 170

FBP4 Fuel Break-Adjacent 

to Private Land

Manual Thin Brush and 

Trees <10 in N/A Scatter or Manual Pile & Burn Piles 72

FBR1 Fuel Break-Roadside Manual Thin Brush and 

Trees <10 in N/A Manual Pile & Burn Piles 33

FBR2 Fuel Break-Roadside Manual Thin Brush and 

Trees <10 in N/A Manual Pile & Burn Piles 204

FBR3 Fuel Break-Roadside Manual Thin Brush and 

Trees <10 in N/A Manual Pile & Burn Piles 203

FBR4 Fuel Break-Roadside Manual Thin Brush and 

Trees <10 in N/A Manual Pile & Burn Piles 303

FBR5 Fuel Break-Roadside Manual Thin Brush and 

Trees <10 in N/A Manual Pile & Burn Piles 71

FBS1 Fuel Break-Ridge Manual Thin Brush and 

Trees <10 in N/A Manual Pile & Burn Piles 197

FBS2 Fuel Break-Ridge Manual Thin Brush and 

Trees <10 in N/A Manual Pile & Burn Piles 166

FBS3 Fuel Break-Ridge Manual Thin Brush and 

Trees <10 in N/A Manual Pile & Burn Piles 190

FBS4 Fuel Break-Ridge Manual Thin Brush and 

Trees <10 in N/A Manual Pile & Burn Piles 104

FBS5 Fuel Break-Ridge Manual Thin Brush and 

Trees <10 in N/A Manual Pile & Burn Piles 71
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

192

Unit 

Number Type of Treatment Primary Treatment Removal Method Follow-up Treatment Acres

UB1 Prescribed Fire 

Underburn

Low Intensity 

Prescribed Fire N/A Underburn 2,279

UB2 Prescribed Fire 

Underburn

Low Intensity 

Prescribed Fire N/A Underburn 901

UB3 Prescribed Fire 

Underburn

Low Intensity 

Prescribed Fire N/A Underburn 215

UB4 Prescribed Fire 

Underburn

Low Intensity 

Prescribed Fire N/A Underburn 897

UB5 Prescribed Fire 

Underburn

Low Intensity 

Prescribed Fire N/A Underburn 137
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

193

APPENDIX B: VICINITY AND TREATMENT MAPS

Figure B-1: Vicinity Map
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

194

This page intentionally left blank
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

195

Figure B-2: Alternative 2 Treatment Map Page 1 of 4
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

196

Figure B-3: Alternative 2 Treatment Map Page 2 of 4
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

197

Figure B-4: Alternative 2 Treatment Map Page 3 of 4
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

198

Figure B-5: Alternative 2 Treatments Map Page 4 of 4
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

199

Figure B-6: Alternative 3 Treatments Map Page 1 of 4
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

200

Figure B-7: Alternative 3 Treatments Map Page 2 of 4
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

201

Figure B-8: Alternative 3 Treatments Map Page 3 of 4
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

202

Figure B-9: Alternative 3 Treatments Map Page 4 of 4
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

203

Figure B-10: Management Area Map
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

204

Figure B-11: Craggy 7th Field Watersheds: Within and Adjacent to the Project Boundary Map
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

205

Figure B-12: Map of Locations and Risk Ratings of all Project Area Legacy Sites-page 1 of 4
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

206

Figure B-13: Map of Locations and Risk Ratings of all Project Area Legacy Sites-page 2 of 4
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

207

Figure B-14: Map of Locations and Risk Ratings of all Project Area Legacy Sites -page 3 of 4
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

208

Figure B-15: Map of Locations and Risk Ratings of all Project Area Legacy Sites -page 4 of 4
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

209

Figure B-16: Craggy Legacy Site Treatment Plan Map page 1 of 4
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

210

Figure B-17: Craggy Legacy Site Treatment Plan Map page 2 of 4
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

211

Figure B-18: Craggy Legacy Site Treatment Plan Map page 3 of 4
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

212

Figure B-19: Craggy Legacy Site Treatment Plan Map page 4 of 4
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

213

APPENDIX C: ACTIONS CONSIDERED FOR 

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS

This appendix gives a brief overview of past actions and lists the current and reasonably

foreseeable future actions that may be considered in cumulative effects analysis for the 

proposed Craggy Project.

The past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions that are considered for 

cumulative effects analysis may vary by resource (see chapter 3 of this draft environmental 

impact statement and resource reports for resource-specific details). For some resources, the 

analysis area includes only the project area or a smaller area; for other resources, the analysis 

area includes 7th field watersheds or Siskiyou County as a whole. Therefore, completed 

(past), ongoing or reasonably foreseeable actions include actions on the Forest and private 

land within the Craggy project area, within the eight 7th field watersheds that encompass the 

project area, and within Siskiyou County (if they pertain specifically to social and economic 

effects). Federal and non-federal actions that are not yet completed but have a signed 

decision or approved plan (in the case of timber harvest plans) are considered within the 

context of past actions.

Within the Project Area: Klamath National Forest Land

Similar actions to what will be implemented with this project, or actions within the project 

area that have similar effects to the project, will be considered in this analysis.

Past Actions:

In the past within the project area, many different silvicultural treatments occurred. This 

includes thinning of commercial- and noncommercial-sized trees, site-preparation (for 

planting and prescribed burning), planting of trees and other reforestation activities, various 

fuels treatments. These activities had a diverse range of effects (including beneficial effects) 

to various resources. Events such as wildfires and floods have also occurred, affecting 

different resources in various ways. More detail is provided in chapter 3 and applicable 

resource reports in the affected environment sections. Other specific actions have occurred in 

the past as follows.

Motorized Travel Management:

The Motorized Travel Management Record of Decision was signed on July 29, 2010. This 

was a Forest-wide project. The decision designated almost 20 miles of motorized trail in the 

project area (including Trail 5596, described below), about 17 miles in the Upper Humbug 

Creek 7th field watershed and three miles in the Middle Fork Humbug Creek 7th field 

watershed. Mitigation, including tread and drainage work, was required on about 14 miles of 

the trails in Upper Humbug Creek; further analysis including possible rerouting before being 

added to the Motor Vehicle Use Map was required on about four miles of trails. Required 

drainage and tread work was completed in 2015 as was rerouting on three miles of Trail 

5596. The 2010 decision also designated a five-acre open riding area for off-highway 

motorized vehicles, improvements to which are described below under the Humbug Offhighway Vehicle (OHV) Staging Area Development project. Publication of the Motor Vehicle 
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

214

Use Map on January 1, 2013 (updated in 2015) restricted all public motorized use on the 

Forest to designated roads, trails, and areas.

Trail 5596 (Humbug Drainage -Trail Reroutes for Resource Protection):

This off-highway vehicle trail is entirely within the Craggy project area. It is within 

Township (T) 46 North (N), Range (R) 8 West (W), Sections 27 and 34; and T45N R8W 

Section 3; Mt. Diablo Meridian, in the Upper Humbug Creek 7th field watershed. Work on 

this motorized trail was completed in November, 2015; the motorcycle trail will be added to 

the Motor Vehicle Use Map in the next update of the map. This trail previously existed as 

two unauthorized routes. In the decision to reroute parts of the trail and decommission old 

segments to better protect various resources, new segments were chosen that would improve 

protection of resources by avoiding riparian reserves, avoiding noxious weed populations, 

providing smoother transitions with the existing trail, and improving the ability to constrain 

riders to the trail. A goal with the Trail 5596 project was to provide a sustainable motorized 

opportunity for motorcycle riders while protecting resource conditions and providing erosion 

control.

Humbug Off-highway Vehicle (OHV) Staging Area Development:

The Humbug OHV Staging Area Development project is located entirely within the Craggy 

project area. It is within T45N, R8W, Section 1, Mt. Diablo Meridian, in the Upper Humbug 

Creek 7th field watershed. It includes the construction of OHV visitor facilities for an 

enhanced recreational experience and resource protection. A single entrance, graveled 

parking area, double vault toilet, loading/unloading ramp, a children’s riding area, signs, 

definition of use areas with fencing or boulders, two individual tables with fire rings, a group 

picnic area, and a sediment basin have all been completed. The project area is about two 

acres in size and provides support to about five-acres of the open riding area. Work on this

project was completed in 2016.

Mining:

Past historic mining occurred in the project area and within the eight 7th field watersheds in 

which the project area is located. The effects of this mining are included in the affected 

environment section of Chapter 3 and relevant resource reports.

Ongoing Actions:

There aren’t any ongoing actions by the Forest Service within the project area, other than 

current on-going use and maintenance of roads and trails.

Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions:

There aren’t any reasonably foreseeable future actions by the Forest Service within the 

project area other than the Craggy project.

Within the Project Area: Private Lands and Other Agencies

Past Actions:

The effects of timber harvest plans and fuel reduction actions on private land are included in 

the affected environment descriptions in Chapter 3. Specific effects of these actions, and of 

past mining activities, are included in the cumulative watershed effects modeling as part of 
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

215

the current situation. There are no known fuel reduction actions on other private property or 

agency-managed land within the project area.

Ongoing Actions:

There aren’t any known ongoing actions within the project area on private lands or those 

managed by other agencies other than the sale based on the Badger Timber Harvest Plan 

(THP): 2-16-012 SIS. This project is within Siskiyou County, California, within T46N, R7W, 

Section 27; Mt. Diablo Meridian. The timber owner is Michigan California Timber 

Company. This project is treating about 48 acres within the Lower Humbug Creek 7th field 

watershed by clearcutting and shelterwood removal with tractor logging.

Reasonably Foreseeable Actions:

Within the 7th Field Watersheds: Klamath National Forest Lands

Past Actions:

Past actions that occurred on the Klamath National Forest within the eight 7th field 

watersheds may be considered to have had similar effects compared to what is briefly 

described above for past Forest Service activities within the project area.

Ongoing Actions:

There aren’t any ongoing actions by the Forest Service within the 7th field watersheds other 

than those within the project area.

Reasonably Foreseeable Actions:

There aren’t any reasonably foreseeable future actions by the Forest Service within the 7th

field watersheds other than the proposed Craggy project.

Within the 7th Field Watersheds: Private Lands and Other Agencies

Past Actions:

Past actions that occurred on private land associated with timber harvest plans, that are 

within the eight 7th field watersheds, may be considered to have had similar effects compared 

to what is briefly described above for past private timber harvest plan activities within the 

project area. For effects of timber harvest plans within the project area, see the applicable 

resource reports for more detailed information.

Past actions not associated with timber harvest plans include various fuels reduction and 

watershed restoration projects which are listed below.

Visitor Center (Yreka City -Yreka Creek 7th field):

This project is within Siskiyou County, California, within T45N, R7W, Section 27; Mt. 

Diablo Meridian. It covered an eighth-mile portion of Yreka Creek. It created a visitor center, 

trails, bridges, planted native plants (and removed invasive plants), and created various 

interpretive and informational media.

Storm Water Attenuation (Yreka City -Yreka Creek and Greenhorn Creek 7th fields):
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

216

This project is within Siskiyou County, California, within T45N, R7W, Sections 27 and 33; 

Mt. Diablo Meridian. It upsized key storm drains, added hydrodynamic separators to filter 

out pollutants, installed two large attenuation basins to intercept and slow down runoff, 

deepened a portion of Greenhorn Reservoir to increase storm water retention capacity, 

installed a sediment basin on Greenhorn Creek above the reservoir to capture sediment 

before entry into the reservoir, lowered and widened the Yreka Creek floodplain, constructed 

overflow channels, and re-vegetated with native species along a third mile of Yreka Creek 

north of East Oberlin Road.

Greenhorn Reservoir Loop Trail Project (Greenhorn Creek 7th field):

This project is within Siskiyou County, California, within T45 N, R7W, Sections 33 and 34; 

Mt. Diablo Meridian. At Greenhorn Park, a trail bridge was installed, one mile of trail was 

paved, and restroom facilities were installed.

Upper Greenhorn Creek Floodplain Restoration and Trails Project- Phase 1 (Greenhorn 

Creek 7th field):

This project is within Siskiyou County, California, within T45N, R7W, Section 33; Mt. 

Diablo Meridian. It lowered and widened the floodplain, constructed overflow channels, 

restored eroded banks, planted native species, and upgraded trails along a quarter mile 

portion of Greenhorn Creek just above Greenhorn Reservoir.

North Yreka Deer Creek Project (Yreka City -Yreka Creek 7th field):

This project is within Siskiyou County, California, within T45N, R7W, Section 14; Mt. 

Diablo Meridian. It lowered and widened the floodplain, constructed overflow channels, 

revegetated with native species, installed a paved trail, picnic area, and trailhead facilities 

along a quarter mile of Yreka Creek at the north end of the town of Yreka.

Ongoing Actions:

Ongoing actions for private timber harvest plan projects are similar to their past actions.

Evergreen School Bio-swales Project (Yreka City -Yreka Creek 7th field):

This project is within Siskiyou County, California, within T45N, R7W, Section 27; Mt. 

Diablo Meridian. It consists of constructing several large bio-swales with retention basins at 

Evergreen Elementary School to capture storm runoff from school buildings and parking 

areas that originally all flowed to the street. The first phase was completed in 2015 and the 

second phase will be completed sometime in 2016. The bioswales are being re-vegetated 

with native species.

Oberlin-Young Trail Improvement Project (Yreka City-Yreka Creek 7th field):

This project is within Siskiyou County, California, within T45N, R7 W, Section 27; Mt. 

Diablo Meridian. It consists of lowering and widening additional floodplain areas, 

constructing a bio-swale, re-vegetating with native species, and installing paved main and 

secondary trails, unpaved tertiary trails, trail bridges and boardwalks, picnic areas, and 

trailhead facilities along a half mile of Yreka Creek north of East Oberlin Road.

Visitor Center Maintenance (Yreka City -Yreka Creek 7th field):

This project is within Siskiyou County, California, within T45N, R7W, Section 27; Mt. 

Diablo Meridian. It includes continued removal of invasive plants.
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

217

Reasonably Foreseeable Actions:

Yreka Flood Hazard Reduction Project - implementation is planned to begin in August of 

2017 (Yreka City -Yreka Creek 7th field):

This project is within Siskiyou County, California, within T45N, R7W, Sections 23, 27, and 

34; Mt. Diablo Meridian. The central reach includes the Klamath National Forest Service 

Center. The portion of the project on land managed by the Forest proposes the removal and 

replacement of a retaining wall, floodplain lowering and widening, vehicular bridge 

replacement, main channel re-routing, overflow and side channel construction, and revegetating with native species along a quarter mile of Yreka Creek.

The north reach is located between Lennox Street and Montague Road (Highway 3) and the 

south reach is located between East Oberlin Road and Sharps Road. Activities along these 

two reaches includes floodplain lowering and widening, main channel re-routing, overflow 

and side channel construction, and re-vegetating with native species along a half mile of 

Yreka Creek at each reach (totaling one mile of creek).

Lower Yreka Creek Full Restoration Project and Side Channel Project (Yreka City -

Yreka Creek, Rocky Gulch -Yreka Creek, and Long Gulch 7th fields):

This project is located within Siskiyou County, California, within T45N, R7W, Sections 1, 

11, 12, and 14; Mt. Diablo Meridian. This project proposes restoration of Yreka Creek 

starting at its confluence with the Shasta River and continues upstream along Yreka Creek 

for about two miles with a total of about 125 acres overall. These two miles will not all be 

treated at once, this project has been broken down into phases, with phase one activities 

focusing first at the confluence of Yreka Creek with the Shasta River.

Phase one will restore about two acres of floodplain and riparian woodland through levee 

removal, floodplain excavation (to make it more accessible), and installation of native plant 

species. It will also install 650 feet of side channels immediately adjacent to the Shasta River 

confluence, with several pools, rock vane structures, large woody debris and extensive 

spawning gravel placement. Focusing phase one at the confluence will yield the greatest 

near-future benefit to Coho Salmon and other species.

