Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Hi-Grouse Project—Appendices

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix - i 

Table of Contents 

Appendix A: Maps.......................................................................................................................... 1

Map A-1. Project area and vicinity ............................................................................................ 3

Map A-2. Hi-Grouse Project area management areas ................................................................ 5

Map A-3. Vegetation communities and stand types ................................................................... 7

Map A-4. Initial Proposed action from scoping (alternative 2) .................................................. 9

Map A-5. Alternative 3 proposed silviculture treatments ........................................................ 11

Map A-6. Alternative 4 (modified proposed action) proposed silviculture treatments ............ 13

Map A-7. Management activities considered in effects analysis ............................................. 15

Appendix B: Public Involvement ................................................................................................. 17

Appendix C: Detailed Prescriptions ............................................................................................. 37

Appendix D: Hi-Grouse Best Management Practices (BMPs) ..................................................... 51

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix–1

Appendix A: Maps

Note: The USDA Forest Service uses the most current and complete data available. GIS data 

and product accuracy may vary. Use of GIS products for purposes other than for which they 

were intended may yield inaccurate or misleading results. The USDA Forest Service reserves 

the right to correct, update, modify or replace GIS products without notification.

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix–3

Map A-1. Project area and vicinity

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix–5

Map A-2. Hi-Grouse Project area management areas

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix–7

Map A-3. Vegetation communities and stand types

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix–9

Map A-4. Initial Proposed action from scoping (alternative 2)

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix–11

Map A-5. Alternative 3 proposed silviculture treatments

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix–13

Map A-6. Alternative 4 (modified proposed action) proposed silviculture treatments

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix–15

Map A-7. Management activities considered in effects analysis

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix–17

Appendix B: Public Involvement

Public involvement for this project is described in chapter 1. During the initial scoping period six 

responses were received (see table B-1 below). Comments received are included in table B-2 

along with the response to comment. Issues were developed from comments that were not 

addressed through displaying analysis of effects, incorporation of project design features, and 

Forest Plan direction. The full comment letters are available in the project file.

Table B-1. Scoping contacts 

Letter # Name

1 Klamath Forest Alliance

2 AFRC

3 B. Sachau

4 Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands, Environmental Protection Information Center Wild, Klamath 

Forest Alliance 

5 Sierra Pacific (Burney)

6 California Regional Water Board

In addition to comments from the public, comments from Tribal contacts regarding vegetation 

management, gathering concerns, and access for elders have also been considered in the 

development of proposed actions. 

Non-significant issues were identified as those: (1) outside the scope of the proposed action; (2) 

already decided by law, regulation, Forest Plan, or other higher level decision; (3) irrelevant to 

the decision to be made; or (4) conjectural and not supported by scientific or factual evidence. 

Some comments pertained to disclosing effects; impacts to various resources have been analyzed 

and disclosed in the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS). Table B-2 notes in the 

response column the non-significant issue category or categories.
Hi-Grouse Project

Appendix -18

Table B-2. Scoping comments and disposition

Letter # Topic Comment 1 Response

Issue (#) 

if Non-significant

1 General 

Project 

Design 

We are concerned that the project as proposed could 

result in the removal of the best remaining habitat in the 

area unless very specific design features are included:

 Retain every large pine tree and pine snag over 20” 

dbh.

 Do not log and re-plant with pine in pure fir stands on 

northeast slopes.

 Identify more roads for decommissioning.

 Identify and exclude wet areas, seeps and springs.

 Avoid tractor piling and logging on steep benches 

and descending slopes.

All action alternatives included project design features 

(see section 2.2.5) to: 

 Identify and exclude wet areas, seeps, and springs.

 Avoid tractor piling and logging on steep benches 

and descending slopes.

Alternatives minimized temporary road construction by 

using existing non-system roads wherever possible. 

Following a more detailed review and analysis of 

updated goshawk habitat data, we discovered in 

December 2009 that the proposed action from scoping 

would not comply with the Klamath Forest Plan 

goshawk standard and guideline (S&G) 8-20. The 

proposed action (alternative 2) was dropped from 

detailed analysis. See section 2.4 of the DEIS for 

alternatives considered and eliminated from detailed 

study. 

Alternative 3 was developed to incorporate the 

suggested elements that are within the scope of this 

analysis as follows (see section 2.2.2) including: 

 Retain every large tree and snag over 20” dbh.

 Do not log and re-plant with pine in pure fir stands on 

northeast slopes.

Alternative 4 (is the modified proposed action, section 

2.2.3) was developed to reduce impacts on NSO and 

NGH known habitat and address additional lodgepole 

pine stand health concerns. 

Acres treated in nesting/roosting/foraging habitats 

across the project area and basal area maintained 

within individual stands are used in the DEIS as 

measurement indicators for this issue (see section 2.5). 

Roads 44N80a and 44N62a with specific concerns will 

be closed following project implementation under 

Issue # 1. The 

proposed activities 

could remove the best 

remaining wildlife 

habitat for species 

located within the 

project area, including 

NSO and NGHs. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix–19

Letter # Topic Comment 1 Response

Issue (#) 

if Non-significant

alternative 4 for wildlife habitat (see section 2.2.3).

Road decommissioning is not part of the purpose and 

need of this project and is outside the scope. A forestwide analysis for travel management is ongoing to 

review the need for roads to be added or removed from 

the forest system. 

1 Vegetation Identify and map all known root disease centers for the 

proposed project, and include an alternative that avoids 

these areas. 

Annosus is found throughout the project area. An 

alternative was considered that avoided known areas of 

root disease. This alternative was dropped from 

detailed analysis because it did not address the 

purpose and need to provide for resilient stocking 

levels for desired species (see section 2.4). 

The no-action alternative responds to this comment,

but is not responsive to the purpose and need for the 

project.

Measures proposed to prevent the spread of root 

disease, including the use of borax to reduce related 

forest health risks, have been incorporated into project 

design features for all action alternatives.

Not an issue. (1). 

1 Vegetation Since all large trees and snags over 20” dbh are 

usually rare on eastside landscapes, it is prudent to 

protect such trees and snags regardless of species 

composition. Please include a map with your analysis 

showing the distribution of tree cover by species.

The protection of trees and snags over 20” dbh has 

been incorporated into alternative 3. 

The proposed prescriptions incorporate leaving the 

larger trees of all species, whatever their diameter, 

based on bark and crown characteristics. 

Available tree size and species data was considered; 

unknown information and uncertainty is addressed in 

the analysis. 

Not an issue. (4) 

1 Vegetation It is likely that there were historic fir stands on northeast 

slopes, especially red fir; it can be detrimental to 

remove such habitat and attempt to re-plant with pure 

pine. 

Comment noted. Ponderosa pine restoration and reestablishment treatments were determined to adversely 

affect NGH habitat below Forest Plan S&G 8-20 levels. 

These treatments are no longer included in proposed 

alternatives, but were considered in the proposed 

action from scoping that was dropped from detailed 

study (see section 2.5).

Not all fir will be removed from stands planted with 

Not an issue. (3) 
Hi-Grouse Project

Appendix -20

Letter # Topic Comment 1 Response

Issue (#) 

if Non-significant

pine. This will allow for fir to continue as a component 

of these stands to trend toward historic conditions.

1 Wildlife Please identify areas that contain a high number of 

roads per square mile, and propose more road closures 

and decommissioning options to reduce road densities. 

Roads can lead to harassment, death, and/or injury to 

deer and elk herds, and discourage old growth 

dependant species such as marten and fisher from 

dispersing across the area. 

A forest-wide analysis for travel management is 

ongoing to review the need for roads to be added or 

removed from the forest system. In alternative 4, roads 

44N80a and 44N62a were identified during consultation 

efforts with the USFWS as a concern due to their 

location in NSO Critical Habitat. These two spur roads 

were previously closed (barricaded) to eliminate use. 

These two roads are identified for decommissioning to 

remove them from the Forest System roads under 

alternative 4 (modified proposed action).

Road decommissioning is not part of the purpose and 

need of this project and is outside the scope. Effects 

from road access for treatment on wildlife, including 

deer, elk, marten, and fisher, are analyzed in section 

3.2.3. 

Not an issue. (1) 

1 Botany Noxious weeds can be spread by vehicle traffic on 

roads, so please include an analysis of the location of 

noxious weed sites and strategies to minimize the 

spread of noxious weeds.

Noxious weeds have been mitigated for project design 

features to reduce spread of non-native or noxious 

weeds. An analysis of noxious weeds is available in 

section 3.2.5.2 of this DEIS. However, the general 

issue of relationship between roads and noxious weeds 

is outside the scope of this project. 

Not an issue. (2). 

1 Wildlife Please include information on how proposed project 

activities will impact bats, forest carnivores such as the 

marten and fisher, pileated woodpecker, NGH and 

NSO. Survey and distribution information should be 

included so the reader can evaluate potential impacts 

to these species. 

Alternatives 3 and 4 (modified proposed action) were 

developed to reduce impacts on NSO and NGH known 

habitat. Acres treated in nesting/roosting/foraging 

habitats across the project area and basal area 

maintained within individual stands are used in the 

DEIS as measurement indicators for this issue (see 

sections 3.2.3.2 and 3.2.3.4). 

Effects to wildlife species and or the affected habitat 

are analyzed in section 3.2.3. 

Issue #1. 

1 Wildlife Tree and shrub species, which are beneficial to wildlife 

including aspen, willow, mountain mahogany and 

bitterbrush, should be identified. 

Impacts of the proposed action alternatives on wildlife 

habitat, which includes certain tree and shrub species, 

were analyzed in the wildlife reports (see section 3.2.3). 

Aspen is infrequently present, often in association to 

Not an issue. (5) 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix–21

Letter # Topic Comment 1 Response

Issue (#) 

if Non-significant

rock piles. There are no riparian willow, only dry land 

willow (Cheyne 2010b, personal communication).

2 NEPA [There are] a large number of purpose and need 

statements. History has shown that it becomes more 

difficult to defend NEPA documents as the number of 

purpose and need statements increase. It becomes 

more difficult to adequately assess the environmental 

effects and display how the project is meeting 

numerous purpose and need statements. It also can 

also cause additional significant issues to be assessed. 

We recommend the number of purpose and need 

statements be reduced. It appears that some of them 

are duplicative.

For clarification, the purpose and need statement has 

been refined into three major objectives. See DEIS 

section 1.4 for more detail.

Not an issue. The 

purpose and need 

statements have been 

lumped in categories 

for clarification. 

2 Timber 

Economics 

During your analysis seriously consider sale 

economics. Please assess the sale economics in your 

proposal and alternatives using the most current 

market values. Reduced volumes per acre and less 

desirable species can have significant impacts on the 

economics of any offering.

Economic feasibility of the project, although not a part 

of the purpose and need, was analyzed by alternative. 

A variety of cost-effective methods will be utilized to 

implement this project. Current market values and 

known costs were used when completing the economic 

analysis. See section 3.4.1. 

Not an issue. (5) 

2 General 

Project 

Design 

The primary goal is to increase the percentage of 

ponderosa pine, sugar pine, and white pine (note:

sugar pine is a white pine). In many cases for this to 

occur a larger tree (white fir) may have to be removed 

in order to promote a smaller pine. We believe the 

statement concerning only removing subordinate trees 

is misleading. The prescription should clearly identify 

the need to possibly removing a larger undesirable tree 

in order to meet the forest health and species diversity 

purpose and need.

A larger tree may be removed to emphasize desired 

species composition for long-term forest health. Effects 

from the proposed action alternatives on vegetation 

and forest health are analyzed in section 3.2.1. Section 

2.2.4 includes a brief description of the prescriptions. 

Detailed prescription descriptions are located in 

appendix C. 

Not an issue. (2, 5)

2 Vegetation We all realistically know these stands will probably not 

be entered again for at least 30-40 years. Design the 

treatment that allows for fire effectiveness and stand 

health for at least that time frame.

Timelines for treatment and overall effectiveness of 

treatment were considered for this project. Effects from 

the proposed action alternatives on fuels reduction and 

forest health will be analyzed and discussed in the 

silviculture and fuels reports along with a temporal 

discussion of effects. See sections 2.2.4. 3.2.1 and 

3.2.2.

Not an issue. (4, 5) 
Hi-Grouse Project

Appendix -22

Letter # Topic Comment 1 Response

Issue (#) 

if Non-significant

2 Vegetation Ponderosa Pine/Mixed Conifer Restoration and Reestablishment: If the real desire is to re-establish pine 

as the dominant species, openings larger than this [1/4 

to 1 acre] will need to be created. Some of the larger 

dying and diseased white fir will need to be removed.

Ponderosa pine restoration and re-establishment 

treatments were determined to adversely affect NGH 

habitat below Forest Plan S&G 8-20 levels. These 

treatments are no longer included in proposed 

alternatives, but were considered in the proposed 

action from scoping that was dropped from detailed 

study (see section 2.4) 

Not an issue. (4, 5) 

2 Fuels The “need for change” statement for the white fir/pine 

community clearly states that “white fir needs to be 

significantly reduced on these sites. Areas with 

extensive pine mortality may need to be planted with

pine to achieve the desired condition. Fuel treatments 

are needed to reduce heavy fuel loadings.” We 

contend the prescription displayed in the scoping 

document does not achieve this or at least hides the 

fact that more intensive management is needed in 

these stand conditions.

Timelines for treatment and overall effectiveness of 

treatment were considered for this project. Effects from 

the proposed action alternatives on fuels reduction and 

forest health will be analyzed and discussed in the 

silviculture and fuels reports along with a temporal 

discussion of effects. See sections 2.2.4. 3.2.1 and 

3.2.2.

Clarification: Under alternative 4, natural fuel loadings 

may be treated with machine piling outside landing 

areas only if absolutely needed because of extreme 

fuel loading (see map A-6, appendix A). Due to the use 

of whole-tree yarding, machine piling outside of landing 

areas will be uncommon and only in units with heavy 

accumulations of fuels (either natural or past treatmentgenerated) where hand piling would be cost prohibitive. 