Desired outcomes include creating a more accessible floodplain and a ground surface closer 

to the water table; increasing habitat and water quality for salmonids, other aquatic species, 

and wildlife (this specifically includes beavers); and improving the ecological health and 

function of the creek.

Fuel Reduction on lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management (Long Gulch and 

Rocky Gulch -Yreka Creek 7th field watersheds):

This project is located within T45N, R7W, Sections 3, 2 and 10; Mt. Diablo Meridian and 

consists of up to 200 acres of fuel reduction to be implemented in a three to five year period. 

Although planning and funding are not complete for this project, possible treatments are hand 

thinning (with chipping and/or pile burning), mastication (in dense brush areas), goats (in 

grassier fuel models and where star thistle and/or other exotics are present in large quantities, 

herbicide (for exotic plants), and pile burning (if needed).
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

218

City of Yreka WUI Hazardous Fuels Reduction Project on private land (Rocky GulchYreka, Long Gulch, Yreka City-Yreka Creek, Greenhorn and Middle Humbug 7th field 

watersheds):

This project is located primarily within T45N, R7W, Sections 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 17, 18, 

19, 30 and 31; T45N, R8W, Sections 24, 25 and 36, and R44N, R8W, Section 1 of the Mt. 

Diablo Meridian. A proposed fuelbreak surrounding the Forest boundary would also include 

treatments in T45, R7W, Sections 15, 20, 21 and 29; and T45N, R8W, Section 26. The 

funded project will consist of about 260 acres of fuel reduction to be implemented within five 

years. Possible treatments include thinning and removing vegetation less than 10 inches in 

diameter; removing limbs from leave trees to a minimum of eight to 12 feet above ground; 

strategic removal of brush and ladder fuels; and providing firewood-size cut trees for use by 

the community. Treated fuels will be hand piled and burned, ground or chipped.

Within Siskiyou County on National Forest Lands

Past Actions:

Actions at the county level are noted primarily for the purpose of analyzing the effects on 

social and economic resources. Past actions at the county level are not listed here but are 

summarized in chapter 3 of this environmental impact statement and the social and economic 

resource report, more information is provided about the effects of various projects. Effects on 

the social and economic resource are analyzed up to about 20 years prior (in order to include 

the most recent census data) to the start of analysis in order to capture meaningful and 

applicable information to compare a project’s effects to.

Siskiyou County includes portions of the following national forests: Six-Rivers, ShastaTrinity, Modoc, and the Klamath. Among these national forests, past activities similar to 

what is proposed for this Craggy Project have occurred. Forest products for multiple-uses 

have been made available, forest health has been improved, fire resiliency has been 

improved, watershed restoration activities have occurred, and other key activities have 

occurred. Effects have been both beneficial and negative, depending on the situation and 

resource, and jobs have been created or sustained through these projects.

Ongoing Actions:

Ongoing actions within Siskiyou County on national forest lands are similar to what is 

described for past actions in Siskiyou County on national forest lands; this includes the 

Westside Fire Recovery project, the Jess Project on the Klamath National Forest, and the Elk 

Late-Successional Reserve Enhancement Project on the Shasta-Trinity National Forest.

Reasonably Foreseeable Actions:

The schedules of proposed actions were reviewed for all national forests that manage land 

within Siskiyou County; up-to-date information on expected dates for decisions and 

implementation will be provided with updates of the schedules. Only the Klamath and 

Shasta-Trinity national forests are proposing projects in Siskiyou County that may be 

considered in the cumulative effects analysis.

Klamath National Forest:
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

219

1. Harlan Environmental Assessment - The current expected decision date for this 

project is September of 2018, with an expected implementation date in December of 

2018. It is a vegetation management and fuels reduction project with an emphasis on 

improving forest resilience to wildfire and insects and disease, while improving mule 

deer habitat.

2. Pumice Vegetation Management Project Environmental Impact Statement - This 

project is in progress; a notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement 

was published in the Federal Register on July 11, 2011. The estimated draft 

environmental impact statement notice of availability in the Federal Register is 

currently expected in July of 2017, with an expected decision by November of 2017, 

and expected implementation by December of 2017. This project will reduce fuel 

loads and improve forest health. The project area is about 9,056 acres, with about 

6,473 acres of treatment. It encompasses fuels management, vegetation management 

(other than forest products), and forest products including Christmas trees.

3. Six Shooter Project Environmental Assessment - Its expected decision is in August

of 2017, with an expected implementation date of September of 2017. This project 

will focus on vegetation management and fuels reduction with an emphasis on 

improving mule deer habitat. The project area is about 15,067 acres, with about 

13,806 acres of treatment.

4. Crawford Vegetation Management Project Environmental Impact Statement -

The notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement for this project was 

published in the Federal Register on January 27, 2014. The expected decision date is 

for April of 2018 with an expected implementation date of June of 2018. It proposes 

to thin stands for forest health and fuels reduction. The fuels treatments potentially 

include underburning and pile burning on about 1,600 acres.

5. Elk Creek Watershed Project Environmental Impact Statement - The proposal is 

currently being developed with an estimated date for the notice of intent to prepare an 

environmental impact statement to be published in the Federal Register in August of 

2017. The expected decision is for March of 2019, with an expected implementation 

date of May of 2019. It is an integrated resource management project that aims to 

improve physical and biological conditions in the Elk Creek watershed. As the project 

is still in the development phase, the project and treatment acres are not fully 

established yet.

6. Happy Camp Community Fire Hazard Reduction Project Categorical Exclusion 

– This project started the scoping phase on January 26, 2017. The expected decision 

is for September of 2017, with an expected implementation shortly thereafter. About 

300 acres of fuels reduction treatments would be accomplished by brushing, thinning 

small trees, pruning, and reducing ground fuels; and controlling burning using 

prescribed fire.

7. Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project – This 

project is currently in progress. The objection period legal notice was on June 23, 

2017. The expected decision is in September of 2017, with an expected 

implementation date shortly thereafter. This project includes fuels reduction, hazard 

tree removal, and site preparation and planting within the Gap Fire area.
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

220

8. Upper North Fork Salmon Fuels Reduction – The scoping started on September 

22, 2016. The expected decision is in October of 2017, with an expected 

implementation date shortly thereafter. This project plans to treat up to 120 acres with 

high priority fuels reduction and prescribed fire on private land within the Upper 

North Fork of the Salmon River, including Sawyers Bar and outlying neighborhoods.

9. East Fork Scott – The proposal for this project is currently being developed. The 

notice of intent is estimated to be in the Federal Register in August of 2017. The 

expected decision and implementation is for February of 2019. This project proposes 

to improve conditions within the East Fork Scott watershed. Treatments within 

31,540 acres may include meadows, riparian areas, fuels reduction, mine reclamation, 

stand density reduction, and wildlife habitat improvements.

10. Scott Bar Mill Creek Fuels Categorical Exclusion - The planning is complete. The 

decision date was June 5, 2017 with implementation planned to occur in September of 

2017. The objectives of this project are to reduce hazardous fuels to protect private 

property and to improve wildlife habitat and protect salamander habitat.

11. Somes Bar Integrated Fire Management - This project is in progress. Scoping 

started on February 21, 2017. The notice for the comment period is estimated for June 

of 2017. The expected decision is in September of 2017 with an expected 

implementation in October of 2017. The project removed fuels prior to prescribed 

burning in plantations 40 years and older, and mature natural stands while enhancing 

cultural and ecological plant species.

12. Yellow Jacket Ridge Environmental Assessment - The proposal is currently being 

developed. The estimated start of scoping is for September of 2017. The expected 

decision is for March of 2018, with an expected implementation date in April of 

2018. This project proposes to use noncommercial thinning, release and fuels 

reduction in plantations and in natural stands on about 2,600 acres along Yellow 

Jacket Ridge.

13. Lover's Canyon Environmental Assessment - This project is currently in progress. 

The start of scoping was September 6, 2013. The estimated comment period on the 

draft environmental assessment is to begin in August of 2017. The expected decision 

is for October of 2017, with an expected implementation date in November of 2017.

The project proposes to treat about 4,525 acres including commercial thinning of 

about 872 acres, noncommercial thinning of about 1,175 acres, the creation of fuel 

breaks on about 255 acres, and underburning on about 2,223 acres.

Shasta-Trinity National Forest:

1. Highway 89 Safety Enhancement and Forest Ecosystem Restoration Project 

Environmental Impact Statement - The notice of intent was published in the 

Federal Register on September 15, 2015, it is currently in progress. The estimated 

draft environmental impact statement notice of availability is for July of 2017. The 

expected decision is for June of 2018, with an expected implementation date shortly 

thereafter. This project will treat vegetation for public safety improvement, forest 

health, fire restoration, infrastructure, and wildlife habitat enhancement.
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

221

2. East McCloud Plantations Thinning Environmental Impact Statement - This 

project is currently on hold with no decision. It proposes plantation thinning to reduce 

tree densities and ladder fuels for vegetation management (other than forest products), 

fuels management, and for forest products.

3. Lower McCloud Fuels Management Project Environmental Impact Statement –

The notice of intent was published in the Federal Register on March 22, 2016. The 

estimated draft environmental impact statement notice of availability is for June of 

2018, with an expected decision for May of 2020, and expected implementation 

shortly thereafter. This project includes mechanical and prescribed fire fuels 

reduction within about 12,000 acres within the Lower McCloud and Lower Squaw 

Valley Creek watersheds.

Modoc National Forest:

1. Medicine Lake Caldera Vegetation Treatment Project Environmental 

Assessment - This project is currently in progress. The scoping started on September 

18 of 2014. The notice for the comment period is estimated for June of 2017. The 

expected decision is for February of 2018 with expected implementation in July of 

2018. This project proposes vegetation treatments to reduce density and add diversity 

to lodgepole pine stands to deter mountain pine beetle infestation and meet forest 

health and fuels objectives.

Within Siskiyou County on Private Lands and Lands Managed by Other 

Agencies

Past Actions:

Past actions within Siskiyou County on private lands may be considered to have had similar 

activities and effects as projects within the 7th field watersheds on private lands but at a much 

larger geographic extent.

Ongoing Actions:

Timber Harvest Plans (THP):

John Hancock Life Insurance Company (USA):

Lower Panther: THP #2-16-042-SIS. About 1,718 acres will be treated. It was approved on 

November 15, 2016.

Reasonably Foreseeable Actions:

Mill Creek II: THP #02-16-067. About 247 acres will be treated.

Fruit Growers Supply Company:

Home Boy: THP #02-15-088. About 835 acres will be treated.

ORM Timber Fund III (REIT) INC. c/o Black Fox Timber Management Group:

Son of Ed: THP #2-16-083. About 1,453 acres will be treated.

Oxbow Timber I LLC / Roseburg Resources Company:

South Trumpet: THP #2-17-001. About 367 acres will be treated.
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

222

Mills Ranch:

Dry Trapper: THP# 2-16-009. About 1,203 acres will be treated.
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

223

APPENDIX D: BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

Best management practices (BMPs) were developed to comply with Section 208 of the Clean 

Water Act. Best Management Practices have been certified by the State Water Quality 

Resources Control Board and approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

as a way of protecting water quality from impacts stemming from non-point sources of 

pollution. These practices have been applied to forest activities and have been found to be 

effective in protecting water quality within the Klamath National Forest (Best Management 

Practices Effectiveness Monitoring Report, available at 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5358328.pdf). Specifically, 

effective application of the R-5 USDA Forest Service BMPs has been found to maintain 

water quality that is in conformance with the Water Quality Objectives in the 2011 North 

Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board’s Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan).

The following list of BMPs apply to the Craggy Project; the objective of each projectspecific BMP, and the prescriptions and project design features developed to implement

each, are identified below. For additional information on the BMPs and their objectives, see 

Water Quality Management for Forest System Lands in California (USDA 2000) and R-5 

Water Quality Management Handbook (FSH 2509.22, Chapter 10). National Core BMPs are 

identified where appropriate and will also be implemented (USDA 2012c).

BMP 1.1 – Timber Sale Planning Process (National Core BMP Veg-1 Vegetation 

Management Planning): Objective: To incorporate water-quality and hydrologic 

considerations into the timber sale planning process. Implementation: A hydrologist, 

geologist, soil scientist, and fisheries biologist participated in the environmental analysis and 

documentation process and prescribed site-specific actions to avoid adverse effects to water 

quality.

BMP 1.2 – Timber Harvest Unit Design: Objective: To ensure that timber harvest unit 

design will secure favorable conditions of water quality and quantity, while maintaining 

desirable stream channel characteristics and watershed conditions. Implementation: The 

Interdisciplinary Team reviewed all units to select harvest methods appropriate to site 

conditions. Additionally, units were adjusted or removed to meet water quality protection 

goals.

BMP 1.3 – Determination of Surface Erosion Hazard for Timber Harvest Unit Design

(National Core BMP Veg-2 Erosion Prevention and Control): Objective: To identify 

high-erosion hazard areas to adjust treatment measures and prevent downstream waterquality degradation. Implementation: Based on field review and site data (percent slope 

distribution, soil texture), the Forest Soil Scientist determined the surface erosion hazard 

rating for each treatment unit and prescribed logging systems and soil cover needs based on 

the erosion hazard rating. Selected management activities were designed to achieve 

predominately low erosion hazard ratings for Project implementation in treatment units.

BMP 1.4 – Use of Sale Area Maps and/or Project Maps for Designating Water Quality 

Protection Needs: Objective: To ensure recognition and protection of areas related to waterquality protection delineated on a sale-area map or a Project map. Implementation: Sale area 
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

224

maps or project maps will include stream-courses, water drafting sites, legacy sediment sites 

and logging systems for units.

BMP 1.5 – Limiting the Operating Period of Timber Sale Activities: Objective: To 

ensure that the purchasers conduct their operations, including, erosion-control work, road 

maintenance, and so forth, in a timely manner, within the time specified in the timber sale 

contract. Implementation: Project design features developed to minimize negative effects 

include:

• Watershed-1: Ground-disturbing activities are proposed to take place during the 

normal operating season (NOS) that is defined as May 1 to October 31 and in dry 

periods outside the NOS, adhering to the Forest’s wet weather operation standards 

(USDA 2002), as approved by the Forest Service representative. When working in 

hydrologic riparian reserves: When there is a 30 percent chance of rain in the next 24 

hours, a Forest Service representative will be on site to insure that winterization or 

erosion control procedures are implemented in a timely fashion and to initiate 

shutdown or resume operations. Operations will not resume until suitable weather, 

soil, and forecast conditions exist.

BMP 1.6 – Protecting Unstable Lands: Objective: To provide special treatment of unstable 

areas to avoid triggering mass slope failure with resultant erosion and sedimentation.

Implementation: Project watershed personnel conducted field reviews of all proposed harvest 

units and identified and documented unstable areas. Project design features developed to 

minimize negative effects include:

• Watershed-9: Tractors and mechanical harvesters will be excluded from active 

landslides, toe zones of dormant landslides and inner gorges unless reviewed and 

recommended by a geologist. 

• Watershed-12: Cable corridors will be placed on the landscape as to minimize 

disturbance to unstable lands (such as inner gorges, active landslides and toe zones). 

The layout will avoid yarding logs up the axis of the features.

BMP 1.8 – Streamside Management Zone Designation (National Core BMPs Veg-3 

Aquatic Management Zones and Plan-3 Aquatic Management Planning): Objective: To 

designate a zone along riparian areas, streams, and wetlands that will minimize potential for 

adverse effects from adjacent management activities. Management activities within these 

zones are designed to improve riparian values. Implementation: The Forest Plan designated 

Riparian Reserves and identified standards for activities within these designated areas that 

will be followed. Project design features developed to minimize negative effects include:

• Watershed-11: Place corridors for skyline-yarding outside hydrologic riparian 

reserves parallel to the stream channel unless field assessment by soil scientist and 

sale administrator determines that placing them within the riparian reserve will not 

substantially damage residual trees, soil, or fish. Full suspension will be required for 

any yarding across or over perennial and intermittent streams to avoid damage to 

stream banks.

• Watershed-13: Trees may be removed from riparian reserves if (1) trees must be 

removed to provide safe road passage or campground access and function; or (2) 

those trees would pose a substantial risk to the forest road drainage system integrity; 
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

225

or (3) discussion with a fish biologist ensures that removal of these trees within 

riparian reserves is consistent with the Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives.

BMP 1.9 – Determining Tractor Loggable Ground (National Core BMP Veg-4 GroundBased Skidding and Yarding Operations): Objective: To minimize erosion and 

sedimentation resulting from ground disturbance of tractor logging systems. Implementation:

Project design feature developed to minimize negative effects include:

• Watershed-4: Mechanized equipment will be restricted as follows (soil texture will be 

determined by the project soil scientist).

1. To slopes less than 45 percent if soil texture is Loam or finer;

2. To slopes less than 35 percent if soil texture is Sandy Loam or coarser;

3. Mechanized equipment will be restricted to travelling generally in straight up and 

down patterns on slopes 35 to 45 percent and on steeper slopes for short portions 

(100 feet or less) regardless of texture when necessary;

4. Where equipment will be operating on >45% slopes for more than just short 

stretches, a tether will be required;

5. In stands where tractor skidding is used and, where practical, logs will be placed 

in bundles on slopes less than 35 percent;

6. Skid trails that connect benches separated by short steep slopes (broken ground) 

can have minor portions (100 feet or less) of the skid trail on slopes greater than 

35 percent.

BMP 1.10 – Tractor Skidding Design: Objective: By designing skidding patterns to best fit 

the terrain, the volume, velocity, concentration, and direction of runoff water can be 

controlled in a manner that will minimize erosion and sedimentation. Implementation:

Project design features developed to minimize negative effects include:

• Watershed-5: Skidding equipment can operate in terraced plantations with slopes 

greater than 35 percent with the following restrictions: terraces will be used that are 

generally wide enough to accommodate harvesting and skidding equipment to limit 

increasing the cut and fill slopes on terraces. Skidding between terraces will be 

limited and locations of these skid trails will be flagged by the timber sale 

administrator with input from the project soil scientist.

• Watershed-6: No full bench skid trails will be constructed except in terraced 

plantations and then only on existing terraces. (Full bench skid trails have the entire 

skid trail cut into the hill slope).

• Watershed-7: Existing skyline corridors and ground-based skid trails will be reused 

whenever possible. Designation of new skid trails will be approved by Timber Sale 

Administrator. Use existing skid and swing trails instead of building new skid trails 

unless using existing skid trails will have greater negative effects than building new. 

Use no skid trails in areas (1) in which ground-based mechanical equipment is 

excluded; and (2) on highly erosive soils, unstable areas, wetlands, or wet meadows 

(excluding small springs and seeps).

• Watershed-8: Ground-based skidding and skyline cable yarding will require front-end 

suspension of logs on skid trails and corridors.
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

226

• Watershed-15: To minimize the concentration of surface runoff, slash or water bars 

will be applied to corridors, skid and swing trails where the ground cover is below 50 

percent and where necessary to prevent runoff from entering the swing trails and 

stream channels. At project completion, permanent operating waterbars will be 

installed and/or repaired as necessary.

• Watershed-27: Take-offs of temporary roads, skid and swing trails that intersect roads 

will be obliterated or effectively blocked to vehicle access following unit treatment.

BMP 1.11 - Suspended Log Yarding in Timber Harvesting (National Core BMP Veg-5

Cable and Aerial Yarding Operations): Objective: To protect the soil mantle from 

excessive disturbance; to maintain the integrity of the streamside management zone (SMZ) 

and other sensitive watershed areas, and to control erosion on cable corridors.

Implementation: Project design features developed to minimize negative effects include:

• Watershed-11: Place corridors for skyline-yarding outside hydrologic riparian 

reserves parallel to the stream channel unless field assessment by soil scientist and 

sale administrator determines that placing them within the riparian reserve will not 

substantially damage residual trees, soil, or fish. Full suspension will be required for 

any yarding across or over perennial and intermittent streams to avoid damage to 

stream banks.

BMP 1.12 – Log Landing Location (National Core BMP Veg-6 Landings): Objective: To 

locate new landings or reuse old landings in such a way as to avoid watershed impacts and 

associated water-quality degradation. Implementation: Project design features developed to 

minimize negative effects include:

• Watershed-20: Existing landings will be used to the extent possible. Construct new 

landings outside both hydrologic and unstable-land riparian reserves and away from 

locations where sediment is likely to enter streams (areas that have a hydrologic 

connection to streams). If the existing landings are within 50 feet of slope distance to 

a stream channel or inner gorge they will not be used without consultation with the 

project hydrologist.

BMP 1.16 – Log Landing Erosion Control (National Core BMP Veg-6 Landings): 

Objective: To reduce the impacts of erosion and subsequent sedimentation associated with 

log landings by use of mitigating measures. Implementation: Project design features 

developed to minimize negative effects include:

• Watershed-21: Once project activities are completed, re-establish natural runoff 

patterns on those landings used for the project (hydrologic stabilization) to protect 

water quality. Minimize sidecasting of material during maintenance, construction or 

reconstruction of landings. Use slash or straw to stabilize disturbed soil on fill slopes.

BMP 1.17 – Erosion Control on Skid Trails: Objective: To protect water quality by 

minimizing erosion and sedimentation derived from skid trails. Implementation: Project 

design features developed to minimize negative effects include:

• Watershed-15: To minimize the concentration of surface runoff, slash or water bars 

will be applied to corridors, skid and swing trails where the ground cover is below 50 

percent and where necessary to prevent runoff from entering the swing trails and 
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

227

stream channels. At project completion, permanent operating waterbars will be 

installed and/or repaired as necessary.

BMP 1.19 – Stream Course and Aquatic Protection (National Core BMPs Veg-3 

Aquatic Management Zones, AqEco-1 Aquatic Ecosystem Improvement and 

Restoration Planning, and AqEco-2 Operations in Aquatic Ecosystems): Objective: To 

conduct management actions within these areas in a manner that maintains or improves 

riparian and aquatic values; to provide unobstructed passage of stormflows; to control 

sediment and other pollutants entering streamcourses; and to restore the natural course of any 

stream as soon as practicable, where diversion of the stream has resulted from timber 

management activities. Implementation: Project design features developed to minimize 

negative effects include:

• Watershed-10: Limit equipment disturbance within 20 feet on either side of swales by 

minimizing equipment crossings and avoiding running trails up the axis of swales. 

Swales are shallow ephemeral channels that do not meet the definition of a riparian 

reserve because they lack annual channel scour.

• Watershed-14: Trees directly rooted into the banks or otherwise and obviously 

integral to the stability of the channel bank will not be removed. Trees in the uplands 

will be directionally felled to protect stream banks.

• Watershed-16: Perennial streams, even if dry, will not be crossed by skid trails. 

Intermittent channels may be crossed when dry and at locations designated by the 

Forest Service.

• Watershed-17: Skid trails that cross intermittent streams or dry swales (i.e. 

depressions in the landscape that do not meet the definition for a designation as 

riparian reserve) will be restored before any storm (with reasonable chance of causing 

offsite sediment movement), or after use is complete. This generally consists of 

removing excess soil, reshaping and waterbarring former approaches, and spreading 

slash on the former crossing.

• Watershed-18: Dry intermittent streams may be crossed by a masticator at designated 

sites only after field review and approval by a Forest Service hydrologist. No 

perennial streams, even when dry, will be crossed.

• Watershed-19: Masticators will not operate within 150 feet of slope distance on 

perennial/and 100 feet slope distance on each side of intermittent streams, or the site 

potential tree height distance on each side of the stream, whichever is greatest (per 

Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objective 8). A masticator will not operate beyond the 

break in slope of any inner gorge. Consultation with the project fish biologist and/or 

hydrologist will occur to determine if any additional buffer width for masticator 

equipment is needed for a particular riparian reserve.

• Watershed-29: On roads treated for dust abatement, use erosion control methods such 

as watering only when necessary and applying non-excessive volumes to prevent any 

sedimentation of streams.
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

228

BMP 1.20 – Erosion Control Structure Maintenance: Objective: To ensure that 

constructed erosion-control structures are stabilized and working. Implementation: Erosion 

Control Measures will be maintained by the contractor for up to 1 year post-installation.

BMP 1.21 – Acceptance of Timber Sale Erosion Control Measures before Sale Closure: 

Objective: To ensure the adequacy of required erosion-control work on timber sales.

Implementation: The Timber Sale Administrator will inspect the Erosion Control Measures 

for compliance with contract.

BMP 2.3 – Road Construction and Reconstruction (National Core BMP Road-3 Road 

Construction and Reconstruction): Objective: Minimize erosion and sediment delivery 

from roads during road construction or reconstruction, and their related activities.

Implementation: Project design features developed to minimize negative effects include:

• Watershed-23: Use temporary roads on existing roadbeds instead of constructing new 

temporary roads except: (1) when temporary roads on existing roadbeds are located 

within stream-course riparian reserves (unless the only way to access the unit will be 

to use a stream crossing on an existing roadbed); or (2) when temporary roads on 

existing roadbeds are located on highly erosive soils, active landslides, wetlands or 

meadows (excluding small springs and seeps).

• Watershed-24: Improvements to existing roads in the project area will not oversteepen road cuts, will minimize sidecasting, and maintain the ditches and cross 

drains or any outslope of the roadway.

• Watershed-28: Temporary roads on existing road beds and new temporary roads will 

be blocked at the end of the normal or extended operating season when project 

activities cease due to wet weather conditions. All temporary roads will be 

hydrologically restored at project completion, which may include removal of culverts 

and fills at stream crossings, out-sloping of road surfaces, obliteration of road 

segments, and water barring or covering with slash.

BMP 2.4 – Road Maintenance and Operations (National Core BMP Road-4 Road 

Operations and Maintenance): Objective: To ensure water-quality protection by providing 

adequate and appropriate maintenance and by controlling road use and operations. 

Implementation: Project design features developed to minimize negative effects include:

• Air Quality-1: Haul routes will be watered to suppress dust when needed.

• Watershed-25: Spot rocking will be used as necessary if small and isolated portions 

of the road system do not adequately dry to allow haul when most of the road is 

capable of haul. Ensure haul over the newly rocked areas will not create adverse 

impacts, such as sediment moving offsite towards channels.

BMP 2.5 – Water Source Development and Utilization (National Core BMP WatUses-3 

Administrative Water Developments): Objective: To supply water for road construction, 

maintenance, dust abatement, fire protection, and other management activities, while 

protecting and maintaining water quality. Implementation: Project design features developed 

to minimize negative effects include:

• Watershed-30: (1) Water drafting by more than one truck shall not occur 

simultaneously; (2) Pumping will be terminated before tank overflows occur; and (3) 
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

229

Intakes, for trucks and tanks, shall be placed parallel to the flow of water and 

screened, with opening size consistent with the protection of aquatic species of 

interest.

• Watershed-31: When drafting from fish-bearing (anadromous) waters, use NOAA 

Fisheries Water Drafting Specifications including using of a NOAA approved fish 

screen to ensure specifications are met.

(1) When in habitat potentially occupied by Coho Salmon, intakes will be screened 

with 3/32” mesh for rounded or square openings, or 1/16 inch mesh for slotted 

openings.

(2) When in habitat potentially occupied by steelhead trout, intakes will be screened 

with 1/8” mesh size.

(3) Wetted surface area of the screen or fish-exclusion device shall be proportional to 

the pump rate to ensure that water velocity at the screen surface does not exceed 

0.33 feet per second.

(4) Pumping rate will not exceed 350 gallons-per-minute (gpm) or 10 percent of the 

flow of the anadromous stream drafted from.

• Watershed-32: When drafting from fish-bearing (non-anadromous) waters

(1) Drafting rate should not exceed 350 gpm for streamflow greater than or equal 

to 4.0 cubic-feet-per-second (cfs).

(2) Below 4.0 cfs, drafting rates should not exceed 20 percent of surface flows.

(3) Drafting should cease when bypass surface flows drop below 1.5 cfs.

(4) Use screen sizes described by NOAA specifications for steelhead (1/8 inch 

mesh size) for rainbow trout.

• Watershed-33: When drafting from non-fish-bearing waters

(1) Drafting rate should not exceed 350 gallons per minute for stream flow 

greater than or equal to 2.0 cfs.

(2) Drafting rate should not exceed 50 percent of surface flow.

(3) Drafting should cease from when bypass surface flow drops below 10 

gallons per minute.

• Watershed-34: Water drafting sites located in non-fish-bearing waters only may 

include minor instream modification, such as fine sediment removal and building of 

board/plastic dams, at the discretion of the project fish biologist or hydrologist. All 

boards and plastic will be removed after use. Approaches may be rocked.

Water drafting sites located within fish-bearing stream segments may not be 

modified, except rocking the approach to prevent sedimentation.

BMP 2.8 – (National Core BMP Road-7 Stream Crossings): Objective: Avoid, minimize, 

or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources when constructing, 

reconstructing, or maintaining temporary and permanent waterbody crossings.

Implementation: Project design features developed to minimize negative effects include:

• Watershed-26: Existing low water crossings where forest transportation system roads 

cross perennial or intermittent streams will have temporary stream crossings installed 

for forest product removal, as approved by the project fisheries biologist. Installation 

and removal will be seasonally restricted as crossing will be installed during the 

operating season only and removed prior to end of the operating season of use. No 

project related non-passenger vehicles will cross the stream at these locations when/if 
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

230

the temporary stream crossing is not in place. Project-related passenger vehicle use 

will be monitored and suspended if resource damage is likely to occur from continued 

use.

BMP 2.11 – Equipment Refueling and Servicing BMP 2.8 – (National Core BMP Road10 Equipment Refueling and Servicing): Objective: Prevent fuels, lubricants, cleaners, and 

other harmful materials from discharging into nearby surface waters or infiltrating through 

soils to contaminate groundwater resources. Implementation: Project design features 

developed to minimize negative effects include:

• Watershed 22: Fueling and servicing of vehicles used for proposed activities will be 

done outside of hydrologic riparian reserve except at designated landings in locations 

where most disconnected from water resources.

A spill containment kit will be in place where refueling and servicing take place. 

Report spills and initiate appropriate clean-up action in accordance with applicable 

state and federal laws, rules and regulations. The forest hazardous materials 

coordinator’s name and phone number shall be available to Forest Service personnel 

who administer or manage activities utilizing petroleum-powered equipment.

In the occurrence of a spill which may affect listed aquatic species, NOAA Fisheries 

will be notified for emergency consultation.

BMP 2.13 – Erosion Control Plan (National Core BMPs Fac-2 Facility Construction 

and Stormwater Control, Road-3 Road Construction and Reconstruction, Road-4 Road 

Operations and Maintenance, and Road-7 Stream Crossings): Objective: Effectively 

limit and mitigate erosion and sedimentation from any ground-disturbing activities, through 

planning prior to commencement of project activity, and through project management and 

administration during project implementation. Implementation: An Erosion Control Plan will 

be followed.

BMP 5.2 - Slope Limitations for Mechanical Equipment Operation (National Core 

BMPs Veg-2 Erosion Prevention and Control, Veg-4 Grand-Based Skidding and 

Yarding Operations, and Veg-8 Mechanical Site Treatment): Objective: To reduce gully 

and sheet erosion and associated sediment production by limiting tractor use.

Implementation: See BMP 1.9 (Project Design Feature Watershed-4) for slope limitations on 

mechanical equipment.

BMP 5.5 - Disposal of Organic Debris: Objective: To prevent gully and surface erosion 

with associated reduction in sediment production and turbidity during and after treatment.

Implementation: Project design features developed to minimize negative effects include:

• Watershed-2: Post treatment soil cover will range from 50-80 percent depending on 

slope steepness, soil texture, and fuel reduction treatments.

• Watershed-3: Maintain existing coarse woody debris by having ground-based 

equipment avoid the larger diameter woody debris as much as practical.