Where possible, machine piling outside landing units 

will be from existing skid or off-trail access and will be 

limited to one pass. See sections 2.2.3 and 2.2.4. 

Not an issue. (2).

2 Vegetation Lodgepole Pine Thinning/Fuels Reduction: More 

aggressive treatments will be necessary in order to 

effectively promote healthy vigorously growing 

lodgepole pine stands. The document needs to clearly 

articulate that portions of some of these stands will 

require regeneration efforts in order to meet the longterm goals identified for the project.

More acres of lodgepole pine treatment are 

incorporated into alternative 4 (modified proposed 

action). Acres treated are used as a measurement 

indicator. See sections 1.8, 2.2.3, 2.2.4, 2.5 and 

appendix C. 

Issue 2. 

2 Timber 

Economics 

Paraphrased comment: Mitigation measures and 

limited operating seasons are expensive and should 

only be added where necessary. Consider logging cost 

in the project design.

Comment noted. Although not part of the purpose and 

need of this project, an economic analysis considered

the known costs anticipated for activities proposed with 

this project. See section 3.4.1 for a more detailed 

Not an issue. (4)
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix–23

Letter # Topic Comment 1 Response

Issue (#) 

if Non-significant

discussion.

2 General 

Project 

Design

Do not develop an alternative that imposes diameter 

limits. Diameter limits are arbitrary designations that do 

not have any silvicultural merit. They are 

counterproductive to meeting most of your identified 

purpose and need statements, especially forest health. 

AFRC does not and will not support diameter limits as 

they are not compatible with your current land 

management goals for this project area. 

Comment noted. Thinning treatments proposed in 

alternative 3 would maintain trees greater than 20 

inches dbh to maintain denser stands of large trees for 

late-successional species habitat (section 2.2.2). 

Alternative 4 does not include diameter limits for most 

of the thinning treatments. However, treatments in latesuccessional habitat will maintain 20 inch trees to 

benefit late-successional species (section 2.2.3) 

Not an issue. (1)

2 Fuels Tractor piling can drastically reduce costs and can be 

very effective in treating heavy fuel loading and site 

preparation. Underburning has never proven to be an 

effective method for treating of heavy fuel loadings or 

site preparation. It does not prepare the site clean 

enough in terms of brush removal to allow for adequate 

reforestation practices. Underburning is also more 

difficult to achieve other resource objectives, retaining 

snags and CWD (older forest habitat components), 

protecting sensitive plants and heritage sites. Tractor 

piling can achieve these results much more efficiently. 

We believe the NEPA document should display an 

alternative that utilizes tractor piling as a feasible option 

for treating some of the “heavy fuel” loadings and for 

reforestation efforts.

Comment noted. Clarification. Under alternative 4, 

natural fuel loadings may be treated with machine piling 

outside landing areas only if absolutely needed 

because of extreme fuel loading (see map A-6, 

appendix A). Due to the use of whole-tree yarding, 

machine piling outside of landing areas will be 

uncommon and only in units with heavy accumulations 

of fuels (either natural or past treatment-generated) 

where hand piling would be cost prohibitive. Where 

possible, machine piling outside landing units will be 

from existing skid or off-trail access and will be limited 

to one pass. See sections 2.2.3 and 2.2.4. 

Not an issue. (5)

2 General We feel this project needs to treat as many acres as 

possible in order to fully meet your designated purpose 

and need. We encourage you not to reduce the project 

(total acreage, total volume, and volume per acre) any 

further.

Comment noted. Actions were identified based on the 

existing stand conditions and what was needed to meet 

the desired stand conditions to address the purpose 

and need identified for this project, while meeting forest 

plan standards and guidelines. See sections 2.2 and 

2.4.

Not an issue. (4)

2 Timber 

Economics

Industry infrastructure is very important in terms of 

implementing your projects. This needs to be a 

consideration when assessing economics and project 

design. 

Comment noted. Industry infrastructure anticipated to 

be available for this project is considered in treatment 

development, but is not part of the purpose and need of 

this project. Although not part of the purpose and need 

of this project, economics financial efficiency of project 

was analyzed by alternative. See section 3.4.1. 

Not an issue. (5). 
Hi-Grouse Project

Appendix -24

Letter # Topic Comment 1 Response

Issue (#) 

if Non-significant

3 General This plan should be put aside until the new 

administration comes into power in January. I do not 

like and object to lame duck administrations trying to 

make plans for their own future enrichment and to harm 

the American people the way the Bush administration 

has done. Our children are much worse off because of 

his inept, wasteful, negligent administration, which 80% 

of the American public has rejected. We don’t want this 

plan either which has been formulated under bush 

lobbyists/appointees who think of wall street 

enrichment first. The plans put forth here are not 

necessary. We need to have a more natural plan. 

Frankly, the forest service has been known as simply 

running lumberyards for the lumber barons under Bush. 

Instead of protecting the lands for our children, they 

have been cutting down huge million acres swaths of 

land so the lumber can be sent to Japan or china for 

some lumber barons to make big money. That needs to 

be stopped. All of us all over this nation paid taxes to 

save this land, save the trees, which are crucial to 

protect erosion, protect stream health, prevent heat 

islands and take up carbon dioxide. The forest service 

seems to be absolutely ignorant of the environmental 

harm that their endless cutting is doing to this nation. 

This plan needs to be thrown in the trash. Let our new 

administration make its own plans. We are hoping for a 

better environmental policy. I think the forest service 

has been involved in some slippery bribes with big 

lumber. That should be investigated.

The no action alternative addresses this comment. 

Comment noted. This discussion is outside the scope 

of this project.

Not an issue. (1)

4 Silviculture While we support thinning-from-below so-as to reduce 

white-fir encroachment, please note that harvest aimed 

at reducing various tree diseases and parasites has 

been shown to have the opposite effect in many 

instances. Indeed, disturbance agents that create small 

patches of dead trees are important for a myriad 

species and ecological processes. This is how 

ecologically beneficial variability is introduced in these 

forests, particularly in the absence of fire.

Comment noted. Fire and other ecological processes 

are important for developing stand variability. Project 

design features including leaving untreated patches, 

coarse woody debris, snags, and the use of borax in 

areas with annosus, in conjunction with the proposed 

silvicultural and fuels prescriptions, address the need to 

protect forest health while providing for stand variability.

See sections 2.2.5, 3.2.1 and 3.2.2. 

Not an issue. (4)
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix–25

Letter # Topic Comment 1 Response

Issue (#) 

if Non-significant

4 Silviculture The Hi-Grouse Project should differentiate between 

areas where mixed conifer forests make up the 

reference condition and where pine forests are the 

natural vegetation. There should be consideration for 

the natural presence of white fir and large white fir trees 

should be retained in the mixed conifer settings.

Comment noted. Effects from the modified proposed 

action alternatives on vegetation and forest health are 

analyzed. See section 3.2.1. 

Note: The existing conditions by stand were considered 

for this project and compared to the desired conditions 

in the Forest Plan, including consideration of historic 

reference conditions, to develop the purpose and need 

of this project (see sections 1.3 and 1.4). Ponderosa 

pine restoration and re-establishment treatments were 

determined to adversely affect NGH habitat below 

Forest Plan S&G 8-20 levels. These treatments are no 

longer included in proposed alternatives, but were 

considered in the proposed action from scoping that 

was dropped from detailed study (see section 2.4).

Not an issue. (5)

4 Silviculture We would like to see the examples of areas where 

larger (>20 inches dbh) need to be cut because they 

are encroaching on other tree species. Generally, the 

agency can accomplish forest health and fuels 

reduction goals without removing the boles of large 

white fir from a forest stand. 

Effects from the proposed action alternatives on forest 

health are analyzed. Alternative 3 analyzes retaining 

trees greater than 20 inches dbh in all treated units. 

Alternative 4 retains trees greater than 20 inches dbh in 

nesting and roosting areas for NSO and NGH. See

sections 2.2.2 and 2.2.3. A larger tree may be removed 

to emphasize desired species composition for longterm forest health. Effects from the proposed action 

alternatives on vegetation and forest health are 

analyzed in section 3.2.1. 

Not an issue. (5).

4 NEPA The Forest Service should consider snag creation 

(girdling, hot burns, etc.) and leaving large logs on site, 

instead of removing large wood from the stand 

identified in the EA. This is particularly important given 

that “thinning and fuel reduction treatments would result 

in short-term impacts to some important NSO habitat 

elements such as canopy cover and down woody 

debris.”

Unlike most of the Goosenest Ranger District, many 

stands within this project area do not have a shortage 

of snags and down woody material. Snags and large 

down (coarse) woody debris are recognized 

components of wildlife habitat and will be analyzed. 

Forest Plan standards and guidelines for snags and 

coarse woody debris are incorporated. See existing 

condition in section 1.3. Project design features 

incorporate maintaining adequate snags and coarse 

woody debris (section 2.2.5). 

Not an issue. (4)

4 Silviculture We do not support the conversion of red fir stands to 

pine stands as proposed on page 6 of the scoping 

Comment noted. This project only proposed to restore 

pine component where pine was historically a 

component. Stand type conversions in contrast with 

Not an issue. (1)
Hi-Grouse Project

Appendix -26

Letter # Topic Comment 1 Response

Issue (#) 

if Non-significant

notice. historical, existing, and Forest Plan desired conditions 

are not proposed. Ponderosa pine restoration and reestablishment treatments were determined to adversely 

affect NGH habitat below Forest Plan S&G 8-20 levels. 

This treatment is no longer included in proposed 

alternatives. Alternative 4 includes planting of pine and 

mixed conifer species where needed on 644 acres.

This will not result in stand conversion because not all 

fir will be removed prior to planting. Thinning treatments 

are proposed in white fir, lodgepole, and mixed conifer 

stands. See appendix C for detailed prescription 

descriptions.

4 Silviculture The DEIS should address the findings contained in 

Chappell and Agee, 1996, Fire Severity and Tree 

Seedling Establishments in Abies Magniffica Forests, 

Southern Cascades, Oregon. Ecological Applications, 

Vol. 6, No. 2 (May, 1996), 628. [The following findings 

are listed in the scoping letter]: 

 The role of disturbance in the development and 

dynamics of red fir forests has been perplexing, in 

part, because of a seeming contradiction: red fir is 

both (1) shade-tolerant and self perpetuating, and (2) 

regenerates abundantly after some major 

disturbances, including fire and wind (Taylor and 

Halpern 1991). 

 Regeneration in clearcuts is highly variable and often 

inadequate from a silvicultural perspective 

(Gratkowski 1958; Gordon 1970.) 

 Red fir seedling establishment and growth is strongly 

related to periodic disturbance. The existence of 

episodic regeneration after disturbance does not 

preclude however, the simultaneous occurrence of a 

more continuous, slower mode of regeneration that 

allows red fir to perpetuate itself indefinitely (Taylor 

and Halpern 1991). 

 Retention of a partial canopy after disturbance favors 

Effects from the proposed action alternatives on 

vegetation and forest health are analyzed. Relevant 

literature has been reviewed and noted in the analysis

(see section 3.2.1). 

Not an issue. (5)
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix–27

Letter # Topic Comment 1 Response

Issue (#) 

if Non-significant

red fir seedling establishment. The resultant shade 

ameliorates drought stress, a key mortality agent for

red fir seedlings (Gordon 1970; Ustin et al. 1984;

Selter et al. 1986). 

 As Picher (1987) noted in the southern Sierra 

Nevada, fire suppression in red fir forests probably 

has not altered fuel loads or stand structure to a point 

outside the natural range of variability within a stand, 

as it has in lower elevation mixed conifer stands. 

4 Silviculture [T]he scoping notice indicates that the agency intends 

to clear cut opening of up to 1 acre in up to 15% of 

some of the units in the project area. While we 

recognized (and encourage) the thinning of ground 

fuels and ladder fuels, we are not convinced that clear 

cutting and the total removal of forest canopy will 

achieve the desire reduction in fuel hazard and 

increase in forest health.

Effects from the proposed action alternatives on fuels 

reduction and forest health are analyzed. See sections 

3.2.1 and 3.2.2. 

Clarification: Treatments in NGH habitat and root 

disease centers will retain trees within the 1⁄4 to 1-acre 

openings. These openings are not proposed clear cuts, 

but are small openings to enhance stand variability. 

With this treatment some overstory trees will be 

removed, retaining some understory trees and shrubs.

See appendix C for detailed descriptions.

Not an issue. (5) 

4 Fuels "[F]uel treatments" that reduce basal area or density 

from above (i.e., removal of the largest stems) will be 

ineffective within the context of wildfire management. 

[This is a finding based on a variety of citations; see 

scoping input letter]. 

Effects from the proposed action alternatives on fuels 

reduction and forest health are analyzed. See sections 

3.2.1 and 3.2.2. 

Not an issue. (5).

4 Silviculture Multiple studies link the occurrence of laminated root 

rot and annosus to logging activities in western forests 

(Smith 1989; Goheen and Goheen 1989; Filip et al. 

1992). Goheen and Hanson (1993) found that 

laminated root rot predisposes Douglas firs west of the 

Cascades to bark beetle attack. In contrast, old-growth 

and unmanaged forests are less vulnerable to pest 

outbreaks than simplified forests created by silvicultural 

management (Schowalter and Means 1989).

Laminated root rot has not been found in the project 

area and seldom infects ponderosa pine. This is not 

applicable to the project area (Angwin 2008).

Design features are included to minimize occurrences, 

such as application of borax to stumps to prevent 

spread of annosus, using existing and designated skid 

trails to reduce root damage, and protective timber sale 

administration to limit damage to residual trees (see 

section 2.2.5). 

Submitted literature was considered and relevant 

literature used. See section 3.2.1. 

Not an issue. (1,3) 
Hi-Grouse Project

Appendix -28

Letter # Topic Comment 1 Response

Issue (#) 

if Non-significant

Clarification regarding the proposed treatments include 

thinning-from-below is proposed. In lodgepole, surface 

fuel loadings will be reduced. See sections 3.2.1 and 

3.2.2.