BMP 5.6 - Soil Moisture Limitations for Mechanical Equipment Operations: Objective:

To prevent compaction, rutting, and gullying, with resultant sediment production and 
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

231

turbidity. Implementation: See BMP 1.5 (Project Design Feature Watershed-1) for Wet 

Weather Operating Standards.

BMP 6.1 – Fire and Fuel Management Activities (National Core BMP Fire-1 Wildland 

Fire Management Planning): Objective: To reduce public and private losses and 

environmental impacts which result from wildfires and/or subsequent flooding and erosion 

by reducing or managing the frequency, intensity, and extent of wildfire. Implementation:

The District Fuel/Fire department helped determined acceptable levels of slash to retain on 

the site following harvest activities and also to identify areas and methods to remove standing 

slash of a sub merchantable size, that otherwise would create an unacceptable fire risk.

BMP 6.2 – Consideration of Water Quality in Formulating Fire Prescriptions (National 

Core BMP Fre-2 Use of Prescribed Fire): Objective: To provide for water-quality 

protection while achieving the management objectives through the use of prescribed fire. 

Implementation: See BMP 5.5 (Project Design Feature Watershed-2).

BMP 6.3 – Protection of Water Quality from Prescribed Burning Effects (National 

Core BMP Fre-2 Use of Prescribed Fire): Objective: To maintain soil productivity; 

minimize erosion; and minimize ash, sediment, nutrients, and debris from entering water 

bodies. Implementation: Project design features developed to minimize negative effects 

include:

• Watershed-35: Ignition of underburns will generally not occur in riparian reserves, 

except to minimize the potential for burning material to roll down into a riparian 

reserve that would increase the potential for moderate or high intensity burns. Ignition

will generally occur outside of riparian reserves (in upland areas) to avoid possibility 

of drip torch fuel entering stream courses. Fire will be allowed to back into riparian 

reserves to allow for a low intensity fire.

• Watershed-36: Restrictions for hand pile construction: (1) Place in a checkerboard 

pattern whenever possible (not one pile directly above another); (2) Hand piles must 

be small in size, 6 feet or less in diameter; (3) No hand piles within 15 feet of any 

perennial or intermittent stream channel; and (4) Between 15 and 30 feet, hand piles 

may be constructed if the following conditions exist: (a) not granitic soils, (b) slope is 

less than 35 percent, or (c) ground cover is greater than 50 percent. If the condition 

cannot be met, then slash should be lopped and scattered.

• Watershed-37: Burning hand piles within Riparian Reserves (see Watershed-36 for 

hand pile construction description): (1) If perennial streams are greater than 1 foot in 

width, only hand piles greater than 30 feet from the channel may be burned; (2) If 

intermittent and small (less than 1 foot in width) perennial streams, hand piles greater 

than 15 feet from the channel may be burned.

• Watershed-38: For underburning, construction of handlines in riparian reserves closer 

than 25 feet to a watercourse shall be avoided where practical. Handline construction 

in riparian vegetation shall be avoided where practical. Handlines will be mitigated 

(waterbarred and covered with organic material) immediately following prescribed 

burning, when safe to do so.

• Watershed-39: When underburning in riparian reserves, at least 90 percent of the 

large woody debris will not be consumed, both standing and on the ground.
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

232

This page intentionally left blank
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

233

APPENDIX E: LEGACY SEDIMENT SITE INVENTORY

Table E-1: Legacy Sediment Site Inventory Chart

Note: Gray highlight = hydrologic stabilization, and Bold* = potential stormproofing

Site ID 

(Road 

Number 

and Mile 

Post)

Fill 

Volume

Overall 

Rating 

(rating 

and 

range)

Description of Current Condition Required Work, Notes on Treatment

45N04X -

0.52 344

34 -

MediumHigh

Pipe function and fill in place. But has 

undersized culvert and diversion 

potential.

Replace pipe and install critical dip.

45N04X -

0.93 121

23-

MediumLow

Ephemeral swale crossing. Some fill 

eroded and active erosion. Remove fill.

45N04X -

1.07 367

27-

MediumLow

Ephemeral swale diverted by road 50 

feet. Slight scour on old road surface 

where flow exits. Outboard fill eroded 

but stable.

Remove fill and remove diversion 

potential.

45N08X -

0.10 200

35-

MediumHigh

Insloped road design has propagated 

a chronic gully for 100 feet. Could lose 

whole road segment in the long term. 

Berm exists on outboard side.

Stormproof road, provide outslope for 

proper drainage.

45N08X -

0.22 24 14- Low Small swale crosses. Active erosion. Install critical dip.

45N08X -

0.48 200

35-

MediumHigh

Insloped road design has propagated 

a chronic gully for 100 feet. Could lose 

whole road segment in the long term. 

Berm exists on outboard side.

Stormproof road, provide outslope for 

proper drainage.

45N08X -

0.58 200

35-

MediumHigh

Insloped road design has propagated 

a chronic gully for 100 feet. Could lose 

whole road segment in the long term. 

Berm exists on outboard side.

Stormproof road, provide outslope for 

proper drainage.

45N08X.1 

- 0.08 100

25-

MediumLow

Ephemeral stream crossing 

unauthorized route. Active erosion. 

Fill.

Hydrologically stabilize and remove fill.

45N08X.1 

- 0.10 203

19-

MediumLow

Unauthorized route with trees growing 

in fill. Ephemeral stream crosses 

without a culvert. Portion of fill has 

been removed from runoff with alluvial 

deposits. Rest of fill still in place.

Hydrologically stabilize and remove fill.

45N08X.1 

- 0.26 213

25-

MediumLow

Ephemeral stream crossing old 

unauthorized route. Portion of fill 

removed by chronic erosion. Some fill 

left.

Hydrologically stabilize and remove fill.

45N08X.1 

- 0.35 200

20-

MediumLow

Ephemeral stream crosses without 

culvert. Portion of fill removed, but fill 

still in place.

Hydrologically stabilize and remove fill.

45N08X.1 

- 0.42 284

19-

MediumLow

Ephemeral stream without culvert. Fill 

still in place though some has been 

eroded.

Hydrologically stabilize and remove fill.

45N08X.1 

- 0.52 175

19-

MediumLow

Unauthorized route mostly blown out 

at this stream crossing. About 1/2 fill 

remaining. Still some active erosion.

Hydrologically stabilize and remove fill.

45N08X.1 

- 0.62 100

25-

MediumLow

Unauthorized route captures runoff in 

several locations causing fill failures 

and outboard fill gully.

Hydrologically stabilize.
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

234

Site ID 

(Road 

Number 

and Mile 

Post)

Fill 

Volume

Overall 

Rating 

(rating 

and 

range)

Description of Current Condition Required Work, Notes on Treatment

45N08X.1 

- 0.78 225

20-

MediumLow

Spring flow diverted. Stable currently, 

but could saturate fill and cause 

failure.

Hydrologically stabilize. Provide proper 

drainage for fill.

45N08X.1 

- 0.82 168

26-

MediumLow

Bed of unauthorized route is saturated 

by springs with active diversion of 

ephemeral stream crossing above. 

Route has sliver fills in headwall of 

steep intermittent stream.

Hydrologically stabilize. Remove fill. 

Rebuild stream and spring drainage.

45N08X.1 

- 0.83 224

26-

MediumLow

Intermittent stream with most fill 

remaining. No active erosion. Hydrologically stabilize.

45N28 30 15- Low Rill on road surface over 200 feet. 

Caused by insloped road design.

Outslope road surface to provide proper 

drainage for road surface runoff.

45N28 10 15- Low Rill on road surface over 200 feet. 

Caused by insloped road design.

Outslope road surface to provide proper 

drainage for road surface runoff.

45N28 10 15- Low Rill on road surface over 200 feet. 

Caused by insloped road design.

Outslope road surface to provide proper 

drainage for road surface runoff.

45N28 10 15- Low Rill on road surface over 200 feet. 

Caused by insloped road design.

Outslope road surface to provide proper 

drainage for road surface runoff.

45N28 10 15- Low Rill on road surface over 200 feet. 

Caused by insloped road design.

Outslope road surface to provide proper 

drainage for road surface runoff.

45N28 10 15- Low Rill on road surface over 200 feet. 

Caused by insloped road design.

Outslope road surface to provide proper 

drainage for road surface runoff.

45N28 10 15- Low Rill on road surface over 200 feet. 

Caused by insloped road design.

Outslope road surface to provide proper 

drainage for road surface runoff.

45N33X -

0.05 10 15- Low

Intermittent stream crossing in ford. 

Not armored, so small road surface 

scouring.

Armor ford.

45N33X -

0.22 10 15- Low

Intermittent stream crossing in ford. 

Not armored, so small road surface 

scouring.

Armor ford.

45N39 -

2.66* 4588

41-

MediumHigh

Intermittent stream crossing with large 

fill and diversion potential.

Reduce fill and eliminate diversion 

potential.

45N39 -

2.73* 4575

42-

MediumHigh

Intermittent stream crossing with large 

fill and diversion potential.

Reduce fill and eliminate diversion 

potential.

45N39 -

3.91* 869

31-

MediumHighDiversion potential only. Construct dip.

45N39 -

5.33* 4118

41-

MediumHigh

Stream flows into inboard ditch, 

crosses in ditch relief culvert 50' below 

crossing. Pipe is obviously undercut. 

Diversion potential.

Create proper crossing location for 

stream including a fill reduction and 

critical dip.

45N39 -

5.35* 27

20-

MediumLowCross drain with diversion potential. Construct dip.

45N41 -

0.28* 84 11- Low Ephemeral stream crossing in ford. 

Gully in road. Armor.

45N41 -

0.69* 151 16- Low

Small ephemeral channel crossings in 

unarmored ford. Slight outboard fill 

erosion.

Armor.

45N41 -

0.81* 853

26-

MediumLow

Small ephemeral channel. No active 

erosion. Fully vegetated. Not much fill 

at risk, but still could be chronic 

source.

Armor.
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

235

Site ID 

(Road 

Number 

and Mile 

Post)

Fill 

Volume

Overall 

Rating 

(rating 

and 

range)

Description of Current Condition Required Work, Notes on Treatment

45N41 -

0.90* 266

22-

MediumLow

Intermittent stream crossing in ford. 

Small head-cut in outboard fill. Armor ford.

45N41 -

0.92* 74

20-

MediumLow

Diversion of swale 10' above site, exits 

road. Small rill in road surface. Armor rill.

45N41 -

0.96* 30

25-

MediumLow

Road surface drainage exits at point 

creating outboard fill gully. Road 

insloped around turn.

Outslope road surface.

45N41 -

1.10* 100

30-

MediumLow

Ephemeral stream crossing in ford. 

Outboard erosion. Whole fill in danger.

Install proper pipe crossing or armored 

ford. Reduce fill.

45N41 -

1.13* 182

24-

MediumLow

Swale crossing in ford. Small rill on 

road surface. Armor.

45N41 -

1.14* 108

24-

MediumLowRill on road. Outslope.

45N41 -

1.21* 20

20-

MediumLowRill on road Outslope.

45N41 -

1.25* 40

20-

MediumLow

Rill on road for 300 feet. Due to road 

surface runoff captured from insloped 

road design.

Outslope.

45N41 -

1.35* 186 17- Low Ephemeral stream crossing in ford. 

Active outboard fill erosion. Armor crossing.

45N41 -

1.45* 287

18-

MediumLow

Small ephemeral stream crossing in 

ford. No erosion currently. Armor crossing.

45N41 -

1.72* 74 13- Low Rill on road surface from insloped road 

design. Outslope road.

45N41 -

1.81* 155 17- Low Rill on road surface from insloped road 

design. Outslope road.

45N41 -

1.91* 197 17- Low

Ephemeral stream crossing in ford. 

Small gully in road surface and 

outboard fill.

Armor ford crossing.

45N41 -

2.00* 165

22-

MediumLow

Ephemeral stream crossing in ford. 

Small gully in road surface and 

outboard fill.

Armor

45N41 -

2.02* 77 15- Low

Ephemeral stream crossing in ford. 

Small gully in road surface and 

outboard fill.

Armor

45N41 -

2.15* 167

19-

MediumLow

Ephemeral stream crossing in ford. 

Small gully in road surface and 

outboard fill.

Armor

45N41 -

2.35* 185

19-

MediumLow

Ephemeral stream crossing in ford. 

Small gully in road surface and 

outboard fill.

Armor

45N41 -

2.43* 10 15- Low Rill on road surface from diverted 

swale crossing above at 2.46. Outslope road surface.

45N41 -

2.46* 108

25-

MediumLowDiverting to 45N41 - 2.43. Create dip. Armor.

45N42 -

0.05 41

19-

MediumLow

Medium sized intermittent stream 

cutting through outboard fill. Not a lot 

of fill in crossing.

Remove fill or armor.
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

236

Site ID 

(Road 

Number 

and Mile 

Post)

Fill 

Volume

Overall 

Rating 

(rating 

and 

range)

Description of Current Condition Required Work, Notes on Treatment

45N42 -

0.28 193

23-

MediumLow

Ephemeral stream crossing. Slow 

stable cutting through outboard fill. Stormproof or armor.

45N42 -

0.58 253

35-

MediumHigh

Ephemeral stream slowly cutting 

through outboard fill. Active erosion in 

crossing. Large fill.

Stormproof or armor.

45N42 -

1.00 683

40-

MediumHigh

Ephemeral stream slowly cutting 

through outboard fill. Active erosion in 

crossing. Large fill.

Stormproof or armor.

45N42 -

1.20 107

18-

MediumLow

Intermittent stream cutting through fill 

slowly. Appears stable but a lot of fill 

left.

Stormproof or armor.

45N42 -

1.25 276 17- Low Intermittent stream cutting through fill. Appears stable but a lot of fill. Stormproof or armor.

45N42 -

1.26 126 17- Low

Intermittent stream has blown through 

fill. Head-cut in creek above moving 

slowly upstream. Not a lot of fill in 

crossing. Conifers in road bed.

Stormproof.

45N43 -

0.08 30 16- Low

Road/off-highway vehicle trail route 

crosses swale: runoff is being routed 

toward over-steepened stream banks.

Engineering fix has not been proposed 

as of yet.

45N43 -

0.14 566

30-

MediumLow

Lots of fill in intermittent stream, but no 

defined channel or diversion potential 

and no active erosion.

Low priority.

45N47 -

0.69* 525

43-

MediumHigh

Pipe functional with no field evidence 

of oversized pipe, but diversion 

potential.

Construct dip.

45N47 -

0.85* 569

34-

MediumHighPipe functional, but diversion potential. Construct dip.

45N47 -

1.19* 310

42-

MediumHigh

Functional stable pipe with diversion 

potential, not a lot of field evidence of 

undersized pipe, but very undercut by 

calculations.

Install Q100 pipe and critical dip.

45N47 -

1.34* 372

38-

MediumHigh

Two pipes currently. Primary pipe is 

24", very overloaded. 48" pipe higher 

in fill. Slight diversion potential.

Replace pipes and install critical dip.

45N53 -

0.21 149

23-

MediumLow

Rocky ford crossing small swale. 

Small rill in road surface. Armor ford.

45N53 -

0.40 108

20-

MediumLow

Rocky ford crossing of small 

intermittent stream. Small rill in road 

surface.

Armor crossing.

45N53 -

0.50 145

20-

MediumLowRill on road 100' x 1' x 2'. Outslope road segment.

45N53 -

0.57 78 16- Low Rill in road draining to dip for ephemeral stream crossing (400'). Outslope to hydrologically disconnect.

45N53 -

0.72 196

25-

MediumLow

Intermittent stream crossing in dip not 

deep enough. Diverts down road 200'. 

Also, rill in road above contributing to 

crossing.

Deepen/armor crossing and outslope.

45N53 -

0.83 144

26-

MediumLowRill on road 100' from swale crossing. Deepen dip, armor. Outslope.
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

237

Site ID 

(Road 

Number 

and Mile 

Post)

Fill 

Volume

Overall 

Rating 

(rating 

and 

range)

Description of Current Condition Required Work, Notes on Treatment

45N53 -

0.84 96

20-

MediumLow

Existing dip nearly overwhelmed with 

sediment and flow. Deepen and armor dip.

45N53 -

0.90 6 15- Low Rill in road 150 feet, exits in rolling dip at point. Dip filled with sediment. Outslope and reestablishes dip.

45N53 -

1.15 265

35-

MediumHigh

Intermittent stream crossing in ford. 

Rill on road surface. Diversion 

potential exists in large event.

Install armored ford crossing.

45N53 -

1.98 41

35-

MediumHigh

Intermittent stream crossing in ford. 

Gully forming as stream cuts through 

fill.

Armor ford, stormproof, or install pipe.

45N53 -

2.16 50

25-

MediumLow

Fill in crossing but no flow, ephemeral 

drainage.

Engineering fix has not been proposed 

as of yet.

45N53 -

2.60 100

25-

MediumLow

McKinley Mine, old adit producing 

flow, flow diverting down old rail cart 

trail, ponds, then runs down steep 

cutbank and across road. Saturating 

road fill but no active erosion.

Engineering fix has not been proposed 

as of yet.

45N88 -

1.81 136

24-

MediumLow

Road used by off-highway vehicles 

only but drivable. Ephemeral stream 

crossing with diversion potential. 

Some fill already gone.

Construct critical dip.

45N88.1 -

0.44 35

20-

MediumLow

Small 8" culvert has plugged inlet. 

Raw eroding fill slopes from 

unauthorized route surface runoff and 

active overtopping. Channel is incising 

and unstable.

Construct an armored ford, outslope.

45N88.1 -

0.66 80 14- Low Small ephemeral stream crossing with small erosion. Remove fill, hydrologically stabilize.

45N88.1 -

0.83 43

18-

MediumLow

Intermittent stream crossing with some 

active erosion. Hydrologically stabilize.

45N88.1 -

0.92 47

20-

MediumLow

Large old ditch crossing off-highway 

vehicle trail. Some erosion in ditch. Remove fill, hydrologically stabilize.

45N88.1 -

1.00 10 15- Low Gully on unauthorized route surface from off-highway vehicle use.

Hydrologically stabilize unauthorized 

route.

45N88.1 -

1.02 29

20-

MediumLow

Crossing is undersized and has 

diversion potential; though, very low 

flow.

Remove fill, hydrologically stabilize.

45N88.1 -

1.05 30

25-

MediumLow

Rills on unauthorized route surface 

due to insloped road design. Hydrologically stabilize and outslope.

45N88.1 -

1.28 56 13- Low Small creek crossing cutting through fill (half gone) Remove fill, hydrologically stabilize.

45N88.1 -

1.39 48

20-

MediumLow

Very low flow ephemeral stream 

crossing with fill remaining. Remove fill, hydrologically stabilize.

45N88.1 -

1.40 58 18- Low Very low flow intermittent stream with fill remaining. Remove fill, hydrologically stabilize.

45N88.1 -

1.48 41

35-

MediumHigh

Larger intermittent stream crossing. 

Diversion potential, early active 

diversion. Active cutting through fill, 

though populated with trees.

Remove fill, hydrologically stabilize.
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

238

Site ID 

(Road 

Number 

and Mile 

Post)

Fill 

Volume

Overall 

Rating 

(rating 

and 

range)

Description of Current Condition Required Work, Notes on Treatment

45N88.1 -

1.55 452

35-

MediumHighChannel cutting through fill. Remove fill, hydrologically stabilize.

45N88.1

C - 0.08 84

20-

MediumLow

Intermittent drainage with diversion 

potential and small head-cut, but 

actively eroding through fill. Only 20 

cubic yards left.

Remove fill, hydrologically stabilize.

45N88.1

C - 0.09 17 12- Low Gully on unauthorized route bed from ephemeral crossing. Remove fill, hydrologically stabilize.

45N88.2 -

2.52 64

20-

MediumLow

Intermittent stream diverts 500' 

forming rill. Actively eroding fill.

Remove fill or create pipe crossing and 

outslope.

45N88.2 -

2.55 239

23-

MediumLow

Intermittent stream crossing with only 

10 cubic yards of fill in crossing with 

slight erosion. Also, sediment from 

creek being deposited on trail. 

Diversion potential.

Remove fill, hydrologically stabilize.

45N88.2 -

2.61 30 15- Low Diverted intermittent stream creating rill on trail.

Outslope, hydrologically stabilize. 

Ensure stream doesn't divert.

45N88.3 -

0.50 63

35-

MediumHigh

Stream crossing has incised through 

fill with raw fill slopes remaining.

Pull back fill and stabilize stream 

channel.

45N88.3 -

0.66 170

35-

MediumHigh

Ephemeral stream crossing has 

incised through fill with raw fill slopes 

remaining.

Remove fill, hydrologically stabilize.

45N88.3 -

0.78 176

35-

MediumHigh

Ephemeral stream crossing has 

incised through fill with active erosion. Remove fill, hydrologically stabilize.

46N16 -

0.47 500

35-

MediumHigh

Large fill in intermittent stream. Pipe 

inlet half crushed, evidence of recent 

active overtopping and diversion.

Replace pipe and install dip.

46N16 -

0.56 500

30-

MediumLow

24" culvert not in road sediment site 

inventory. Rust line low. No field 

evidence of undersized pipe, 

functional pipe; but diversion potential.

Install critical dip.

46N16 -

1.24 11 15- Low

Rill on road surface exits before 

switchback causing gully on outboard 

fill and rill on road below.

Outslope to cut off road runoff causing 

gully.

46N16 -

1.50 10 15- Low Ephemeral channel from road above causing rill on road. Armor dip.

46N16.1 100

35-

MediumHigh

Old dozer line created an unofficial 

user created unauthorized route up 

nose of ridge. Gully and rill erosion.

Block off-highway vehicle use on 

unauthorized route to allow vegetation 

to reestablish and stabilize erosion. 

Install water bars for rehabilitation.

46N16A -

0.62 60

20-

MediumLow

Overland flow concentrated in 

outboard rut and causing rut to 

deepen into a gully.

Outslope.

46N18 -

1.78 25

21-

MediumLow

Rocky ford crossing of perennial 

stream. Not well armored. Currently 

stable, but large event could cause 

erosion.

Armor ford crossing.

46N22 -

0.28* 561

31-

MediumHigh

Functional crossing and pipe but 

diversion potential. Install critical dip.
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

239

Site ID 

(Road 

Number 

and Mile 

Post)

Fill 

Volume

Overall 

Rating 

(rating 

and 

range)

Description of Current Condition Required Work, Notes on Treatment

46N22 -

0.66* 30 15- Low

Small cut bank gully head-cutting 

through granitic soil above. Rill on 

road.

Stabilize.

46N22 -

1.01* 613

35-

MediumHigh

Culvert not undersized. Not bad 

diversion potential either. Could use critical dip.

46N22 -

1.49* 754

30-

MediumLow

Inlet pool of culvert totally filled in by 

aggraded material. Whole fill is intact 

but subsurface flow active under road. 

Pipe is an undersized culvert.

Replace culvert.

46N22 -

2.18* 318

37-

MediumHigh

Culvert inlet half blocked with 

sediment. Also, entire ditch line is filled 

and chronic rill erosion on whole road 

segment.

Provide maintenance or outslope road 

segment.

46N22 -

2.95* 647

35-

MediumHighFunctional pipe but diversion potential. Install dip.

46N22 -

3.52* 533

41-

MediumHigh

Pipe functional with no field evidence 

of undersized pipe.

Install critical dip and fill reduction if 

possible. Install inlet apron to increase 

capacity.

46N22 -

3.69* 30

25-

MediumLow

Cut bank land slide, lots of fill on road 

that is sloughing down steep inner 

gorge into creek.

Try to stabilize cut slope.

46N22 -

3.75* 707

41-

MediumHigh

Undersized culvert with diversion 

potential as well. Though no field 

evidence of undersized pipe, 

calculations are enough to warrant 

replacement.

Replace culvert and install critical dip.

46N22 -

3.84* 340

39-

MediumHigh

Pipe okay but there's diversion

potential. Install critical dip.

46N22 -

4.07* 300

37-

MediumHigh

Functional intermittent stream crossing 

with slight diversion potential. No field 

evidence of undersized pipe, but 

calculations indicate undersized 

culvert.

Install critical dip and inlet apron if pipe 

is still in good shape. If not, replace pipe 

as well.

46N22 -

4.25* 852

40-

MediumHigh

Small intermittent stream crossing in 

old pipe that is buried. Appears that 

subsurface flow is active under the 

road. Diversion potential as well.

Replace pipe and install dip.

46N22 -

5.09 301

28-

MediumLow

Small intermittent stream likely 

undersized culvert. Some field 

evidence of undersized pipe.

Replace pipe and install dip.

46N22 -

6.30 350

39-

MediumHigh

Pipe very undersized on large 

intermittent stream. No current erosion 

in crossing. Pipe has a lot of field 

evidence of being undersized.

Reduce fill over crossing, replace pipe, 

install dip.

46N22 -

6.35 416

44-

MediumHigh

Intermittent stream crossing with 

diversion potential. Pipe very 

undersized by calculations, but not 

much field evidence of undersized 

pipe. Rust at about at 1/3 capacity.

Replace pipe and install critical dip.

46N22 -

6.43 45

35-

MediumHigh

Small ephemeral stream crossing with 

functional pipe but diversion potential. Install critical dip.
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

240

Site ID 

(Road 

Number 

and Mile 

Post)

Fill 

Volume

Overall 

Rating 

(rating 

and 

range)

Description of Current Condition Required Work, Notes on Treatment

46N22 -

7.05 403

30-

MediumLow

Undersized pipe with crushed inlet. No 

diversion potential. Replace pipe.

46N22.5 -

0.06 10 15- Low

Low energy flow off 46N22 as enters 

unauthorized route, runs down route 

creating rill, exits in two dips.

Hydrologically stabilize, outslope.

46N22.5 -

0.16 10 15- Low Rill in unauthorized route. Hydrologically stabilize.

46N22.7 -

0.10 10 15- Low Runoff collects on landing, exits landing creating small gully. Hydrologically stabilize.

46N24 15 15- Low Rill on road surface. Outslope.

46N24 15 15- Low Rill on road surface. Outslope.

46N24 15 15- Low Rill on road surface. Outslope.

46N24 15 15- Low Rill on road surface. Outslope.

46N24 -

0.19* 30

20-

MediumLow

Unauthorized route runoff causing 

gully on 46N24 road below.

Hydrologically stabilize unauthorized 

route/block.

46N24 -

0.42* 20 15- Low Rill on road surface from insloped trail 

design. Outslope.

46N24 -

0.47* 10 15- Low Rill on road surface from insloped road 

design (150x2x2). Outslope.

46N24 -

0.56* 20 15- Low Rill on road surface from insloped road 

design (300 x 1 x 2). Outslope.

46N24 -

0.62* 20 15- Low Rill on road surface 100 feet. Outslope.

46N24 -

0.70* 20 15- Low Rill in dip. Armor.

46N24 -

0.78* 20 15- Low Rill on road surface. Outslope.

46N24 -

0.95* 15 15- Low Rill on road surface (500'x1'x2'). Outslope.

46N24 -

1.23* 124

40-

MediumHigh

Intermittent stream crossing. Pipe very 

undersized. Slight diversion potential 

as well which was active when 

inventoried.

Install larger pipe or adequate ford.

46N24 -

1.53* 10 15- Low Rill on road surface. Outslope.

46N24 -

1.56* 19 15- Low Rill on road surface 500 feet. Outslope.

46N24 -

1.70* 41 13- Low Rill on road surface 50 feet. Outslope.

46N24 -

1.74* 76

20-

MediumLow

Ephemeral stream crossing forming a 

gully. Armor ford crossing.

46N24 -

1.78* 40 15- Low

Rill on road surface with through-cut 

trail section. Rill 500 feet long, 2' D X 

2' W.

Provide functional drainage.

46N24.4 -

0.54 31 12- Low Rill on trail surface from intermittent stream crossing. Armor.

46N24.4 -

0.62 125

18-

MediumLow

Rill on trail surface from intermittent 

stream crossing. Armor.
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

241

Site ID 

(Road 

Number 

and Mile 

Post)

Fill 

Volume

Overall 

Rating 

(rating 

and 

range)

Description of Current Condition Required Work, Notes on Treatment

46N24.4 -

0.64 157

22-

MediumLow

Rill on trail surface from intermittent 

stream crossing. Armor.

46N24.4 -

0.72 167 17- Low Rill on trail surface from intermittent stream crossing. Armor.

46N24.4 -

0.85 188

18-

MediumLow

Rill on trail surface from intermittent 

stream crossing. Armor.

46N24.4 -

1.02 60 15- Low Ponding on intermittent stream crossing. Some active erosion. Outslope and armor.

46N24.4 -

1.12 45

18-

MediumLow

Ponding on intermittent stream 

crossing. Some erosion. Outslope and armor.

46N24.4 -

1.30 86 16- Low Ponding on intermittent stream crossing. Some erosion. Outslope and armor.

46N24.4 -

1.63 50 17- Low Intermittent stream crossing with some active erosion. Armor.

46N24.4 -

1.71 30 16- Low

Lots of fill in crossing but trees 

stabilizing fill, some chronic surface 

erosion of fill.

Armor.

46N24.5 -

0.15 23

19-

MediumLow

Small intermittent stream crossing 

trail. Some erosion of fill. Armor.

46N24.5 -

0.25 96 12- Low Ephemeral stream crossing in ford with some erosion of fill. Armor.

46N24.5 -

0.37 189

19-

MediumLow

Ephemeral stream crossing in ford 

with some erosion of fill. Armor.

46N24.5 -

0.57 47 15- Low Intermittent stream crossing in ford with some erosion of fill. Armor.

46N24.6 -

0.10 276

35-

MediumHigh

Intermittent stream crossing in ford. 

No proper drainage structure. 

Diversion potential.

Install pipe or armored ford.

46N24.6 -

0.12 20 15- Low Rills on trail surface 400' x 2'. Outslope.

46N24.6 -

0.60 88

25-

MediumLow

Ephemeral stream crossing in dip. 

Slight erosion. Some natural armor.

Add more armor.

46N24.6 -

0.75 41

30-

MediumLow

Undersized pipe functional, slight 

diversion potential over small 

perennial stream. Not much fill in 

crossing.

Replace pipe install critical dip.

46N30 -

0.08 20 15- Low Rill on road 300 feet. Outslope.

46N30 -

0.19 70

20-

MediumLow

Rill on road 300' x 3' x 1'. Sediment 

going directly into intermittent channel. Outslope, provide proper drainage.

46N30 -

0.35 20 15- Low Rill on road 300 feet. Outslope.

7H002.5 -

0.01 100

30-

MediumLow

Intermittent stream crosses on 

unauthorized route. Culvert 

overloaded and actively overtopping. 

No diversion potential.

Hydrologically stabilize culvert, establish 

natural stream dimensions. Remove all 

fill.

7H01.3 -

0.39 70

25-

MediumLow

Rill along unauthorized route surface 

for 950 feet. Hydrologically stabilize.
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

242

Site ID 

(Road 

Number 

and Mile 

Post)

Fill 

Volume

Overall 

Rating 

(rating 

and 

range)

Description of Current Condition Required Work, Notes on Treatment

7J001.3 -

0.13 508

45-

MediumHigh

Large flattened landing-like area next 

to perennial stream. Intermittent 

stream flows through center of feature 

before entering perennial stream. 

Active erosion and gully.

Hydrologically stabilize and remove fill. 

Reestablish natural drainage and 

channel characteristics.

7J001.7 -

0.01 40

30-

MediumLow

Gully on unauthorized route bed 

(50'x5'x5').

Hydrologically stabilize unauthorized 

route to restore drainage.