4 Soils/Road 

Maintenance

We are very concerned about the long-term impacts to 

soil health and hydrology from the construction of new 

(temporary) logging roads in the project area. We do 

appreciate that the Forest Service has identified nonsystem roads for 3 miles of the 3.75 miles of proposed 

road construction. Nevertheless, the existing road 

density is far too high, and the agency must start 

looking for opportunities to reduce its road maintenance 

overhead. This is particularly important given the 

current proposal in the Klamath National Forest’s 

Travel Management Planning process to add a 

significant amount of non-system roads to the travel 

system in the Goosenest Ranger District. 

Effects on soils from temporary use of existing nonsystem roads and project design features were

analyzed and no significant impact found. Project 

activities would meet SQAS and Forest Plan standards

(see section 3.3). Temporary roads will be closed upon 

project completion. No new roads will be added to the 

travel system on the Goosenest Ranger District.

Alternative 4 includes closure and decommissioning of 

two road segments to reduce potential impacts to NSO. 

See section 2.2.3. 

BMPs are part of the proposal (see WS-2 in table 2.2-3, 

with specific items noted in appendix D). 

An alternative was considered that eliminated all 

temporary roads. This alternative would greatly reduce 

treating stands that are in need of treatment for forest 

health issues. This alternative was eliminated from 

detailed analysis since it would not address the 

purpose and need to address long-term forest health. 

To achieve the same level of stand treatment without 

the use of non-system roads, new roads would need to 

be constructed. New road construction has not been 

considered, since impacts to resources would be 

greater than the use of pre-existing roads. As noted in 

the proposed action, non-system roads would only be 

used temporarily and then closed, not contributing to 

“road maintenance overhead.” This alternative was 

eliminated from detailed analysis since it would not 

address the purpose and need of the project. See 

section 2.4. 

Not an issue. (5, 1). 

4 General We do not understand how the agency intends to draw 

adequate funding for maintenance of thousands of 

miles of existing roads and motorized trails while 

simultaneously proposing user-created additions to the 

No new roads will be added to the Forest system as a 

result of this project. Alternative 4 includes closure and 

decommissioning of two road segments, to reduce 

Not an issue (1)
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix–29

Letter # Topic Comment 1 Response

Issue (#) 

if Non-significant

motorized travel system in light of the existing and 

significant maintenance backlog. The USFS must 

consider in its current plan/EIS the closure and 

decommissioning of at least those roads that the 

agency identified in its Roads Analysis as having both 

low value and high risk. We have been told by the 

Klamath Forest Supervisor’s office that needed 

reductions in road density will be accomplished on a 

project-by-project basis. We see no evidence of that in 

the Hi-Grouse proposed action despite the severe 

ecological and economic need to reduce road densities 

in the planning area.

potential impacts to NSO. See section 2.2.3. 

BMPs are part of the proposal (see WS-2 in table 2.2-3, 

with specific items noted in appendix D). 

A forest-wide analysis for travel management is 

ongoing to review the need for roads to be added or 

removed from the Forest system. In alternative 4, 

roads 44N80a and 44N62a were identified during 

consultation efforts with the USFWS as a concern due 

to their location in NSO Critical Habitat. These two spur 

roads were previously closed (barricaded) to eliminate 

use. These two roads are identified for 

decommissioning to remove them from the Forest 

System roads under alternative 4 (modified proposed 

action).

Road decommissioning is not part of the purpose and 

need of this project and is outside the scope. Effects 

from road access for treatment on wildlife, including 

deer, elk, marten, and fisher, are analyzed in section 

3.2.3. 

The district also considered comments received from 

the Tribes concerning continued roaded access for 

elders in and around traditional areas for traditional 

purposes, including gathering. 

4 Wildlife The EIS should address and avoid the harmful impacts 

[of roads] detailed in [Trombulack and Frissell (2000) 

attached to comment letter]. 

Effects from roads, including temporary roads, are 

discussed in the analysis. Relevant literature was 

reviewed and considered for analysis. See sections 

3.2.3 and 3.3 regarding effects to wildlife and 

watershed resources. 

Not an issue. (5). 

4 Wildlife The regional decline of migratory birds is a significant 

issue for this project. Numerous studies have reported 

local and regional trends in breeding and migratory bird 

populations throughout North America (e.g., DeGraaf 

and Rappole 1995; Sauer et al. 2004). These studies 

suggest geographically widespread population declines 

that have provoked conservation concern for birds, 

particularly neotropical migrants (Askins 1993;

Effects on migratory birds are included in the analysis. 

This project was designed to provide a mosaic of 

habitats across the landscape. Several design features 

are incorporated into the proposed action to maintain a 

variety of habitat types, including no treatment areas, a 

mosaic treatment of understory fuels, spacing variability 

and the retention of the largest trees in thinning units. 

Refer to the wildlife reports that address these 

Not an issue. (5).
Hi-Grouse Project

Appendix -30

Letter # Topic Comment 1 Response

Issue (#) 

if Non-significant

Terborgh 1989) The 2005 report from the Klamath Bird 

Observatory entitled “Local and Regional Trends in 

Breeding and Migratory Bird Populations in the Klamath 

and Rogue River Valleys: Monitoring Results for 1993-

2003” may be viewed at: 

http://www.klamathbird.org/Publications/pubs.htm. This 

paper indicates that several species on songbirds are 

suffering declining population trends at the regional 

level.

The EIS for this project should analyze and disclose the 

potential impacts of conifer thinning operation and 

juniper reduction on neotropical bird population trends. 

concerns in more detail. See section 3.2.3.6.

The project is not expected to have significant impacts 

on migratory birds as documented within the MIS, BA, 

and BE, etc. Potential effects to migratory birds and 

their habitats are fully evaluated and disclosed in 

compliance with NEPA requirements. Impacts to 

migratory bird populations potentially affected by the 

proposed action are discussed within the MIS report for 

the project. Impacts to specific TES birds and their 

habitats are disclosed within the BA and BE. See 

section 3.2.3.6. 

LSRs are important land allocations because they are 

managed to maintain or improve habitat for latesuccessional species, but the Forest Service did not 

rely on availability of these areas as mitigation for any 

potential impacts to migratory birds analyzed and 

disclosed in the NEPA document. In addition, migratory 

birds rely on habitats and habitat structure beyond 

those managed for within LSRs; therefore, planned 

actions incorporate consideration for maintaining a 

diversity of well distributed habitat types across the 

landscape. See sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.3. 

4 Wildlife The cumulative effects analysis on migratory birds 

should not rely exclusively on Wilderness, Riparian 

Reserves and LSRs will provide for species viability 

into the future, but the complete lack of those land use 

allocations in the planning area severely limits the 

ability of those land use allocations to mitigate the 

effects of this action. Further, it is very dangerous to 

rely on LSRs and Riparian Reserves elsewhere in the 

Northwest Forest Plan area to mitigate project impacts 

because many Forest Service and BLM Districts are 

actively logging those land use allocations, regardless 

of the effects on migratory birds, despite their reserve 

status. We refer you to the Biscuit fire salvage timber 

sale as one (very large) example. Lastly, all of the 

Westside BLM Districts governed by the Northwest 

Effects on migratory birds are included in the analysis. 

This project was designed to provide a mosaic of 

habitats across the landscape. Several design features 

are incorporated into the proposed action to maintain a 

variety of habitat types, including no treatment areas, a 

mosaic treatment of understory fuels, spacing variability 

and the retention of the largest trees in thinning units. 

Refer to the wildlife reports that address these 

concerns in more detail. See sections 3.2.3.2, 3.2.3.4, 

and 3.2.3.6.

Not an issue. (5) 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix–31

Letter # Topic Comment 1 Response

Issue (#) 

if Non-significant

Forest Plan are have engaged in a plan revision 

process to drastically reduce the LSR and Riparian 

Reserve allocations on their lands. You can view this 

decision at 

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/pdf/E9-103.pdf. 

The BLM’s decision to reduce its protective land use 

allocations has the potential to influence the ability of 

those land use allocations to provide for migratory bird 

populations at the regional scale in the future. Simply 

concluding that the scale of the project is so small, 

relative to the size of the forest, that migratory bird 

populations will not be affected will not suffice.

4 Wildlife The forthcoming DEIS must detail in the impact of 

proposed “opening” (clearcuts) of up to 1 acre on 

habitat fragmentation and spotted owl suitable habitat. 

Please note that the Northwest Forest Plan requires 

leave trees (green tree retention) even in matrix lands. 

And this planning area contains both AMA and NSO 

critical habitat. Clearcutting (openings) in a project 

designed to increase forest health and decrease fire 

hazard would be entirely inappropriate and illegal.

No clearcuts were proposed with this project. Effects of 

small openings to wildlife are analyzed and disclosed. 

The 1⁄4 to 1-acre openings are not proposed clearcuts, 

since they would remove some overstory trees and 

retain understory trees. See appendix C for detailed 

descriptions.

Alternatives 3 and 4 were developed to analyze a 

range of reasonable alternatives and their associated 

impacts to wildlife habitat. See wildlife analysis section 

3.2.3.

Effects to NSO Critical Habitat and other wildlife habitat 

are analyzed. See section 3.2.3.2 for NSO and the 

remainder of section 3.2.3 for other wildlife species.

Consultation with the USFWS has been completed.

Not an issue. (1,5)

4 Soils We are very concerned about the potential impacts of 

ground-based yarding systems on soil health and 

productivity. Please flag this as an issue of concern for 

the project. Please note that ground-based logging 

causes higher incidences of root damage and scarring 

of residual trees (compared to skyline systems). 

Effects of soils were analyzed and project design 

features include BMPs to provide soils and watershed 

resource protection. See sections 2.2.5, 3.3, and

appendix D.

The proposed treatments are on relatively gentle 

slopes where skyline systems are not feasible. The 

cable would not have enough lift and there would be no 

way to suspend one end of the tree. Therefore, the 

trees would displace much more soil than groundbased logging. Soils within the project area have 

Not an issue. (5) 
Hi-Grouse Project

Appendix -32

Letter # Topic Comment 1 Response

Issue (#) 

if Non-significant

developed primarily from volcanic ash and alluvium 

deposited over lava flows and ash on mountain 

sideslopes. Currently, erosion hazards are low due to 

gentle slopes and the high amount of soil cover. Based 

upon recent soil compaction monitoring on the 

Goosenest Ranger District, detrimental soil disturbance 

will be confined to a small portion of main skid trails, 

landings, and dozer fire lines. 

Implementation of the proposed action will be carried 

out to protect soil and water resources. Project design 

features such as whole-tree logging, retaining snags 

and coarse woody debris, and BMPs have been 

incorporated into the proposed action to minimize 

impacts to these resources. Refer to the soil section in 

the watershed report for more detail. See section 3.3.1, 

2.2.5 and appendix D.

4 Silviculture Please develop this forest health project so-as to thin 

surface and ladder fuels from below while retaining 

canopy cover and down woody debris. 

Effects to fuels and forest health will be analyzed. See 

sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2.

Clarification: The project proposes thinning-from-below; 

higher basal area retention was considered for an 

alternative. See detailed prescriptions in appendix C.

Not an issue. (5)

4 Wildlife The forthcoming DEIS must detail in the impact of 

proposed “opening” (clearcuts) of up to 1 acre on 

habitat fragmentation and spotted owl suitable habitat. 

Please note that the Northwest Forest Plan requires 

leave trees (green tree retention) even in matrix lands. 

And this planning area contains both AMA and NSO 

critical habitat. Clearcutting (openings) in a project 

designed to increase forest health and decrease fire 

hazard would be entirely inappropriate and illegal.

No clear cuts were proposed with this project. Effects 

of small openings to wildlife are analyzed and 

disclosed. The 1⁄4 to 1-acre openings are not proposed 

clear cuts, since they would remove some overstory 

trees and will retain understory trees. See appendix C 

for detailed descriptions.

Alternative 3 and 4 were developed to analyze a range 

of reasonable alternatives and their associated impacts 

to wildlife habitat. See wildlife analysis in section 3.2.3. 

Effects to NSO Critical Habitat and other wildlife habitat 

are analyzed. See section 3.2.3.2 for NSO and the 

remainder of section 3.2.3 for other wildlife species.

Consultation with the USFWS will be completed prior to 

the decision.

Not an issue. (1,5).
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix–33

Letter # Topic Comment 1 Response

Issue (#) 

if Non-significant

4 Wildlife The forthcoming DEIS must also address the impacts 

of commercial thinning activities on NSO site fidelity 

and reproductive success.

There are no active nests in the project area. Effects to 

NSO habitat are analyzed and disclosed. See section 

3.2.3.2.

Not an issue. (5)

4 Transportation/ 

Wildlife/Fuels

We encourage the Forest Service to develop and 

implement a project that reduces the current road 

density, retains large pine trees and snags, avoids 

ground based yarding in sensitive areas and thins 

ladder and surface fuels while avoiding the creation of 

“1 acre openings” and the removal of overstory forest 

canopy.

Travel management is not part of the purpose and 

need of this project and is outside the scope of this 

project. Alternatives 1 and 3 would maintain the current 

road system and densities. Alternative 4 (modified 

proposed action) was developed to reduce impacts on 

NSO and NGH known habitat. Acres treated in 

nesting/roosting/foraging habitats across the project 

area and basal area maintained within individual stands 

are used in the DEIS as measurement indicators for 

this issue (see section 3.2.3). 

In alternative 4 (modified proposed action), roads 

44N80a and 44N62a were identified during consultation 

efforts with the USFWS as a concern due to their 

location in NSO Critical Habitat. These two spur roads 

were previously closed (barricaded) to eliminate use. 

These two roads are identified for decommissioning to 

remove them from the Forest System roads under 

alternative 4 (see section 2.2.3) 

Retaining large trees and snags to meet Forest Plan 

direction is incorporated into all action alternatives.

Treatments were developed to address fuels and forest 

health concerns. Implementation of the proposed action 

will be carried out to protect soil, water, and wildlife 

resources. Project design features such as whole-tree 

logging, retaining snags and coarse woody debris, and 

use of BMPs have been incorporated into the 

proposed action to minimize impacts to these 

resources. See section 2.2.5. 

Not an issue. (1, 5)

No5 Economics A project that meets the management objectives and 

does so in a positive cash flow return to the agency, 

and contributes money to county schools and roads 

programs should be the desired outcome for this 

project. 

Comment noted. An economic analysis has been 

completed (see section 3.4.1). 

Not an issue. (5)
Hi-Grouse Project

Appendix -34

Letter # Topic Comment 1 Response

Issue (#) 

if Non-significant

5 Economics During development of the individual timber sale(s), 

please use the most current market values during the 

economic analysis. The 4th quarter of 2008 (CY) 

marked the 14th consecutive quarter that softwood 

lumber prices have declined.

Although not part of the purpose and need of this 

project, an economic analysis has been completed that

uses the most updated economic values available. 

Please see section 3.4.1.

Not an issue. (5)

5 Silviculture The Ponderosa Pine/Mixed Conifer Restoration and 

Re-establishment prescription calls for pine/conifer 

restoration using thinning, planting of pines where they 

are lacking...and will include un-thinned areas and 

small openings of 1⁄4 acre to 1 acre in size. Openings of 

this size are simply too small to effectively restore 

and/or establish pine. The size range needs to be 

increased to 2 acres on the upper end in order to allow 

for sufficient sunlight. The widely accepted size range 

for group selection harvest is <1-2.0 acres 

(http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/psw_

rp220/psw_rp220.pdf). The prescription needs to be 

flexible enough to accomplish the proposed action.

The existing root disease present in the fir stands limits 

the treatment options available for pine restoration 

while meeting other project objectives. 

Ponderosa pine restoration and re-establishment 

treatments were in alternative 2, the proposed action 

from scoping. These treatments were determined to 

adversely affect NGH habitat below Forest Plan S&G 8-

20 levels. This treatment is no longer included in 

proposed alternatives. See section 2.4 for alternatives 

considered but eliminated from detailed analysis. 

However, alternative 4 includes planting of pine and 

mixed conifer species where needed on 644 acres.

Not an issue. (4, 5)

6 Cumulative 

Watershed 

Effects 

The NEPA environmental document must contain a 

quantitative analysis of CWEs, including thresholds of 

concern to the project area. Additionally, the project 

should design features and mitigation measures that 

are designed to minimize, offset, and/or reduce

cumulative impacts. 

Analysis of cumulative watershed effects (CWE) is 

included, using the CWE model used in Region 5. 

Project design features include BMPs to ensure longterm soil productivity and water quality. See sections 

2.2.5, 3.3.1, and 3.3.2. 

Not an issue. (5) 

6 General The planning process needs to follow the procedural 

requirements of the Porter-Cologne Act and the North 

Coast Basin Plan. 

The project has and will continue to follow procedural 

requirements. 

Not an issue. (2).

6 Project 

Design 

Issues that should be addressed in the environmental 

document include timing of implementation, erosion 

control, wet weather operations, erosion control on 

roads and landings, and long-term road maintenance of 

system and non-system roads.

Project design features include BMPs to ensure longterm soil productivity and water quality. Effects to 

resources from the proposed actions are analyzed. See 

section 2.2.5.

Travel management, including long-term maintenance 

of system and non-system roads, is outside the scope 

of this project.

Not an issue. (1, 5). 

1 References from comment letters: 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix–35

Askins, R.A. 1993. Population trends in grassland, shrubland, and forest birds in eastern North America. Current Ornithology 11.

DeGraaf, R.M.; Rappole, J.H. 1995. Neotropical migratory birds: natural history, distribution and population change. Cornell University Press, New York, USA. 

Filip, G.M.; Schmitt, C.L.; Hosman, K.P. 1992. Effects of harvesting season and stump size on incidence of annosus root disease of true fir. Western Journal of 

Applied Forestry 7: 54–56.

Goheen, E.M.; Goheen, D.J. 1989. Losses caused by annosus root disease in Pacific Northwest forests. Pages 66–69 in Proceedings of the symposium on 

research and management of annosus root disease (Heterobasidion annosum) in western North America. Otrosina, W.J.; Scharpf, R.F.; technical 

coordinators. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PSW-GTR-116, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, CA.

Kellog, L.; Han, H.S.; Mayo, J.; Sissel, J. [undated]. Residual stand damage from thinning: Young stand diversity study. Cascade Center for Ecosystem 

Management.

Ritchie, M.W. 2003. Ecological research at the Goosenest Adaptive Management Area in northeastern California. USDA Forest Service General Technical 

Report PSW-GTR-192, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, CA. 125 p.

Sauer, J.R.; Hines, J.E.; Fallon, J. 2004. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, results and analysis 1966–2003, Version 2004.1 USGS Patuxent Wildlife 

Research Center, Laurel, MD.

Smith, R.S., Jr. 1989. History of Heterobasidion annosum in western United States. Pages 10–16 in Proceedings of the symposium on research and 

management of Annosus root disease (Heterobasidion annosum) in western North America. Otrosina, W.J.; Scharpf, R.F.; technical coordinators. USDA 

Forest Service General Technical Report PSW-GTR-116, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, CA.

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix–37

Appendix C: Detailed Prescriptions

The following prescriptions were used for the development of the proposed action and other 

alternatives, and are assigned to the GIS layer of potential units. The ID team, district staff, and 

District Ranger determined acres and spatial location of final units, and specific modifications to 

these prescriptions, which were developed with the purpose and need in mind. 

Stand exams and field reconnaissance were the basis of the diagnosis of the stand and how it 

could be treated to meet the desired condition. Treatment options were field verified. A field trip 

to the site with Forest Health Protection staff from Redding, California, confirmed the presence 

of suspected insect and disease agents, most notably annosus root disease, dwarf mistletoes, and 

mountain and western pine beetle (Angwin 2008). In many stands, an intermediate treatment is 

not an option due to the almost exclusive dominance of white fir on what were historically pinedominated sites—the removal of the pine and larger white fir has left diseased stands that would 

not respond to thinning- these stands were not included in the modified proposed action. In 

relation to late-successional habitat, the absence or scarcity of large ponderosa pine and large 

white fir with large limbs and long full crowns, which provide nesting structure, is a 

consideration in all of these prescriptions. In all treatments, the largest ponderosa pine and white 

fir will be left. In prescriptions that involve removing substantial amounts of true fir, the 

following elements will be retained: essentially all ponderosa pine/sugar pine/white pine, 

individuals and clumps of pre-dominant true fir, widely spaced true fir, and no-treatment clumps. 

Unit numbers refer to the units in the modified proposed action, which became alternative 4. 

Some prescriptions are specific to alternative 3 and are noted as such.. 

Silvicultural Prescriptions—Terms

HTH ~ thinning from below in stands consisting mostly of trees 9 to 24 in. dbh. Sawlogs and 

fiber would be removed and in most cases these treatments are expected to cover costs of 

product removal and provide net timber receipts. 

PCT2 ~ thinning of trees generally less than 12 inches dbh in natural stands; could yield biomass 

or other products and minor amounts of sawlogs; mostly mechanical methods, but some hand 

treatment.

PCT ~ thinning of trees generally less than 12 inches dbh in old regeneration cutting units; could 

be accomplished by mechanical or hand methods. 

PP ~ ponderosa pine; WF=white fir; RF=red fir; TF=true firs; LP=lodgepole pine

MC ~ mixed conifer- ponderosa pine, white fir, lodgepole pine, and red fir in various 

aggregations.

Hvy ~ heavy thinning.

NGH ~ northern goshawk. 

NSO ~ northern spotted owl.

Annosus root disease (Heterbasidion annosum) ~ S-type of disease affects white fir but not 

ponderosa pine. 
Hi-Grouse Project

Appendix–38

Biodiversity Elements

1. No-Treatment Clumps: areas ranging from 1⁄4 to several acres in size left un-thinned to 

provide biodiversity.

2. Openings/Gaps: areas ranging from 1⁄4 to one acre in size where most trees are removed 

to provide biodiversity. These will not be clearcuts. Predominant trees, 

ponderosa/sugar/white pine, snags, and down logs will be left within gaps. If the 

previous elements do not exist, then one or two dominant true firs will be left. These 

openings will not be planted. 

3. Predominant ponderosa/sugar/white pines and predominant true firs will be left to 

provide nesting structure and biodiversity. 

Table C-1. Summary of treatment groupings

Treatments Prescriptions Terms

Thinning from Below HTH (all variations with-WF-PP-RF-MC), PCT2* 

Lodgepole Pine Thinning/Fuels 

Reduction

HTH-LP, LPFR

Plantation Thinning PCT

Overall Fuels Abatement WTY, BMR, HP, MP, M, Bundle/LS

Underburning Only UB

HTH-PP: Units 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11

This prescription will be applied to stands in the white fir/pine type with current stocking 

averages of at least 80 (square feet of) basal area per acre of ponderosa pine. The objective is to 

leave on average 80 basal area of ponderosa pine, ranging from 40 to 100 basal area. These 

stands would be dominated by the largest, healthiest ponderosa pine, with older white fir where 

they provide decadent-tree habitat. More open areas of pine will be thinned to 40 to 60 basal 

area, while denser areas will be thinned to 80 to 100 basal area to re-create structural patchiness. 

Disease-free white fir groups will be thinned to 100 to 140 basal area to create spatial 

heterogeneity, and all white fir and ponderosa pine predominant trees will be left. The emphasis 

is on leaving the largest pines regardless of spacing, including leaving clumps of larger trees 

while removing smaller trees within 40 feet of predominant fir and pines. 

No-treatment clumps will be left in up to 10 percent of the unit, with emphasis on areas 

dominated by white fir. Openings of 1⁄4 to 1 acres could be created in white fir disease centers 

and uniform pine aggregates in up to 10 percent of the unit area. Planting of pine will not occur 

in the gaps created by this prescription. Borax will be applied to ponderosa cut pine stumps in 

accordance with regional guidelines. Underburning will happen after fuels treatments are 

completed. HTH-PP-lite- alternative 3 only- Units 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 45a

This prescription modifies the units with the HTH-PP prescription in the modified proposed 

action to leave approximately 130 basal area (120 to 140 basal arrea) and 40 percent canopy 

cover where that amount or more currently exists. There will be a 20 inch dbh limit on trees cut, 

and understory trees will be thinned to 15 to 25 foot spacing where they exist. 

HTH-WF-PP: Units 19, 21a, 22 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix–39

White fir groups will be thinned to 120 to 140 basal area; white fir will be spaced 30 to 40 feet 

from pine clumps or individual dominant and co-dominant trees, to allow for these trees to 

increase resistance to beetle attack. The objectives are to reduce density, promote the remaining 

pine, and increase spatial variability.

No-treatment clumps will be left in up to 10 percent of the unit, with emphasis on areas 

dominated by white fir. Openings of 1⁄4 to 1 acres could be created in white fir disease centers in 

up to 10 percent of the unit area. Planting of pine will not occur in the gaps created by this 

prescription. 

Underburning will take place after mechanical fuels treatments are completed in unit 21a only. 

The fuels emphasis will be on whole-tree yarding (removing tops) in all units, and piling and 

burning of natural fuels accumulations where necessary. Borax will be applied to cut white fir 

and ponderosa pine stumps in accordance with regional guidelines. 

HTH-WF-PP-lite- Alternative 3 only- Units 19, 21a, 22, 23, 24, 25b, 29 

This prescription modifies the HTH-WF-PP prescription for alternative 3 to leave approximately 

180 basal area (160 to 200 basal area) and 60 percent canopy cover where that amount or more 

currently exists. There will be a 20 inch dbh limit on trees cut, and understory trees will be 

thinned to 15 to 25 foot spacing where they exist. There will be no created openings. 

HTH-WF-PP-lite-NGH: Units 23, 25b, 29 

This prescription modifies the HTH-WF-PP prescription to leave approximately 180 basal area

(160 to 200 basal area) and 60 percent canopy cover where that amount or more currently exists. 

There will be a 20 inch dbh limit on trees cut. Understory trees will be reduced to healthy 

ponderosa pine and white fir where they exist, focusing on future replacement trees to the 

overstory. There will be no created openings.

Trees removed will generally be 12 inch dbh and smaller. The primary objectives of this 

treatment are to reduce stand density to help maintain ponderosa pine, reduce ladder fuels, and 

provide future goshawk nesting habitat structure in the stand. 

The fuels emphasis will be removing tops and piling and burning of natural fuels accumulations 

where needed. Borax will be applied to cut white fir and ponderosa pine stumps in accordance 

with regional guidelines.

HTH-WF-PP-lite-NSO: Unit 24

This prescription modifies the HTH-WF-PP prescription to leave approximately 180 basal area

(160 to 200 basal area) and 60 percent canopy cover where that amount or more currently exists. 

There will be a 20 inch dbh limit on trees cut, and understory trees will be thinned to 15 to 25 

foot spacing where they exist. There will be no created openings. 

Same stand type as HTH-WF-PP, but objective for spotted owl habitat would lead to cutting trees 

generally 12 inches dbh and smaller. The primary objectives of this treatment would be to reduce 

stand density in order to help maintain ponderosa pine, reduce ladder fuels, and maintain habitat 

structure in the stand. 
Hi-Grouse Project

Appendix–40

The fuels emphasis will be whole-tree yarding (removing tops) and piling and burning of natural 

fuels accumulations where needed. Borax will be applied to cut white fir and ponderosa pine 

stumps in accordance with regional guidelines.

HTH-PP-Hvy: Units 10, 20, 45a 

This prescription will be applied to heavily-diseased stands of white fir/pine with current 

stocking averages at least 50 basal area ponderosa pine. White fir in these stands is heavily 

infected with annosus root disease, and dwarf mistletoe in association with cytospora canker. 

Essentially all ponderosa pine will be left, except in dense areas where pines would be thinned 

down to 80 basal area. The target stand will have a residual 40 to 80 basal area of ponderosa 

pine. These stands would be dominated by the largest, healthiest ponderosa pine with older white 

fir where they provide characteristics that mimic old-growth habitat. 