7J001.7 -

0.11 40

35-

MediumHigh

Old dysfunctional culvert crossing 

intermittent stream. Garbage 

everywhere. Fill still in crossing.

Remove pipe, reestablish natural 

stream characteristics.

7J001.7 -

0.16 30

24-

MediumLow

Fill and garbage in stream channel. 

Active erosion of fill. Hydrologically stabilize.

7J001.7 -

0.17 300

45-

MediumHigh

Stream diverted around large earthen 

dam in floodplain and active channel. 

Active erosion.

Above dam, seems to be large filled in 

sediment pond that is revegetating. May 

be unfeasible to remove dam. So 

possibly just armor the diverted stream 

channel to slow erosion.

7J001.99

A - 0.09 15 15- Low Slow erosion through fill in intermittent 

stream channel. Armor or pull back fill.

7J001.99

A - 0.31 57 17- Low Slow erosion through fill by intermittent 

stream. Remove fill.

7J002.1 -

0.20 10 15- Low

Ford crossing small intermittent

stream on unauthorized route. 

Outboard fill with active erosion.

Hydrologically stabilize, remove fill.

7J002.1 -

0.40 30

35-

MediumHigh

Significant rutted gully on 

unauthorized route surface. Hydrologically stabilize, remove fill.

7J002.3 -

0.38 100

25-

MediumLow

24" culvert crossing intermittent 

stream channel. Pipe is functional, 

with no field evidence of undersized 

pipe. Most likely not undersized 

culvert, and no diversion potential.

Remove pipe, hydrologically stabilize 

crossing.

7J002.4 -

0.05 142

25-

MediumLow

Small perennial stream crossing in 

functional 36" culvert with low rust line 

but evidence of high scour. Probably 

not an undersized culvert, but still on 

unauthorized route.

Remove pipe, hydrologically stabilize 

crossing.

7J01.3 -

0.05 155

35-

MediumHigh

Rill runs into gully, enters county road 

inboard ditch. Gully is 700 feet long, 3 

x 2 feet deep/wide.

Remove insloped road design. 

Hydrologically stabilize take off. 

Recontour.

7J01.3 -

0.49 60

35-

MediumHigh

Ford crossing intermittent stream with 

active diversion 30'. No erosion yet. 

Fill in crossing.

Remove fill, hydrologically stabilize.

7J031.10 

- 0.19 50

21-

MediumLow

Gully forming in dry floodplain terrace 

from flow off county road above. Remove flow from county road.

7J031.11 

- 0.16 70

25-

MediumLow

Long, shallow rill on unauthorized 

route 800 ' long.

Outslope, hydrologically stabilize 

unauthorized route.

7J031.11 

- 0.28 100

30-

MediumLow

Small earthen damn with small pipe. 

10 cubic yards gone over pipe but 100 

cubic yards remain.

Remove fill, hydrologically stabilize 

dam.
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

243

Site ID 

(Road 

Number 

and Mile 

Post)

Fill 

Volume

Overall 

Rating 

(rating 

and 

range)

Description of Current Condition Required Work, Notes on Treatment

7J031.11 

- 0.47 482

33-

MediumHigh

Erosion of fill. Lots of fill in channel. 

Some active erosion. Remove fill, hydrologically stabilize.

7J031.11 

- 0.49 1200

40-

MediumHigh

Lots of fill in channel with active headcut moving through fill. Remove fill, hydrologically stabilize.

7J031.11 

- 0.54 555

45-

MediumHigh

Earthen dam on intermittent channel. 

Dam is still fully in-tact and has a 

functional but very old culvert near the 

top developing a gully on unauthorized 

route. Banks raw below. Dam size (50' 

x 15' x 20').

Remove dam and culvert, pull back fill 

and stabilize stream channel.

7J031.11 

- 0.61 390

45-

MediumHigh

Flow from dam cutting through road fill 

in inner gorge of stream. Remove fill, hydrologically stabilize.

7J031.11 

- 0.64 30

28-

MediumLow

Road fill in inner gorge of high energy 

intermittent stream. Diversion 

potential. Much more fill lost if 

diverted.

Remove fill, hydrologically stabilize.

7J031.9 -

0.18 200

33-

MediumHigh

Intermittent stream overtops 

unauthorized route, diverts 30', exits 

route. Active erosion at exit.

Hydrologically stabilize/outslope.

7J031.9 -

0.28 412

33-

MediumHigh

Flow on unauthorized route exits in 

dip, creating outboard fill gully. Remove fill, hydrologically stabilize.

8J002.3 -

1 40

35-

MediumHigh

Intermittent stream crossing old mining 

road (unauthorized route). Active 

diversion 20 feet and gully where flow 

exits route. Old 18" pipe present but 

half filled with sediment.

Hydrologically stabilize pipe and remove 

all fill. Reestablish natural channel 

characteristics.

8J002.3 -

2 10 15- Low Rill on unauthorized route surface. Improve drainage.

8J002.3 -

3 50

20-

MediumLowGully on unauthorized route surface. Hydrologically stabilize and restore 

natural drainage.

8J002.3 -

4 60

25-

MediumLowGullies from unknown source. Engineering fix has not been proposed 

as of yet.

8J002.3 -

5 500

45-

MediumHigh

Several gullies converge on eroding 

ephemeral swale. Probably mine 

related. Appears to be old route 

crossing. Lots of exposed actively 

eroding decomposed granite soil. 100-

500 cubic yards eroded already.

Engineering fix has not been proposed 

as of yet.

8J002.3 -

6 10 15- Low

Unauthorized route goes into 

floodplain of intermittent stream, 

approach is eroding.

Hydrologically stabilize unauthorized 

route.

8J002.3 -

7 200

40-

MediumHigh

Head-cutting intermittent stream, 

moving toward what appears to be an 

old sediment holding pond full of 

sediment.

Hydrologically stabilize, remove all fill.

8J002.3 -

8 40

20-

MediumLow

Intermittent stream. Unauthorized 

route in stream for 300 feet. A lot of fill 

in stream. Appears to be old mine 

area.

Hydrologically stabilize unauthorized 

route.
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

244

Site ID 

(Road 

Number 

and Mile 

Post)

Fill 

Volume

Overall 

Rating 

(rating 

and 

range)

Description of Current Condition Required Work, Notes on Treatment

8J002.3A 

- 1 100

35-

MediumHigh

Old 18" culvert under 100 cubic yards 

of fill. Not stable.

Hydrologically stabilize crossing, 

remove pipe and all fill.

8J002.3B 

- 1 20

20-

MediumLow

Ephemeral swale flow causing gully in 

unauthorized route.

Hydrologically stabilize road, remove fill, 

reestablish natural drainage.

8J002.3B 

- 2 90

35-

MediumHigh

Gully on unauthorized route bed. 

Needs to be revegetated.

Reestablish natural drainage. Remove 

fill. Help to revegetate.

8J002.3B 

- 3 10 15- Low Gully on unauthorized route surface. Hydrologically stabilize.

HUM096 20 15- Low Rill on trail surface and sediment 

basins filled or filling.

Restore natural drainage. Armor 

crossings. Outslope. Maintain sediment 

basins.

HUM096 20 15- Low Rill on trail surface and sediment 

basins filled or filling.

Restore natural drainage. Armor 

crossings. Outslope. Maintain sediment 

basins.

HUM096 20 15- Low Rill on trail surface and sediment 

basins filled or filling.

Restore natural drainage. Armor 

crossings. Outslope. Maintain sediment 

basins.

HUM096 20 15- Low Rill on trail surface and sediment 

basins filled or filling.

Restore natural drainage. Armor 

crossings. Outslope. Maintain sediment 

basins.

HUM096 20 15- Low Rill on trail surface and sediment 

basins filled or filling.

Restore natural drainage. Armor 

crossings. Outslope. Maintain sediment 

basins.

HUM096 20 15- Low Rill on trail surface and sediment

basins filled or filling.

Restore natural drainage. Armor 

crossings. Outslope. Maintain sediment 

basins.

HUM096 20 15- Low Eroding ephemeral stream channel. Armor.

HUM096 20 15- Low Rill on trail surface and sediment 

basins filled or filling.

Restore natural drainage. Armor 

crossings. Outslope. Maintain sediment 

basins.

HUM096 20 15- Low Rill on trail surface and sediment 

basins filled or filling.

Restore natural drainage. Armor 

crossings. Outslope. Maintain sediment 

basins.

HUM096 20 15- Low Rill on trail surface and sediment 

basins filled or filling.

Restore natural drainage. Armor 

crossings. Outslope. Maintain sediment 

basins.

HUM096 20 15- Low Rill on trail surface and sediment 

basins filled or filling.

Restore natural drainage. Armor 

crossings. Outslope. Maintain sediment 

basins.

HUM097 20 15- Low Rill and gully erosion on ridgetop trail. 

Sediment has filled in turnouts.

Maintain sediment basins and outslope 

where possible. Otherwise, improve 

drainage in any way possible.

HUM097 10 15- Low Rill on trail. Outslope.

HUM098 20 15- Low Rill and gully erosion on ridgetop trail. 

Sediment has filled in turnouts.

Maintain sediment basins and outslope 

where possible. Otherwise, improve 

drainage in any way possible.

HUM098 20 15- Low Rill and gully erosion on ridgetop trail. 

Sediment has filled in turnouts.

Maintain sediment basins and outslope 

where possible. Otherwise, improve 

drainage in any way possible.

HUM098 20 15- Low Rill and gully erosion on ridgetop trail. 

Sediment has filled in turnouts.

Maintain sediment basins and outslope 

where possible. Otherwise, improve 

drainage in any way possible.
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

245

Site ID 

(Road 

Number 

and Mile 

Post)

Fill 

Volume

Overall 

Rating 

(rating 

and 

range)

Description of Current Condition Required Work, Notes on Treatment

HUM098 20 15- Low Rill and gully erosion on ridgetop trail. 

Sediment has filled in turnouts.

Maintain sediment basins and outslope 

where possible. Otherwise, improve 

drainage in any way possible.

HUM098 20 15- Low Rill and gully erosion on ridgetop trail. 

Sediment has filled in turnouts.

Maintain sediment basins and outslope 

where possible. Otherwise, improve 

drainage in any way possible.

HUM098 20 15- Low Rill and gully erosion on ridgetop trail. 

Sediment has filled in turnouts.

Maintain sediment basins and outslope 

where possible. Otherwise, improve 

drainage in any way possible.

HUM098 20 15- Low Rill and gully erosion on ridgetop trail. 

Sediment has filled in turnouts.

Maintain sediment basins and outslope 

where possible. Otherwise, improve 

drainage in any way possible.

HUM098 20 15- Low Rill and gully erosion on ridgetop trail. 

Sediment has filled in turnouts.

Maintain sediment basins and outslope 

where possible. Otherwise, improve 

drainage in any way possible.

HUM098 20 15- Low Rill and gully erosion on ridgetop trail. 

Sediment has filled in turnouts.

Maintain sediment basins and outslope 

where possible. Otherwise, improve 

drainage in any way possible.

HUM098 20 15- Low Rill and gully erosion on ridgetop trail. 

Sediment has filled in turnouts.

Maintain sediment basins and outslope 

where possible. Otherwise, improve 

drainage in any way possible.

HUM098 20 15- Low Rill and gully erosion on ridgetop trail. 

Sediment has filled in turnouts.

Maintain sediment basins and outslope 

where possible. Otherwise, improve 

drainage in any way possible.

HUM098 20 15- Low Rill and gully erosion on ridgetop trail. 

Sediment has filled in turnouts.

Maintain sediment basins and outslope 

where possible. Otherwise, improve 

drainage in any way possible.

HUM098 20 15- Low Rill and gully erosion on ridgetop trail. 

Sediment has filled in turnouts.

Maintain sediment basins and outslope 

where possible. Otherwise, improve 

drainage in any way possible.

HUM098 20 15- Low

Trail on toe of ridge, active rill and 

gully erosion with sediment catch 

basins filling and breaching.

Maintain sediment basins and outslope 

where possible. Otherwise, improve 

drainage in any way possible.

HUM099 20 15- Low

Trail on toe of ridge, active rill and 

gully erosion with sediment catch 

basins filling and breaching.

Maintain sediment basins and outslope 

where possible. Otherwise, improve 

drainage in any way possible.

HUM099 20 15- Low

Trail on toe of ridge, active rill and 

gully erosion with sediment catch 

basins filling and breaching.

Maintain sediment basins and outslope 

where possible. Otherwise, improve 

drainage in any way possible.

HUM099 20 15- Low

Trail on toe of ridge, active rill and 

gully erosion with sediment catch 

basins filling and breaching.

Maintain sediment basins and outslope 

where possible. Otherwise, improve 

drainage in any way possible.

HUM099 20 15- Low

Trail on toe of ridge, active rill and 

gully erosion with sediment catch 

basins filling and breaching.

Maintain sediment basins and outslope 

where possible. Otherwise, improve 

drainage in any way possible.

HUM099 20 15- Low

Trail on toe of ridge, active rill and 

gully erosion with sediment catch 

basins filling and breaching.

Maintain sediment basins and outslope 

where possible. Otherwise, improve 

drainage in any way possible.

HUM099 20 15- Low

Trail on toe of ridge, active rill and 

gully erosion with sediment catch 

basins filling and breaching.

Maintain sediment basins and outslope 

where possible. Otherwise, improve 

drainage in any way possible.

HUM099 20 15- Low

Trail on toe of ridge, active rill and 

gully erosion with sediment catch 

basins filling and breaching.

Maintain sediment basins and outslope 

where possible. Otherwise, improve 

drainage in any way possible.
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

246

Site ID 

(Road 

Number 

and Mile 

Post)

Fill 

Volume

Overall 

Rating 

(rating 

and 

range)

Description of Current Condition Required Work, Notes on Treatment

HUM099 20 15- Low

Trail on toe of ridge, active rill and 

gully erosion with sediment catch 

basins filling and breaching.

Maintain sediment basins and outslope 

where possible. Otherwise, improve 

drainage in any way possible.

HUM099 20 15- Low

Trail on toe of ridge, active rill and 

gully erosion with sediment catch 

basins filling and breaching.

Maintain sediment basins and outslope 

where possible. Otherwise, improve 

drainage in any way possible.

HUM099 20 15- Low

Trail on toe of ridge, active rill and 

gully erosion with sediment catch 

basins filling and breaching.

Maintain sediment basins and outslope 

where possible. Otherwise, improve 

drainage in any way possible.

HUM100 10 15- Low Rill on trail. Outslope trail or somehow improve 

drainage.

HUM100 10 15- Low Rill on trail. Outslope trail or somehow improve 

drainage.

HUM100 10 15- Low Rill on trail. Outslope trail or somehow improve 

drainage.

HUM100 10 15- Low Rill on trail. Outslope trail or somehow improve 

drainage.

HUM100 10 15- Low Rill on trail. Outslope trail or somehow improve 

drainage.

HUM100 10 15- Low Rill on trail. Outslope trail or somehow improve 

drainage.

HUM100 10 15- Low Rill on trail. Outslope trail or somehow improve 

drainage.

HUM100 10 15- Low Rill on trail. Outslope trail or somehow improve 

drainage.

HUM101 10 15- Low Rill on trail. Outslope trail or somehow improve 

drainage.

HUM101 10 15- Low Rill on trail. Outslope trail or somehow improve 

drainage.

HUM101 10 15- Low Rill on trail surface. Outslope or otherwise improve trial 

surface drainage.

HUM101 10 15- Low Rill on trail surface. Outslope or otherwise improve trial 

surface drainage.

HUM101 10 15- Low Rill on trail surface. Outslope or otherwise improve trial 

surface drainage.

HUM101 10 15- Low Rill on trail surface. Outslope or otherwise improve trial 

surface drainage.

HUM101 10 15- Low Rill on trail surface. Outslope or otherwise improve trial 

surface drainage.

HUM101 10 15- Low Rill on trail surface. Outslope or otherwise improve trial 

surface drainage.

HUM101 10 15- Low Rill on trail surface. Outslope or otherwise improve trial 

surface drainage.