Clumps of white fir will be left in areas without pines to retain a high short-term canopy cover 

and coarse woody debris on up to 15 percent of unit. Outside the clumps, other patches of white 

fir will be thinned to 40 to 60 basal area to allow pine regeneration to become established. Where 

ponderosa pine is present, the emphasis will be on leaving the largest pines regardless of spacing, 

including leaving clumps of dominant/co-dominant trees while removing smaller trees within 40 

feet of the dominant trees. Openings of 1⁄4 to 1 acre will be created in white fir disease centers in 

up to 15 percent of the unit area. Units will be evaluated post-treatment for planting. Pine 

generally will not be planted in the gaps created by this prescription in order to encourage open 

“clumpy” structure. After mechanical fuels treatments are completed, the stand will be 

underburned. Borax will be applied to cut ponderosa pine stumps in accordance with regional 

guidelines. 

HTH-RF-lite

This prescription would leave approximately 180 basal area (160 to 200 basal area) and 60 

percent canopy cover where that amount or more currently exists in stands dominated by Shasta 

red fir. There will be a 20 inch dbh limit on trees cut, and understory trees will be thinned to 15 

to 25 foot spacing where they exist, leaving ponderosa pine, red fir, and lodgepole. There will be 

no created openings. Red fir, ponderosa pine, and younger age classes of lodgepole pine would 

compose the residual stand. No-treatment clumps will be left in up to 10 percent of the unit, with 

emphasis on areas dominated by true fir. Borax will be applied to cut true fir stumps in 

accordance with regional guidelines.

HTH-MC-Hvy: Units 18, 28 

Thinning to a target basal area of 80 basal area, but may be as low as 50 basal area and 

occasionally lower in areas with less pine stocking and disease occurrence. As in all thinning 

treatments, non-uniformity of the residual stand would be encouraged by focusing on leaving the 

largest, healthiest pine, including leaving clumps of larger trees and removing all trees within 40 

feet of the clump. Smaller diameter lodgepole would be the second choice for leave trees. 

In areas devoid of pine, clumps of true fir will be left to retain a high short-term canopy cover 

and coarse wood on up to 15 percent of unit where amount exists. Outside the clumps, other 

patches of true fir will be thinned to 40 to 60 basal area to allow pine regeneration. Openings of 

1⁄4 to 1 acres will be created in true fir/lodgepole disease centers in up to 15 percent of the unit 

area. Pine will not be planted in the gaps. Areas of thinned true fir without residual pine will be 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix–41

evaluated post-treatment for planting. Underburning will take place after mechanical fuels 

treatments. Borax will be applied to cut true fir stumps in accordance with regional guidelines. 

HTH-MC-lite: Alternative 3 only- Units 18, 28, 30

This prescription modifies the HTH-MC-HVY prescription to leave approximately 140 basal 

area (120 to 160 basal area) and 40 percent canopy cover where that amount or more currently 

exists. There will be a 20 inch dbh limit on trees cut, and understory trees will be thinned to 15 to 

25 foot spacing where they exist, leaving ponderosa pine, red fir, and lodgepole. 

PCT2-MC: Units 44, 55, 58 

Thinning/removal of trees generally less than 12 inches dbh to 20 to 40 foot spacing and 

emphasizing retention of pines where possible (designation by spacing, leave all pines). No 

openings or planting will occur. No-treatment clumps will be left in up to 15 percent of the unit. 

Borax will be applied to cut true fir stumps in accordance with regional guidelines. 

PCT2-NGH: Unit 30

Understory thinning involves mainly thinning/removal of true firs 12 inches dbh and smaller by 

thinning to a 20 to 30 foot spacing (designation by spacing; leave all pines). No-treatment 

clumps will be left in up to 15 percent of the unit. The objective here is to thin the understory to 

maintain and promote goshawk nesting/foraging habitat over time. Borax will be applied to cut 

true fir stumps in accordance with regional guidelines. 

PCT2: Units 9, 17, 21b, 53b, 59 

Thinning spacing will average 20 to 25 feet, but would be variable. No-treatment clumps will be 

left in up to 15 percent of the unit. Objectives are to reduce fire hazard, manage stand density, 

reduce dwarf mistletoes, and promote pines and red fir in the species composition. Borax will 

not be applied due to the small cut tree diameters.

PCT2-OGRF- Old-growth Red Fir: Units 37, 41 

Small tree thinning in the understory of old-growth red fir-sugar pine-ponderosa pine stands with 

a dense red fir understory. Objectives are to reduce fire hazard and stress on overstory trees to 

maintain these legacy stands. Treatment will consist of hand piling of cut trees generally less 

than 8 inches dbh. Tree spacing will be based on proximity to overstory old-growth trees and 

need for replacement trees. No-treatment clumps will be left in up to 15 percent of the unit. In 

alternatives 2 and 3, underburning to re-introduce fire into a mixed-severity fire regime will

occur after hand-piling and burning treatments. Borax will not be applied due to the small cut 

tree diameters.

HTH-LP: Units 12a, 13 

Useable timber from dead and diseased green trees will be removed. Grapple piling of large 

down fuels, and mastication of lodgepole understory in conjunction with release of suitable 

white fir and ponderosa pine will occur. The end result would be an open pole-sized stand with a 

few remaining overstory trees (mistletoe-free) which would develop over time into a mixed 

species stand still dominated by lodgepole, but with other longer-lived species also occupying 

the site. No-treatment clumps will be left in up to 10 percent of the unit. Borax will not be 

applied due to the small cut tree diameters, and cutting primarily of lodgepole. 
Hi-Grouse Project

Appendix–42

LPFR-Lodgepole Fuel Reduction: Unit 12b

This treatment re-enters the old fuel break in lodgepole pine along Road 15. Residual mistletoeinfested lodgepole and snags will be removed, and the sapling-pole stand thinned to a wide 

spacing to reduce the amount of mistletoe in the stand. Mastication of brush will be done as 

needed. Under alternative 4 machine piling outside of landing areas may occur as needed.

PCT

Small tree thinning in old regeneration harvest units; residual tree spacing will be 15 to 20 feet. 

Fuels Prescriptions

Fuels prescriptions were developed with the purpose and need in mind of restoring the historical 

role of fire in this area. Mechanical treatments will often be necessary during this first entry to 

remove fuel buildups from the missing of several fire cycles and the generation of slash from 

past overstory removal treatments and pre-commercial thinning. In the historic pine-dominated 

types, species composition is also currently very disadvantageous to re-introduction of fire, while 

in the lodgepole type fuel loadings are approaching maximum potential levels due to mountain 

pine beetle activity. To allow the most flexibility during implementation, all appropriate options 

have been identified; but not every option would be required in every case. For example, during 

post-thinning fuels surveys it may become obvious that grapple or machine piling is not 

necessary because natural fuels have become crushed and no longer represent as great a hazard.

Whole-tree yarding (WTY) ~ Tree tops will be moved to the landing for treatment (reoffer as 

forest by-products or burning) through whole-tree yarding. This would reduce fuel levels 

resulting from thinning operations. 

Biomass removal (BMR) ~ Trees (generally less than 12 inch dbh) will be removed in thinning 

operations to reduce the potential of crown fire, improve species composition, and reduce 

competition. Small diameter tree boles may be processed into bundles and removed. 

Piling and burning (HP, MP) ~ Following thinning, piling and burning by hand or mechanical 

methods would be used in fuels treatment corridors or where post-treatment fuels present a fire 

hazard or may lead to difficulty carrying out prescribed underburning. This method will not often 

be needed, since whole-tree yarding will minimize treatment-generated fuels. Hand piling and 

burning of slash and tree stems generated by the thinning or slashing of small diameter trees, 

generally less than 8 inches dbh, would be done by hand crews. Machine methods will involve 

piling of small trees, treatment slash, and natural fuels accumulations using a track-mounted 

excavator-type of machine with a boom-mounted grapple arm, or a small machine (example allsurface vehicle) with a brush-type (toothed) blade. This will only apply in units with heavy

accumulations of either natural or past treatment-generated fuels where hand piling would be 

cost-prohibitive. Piling will be done from existing skid trails wherever possible, and the 

machine would pick up the slash and place it into piles, or make only one pass off-trail. Due to 

the types of machines used and the lack of multiple machine passes over the same ground, little 

or no detrimental soil disturbance is expected from these treatments (if conducted during proper 

site conditions). It is expected that this treatment will be needed on approximately 25 percent or 

less of the area of units where it is prescribed. Piles would be burned under appropriate 

meteorological conditions.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix–43

Lopping and scattering (LS) ~ This method will be used primarily to treat slash generated in 

thinning of plantations. Objective will be to reduce height and continuity of fuels and promote 

faster decomposition. It is not anticipated that this method will be used often since mechanical 

removal of thinned trees by bundling and skidding to landings for use as biomass would be the 

preferred method. In areas that are inaccessible or unsafe for mechanized equipment, this 

treatment is an alternative.

Mowing (M) ~ Shrubs, seedlings, and saplings will be mowed where they are major determinant 

to fire behavior. Lodgepole stands that are now dominated by small trees will also be mowed. 

Objectives will be to reduce shrub density and height and density of small trees to modify fire 

behavior. 

Underburning (UB) ~ Prescribed fire will be used in varying intensities either as a stand-alone

treatment or following thinning in pine-dominated stands. Prescribed fire will be used under 

controlled situations and favorable weather conditions to reduce surface and ladder fuels. The 

objectives of underburning are to reduce natural fuel loads, past activity slash, shrubs and white 

fir understory trees, while increasing herbaceous species and encouraging pine regeneration. Due 

to feasibility considerations, prescribed underburning treatments will not occur all at once, but 

incrementally throughout the life of the project. Detailed burn plans are prepared for all 

prescribed fire activities. 

Fuel Management Zones (FMZ) ~ This treatment was identified along major road corridors 

and certain access roads for fire control. Treatments will consist of small tree thinning and/or 

removal, pruning, mastication of brush, and hand and burning of fuels concentrations. Under 

alternative 4 machine piling may occur outside of landing areas. Treatments will extend up to 

150 feet either side of the road. 

Due to critical habitat designation and nesting/roosting NSO habitat along FR 77 only trees less 

than 8 inches dbh will be removed and leave trees will be variably spaced except where openings 

exist. Some areas will be left clumpy for dispersal and habitat needs, while other areas can be 

more open. Trees less than 10 inches dbh will be removed/spaced along the other FMZ roads in 

the project area. 

Table C-2 lists treatments by unit under all alternatives.
Hi-Grouse Project

Appendix–44

Table C-2. Stand treatments by alternative

Unit_

No

Unit_

Subdiv Silv_Rx Fuels_Rx Spp_Comp Acres Applicable Project Design Features from Table 2-5

Alternative 3

1 1 HTH-PP-lite WTY/M/UB PP 31 AIR1-2; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC2-4; SAF1-3;VEG1-10; 

VIS8-12; WL 2-4, 7-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

2 2 HTH-PP-lite WTY/M/UB PP-WF 129 AIR1-2; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; RDS1-3; REC2-4; SAF1-3;

VEG1-10; VIS6-12; WL 2-4, 7-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

3 3 HTH-PP-lite WTY/PCT2 PP-WF-LP 58 AIR1; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC2-4; SAF1-3; VEG1-10;

VIS8-12; WL 2-3, 7-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

4 4 HTH-PP-lite WTY/M/UB PP 57 AIR1-2; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC1-4; SAF1-3; VEG1-10; 

VIS1-5, 8-12; WL 2-3, 7-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

5 5 UB UB PP-WF-LP 92 AIR1-2; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC1-4; SAF1-3; VEG10; 

VIS1-5, 8-12; WL 2, 4, 7-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

6 6 HTH-PP-lite WTY/UB WF-PP-LP 78 AIR1-2; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC1-4; SAF1-3; VEG1-10; 

VIS1-5, 8-12; WL 2, 4, 7-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

7 7 HTH-PP-lite WTY/UB WF-PP 175 AIR1-2; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC2-4; SAF1-3; VEG1-10; 

VIS8-12; WL 2, 4, 7-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

9 9 PCT2 HP PP-WF-LP 16 AIR1; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; RDS1-3; REC2-4; SAF1-3;

VEG1-10; VIS6-12; WL 2, 4-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

10 10 UB UB WF-PP 42 AIR1-2; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; RDS1-3; REC2-4; SAF1-3; 

VEG10; VIS6-12; WL 2, 4-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

11 11 UB UB WF-PP 193 AIR1-2; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; RDS1-3; REC2-4; SAF1-3; 

VEG10; VIS6-12; WL 2, 4, 7-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

12 12a HTH-LP WTY/PCT2/M LP-WF-PP 245 AIR1; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; RDS1-3; REC1-4; SAF1-3;

VEG1-10; VIS1-12; WL 2-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

12 12b LPFR WTY/PCT2 LP 256 AIR1; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; RDS1-3; REC2-4; SAF1-3;

VEG1-10; VIS8-12; WL 2, 4, 7-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

13 13 HTH-LP WTY/PCT2/M LP-WF-RF 183 AIR1; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC2-4; SAF1-3; VEG1-10; 

VIS8-12;WL 2-10,12,13; WS1-17

17 17 PCT2 HP LP-WF-PP 29 AIR1; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC2-4; SAF1-3;VEG1-10; WL 

2, 4-10, 12, 13; WS1-17
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix–45

Unit_

No

Unit_

Subdiv Silv_Rx Fuels_Rx Spp_Comp Acres Applicable Project Design Features from Table 2-5

18 18 HTH-MC-lite WTY/PCT2 PP-WF-LP 204 AIR1; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3;REC1-4; SAF1-3; VEG1-10; 

VIS1-5, 8-12; WL 2, 4, 7-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

19 19 HTH-WF-PP-lite WTY/BMR WF-PP 154 AIR1; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; RDS1-3; REC2-4; SAF1-3; 

VEG1-10; VIS6-12; WL 2, 4-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

20 20 UB UB WF-PP 109 AIR1-2; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC1-4; SAF1-3;VEG10; 

VIS1-5, 8-12; WL 2, 7-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

21 21a HTH-WF-PP-lite WTY/BMR WF-PP 188 AIR1; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC1-4; SAF1-3;VEG1-10; 

VIS1-5, 8-12; WL 2, 4, 7-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

21 21b PCT2 WTY WF-PP 44 AIR1; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3;REC1-4; SAF1-3; VEG1-10; 

VIS1-5, 8-12; WL 2, 4, 7-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

22 22 HTH-WF-PP-lite WTY/BMR WF-PP 211 AIR1; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC1-4; SAF1-3;VEG1-10; 

VIS1-5, 8-12; WL 2, 4, 7-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

23 23 HTH-WF-PP-lite WTY/BMR WF-PP 32 AIR1; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; RDS1-3; REC2-4; SAF1-3; 

VEG1-10; VIS6-12; WL 2, 4-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

24 24 HTH-WF-PP-lite WTY/BMR WF-PP 72 AIR1; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC2-4; SAF1-3;VEG1-10; 

VIS8-12; WL 2, 4-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

25 25b HTH-WF-PP-lite WTY/BMR WF-PP 25 AIR1; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC2-4; SAF1-3;VEG1-10; 

VIS8-12; WL 2, 4-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

28 28 HTH-MC-lite WTY/PCT2/UB WF-PP 35 AIR1-2; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC1-4; SAF1-3; VEG1-10; 

VIS1-5, 8-12; WL 2, 4, 7-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

29 29 HTH-WF-PP-lite WTY/BMR WF-PP 37 AIR1; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC2-4; SAF1-3;VEG1-10; 

VIS1-5, 8-12; WL 1-2, 4-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

30 30 HTH-MC-lite WTY WF-RF-LP-PP 56 AIR1; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC2-4; SAF1-3; VEG1-10; 

VIS1-5, 8-12; WL1-2, 4-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

32 32 PCT Bundle/LS LP-WF-PP 25 AIR1; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC2-4; SAF1-3; VEG1-10; 

VIS1-5, 8-12; WL 2, 4, 7-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

35 35b HTH-RF-lite WTY WF-PP-LP-RF 86 AIR1; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC2-4; SAF1-3;VEG1-10; 

VIS8-12; WL 2, 4, 7-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

37 37 PCT2-OG-RF HP/UB RF-WF-LP 116 AIR1-2; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC2-4; SAF1-3;VEG1-10; 

VIS8-12; WL 2-4, 7-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

41 41 PCT2-OG-RF HP/UB RF-PP-SP 64 AIR1-2; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC2-4; SAF1-3; VEG1-10; 
Hi-Grouse Project

Appendix–46

Unit_

No

Unit_

Subdiv Silv_Rx Fuels_Rx Spp_Comp Acres Applicable Project Design Features from Table 2-5

VIS1-5, 8-12; WL1- 2, 4, 7-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

44 44 PCT2-MC WTY RF-WF 45 AIR1; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC2-4; SAF1-3; VEG1-10; 

VIS8-12; WL 2, 4, 7-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

45 45a HTH-PP-lite WTY/UB WF-PP-RF 61 AIR1-2; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3;REC2-4; SAF1-3; VEG1-10; 

VIS1-5, 8-12; WL 2, 4-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

46 46 PCT Bundle/LS LP-PP 28 AIR1; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC2-4; SAF1-3; VEG1-10; 

VIS1-5, 8-12; WL 2, 4, 7-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

48 48 PCT Bundle/LS PP-LP 30 AIR1; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC2-4; SAF1-3; VEG1-10; 

VIS1-5, 8-12; WL 2, 4, 7-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

52 52 PCT Bundle/LS LP-WF-PP 15 AIR1; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC2-4; SAF1-3; VEG1-10; 

VIS1-5, 8-12; WL 2, 4, 7-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

53 53a UB UB PP-WF 42 AIR1-2; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC1-4; SAF1-3; VEG10; 

VIS1-5, 8-12; WL 2-4, 7-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

53 53b PCT2 WTY/UB WF-PP 37 AIR1-2; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC1-4; SAF1-3; VEG1-10; 

VIS1-5, 8-12; WL 2, 4-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

55 55 PCT2-MC WTY/M RF-WF-LP-PP 37 AIR1; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC2-4; SAF1-3; VEG1-10; 

VIS8-12;WL 2,4-10,12,13; WS1-17

58 58 PCT2-MC WTY RF-LP-PP 10 AIR1; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC2-4; SAF1-3; VEG1-10; 

VIS8-12; WL 2, 4-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

59 59 PCT2 HP/UB PP-WF 6 AIR1-2; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC2-4; SAF1-3; VEG1-10; 

VIS8-12; WL 2, 4-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

Alternative 4

1 1 HTH-PP WTY/M/UB PP 31 AIR1-2; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC2-4; SAF1-3; VEG1-10; 

VIS8-12; WL 2-4, 7-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

2 2 HTH-PP WTY/M/UB PP-WF 129 AIR1-2; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; RDS1-3; REC2-4; SAF1-3;

VEG1-10; VIS6-12; WL 2-4, 7-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

3 3 HTH-PP WTY/PCT2/MP/UB PP-WF-LP 58 AIR1-2; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC2-4; SAF1-3; VEG1-10; 

VIS8-12; WL 2-3, 7-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

4 4 HTH-PP WTY/M/UB PP 57 AIR1-2; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC1-4; SAF1-3; VEG1-10; 

VIS1-5, 8-12; WL 2-3, 7-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

5 5 HTH-PP WTY/PCT2/M/UB PP-WF-LP 92 AIR1-2; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC1-4; SAF1-3; VEG1-10; 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix–47

Unit_

No

Unit_

Subdiv Silv_Rx Fuels_Rx Spp_Comp Acres Applicable Project Design Features from Table 2-5

VIS1-5, 8-12; WL 2, 4, 7-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

6 6 HTH-PP WTY/MP/UB WF-PP-LP 78 AIR1-2; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC1-4; SAF1-3;VEG1-10; 

VIS1-5, 8-12; WL 2, 4, 7-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

7 7 HTH-PP WTY/MP/UB WF-PP 175 AIR1-2; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC2-4; SAF1-3; VEG1-10; 

VIS8-12; WL 2, 4, 7-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

9 9 PCT2 HP PP-WF-LP 16 AIR1; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; RDS1-3; REC2-4; SAF1-3;

VEG1-10; VIS6-12; WL 2, 4-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

10 10 HTH-PP-Hvy WTY/MP/UB WF-PP 42 AIR1-2; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; RDS1-3; REC2-4; SAF1-3;

VEG1-10; VIS6-12; WL 2, 4-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

11 11 HTH-PP WTY/MP/UB WF-PP 116 AIR1-2; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; RDS1-3; REC2-4; SAF1-3;

VEG1-10; VIS6-12; WL 2, 4, 7-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

12 12a HTH-LP WTY/PCT2/MP/M LP-WF-PP 545 AIR1; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; RDS1-3; REC1-4; SAF1-3;

VEG1-10; VIS1-12; WL 2-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

12 12b LPFR WTY/PCT2/MP LP 256 AIR1; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; RDS1-3; REC1-4; SAF1-3;

VEG1-10; VIS1-12; WL 2, 4, 7-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

13 13 HTH-LP WTY/PCT2/MP/M LP-WF-RF 183 AIR1; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC2-4; SAF1-3; VEG1-10; 

VIS8-12; WL 2-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

17 17 PCT2 HP/MP LP-WF-PP 29 AIR1; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC2-4; SAF1-3; VEG1-10; 

VIS8-12; WL 2, 4-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

18 18 HTH-MC-Hvy WTY/PCT2/MP/UB PP-WF-LP 204 AIR1-2; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC1-4; SAF1-3; VEG1-10; 

VIS1-5, 8-12; WL 2, 4, 7-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

19 19 HTH-WF-PP WTY/BMR/MP WF-PP 154 AIR1; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; RDS1-3; REC2-4; SAF1-3;

VEG1-10; VIS6-12; WL 2, 4-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

20 20 HTH-PP-Hvy WTY/PCT2/MP/UB WF-PP 109 AIR1-2; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC1-4; SAF1-3; VEG1-10; 

VIS1-5, 8-12; WL 2, 7-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

21 21a HTH-WF-PP WTY/BMR/MP/UB WF-PP 188 AIR1-2; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC1-4; SAF1-3; VEG1-10; 

VIS1-5, 8-12; WL 2, 4, 7-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

21 21b PCT2 WTY/MP WF-PP 44 AIR1; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC1-4; SAF1-3; VEG1-10; 

VIS1-5, 8-12; WL 2, 4, 7-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

22 22 HTH-WF-PP WTY/BMR/MP WF-PP 211 AIR1; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC1-4; SAF1-3; VEG1-10; 

VIS1-5, 8-12; WL 2, 4, 7-10, 12, 13; WS1-17
Hi-Grouse Project

Appendix–48

Unit_

No

Unit_

Subdiv Silv_Rx Fuels_Rx Spp_Comp Acres Applicable Project Design Features from Table 2-5

23 23 HTH-WF-PP-liteNGHWTY/BMR/MP WF-PP 32 AIR1; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; RDS1-3; REC2-4; SAF1-3;

VEG1-10; VIS6-12; WL 2, 4-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

24 24 HTH-WF-PP-liteNSOWTY/BMR/MP WF-PP 72 AIR1; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC2-4; SAF1-3; VEG1-10; 

VIS8-12; WL 2, 4-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

25 25b HTH-WF-PP-liteNGHWTY/BMR/MP WF-PP 25 AIR1; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC2-4; SAF1-3; VEG1-10; 

VIS8-12; WL 2, 4-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

28 28 HTH-MC-Hvy WTY/PCT2/MP/UB WF-PP 35 AIR1-2; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC1-4; SAF1-3; VEG1-10; 

VIS1-5, 8-12; WL 2, 4, 7-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

29 29 HTH-WF-PP-liteNGHWTY/BMR/MP WF-PP 37 AIR1; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC2-4; SAF1-3; VEG1-10; 

VIS1-5, 8-12; WL 1-2, 4-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

30 30 PCT2-NGH WTY/MP WF-RF-LP-PP 56 AIR1; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC2-4; SAF1-3; VEG1-10; 

VIS1-5, 8-12; WL 1-2, 4-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

32 32 PCT Bundle/LS LP-WF-PP 25 AIR1; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC2-4; SAF1-3; VEG1-10; 

VIS1-5, 8-12; WL 2, 4, 7-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

35 35b HTH-RF-lite WTY WF-PP-LP-RF 86 AIR1; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC2-4; SAF1-3; VEG1-10; 

VIS8-12; WL 2, 4, 7-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

37 37 PCT2-OG-RF HP RF-WF-LP 116 AIR1; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC2-4; SAF1-3; VEG1-10; 

VIS8-12; WL 2-4, 7-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

41 41 PCT2-OG-RF HP RF-PP-SP 64 AIR1; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC2-4; SAF1-3; VEG1-10; 

VIS1-5, 8-12; WL 1-2, 4, 7-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

44 44 PCT2-MC WTY/MP RF-WF 45 AIR1; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC2-4; SAF1-3; VEG1-10; 

VIS8-12; WL 2, 4, 7-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

45 45a HTH-PP-Hvy WTY/MP/UB WF-PP-RF 61 AIR1-2; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC2-4; SAF1-3; VEG1-10; 

VIS1-5, 8-12; WL 2, 4-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

46 46 PCT Bundle/LS LP-PP 28 AIR1; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC2-4; SAF1-3; VEG1-10; 

VIS8-12; WL 2, 4, 7-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

48 48 PCT Bundle/LS PP-LP 30 AIR1; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC2-4; SAF1-3; VEG1-10; 

VIS1-5, 8-12; WL 2, 4, 7-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

52 52 PCT Bundle/LS LP-WF-PP 15 AIR1; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC2-4; SAF1-3; VEG1-10; 

VIS1-5, 8-12; WL 2, 4, 7-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

53 53a UB UB PP-WF 42 AIR1-2; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC1-4; SAF1-3; VEG10; 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix–49

Unit_

No

Unit_

Subdiv Silv_Rx Fuels_Rx Spp_Comp Acres Applicable Project Design Features from Table 2-5

VIS1-5, 8-12; WL 2-4, 7-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

53 53b PCT2 WTY/MP/UB WF-PP 37 AIR1-2; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC1-4; SAF1-3; VEG1-10; 

VIS1-5, 8-12; WL 2, 4-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

55 55 PCT2-MC WTY/MP/M RF-WF-LP-PP 37 AIR1; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC2-4; SAF1-3; VEG1-10; 

VIS8-12; WL 2, 4-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

58 58 PCT2-MC WTY/MP RF-LP-PP 10 AIR1; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC2-4; SAF1-3; VEG1-10; 

VIS8-12; WL 2, 4-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

59 59 PCT2 HP/UB PP-WF 6 AIR1-2; ARCH1-4; GEO1-8; NNIS1-3; REC2-4; SAF1-3; VEG1-10; 

VIS8-12; WL 2, 4-10, 12, 13; WS1-17

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix–51

Appendix D: Hi-Grouse Best Management 

Practices (BMPs)

Best management practices (BMPs) are measures certified by the State Water Quality Board and 

approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as the most effective way of protecting 

water quality from impacts stemming from non-point sources of pollution. Effective application 

of the Region 5 U.S. Forest Service BMPs has been found to maintain water quality in 

conformance with the Water Quality Objectives in the North Coast Regional Water Quality 

Control Board Basin Plan. These practices have been applied in timber sales and road 

construction projects across the KNF over the last 25 years and have been found to be effective 

in protecting water quality. 

The Region 5 Forest Service BMPs have been monitored and modified since their original 

implementation in 1979 to make them more effective. Numerous onsite evaluations by the North 

Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board have found the practices to be successful in 

maintaining water quality and protecting beneficial uses. 