HUM101 10 15- Low Rill on trail surface. Outslope or otherwise improve trial 

surface drainage.

HUM101 10 15- Low Rill on trail surface. Outslope or otherwise improve trial 

surface drainage.

HUM101 10 15- Low Rill on trail surface. Outslope or otherwise improve trial 

surface drainage.

HUM103 10 15- Low Rill on trail. Outslope trail or somehow improve 

drainage.

HUM103 10 15- Low Rill on trail. Outslope trail or somehow improve 

drainage.

HUM103 10 15- Low Rill on trail. Outslope trail or somehow improve 

drainage.
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

247

Site ID 

(Road 

Number 

and Mile 

Post)

Fill 

Volume

Overall 

Rating 

(rating 

and 

range)

Description of Current Condition Required Work, Notes on Treatment

HUM103 

- 0.27 50

40-

MediumHigh

Gully in steep portion of through-cut 

trail section depositing sediment 

directly into stream channel.

Disconnect trail from stream and reroute 

trail.

HUM104 10 15- Low Ephemeral stream crosses trail. Small 

active erosion in gully. Armor crossing.

HUM104 10 15- Low Ephemeral stream crosses trail. Small 

active erosion in gully. Armor crossing.

WIN001 10 15- Low

Two gullies on unauthorized route 

below 46N24 from runoff 

concentrating on road.

Outslope/hydrologically stabilize 

unauthorized route and fix road surface 

runoff.

WIN004 10 15- Low Old unauthorized route is in channel 

with gully adjacent to roadbed. Hydrologically stabilize

WIN005 30 15- Low

Steep gullied unauthorized offhighway vehicle trail off of 104 next to 

an intermittent stream is depositing 

sediment into the stream channel.

Hydrologically stabilize, disconnect.

WIN006 30

30-

MediumLow

Off-highway vehicle trail uses old 

roadbed with stream crossing 

removed, however spoils left in 

channel. Channel diverts 10'. Remove 

fill.

Remove fill.

WIN008 10 15- Low

Lead out ditch with catch basin from 

off-highway vehicle trail is perched 

above granitic inner gorge. Basin 

could overtop, sending runoff onto 

granitic inner gorge.

Cut off trail surface runoff before it 

enters sediment basin. Direct onto more 

stable or vegetated landform

WIN009 200

40-

MediumHigh

Mine site includes open adits. 

Perennial stream dammed and 

diverted into an ephemeral channel 

with large spoils/tailing pile that 

constricts new channel toward hillside 

that is now unstable.

Remove fill from stream course. 

Establish which channel is original 

channel and reinstall stream to it. Partial 

channel reconstruction may be required.

WIN010 7 15- Low

Gully from road runoff depositing 

sediment to intermittent stream 

channel.

Engineering fix has not been proposed 

as of yet.

WIN012* 50

35-

MediumHigh

Through cut road design with 

significant gullies.

Improve sediment catch basins and 

rolling dips.

WIN013* 15 15- Low Rills on road surface, exit in dip. Improve sediment catch basins and 

dips.

WIN014 593

30-

MediumLow

Fill and tailings in perennial stream 

channel, channel slowly cutting into fill. 

A collapsed mining cabin is on top of 

site.

Not feasible.

WIN016 20

20-

MediumLow

Gully on trail segment filling sediment 

catch basins and depositing sediment 

into ephemeral drainage. Active 

erosion.

Improve trail drainage.

WIN019 50

35-

MediumHigh

Waterbreaks on bottom of steep 

section of trail at intersection with the 

county road continuing to fail. 

Sediment being delivered into inboard 

ditch of county road.

Engineering fix has not been proposed 

as of yet.
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

248

Site ID 

(Road 

Number 

and Mile 

Post)

Fill 

Volume

Overall 

Rating 

(rating 

and 

range)

Description of Current Condition Required Work, Notes on Treatment

WIN020 100

35-

MediumHigh

Fill in intermittent channel from a 

mining ditch. Channel has breached 

the ditch and is cutting through fill 

actively. A lot of fill left.

Remove fill, hydrologically stabilize.

WIN021 200

40-

MediumHigh

Active diversion of perennial stream. 

Ditch has few locations where 

occasional failures during high flow 

causes gully (extension of 7H002 

county road). Ditch busted. Active 

erosion.

Cut off flow to ditch if possible. 

Hydrologically stabilize ditch.

WIN022 500 15- Low

Perennial tributary to Humbug Creek 

conveyed through mine tailing via 30 

inch undersized culvert. Fill is all rock 

tailings so aquatic organism passage 

is a bigger concern, but definitely 

impairing stream function.

Engineering fix has not been proposed 

as of yet.

WIN024 20 15- Low

300 foot gully along unauthorized 

route used by off-highway vehicles. 

Gully is delivering sediment to 

intermittent stream channel and 

cutting fill slope at channel crossing.

Install dips or water bars on 

unauthorized route segment or outslope 

if possible.

WIN026 30 15- Low

Unauthorized route used as 

unauthorized off-highway vehicle trail 

up ephemeral channel and steep 

granitic banks. Rill and gully erosion 

contributing sediment to channel.

Rehabilitate gully and block off-highway 

vehicle use.

WIN027 50

35-

MediumHigh

Unauthorized route used as 

unauthorized off-highway vehicle trail. 

Unauthorized off-highway vehicle 

concentrated use up ephemeral 

channel. Disturbance leaving hill 

slopes bare and delivering sediment 

into channel.

Block off-highway vehicles.

WIN030 100

40-

MediumHigh

An earthen dam (30-50 cubic yards) 

on intermittent channel has failed and 

steep sides of breached opening are 

eroding into channel. Head-cut is 

migrating up through sediment trapped 

behind dam.

Remove the rest of the dam and 

excavate sediment.

WIN031 250

40-

MediumHigh

Large gully forming because inboard 

ditch flow on county road above exits 

road and enters ephemeral drainage, 

overwhelming its capacity and actively 

scouring.

Disconnect ditch from ephemeral 

drainage.

WIN033 203

45-

MediumHigh

User created off-highway vehicle route 

exits unauthorized trail and goes up 

inner gorge of ephemeral drainage 

creating long gullies.

Block unauthorized off-highway vehicle 

trail and try to rehabilitate and 

revegetate.

WIN034 100

35-

MediumHigh

Unauthorized off-highway vehicle trail 

driving up steep ridge nose. Gully in 

trail.

Block unauthorized off-highway vehicle 

trail and place water bar above steepest 

part to cut off flow and drain onto 

hillslope rather than collect.

WIN035 40

30-

MediumLow

Unauthorized off-highway vehicle trail 

driving up nose of ridge. Creating long 

rill 300' x 2' x 2'.

Block unauthorized off-highway vehicle 

trail and restore natural condition. Might 

fix on its own if allowed to revegetate.
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

249

Site ID 

(Road 

Number 

and Mile 

Post)

Fill 

Volume

Overall 

Rating 

(rating 

and 

range)

Description of Current Condition Required Work, Notes on Treatment

WIN036 40

25-

MediumLow

Unauthorized off-highway vehicle trail 

driving up nose of ridge. Creating long 

rill 300' x 2' x 2'.

Block unauthorized off-highway vehicle 

trail and restore natural condition. Might 

fix on its own if allowed to revegetate.

WIN037 40

25-

MediumLow

Unauthorized off-highway vehicle trail 

driving up nose of ridge. Creating long 

rill 300' x 2' x 2'.

Block unauthorized off-highway vehicle 

trail and restore natural condition. Might 

fix on its own if allowed to revegetate.

WIN038 40

25-

MediumLow

Unauthorized off-highway vehicle trail 

driving up nose of ridge. Creating long 

rill 300' x 2' x 2'.

Block unauthorized off-highway vehicle 

trail and restore natural condition. Might 

fix on its own if allowed to revegetate.

WIN039 40

25-

MediumLow

Rill on unauthorized off-highway 

vehicle trail.

Block off-highway vehicle access and 

allow to revegetate.

WIN040 40

25-

MediumLow

Rill on unauthorized off-highway 

vehicle trail.

Block off-highway vehicle access and 

allow to revegetate.
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

250

This page intentionally left blank
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

251

APPENDIX F: AQUATIC CONSERVATION 

STRATEGY 

The Forest Plan contains the components, objectives and standards and guidelines for the 

Aquatic Conservation Strategy as recommended 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 (also known as the Northwest Forest Plan). The four 

components of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy, as given on pages 4-25 through 4-27 of 

the Forest Plan, are: 1) establishment and management of Riparian Reserves; 2) Key 

Watersheds; 3) Watershed Analysis; and 4) Watershed Restoration.

The Craggy Project does not occur in a Key Watershed; the project interdisciplinary 

planning team used information from the Humbug Ecosystem Analysis (watershed analysis, 

USDA 1993) when locating and designing the proposed activities, and the project is 

recognized as one step toward overall forest health. Watershed Restoration, which includes 

fish passage improvement, decommissioning of roads, and storm damage repair, is an 

ongoing program on the Forest. The Craggy Project does not propose direct watershed 

restoration but action alternatives will reduce the amount of watershed degradation that can 

occur from a high intensity wildfire in the area by changing vegetative condition classes to 

reduce the extent and intensity of a wildfire.

Activities in Riparian Reserves were developed to improve, protect or have neutral effects 

to riparian reserve conditions in the long term. Particular objectives were designed for 

thinning in riparian reserves (see Table 2-1 for the list of project design features and 

Appendix A for treatment prescriptions). Activities in riparian reserves consist of mechanical 

thinning, underburning, water withdrawal, mastication, legacy site restoration activities, and 

construction of up to two temporary stream crossings (depending on the final selected 

alternative). These activities were evaluated to determine the effects to riparian reserves at

the 5th field watershed scale in the long term to meet the requirements in the 2007 direction 

for the Aquatic Conservation Strategy (USDA 2007). The effects of these activities were 

evaluated in detail in the Hydrology Resource Report for the project and the Aquatic 

Resources Report, both available on the project website. As the Forest fisheries biologist, 

Brian Thomas concluded that the proposed activities in Riparian Reserves met the Aquatic 

Conservation Strategy objectives, as stated on page 4-6 of the Forest Plan, because there 

were no significant changes to the primary processes affecting the aquatic conservation 

strategy objectives (stream temperatures or flow and sediment regimes). Also, by 

maintaining habitat conditions in the long term and minimizing direct impacts, there should 

be no change to aquatic biota within the project area (see the Aquatic Species Resources 

Report). 

5th field watersheds in the project area:

Humbug Creek-Klamath River: The principal stream in this 5th field watershed is the 

mainstem of Humbug Creek. Anadromous and resident fish occur in Humbug Creek 

approximately 0.01 mile downstream from proposed project activities. 

Yreka Creek-Shasta River: The principal streams in this 5th field watershed are the 

mainstem of Yreka Creek and Shasta River. Anadromous and resident fish occur in both 
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

252

streams. The nearest proposed project activities to Yreka Creek occur approximately 1.4 

miles upstream and upslope from the creek.

Since the closest project activities to Yreka Creek are approximately 1.4 miles upstream and 

do not include any instream activities, this analysis is more meaningful at the Humbug 

Creek-Klamath River watershed scale and over the analysis area, which reflects impacts to 

the mainstem of the Klamath River. Effects to surface erosion, mass wasting, and flow 

regime are indicated by the use of three models; the applicable results are displayed on the 

Project website in the Cumulative Watershed Effects document. Per the hydrologist’s and 

geologist’s review of the modeled values, the risk of affecting watershed conditions is not 

significant – with the risk of impacts to the sediment regime below 1.0 after implementation

of the Craggy Project and then a reduction in risk by implementing future actions (see the 

Cumulative Watershed Effects document on the project website). The modeled values are 

clarified and verified by field review and professional experience at the site level to 

determine impacts to Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives. Following are the nine 

objectives as listed on page 4-6 of the Forest Plan, a summary of how the Craggy Project will 

affect these objectives, and a determination that the Craggy Project will either restore, 

maintain, or prevent attainment of these objectives.

For the purposes of this report a determination of “restore” means that the project will move 

the Humbug watershed to the desired conditions. A determination of “partially restore” 

means that the project will move the Humbug watershed closer to the desired condition than 

is the current condition. A determination of “maintain” means that the project will not further 

degrade the current condition of the Humbug watershed. A determination of “prevent 

attainment of” means that the project will have a significant negative effect.

Alternatives 2 and 3

Maintain and restore the distribution, diversity, and complexity of watershed and 

landscape-scale features to ensure protection of the aquatic systems to which species, 

populations and communities are uniquely adapted.

Watershed complexity, in this analysis, takes into consideration effects to large wood 

recruitment, the distribution of large trees in riparian reserves, coarse woody debris on the 

hillslopes, and the drainage network.

Little quantitative data is available regarding the range of historic variability of large woody 

debris, coarse woody debris and large trees in Riparian Reserves. Assumptions can be made 

considering the history of disturbance. The sources of large woody debris and coarse woody 

debris have likely been severely reduced from historical conditions by the 1955 haystack fire, 

which consumed vegetation on over approximately 70 percent of the Humbug Creek 

watershed; and salvage logging efforts in 1956 and 1957. These natural and human caused 

effects have reduced the occurrence of large conifers.

The Craggy Project is proposing thinning with mechanical fuel treatment and underburning 

to reduce fuel loading, promote forest health, and simultaneously leave material to provide 

diversity and complexity. The treatments will move the vegetative community in treated 

areas closer to that which occurred historically with greater structural diversity, less 

homogeneous species composition and larger trees in the long term (see the Silviculture 

Resource Report). Reduced fuel loading would help stands progress toward conditions where 

the natural fire regime is restored. Also, thinning activities are expected to increase conifer 
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

253

size and help restore large wood recruitment, the distribution of large trees in riparian 

reserves, and coarse woody debris on the hillslopes in the long term. In Alternatives 2 and 3,

treatments would occur and benefits would be observed in the outer portion of the Riparian 

Reserve buffers as determined by the project hydrologist. Treatments within Riparian 

Reserves were determined by the potential to maintain or restore the Aquatic Conservation 

Strategy Objectives and have no effect to shade. Riparian Reserve treatment and buffers 

including equipment exclusion buffers are described in detail in Appendix A of the 

Hydrology Resource Report. The exclusion of treatment within the inner portion of the 

Riparian Reserves and the project design features for prescribed burning will also prevent 

any removal of existing large woody debris in the stream channel. There will be no 

substantial effect to peak flows or debris flow potential as a result of the project, so the 

potential transport of large woody debris will be maintained.

Alternatives 2 and 3 would partially restore the distribution, diversity, and complexity of 

watershed and landscape-scale features to ensure protection of the aquatic system to which 

species, populations and communities are uniquely adapted in the short and long-term.

Maintain and restore spatial and temporal connectivity within and between watersheds.

Lateral, longitudinal, and drainage network connections include floodplains, wetlands, 

upslope areas, headwater tributaries, and intact refugia. These network connections 

must provide chemically and physically unobstructed routes to areas critical for 

fulfilling life history requirements of aquatic- and riparian-dependent species.

Watershed connectivity, for this analysis, takes into consideration the effects to aquatic 

species, fish, and riparian dependent terrestrial species passage in the project area.

Watershed connectivity would have historically ranged from high to moderate on any given 

section of Humbug Creek. Particularly, Upper and Middle Fork Humbug Creek have a high 

likelihood of landslides, as found in the Geology Resource Report. The mass wasting 

cumulative watershed effects model (GEO) assumes a winter storm event with a 10-year 

return interval (Bell 2012). Based on that assumption, at any given time there would have 

been a percentage of stream channels recovering from debris flow and landslide impacts that 

would have scoured channels and stripped vegetation from the riparian area. Small fires and 

blow-down would have left small openings in the canopy of riparian reserves as well. Natural 

disturbances such as wild fire, log jams, landslides, and associated debris flows would have 

been the primary means of preventing passage in the project area by aquatic species, fish, and 

riparian dependent terrestrial species.