The Forest monitors the implementation and effectiveness of BMPs on randomly selected 

projects each year. BMP effectiveness requirements were met on 90–100 percent of the sites 

sampled in 2000–2008. The success rate for effectiveness has been in the high 80s and 90s each 

year since 1993. Results of this monitoring can be found on the KNF webpage.

The complete list of BMPs was evaluated and the following BMPs were determined applicable 

to the Hi-Grouse Project. These BMPs would be implemented as part of the Hi-Grouse Project 

during implementation of the proposed action. A description of the objective of each BMP is 

included, as well as how this practice would be implemented in this project. These BMPs assist 

the timber sale administrator in implementing the specifications, BT provisions of the timber sale 

contract. Where applicable, BT provisions of the timber sale contract (April 2008 issue) are 

referenced under the BMP description. In addition, the EA contains a detailed description of 

specific measures—resource protection measures—that would be implemented to prevent 

resource damage. Watershed specialists in fisheries, soils, and geology, along with the ID team, 

developed the BMPs for this project.

BMP 1.1 – Timber Sale Planning Process: Requires the ID team to incorporate water quality 

and hydrologic considerations into the timber sale planning process. 

• A hydrologist and soil scientist were assigned to the project and participated in the 

interdisciplinary process for this project.

• Project-wide as well as site-specific water quality protection measures were developed 

and incorporated into the project as part of the project design features.

• These project design features are incorporated into the timber sale contract and sale area 

map.

• The following are overall guiding principles that were used to formulate the more sitespecific project design features:

o Skidding equipment and tractor piling would be generally restricted to slopes <35 

percent. 

o Track mounted masticators/mowers can operate on slopes up to 35 percent. 
Hi-Grouse Project

Appendix–52

o Existing landings and skid trails would be reused whenever practical.

o Tractor skidding would be restricted to designated skid trails.

o Temporary roads would be blocked and hydrologically restored after use, but prior 

to first winter after use. Hydrologically restored includes reshaping road prism to be 

self-maintaining (for example, leaving no structures that move water and could fail, 

outsloping, ripping of the roadbed, seeding, straw mulching, etc.). The amount of 

work to be done is site-specific and would be included in the roads contract package 

for this project.

BMP 1.2 – Timber Harvest Unit Design: Requires the ID team to consider methods of reducing 

water quality impacts, maintaining desirable stream channel characteristics and watershed 

conditions that are incorporated into the design of harvest units. 

• Project soil scientist and hydrologist field inspected and verified existing conditions 

within the project area and adjacent areas as necessary per their resource. Unit design 

parameters were developed from these onsite field inspections. 

• No new constructed (full bench) skid trails would be built. 

BMP 1.3 – Determination of Surface Erosion Hazard for Timber Harvest Unit Design: 

Identify high erosion hazard areas in order to adjust resource protection measures to prevent 

downstream water quality degradation. 

Surface soil erosion hazard is determined by evaluating four site factors: soil erodibility, runoff 

production, runoff energy, and percent soil cover. Based on field review, the Forest soil scientist 

determined the surface erosion hazard for each treatment unit and prescribed logging systems 

and soil cover recommendations based upon the soil’s erosion hazard. 

• Post-treatment soil cover to be met before the fall rainy season is prescribed by unit in 

the project soils report (Laurent 2006). 

BMP 1.4 – Use of Sale Area Maps (SAM) and Project Maps for Designating Water Quality 

Protection: This ensures that areas with watershed concerns (streams, wetlands, unstable land) 

would be identified as part of the timber sale contract to assist the purchaser and timber sale 

administrator in applying protection methods. The following items are identified on the SAM. 

• Harvest unit boundaries. 

• All protected stream courses identified as stream management zones, would be 

illustrated on the sale area map (SAM). The width of the SMZ protection zone would be 

prescribed for each stream. 

• Water drafting sites would be located on the SAM at Forest Service designated sites 

where water quality impacts can be controlled and minimized. 

• Sources of rock for road aggregate riprap and borrow material. 

The following items may be identified on a separate project map and/or harvest activity cards for 

use by the TSA: 

• Specified temporary roads and landings. 

BMP 1.5 – Limiting Operating Period of Timber Sale: To ensure that the purchasers conduct 

their operations, including erosion control work and road maintenance work, in a timely manner 

within the time specified in the timber sale contract. There is no specific limited operating 

period specified for watershed protection, although there are several limiting operating periods

for wildlife. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix–53

• When stormy weather is predicted, TSAs would be onsite to insure that winterization 

procedures are implemented in a timely fashion and to initiate shutdown or resume 

operations. Operations would not resume until suitable weather, soil, and forecast 

conditions exist. 

• The timber sale contract would be used to guide operations, especially haul, during 

periods of wet weather. Earth scientists would be available upon request by the TSA to 

examine field conditions to determine when the soil and/or roads have dried out enough 

to enable operations to resume without risk of watershed impacts. The earth scientist 

would make recommendations to the TSA who would provide direction to the timber 

sale contractor as to when operations may resume.

• Landings and roads may be rocked and graded as necessary to prevent off-site erosion, 

and to disperse water. 

BMP 1.8 – Streamside Management Zone (SMZ) Designation: Designates zones along 

riparian areas, streams, and wetlands that would minimize potential for adverse effects from 

adjacent management activities. 

• This BMP only applies to the water drafting site along Antelope Creek located on private 

land outside of the project area. 

• There are no SMZs within the project area. 

• The SMZ as the drafting site includes the stream channel, stream banks (bank full flow), 

riparian vegetation and extends from 20 to 50 feet beyond the riparian vegetation and/or 

bank full flow zone. 

BMP 1.9 – Determining Tractor Loggable Ground: To minimize erosion and sedimentation 

resulting from ground disturbance of tractor and ground-based logging systems. 

• The erosion hazard rating, percent slope distribution, and soil displacement rating were 

all used to evaluate tractor units for their response to using ground-based mechanical 

logging systems. The Forest soil scientist field reviewed each tractor log unit in order to 

verify that they were reasonable to tractor log from a soil resource perspective. The 

erosion hazard rating was also a factor in determining the reasonableness of tractor use.

• Skidding equipment (track or rubber tired) and tractor piling would be generally 

restricted to slopes <35 percent. 

• Track-mounted masticators or mowers can operate on slopes up to 45 percent. 

BMP 1.10 – Tractor Skidding Design: Designs tractor skid patterns to best fit the terrain to 

better control potential runoff by avoiding over-steepened areas, designating tractor crossings, 

and minimizes skid patterns in sensitive areas to reduce erosion and sedimentation. 

• The purchaser and timber sale administrator (TSA) would locate skid trails jointly or the 

purchaser would identify skid trails subject to the TSA’s approval prior to use. 

• The 35 percent slope limitation, the general topography within the unit, riparian areas, 

and presence of existing skid trails are all factors that are considered in laying out skid 

trails. 

• Reuse existing skid trails when ever practicable. 

• Refer to BMP 1.1 and 1.2 for skidding and skid trail practices. 

• All skid trails would be water-barred to minimize soil erosion following the guidelines in 

the timber Sale Administration Handbook (61.42d – Exhibit 01, R5 Supplement 

2409.15-94-3, p. 2). 
Hi-Grouse Project

Appendix–54

• Skid trails that intersect Forest roads would be obliterated at the intersection by 

reshaping the slope, mulching with weed-free straw or slash the first 25 feet of the skid 

trail (from the intersection).

BMP 1.11 – Suspended Log Yarding in Timber Harvesting: Protects the soil mantle from 

excessive disturbance and maintains the integrity of the streamside management zone and other 

sensitive watershed areas.

• Ground-based skidding will use one-end suspension (suspend the lead end of logs) to 

minimize soil disturbance.

BMP1.12 – Log Landing Location: To locate new landings or reuse old landings in such a way 

as to avoid watershed impacts and associated water quality degradation. 

• Existing landings would be reused whenever possible. 

• New and old landings would be selected for use that involves the least amount of 

excavation, and the least erosion potential. 

BMP 1.13 – Erosion Prevention and Control Measures during Timber Sale Operations: 

Ensures that the purchaser’s operations shall be conducted reasonably to minimize soil erosion. 

• Erosion control measures (BMPs) are discussed during the pre-operations meeting with 

the purchaser and the Forest Service. They are updated throughout the operations phase 

of the timber sale.

• Storms may temporarily suspend operations to insure BMP compliance and to avoid 

adverse impacts to beneficial uses (fisheries, wildlife habitat, and recreation, etc.).

• See BMP 1.5 for TSA responsibilities and measures when stormy weather is predicted.

BMP 1.16 – Log Landing Erosion Prevention and Control: The objective of this BMP is to 

reduce erosion and prevent subsequent sedimentation from log landings. The timber sale 

contract provides for erosion prevention and control measures on all landings. 

• See BMP 1.1 and 1.12. 

• Landings would be shaped to disperse drainage, eliminate ponding of water, and direct 

runoff away from watercourses/swales at the time of preparation for use. Rock armoring 

of fills, silt fences, straw bales, etc., may be used as necessary direct water to areas of 

suitable drainage and to capture sediment. 

• Any landings used during wet weather that have the potential to deposit sediment in 

channels/swales will use any of the above mentioned erosion control measures to 

minimize erosion and control runoff. 

BMP 1.17 – Erosion Control on Skid Trails: Employs preventative measures, during the 

operations phase of the project, such as water bars, mulching, spreading slash, or chipping to 

reduce water concentration and erosion. 

Erosion control measures on skid trails are two-fold: (1) prevent road or landing runoff from 

concentrating onto skid trails and (2) control potential runoff on skid trails. Erosion control 

measures such as aggregate surfacing, scarifying, road and road-edge reshaping, and 

construction of drainage ditches would be used to divert water away from skid trails. On skid 

trails, waterbars are used to disperse runoff from concentrating to a volume that will cause 

rilling/gullying. Portions of skid trails over 35 percent slope would have organic materials 

spread on that portion as needed. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix–55

• Waterbar spacing is based on the percent slope of the skid trail, soil texture, and erosion 

hazard rating for the unit. The spacing distances are located in the Sale Administrators 

Handbook. 

• Place water bar outlets, whenever possible, where concentrations of slash or other 

organic materials occur to disperse runoff and trap sediment before it can reach a 

drainage channel. 

• See BMP 1.1, 1.2 and 1.10 for skid trail measures. 

• Portions of skid trails over 35 percent slope would have organic materials spread on that 

portion where needed as determined by the timber sale administrator as needed. 

• Skid trails that may direct runoff onto roads or landings would have the first 25 feet 

covered with fine slash or weed-free straw (achieving 90 percent soil cover). 

• Application of BMP “yardsticks” to ensure compliance with BMPs. 

• Skid trails that intersect Forest roads would be obliterated at the intersection. 

• Road runoff would be prevented from draining onto skid trails or landings by either 

reshaping the road prism, constructing cross drains or dips, or constructing water bars. 

• Unless otherwise agreed, within the operating area, a minimum of 6 inches of machine 

compacted snow is required for over-the-snow logging or the soil should be frozen to a 

depth of 6 inches for logging operations to occur.

• Harvesting and skidding operations during wet conditions would follow the following 

guidelines: 

Cut-to-Length System—Processing of material on the designated skid trails by a 

harvester may occur when soils are dry to a depth of 4 inches. Limit harvester to one or 

two passes over the same piece of ground. The forwarder would stay on designated skid 

trails covered with a minimum of 6 inches of slash. 

Feller-Buncher System—Movement of material to the designated skid trails by a track 

laying feller-buncher may occur when the track does not create ruts >6 inches deep. A 

feller-buncher would be limited to one or two passes over the same piece of ground. 

Skidding equipment would stay on designated skid trails. Skidding would cease when 

>10 percent of a skid trail is rutted with ruts >6 inches deep. 

Traditional Tractor Logging—Skidding may occur by conventional high-groundpressure equipment when soils are dry to a depth of 4 inches. Equipment is restricted to 

the designated skid trails. Endlining would be used to move material to the designated 

skid trails until soils are dry to a depth of 10 inches. Equipment may, by agreement, 

leave designated skid trails when soils are dry to a depth of 10 inches. 

BMP 1.19 – Streamcourse and Aquatic Protection: Protects the natural flow of streams and 

reduces the delivery of sediment and other pollutants into streams. Conduct management actions 

within these areas in a manner that maintains or improves riparian and aquatic values. 

• Service landings would be located away from stream courses. 

• Straw bales, rocking, and containment dikes would be used as needed at designated 

water drafting sites to capture any spilled water and prevent runoff and sedimentation 

into streams.

BMP 1.20 – Erosion Control Structure Maintenance: Requires periodic inspection of erosion 

control structures to assess maintenance needs and effectiveness. This is accomplished during 
Hi-Grouse Project

Appendix–56

the operations and post-operations phase of the project; this ensures the adequacy of erosion 

control measures. 

• Same as BMP 1.5.

• Identified temporary roads would be decommissioned after use, and the road takeoffs 

blocked to prevent vehicle traffic. See BMPs 2.24 and 2.26. 

BMP 1.21 – Acceptance of Erosion Control Measures before Timber Sale Closure: To ensure 

the adequacy of required erosion control work on timber sales. This is accomplished during the 

post-operations phase of the project during the contract final inspection. 

• Landings would be shaped for drainage. 

• At project completion, permanent water-bars would be installed as necessary on all skid 

and temporary roads. 

• Identified temporary roads would be decommissioned after use, and the road takeoffs 

blocked to prevent vehicle traffic. See BMPs 2.24 and 2.26. 

BMP 1.25 – Modification of the Timber Sale Contract (as needed): Allows contract language 

to be modified to add or increase protection of water quality not identified in the planning 

process.

• Modifications are not expected at this time, but this BMP is retained to illustrate that 

contract alteration would occur if needed to insure maintenance of water quality, 

especially if unforeseen circumstances and impacts occur.

BMP 2.1 – General Guidelines for the Location and Design of Roads: To locate and design 

roads with minimal resource damage. 

• Temporary roads needing re-construction would be relocated on existing skid trails, skid 

roads, and existing openings to the greatest extent possible. 

BMP 2.2 – Erosion Control Plan: The objective is to limit and control sedimentation through 

effective planning prior to the initiation of construction activities and through effective contract 

administration. An erosion control plan would be agreed to during the pre-operations meeting 

between the Forest Service and the purchaser. The plan is implemented during the operations 

phase of the project. 

• Resource protection measures are incorporated into the proposed action by the ID team 

and these actions are then incorporated into the contract specifications and provisions. 

Examples of resource protection measures include such items as shaping landings, 

temporary and skid roads for drainage; and use of rock as necessary to obtain suitable 

haul bases on Forest Service roads.

• See BMPs 1.13 and 1.20 for erosion control measures during the project, maintenance of 

erosion control measures and operations control during periods of wet weather. 

BMP 2.3 – Timing of Construction Activities: The objective is to minimize erosion by 

conducting operations during minimal runoff periods. This is accomplished during the operation 

phase of the project by the contract administrator, engineer, and earth scientist. 

• See BMPs 1.13 and 1.20 for erosion control measures during the project, maintenance of 

erosion control measures and operations control during periods of wet weather. 

• All landing and temporary road construction and development work would be conducted 

during appropriate periods of weather and soil moisture to ensure BMPs are met and 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix–57

adverse impacts to beneficial uses are avoided. Forecast periods would also be of a 

suitable length to allow completion or winterization of the task undertaken before 

precipitation events occur. 

BMP 2.4 – Stabilization of Road Slope Surfaces and Spoil Disposal Areas (Preventative 

Practices): To improve road slope stabilization by applying mechanical and vegetative 

measures. This is accomplished during the operations phase of the project.

• See BMP 2.3 for measures pertaining to landing and road construction and development. 

• Landings would be shaped for drainage at the time of construction. Rock armoring and 

silt fences with straw bales would be used as necessary to direct water to suitable areas 

of drainage and to capture sediment. 

• Road construction, maintenance, and landing construction and enlargement generally is 

on gently sloping ground, so there would be no large cuts, fills, or spoil areas. Measures 

to control erosion from large fills and cuts during operations are not anticipated to be 

necessary.

• Roads would be rocked as necessary.

• See BMPs 1.13 and 1.20 for erosion control measures during the project, maintenance of 

erosion control measures and operations control during periods of wet weather. 

BMP 2.7 – Control of Road Drainage (Preventative Practices): To minimize erosive effects of 

water concentrated by road drainage features; to disperse runoff from disturbances within the 

road clearing limits; to lessen the sediment yield from roaded areas; to minimize erosion of the 

road prism by runoff from road surfaces and from uphill areas. See BMPs 2.5 and 2.6 for 

measures that would be applied. 

BMP 2.8 – Constraints Related to Pioneer Road Construction: To minimize sediment 

production. 

• The roads to be opened and constructed in this project are temporary roads that do not 

require a pioneer road. 

BMP 2.9 – Timely Erosion Control Measures on Incomplete Roads and Stream Crossing 

Projects: To minimize erosion and sedimentation from disturbed ground on incomplete projects. 

• The road and landing construction in this project is minor in scope. Individual temporary 

roads and landings would be completed in one season. If a temporary road includes a 

stream crossing, then the road would be used when the stream is dry. If a road or landing 

is needed for more than one season, then crossing, road and landing stabilization 

measures would occur before the nest rain season. See BMPs 1.13 and 1.20. 

BMP 2.10 – Construction of Stable Embankments (Fills): To construct embankments with 

materials and methods which minimize the possibility of failure and subsequent water quality 

degradation. In general, problems arise due to improper compaction, incorporation of slash or 

organic matter, or use of inappropriate placement methods. 

• Temporary road re-construction and landing construction and enlargement generally is 

on flat to gently sloping ground, so there would be no to minimal cuts, fills or spoil 

areas. Equipment compaction is anticipated to be adequate. 

BMP 2.11 – Minimization of Sidecast Material: The objective is to minimize sediment 

production originating from material sidecast during road construction or maintenance. This is 

accomplished during the design phase of the project by the contract inspector. 
Hi-Grouse Project

Appendix–58

• Minor blading would occur on temporary roads used by the project. Side-casting of soil 

during blading operations would be minimal due to the low gradient slopes on which the 

temporary roads are located.

• Sidecasting during road maintenance and clearing operations should not extend beyond 

the clearing limits of any road, or into any SMZ. 

• During road blading, loose material should be incorporated back into the road prism and 

utilized in the road subgrade to the maximum extent possible, or deposited at designated 

disposal sites. 

• Existing road berms should be removed and utilized in the road subgrade as part of 

outsloping, or placed at designated disposal sites. 

BMP 2.12 – Servicing and Refueling of Equipment: The objective is to prevent pollutants, 

such as fuels and lubricants, from being discharged into or near rivers, streams, impoundments, 

or natural and man-made channels which lead into them. This is accomplished through the use 

of designed and designated refueling areas. 

• Appropriate fuel containment systems would be in place at each service landing/site.

• Servicing and refueling areas would be outside of stream management zones. 

BMP 2.21 – Water Source Development Consistent with Water Quality Protection: The 

objective is to limit and mitigate the effects of water source development through the planning of 

impoundments and withdrawals. 

• One water drafting site has been specifically designated by the ID team. Water could be

pumped directly from the sources, or a fold-a-tank could be set up outside of SMZ and 

water could be pumped by hose to the tank, and from the tank to the truck. 

• Drafting sites are existing sites and rocking of approaches would be used as required; all 

boards and black plastic would be removed after use. Straw bales, rock surfacing, and 

containment dikes would be used at all locations where the possibility of water spill or 

overflow would result in sediment being moved toward the creek, ditch, or lake.

BMP 2.22 – Maintenance of Roads: The objective is to limit sedimentation and erosion by road 

drainage maintenance and road surface protection. This is accomplished during the operations 

phase of the project and the post-operations final inspection. 

• Spot rocking would 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, 

provided haul over the newly rocked areas would not create adverse impacts, such as 

sediment moving off-site towards channels.

• Timber sale administrators would periodically inspect the contractor’s operations and 

condition of the roads. 

• See BMP 1.5, 1.13, 1.20, for measures relating to operations during wet or potential 

stormy conditions and when to resume operations. 

• Appropriate road watering would occur as roads dry to maintain road fines onsite; see 

BMP 2.23. 

BMP 2.23 – Road Surface Treatment to Prevent Loss of Materials: The objective is to reduce 

road-related erosion through treatment of the road surface, usually through spot rocking and dust 

abatement. This is accomplished during the operations phase of the project.

• Appropriate road watering would occur as roads dry to maintain road fines onsite.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix–59

• Same as BMP 2.22. See also BMP 1.5, 1.13, 1.20, for measures relating to operations 

during wet or potential stormy conditions and when to resume operations. 

BMP 2.24 – Traffic Control during Wet Periods: The objective is to reduce damage to road 

drainage and limit sedimentation from roads during wet periods. This is generally achieved by 

increased surfacing and/or road closures during the operations phase of the project. 

• Spot rocking would 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, provided 

haul over the newly rocked areas would not create adverse impacts, such as sediment 

moving off-site towards channels.

• TSAs would periodically inspect the contractor’s operations and condition of the roads. 

• See BMP 1.5, 1.13, 1.20, for measures relating to operations during wet or potential 

stormy conditions and when to resume operations. 

BMP 2.25 – Snow Removal Controls to Avoid Resource Damage: The objective is to 

minimize the impact of snowmelt runoff on road surfaces and embankments and to consequently 

reduce the probability of sediment production resulting from snow removal operations. 

• Snow would be removed in a manner that protects roads and adjacent resources.

• Snow berms would be removed where they result in accumulation or concentration of 

snowmelt runoff on the road and on erosive fill slopes. 

• Snow berms would be installed in locations that would preclude the concentration of 

snowmelt runoff and serve to rapidly dissipate melt water.

• Damage to the road surface from snow removal would be repaired by the purchaser, 

contractor, or other party responsible. This would include replacing lost surface material 

with similar quality material and repair of any damaged structures as soon as possible 

and as agreed to by the Forest Service.

BMP 2.26 – Obliteration or Decommissioning of Roads: The objective is to reduce sediment 

generated from temporary roads, unneeded system (classified) and non-system (unclassified) 

roads by obliterating or decommissioning them at the completion of the intended use. This is 

accomplished during the post-operations phase of the project. This BMP applies to all temporary 

roads, and other non-system (unclassified) roads proposed for decommissioning: 

• Crossings are removed and the natural drainage restored.

• Roads are to be drained by measures such as re-contouring or outsloping to return the 

road prism to near natural hydrologic function. 

• Roads and associated disturbed surfaces would be stabilized through appropriate 

treatment such as tillage, ripping, fertilization, and/or revegetation.

• Road take-offs would be obliterated or effectively blocked to vehicle access.

BMP 2.27 – Restoration of Borrow Pits and Quarries: The objective is to protect water 

quality by minimizing sediment production from borrow pits and quarry sites. This is 

accomplished during the operations and post-operations phase of the project.

• Excavated areas would be sloped and graded to ensure proper drainage, and general 

borrow source areas smoothed and stabilized. 

• Seeding and/or mulching may be required as determined by an earth scientist.
Hi-Grouse Project

Appendix–60

BMP 5.2 – Slope Limitations Mechanical Equipment Operation: To minimize erosion and 

sedimentation resulting from ground disturbance of tractor logging systems and tractor piling 

operations. 

• Same as BMP 1.1 and 1.9 for slope limitations for ground-based logging, tractor piling, 

and fuel mastication. 

BMP 5.4 – Revegetation of Surface Disturbed Areas: The objective is to protect water quality 

by minimizing soil erosion through the stabilizing influence of vegetation. This is accomplished 

during the operations and post-operations phase of the project. 

• All harvest openings would be promptly replanted. 

BMP 5.5 – Disposal of Organic Debris: The objective is to prevent surface erosion with 

associated reduction in sediment production and turbidity when conducting slash and excessive 

fuel removal operations. 

• Project generated slash would be removed to landings as biomass chips.

• Hand pile and pile burning, machine mowing/mastication, and underburning would be 

used to reduce the fine fuel component. Specified soil cover recommendations would be 

used to maintain sufficient soil cover for erosion prevention.

• Machine mowing/mastication and machine piling are mechanical treatments that reduce 

slash. Slope limitations for mechanical equipment as well as specified soil cover 

recommendations would be used to maintain sufficient soil cover for erosion prevention. 

See BMPs 1.1 and 1.9 for slope limitations.

BMP 5.6 – Soil Moisture Limitations for Tractor Operations: The objective is to prevent soil 

compaction, rutting, and gulling that may result in increased sedimentation and turbidity.

• This is accomplished during the operations phase of the project by monitoring performed 

by the project earth scientist as requested by the TSA.

• See BMP 1.17 for harvesting and skidding operations during wet or over snow 

conditions. 

• Same as BMPs 1.20 and 2.22 for measures to employ when wet weather is forecast, and 

following a period of stormy weather. 

BMP 5.8 – Pesticide Application According to Label directions and Applicable Legal 

Requirements: The objective is to avoid water contamination by complying with all label 

instructions and restrictions for use. 

• This BMP applies to the application of a borax fungicide (borax) on cut stumps (14 

inches diameter or larger) within the project area.

• TSAs are responsible for ensuring timber sale contract specifications pertaining to 

treatment of stumps are met and would periodically inspect the contractor’s operations to 

ensure that label directions and legal requirements are followed.

BMP 5.9 – Pesticide Application Monitoring and Evaluation: The objectives are to monitor 

whether pesticides have been applied safely, restricted to intended target areas, and have not 

resulted in unexpected non-target effects. 

• This BMP applies to the application of a borax fungicide (borax) on cut stumps (14 

inches diameter or larger) within the project area.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix–61

• TSAs are responsible for implementation monitoring of borax application, and would 

document and provide early warning of any accidental spills and potential water 

contamination. 

• The purchaser is responsible for notification and reporting of releases of reportable 

quantities of hazardous substances caused by employees or contractors, directly or 

indirectly as a result of operations in the sale area.

BMP 5.10 – Pesticide Spill Contingency Planning: The objective is to reduce contamination of 

water by accidental pesticide spills. 

• This BMP applies to the application of a borax fungicide (borax) on cut stumps (14 

inches diameter or larger) within the project area.

• See BMP 5.9. 

BMP 5.11 – Cleaning and Disposal of Pesticide Containers and Equipment: The objective is 

to prevent water contamination from the cleaning or disposal of pesticide containers. 

• This BMP applies to the application of a borax fungicide (borax) on cut stumps (14 

inches diameter or larger) within the project area.

• Cleanup and disposal of containers would follow directions on the manufacturer’s label. 

BMP 6.1 – Fire and Fuels Management Activities: The objective is to reduce the effects of 

wildfires on water quality by informing the public, and the development of access plans, fuel 

breaks, and fuel reduction programs. 

• The district fuels and fire specialists have determined acceptable levels of slash to retain 

on the site following harvest activities and also have identified areas and methods to 

remove standing slash of a sub-merchantable size, that otherwise would create an 

unacceptable fire risk.

• On-going fire management work maintains fire access plans and restricts public 

activities, such as woodcutting, on days when fire weather predictions indicate 

significant risk from such activities in the Hi-Grouse Project Area.

BMP 6.2 – Consideration of Water Quality in Formulating Fire Prescriptions: The objective 

is to provide for water quality while achieving management objectives of prescribed fire. This is 

done during the planning phase of the project. 

• Burn plans would incorporate appropriate burn parameters (such as fuel moisture, 

weather, etc.) into the burn prescriptions in order to meet the recommended cover 

amounts. 

BMP 6.3 – Protection of Water Quality from Prescribed Burning Effects: Minimize soil 

erosion, ash, sediment, nutrients, and debris from entering water bodies. 

• Hand and machine piles would burn under controlled settings to contain fire spread. 

• Waterbars would be installed on hand and machine-created fire lines where needed.

• Recommended levels of post-burn soil cover are designed to minimize potential 

sediment.