These impacts would have been smaller and better distributed in the watershed than they are 

today, as stands are densely stocked with high fuel loading. Also, high road density has 

increased landslide risk in the watershed (Geology Resource Report) which negatively

effects watershed connectivity. Undersized road drainage structures prevent passage of 

aquatic organisms, however, only one such barrier is known and it exists on private land on 

lower Humbug Creek (Aquatic Resources Report).

The Craggy Project proposes to treat hazardous fuels, and reduce stand densities throughout 

Humbug Creek. Some of these activities will be occurring in the outer portions of Riparian 

Reserves (see Appendix A of the Hydrology Resource Report). Treatments within Riparian 

Reserves are designed to create conditions that benefit riparian function by maintaining a 

heterogeneous species composition as well as encouraging large tree development. Fuel 
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

254

treatment and thinning will improve riparian dependent terrestrial species passage in the 

project area. At the project scale, in the long-term Alternatives 2 and 3 will improve 

migration routes for wildlife by opening dense stands to restore the greater connectivity that 

was historically present in these watersheds. Alternatives 2 and 3 will not prevent the 

attainment of this objective in the short-term and will contribute to the long-term 

improvement of watershed connectivity at the 5th field scale. Potential direct and indirect 

impact to aquatic resources will primarily occur as a result of water drafting and the use of a 

temporary crossing. Effects will be localized, small, and short-term. Other project 

components are either located in the uplands outside the Riparian Reserve, else adjacent to 

fishless streams far from fish-occupied waters. The use of project design features and Best 

Management Practices, along with distance, will reduce the short-term impact to aquatic 

resources. The project also proposes to treat legacy sediment sources by hydrologically 

stabilizing unauthorized routes and storm proofing several system roads (Hydrology 

Resource Report). This will reduce the risk of management related debris flows and 

therefore, improve aquatic organism and fish passage within the project area in the long term.

The Craggy Project will not result in any physical or chemical condition that would hinder 

the movement of fish and other aquatic organisms or the migration routes for wildlife species

in the short or long term.

Alternatives 2 and 3 would partially restore spatial and temporal connectivity between 

watersheds.

Maintain and restore the physical integrity of the aquatic system, including shorelines, 

banks, and bottom configurations.

Physical integrity of aquatic systems, in this analysis, will consider effect to the channel 

geomorphology and include evaluations of road density, hydrologic connectivity of road 

systems, and direct impact to bank and stream bottom.

The range of historic variability of physical integrity of aquatic systems within Humbug 

Creek would have been varied and heterogeneous. Most natural stream systems within areas 

of fairly stable geology and climate regime reach dynamic equilibrium, a state in which the 

hydro-geomorphic processes, though still changing at the site scale in response to disturbance 

(landslides, fires, large wood recruitment), are stable on the watershed scale. In this state, 

neither gross aggradation trends, nor incision is occurring at the watershed scale. There 

would have been a high percentage of Humbug Creek and tributaries with competent, 

overhanging banks, regularly inundated shorelines and floodplains with complex in-channel 

landforms and varied substrates.

Past management activities including salvage harvest and subsequent road building and most 

notably, mining; have severely affected channel geomorphology. A large percentage of 

perennial stream length within Humbug Creek has been mined. Historic mining has left 

behind coarse tailings piles that have constricted sediment transport, over-coarsened stream 

bottom composition, and reduced floodplain inundation. County maintained roads follow 

closely to the inner gorges of the major perennial streams in the project area (main stem 

Humbug creek, Middle Fork Humbug Creek, South Fork Humbug Creek). Off-highway 

vehicle trails with persistent gully and rill features also exist. These management related 

impacts have increased the hydrologic connectivity of surface runoff as well as ditch lines to 

water courses. This in turn has likely lead to increased peak flows during storm events. 
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

255

Therefore, the existing condition of Humbug Creek is such that this objective is not being 

attained.

The risk of affecting the physical integrity of the aquatic system is not significantly changed 

by action alternatives in the Craggy Project since water temperature, flow, and sediment 

regimes are not significantly altered, as shown in the tables in the cumulative watershed 

effects results and discussed in both the Hydrology and Aquatic Resource reports. Effective 

road density will decrease as a result of unauthorized route hydrologic stabilization 

associated with the legacy site treatments required by the 2015 Waiver. Storm proofing

activities on system roads will reduce the connected ditch lengths in some areas.

Alternatives 2 and 3, though not restoring the impairments from past mining activities, 

partially restore this objective due to legacy site treatments. Proposed activities other than 

legacy site treatments will not prevent attainment of this objective.

Maintain and restore water quality necessary to support healthy riparian, aquatic, and 

wetland ecosystems. Water quality must remain within the range that maintains the 

biological, physical, and chemical integrity of the system and benefits survival, growth, 

reproduction and migration of individuals composing aquatic and riparian 

communities.

As a tributary of the Klamath River, Humbug Creek is listed in the 303 (D) Clean Water Act 

for nutrients and temperature (hydrology resource report). The water quality analysis for this 

project uses stream shade as a proxy for temperature of the stream. A discussion of human 

caused sediment (which is a water quality concern as well), will be discussed in detail within 

the next objective.

The historic range of variability concerning shade and instream temperature is largely 

unknown due to lack of quantitative data. Larger conifer size within riparian reserves 

historically, as is the likely the case, combined with a dense, diverse riparian vegetation 

community, likely provided more shade on the watershed scale than is the current condition. 

However, as previously noted, fire and landslides (and subsequent debris flows) were 

common natural disturbances that would have reduced stream shading at site and reach 

scales.

The current condition has been documented through ongoing data collection, last 

summarized in 2010 and 2011. The data showed that Humbug Creek had an average existing 

shade condition of 89 percent, which is more than the desired amount being 69.7 percent 

(Hydrology Resource Report) and maximum weekly maximum steam temperature that 

slightly exceeded the core juvenile rearing standard of 16 degrees Celsius (17.6 degrees 

Celsius in 2010, and 16.5 degrees Celsius in 2011). Though these data indicate an 

exceedance and a water quality impairment, Humbug Creek is not severely degraded, in 

terms of stream temperature or shade.

The Craggy Project overall, including activities proposed within Riparian Reserves, will have 

minor direct, indirect, and cumulative effects on water quality and land stability within the 

project area. Alternatives 2 and 3 reduce the potential risks of high intensity wildfire, and 

project design features reduce the risk of negative effects from project implementation to 

water quality. Also, the Hydrology Resource Report shows that silvicultural treatments 

within Riparian Reserves will have no effect to stream shade. Therefore, in the long term, 
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

256

reduced risk of landsliding from legacy site treatments, reduced risk of high intensity wildfire 

from thinning and fuel reduction, and increasing the overall size of conifers will have a direct 

and indirect positive effect to stream shade and therefore stream temperature.

Alternatives 2 and 3 would partially restore water quality necessary to support healthy 

riparian, aquatic, and wetland ecosystems.

Maintain and restore the sediment regime under which aquatic ecosystems evolved. 

Elements of the regime include the timing, volume, rate and character of sediment 

input, storage, and transport.

The sediment regime analysis will consider the effect to sediment delivery to streams as 

measured by legacy sediment sources.

The range of historic variability of sediment delivery to streams was likely not wide. As 

discussed above landslides and fires were a critical historic disturbance that occurred 

commonly. Humbug Creek and its tributaries were likely adapted to the large episodic inputs 

of sediment from these disturbances. Additional sources of sediment was chronic inner gorge 

erosion as channels migrated across their floodplains. This type of erosion was a vital source 

of fine sediment and gravels to the streams for healthy fish populations. Watershed-scale 

geomorphic processes were likely in a dynamic equilibrium between bed load and stream 

flows.

As discussed above, mining has severely impaired the geomorphological processes of 

Humbug Creek and its tributaries. These geomorphological effects (i.e., how sediment 

interacts with stream flow once it is in or near the stream) are not considered here; rather, 

sediment delivery to streams is the primary focus.

The current condition of sediment delivery to streams is grossly elevated over the historic 

range of variability. Nearly 50,000 cubic yards of sediment have the potential to be delivered 

to Humbug Creek and its tributaries from the inventoried legacy sediment sources 

(Hydrology Resource Report). Sources are highly varied and include:

• chronic gully and rill erosion from steep ridge-climbing off-highway vehicle trails

• un-armored stream crossings of roads and OHV trails

• large fills over stream crossings in undersized pipes

• stream crossings with potential or active diversion resulting from improper road 

design

• chronic erosion of road fills on unauthorized routes which have not been 

hydrologically stabilized

Finally, as noted above, county roads are built along almost every major stem of Humbug 

Creek. Though they receive regular maintenance they feature eroding ditch lines that are 

hydrologically connected to watercourses and undersized culverts. These sites are not legacy 

sediment sites because they are not Forest managed; however, they are a noteworthy 

contributor to the existing condition of Humbug Creek.

The Craggy Project proposes using Forest system roads and county roads as haul routes. 

These activities could have an insignificant negative effect to sediment delivery to streams as 

some of the legacy sediment sources could be worsened. However, most legacy sediment 

sources on haul routes are undersized culverts and diversion potentials on stream crossings 
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

257

which will not be affected by timber operations. Another possible direct negative effect could 

be from the construction of new skid trails and temporary roads and landings, including the 

use of existing landings and temporary roads. These effects will likely be less than significant 

as a result of implementation of best management practices and project design features. New 

and existing temporary roads and skid trails would be hydrologically stabilized prior to the 

completion of the project (BMP 2.3). The Craggy Project action alternatives are proposing, in 

compliance with the 2015 Waiver, to treat approximately 78 legacy sites (the number is not 

final until the project is enrolled under the Waiver which will take place after the record of 

decision). To the extent possible, legacy sediment sites and road segments with the highest 

risk to water quality will be chosen to be treated (Hydrology Resource Report). Treatments 

will involve hydrologic stabilization of unauthorized roads and stormproofing of Forest 

system roads (not all roads). These treatments will have a direct positive effect on sediment 

delivery to streams.

Alternatives 2 and 3 also propose thinning and fuel reduction activities which will increase 

stand health and decrease risk of large severe wildfires in the long term. Reducing the risk of 

stand-replacing fire and progressing towards a natural fire regime in the long term would 

have the most influence on maintenance and restoration of the sediment regime. The total 

long-term sediment production is predicted to be lower if areas are thinned and burned under 

controlled conditions as compared to a high intensity and severity wildfire.

Therefore, Alternatives 2 and 3 would partially restore the sediment regime under which 

aquatic ecosystems evolved.

Maintain and restore in-stream flows sufficient to create and sustain riparian, aquatic, 

and wetland habitats, and to retain patterns of sediment, nutrient, and wood routing.

The timing, magnitude, duration, and spatial distribution of peak, high, and low flows 

must be protected.

The water quantity analysis considers the effect to base flow and peak flow using a 

qualitative assessment.

The historic range of variability for base and peak flows ranges from 100-year flood events,

like the flood of 1964 to 1965, to drought years where snow pack is less than 10 percent of 

the known average in some areas. The spring-fed perennial streams have less variation in 

their base flows than snow-melt driven intermittent streams from year to year. Large fires can 

increase peak flows because of the reduction in precipitation interception and infiltration 

rates.

The proposed activities include thinning forested areas, controlled introduction of fire, and 

post-harvest fuel treatment; water drafting would take place in support of the proposed 

activities, this is not expected to noticeably reduce stream flows, no other activities are 

planned that would directly divert or reduce stream flows. There may be a short-term 

lessening of evapotranspiration levels in the area, resulting in an increase in phreatic and 

vadose flows. This will be offset in the long term by increased stand vigor and fire resiliency. 

At the 5th field watershed scale, and over the entire analysis area, no changes in flows are 

expected from the action alternatives.

Alternatives 2 or 3 would maintain in-stream flows sufficient to create and sustain riparian, 

aquatic, and wetland habitats, and to retain patterns of sediment, nutrient, and wood routing.
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

258

Maintain and restore the timing, variability, and duration of floodplain inundation and 

water table elevation in meadows.

Historic range of variability regarding floodplain inundation would be based on the type and 

landscape position of streams within Humbug Creek. Headwater, cascade and streams with 

large substrate and high gradients typically are confined and lacking a significant floodplain 

naturally. Response reaches with gradients at or below five percent typically have well 

defined floodplains that are actively inundated on a yearly basis. This floodplain inundation 

supported a diverse and thriving riparian vegetation community and facilitated ecosystem 

functions such as sediment retention, water filtering, and water cooling through groundwater 

interaction.

The existing condition of floodplain interaction is severely degraded as compared with the 

historic range of variability. Main stem Humbug Creek and all perennial forks that are 

response reaches have floodplains that are largely disconnected. Because of the overcoarsening of the stream beds due to tailings piles, these streams are not significantly incised, 

but rather tailings piles have confined the channels and largely disconnected floodplains from 

their channels, limiting floodplain inundation to very large storm events. High gradient, 

headwater intermittent streams, though degraded by mining as well, have not suffered as

notably being that their natural channel form does not usually exhibit a large floodplain. This 

objective is not being attained under existing conditions, and it is prevented by the historic 

effects from mining.

The Craggy Project proposes no activities that will exacerbate the existing impaired 

condition, or further disconnect streams from floodplains. Additionally because this project is 

proposing thinning, any effects to the water table would be negligible because the remaining 

stand after thinning would be more vigorous and efficient as an evapotranspiration 

mechanism. There will be no treatments in meadows.

Therefore, either Alternative 2 or Alternative 3 would maintain the timing, variability, and 

duration of floodplain inundation and water table elevation in meadows, even though this 

objective is currently not being attained.

Maintain and restore the species composition and structural diversity of plant 

communities in riparian areas and wetlands to provide adequate summer and winter 

thermal regulation, nutrient filtering, appropriate rates of surface erosion, bank 

erosion, and channel migration and to supply amounts and distributions of coarse 

woody debris to sustain physical complexity and stability.

This analysis will consider the expected response of conifer and hardwood trees in the 

portions of Riparian Reserves that are being treated.

Historic range of variability concerning the structural diversity of plant communities in 

riparian areas is largely unknown. It can be assumed that the terrestrial, outer portions of 

riparian reserves were historically populated by larger, less densely stocked conifers. It can 

also be assumed that the true riparian plant community was diverse and robust, providing 

adequate shading and habitat.

The Craggy Project is treating only the outer portions of some Riparian Reserves (Hydrology 

Resource Report, Appendix A) where there will be no negative effects to Aquatic 

Conservation Strategy objectives and there is a great need for fuel reduction or improvement 
Craggy Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

259

to stand health. The activities in Riparian Reserves do not adversely affect the plant 

communities in riparian areas. Species composition of plant communities in riparian areas 

would be maintained during project implementation and protected in the long term by 

reducing the risk of stand-replacing fires. Structural diversity of the vegetation in riparian 

areas would be partially restored by allowing fire to burn in low intensity in riparian areas, 

prohibiting active treatment in riparian vegetation and leaving snags in areas connected to the 

aquatic system.

Maintain and restore well distributed populations of native plant, invertebrate and 

vertebrate riparian-dependent species.

Reducing the risk of a stand-replacing fire increases the likelihood of maintaining a welldistributed mix of habitats. Olson and Agee (2005) concluded from their study of fires in 

riparian forests, that it will be necessary to reintroduce fire to riparian forests in order to 

restore forests to historical conditions. They also observed that, “if upslope forests are treated 

for fuels reduction [as for this project], either with prescribed fire or other silvicultural 

treatments, then perhaps a wildfire ignited within the upslope forest would be less likely to 

gain the intensity needed to burn within the moister portion of the riparian zone.” The 

proposed fuel reduction is designed to reduce fuels in the upslope areas and in portions of 

Riparian Reserves to change fire behavior in a way that is more similar to historic, desired 

conditions that will promote native plant and invertebrate riparian dependent species.

Therefore, either Alternative 2 or Alternative 3 would partially restore habitat to support 

well distributed populations of native plant and invertebrate riparian dependent species.