United States 

Department of

Agriculture

Forest Service

November 2010

Record of Decision

Hi-Grouse Project

Goosenest Ranger District, Klamath National Forest

Siskiyou County, California

Sections 23, 25–28, 32–36, T44N, R2E; Sections 1–4, 9–13, T43N, R2E; Section 31, 

T44N, R3E; Sections 6, 7, and 18, T43N, R3E (Mount Diablo Meridian)

Left: View of large lodgepole pine 

stand heavily affected by bark 

beetle in the project area

Right: Lodgepole pine stand viewed 

from Tennant Road #77

Left: White fir stands viewed from 

Road 44N61

Publication Number:

R5-MB-206
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the 

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

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

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

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

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

(voice and TDD). 

To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence 

Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA 

is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
ROD-i

Table of Contents

Background..................................................................................................................................... 1

Decision .......................................................................................................................................... 1

Decision Rationale .......................................................................................................................... 2

Public Involvement ......................................................................................................................... 2

Alternatives Considered.................................................................................................................. 3

Alternative Analyzed in Detail.................................................................................................... 3

Alternatives Not Analyzed in Detail........................................................................................... 4

Effects Related to the Significant Issues and Purpose and Need.................................................... 4

Findings Required by Other Laws and Regulations....................................................................... 7

Administrative Review (Appeal) Opportunities............................................................................. 9

Implementation Date..................................................................................................................... 10

Contact .......................................................................................................................................... 10

Appendix A: Selected Alternative Treatment Map ........................................................................11

Appendix B: Stand Treatment Table, Project Design Features, Monitoring, and Best Management 

Practices for the Hi-Grouse Project .............................................................................................. 13

Monitoring ................................................................................................................................ 22

Hi-Grouse Best Management Practices (BMPs)....................................................................... 23

List of Tables

Table ROD-1. Summary of alternative effects related to the project purpose and 

need elements............................................................................................................................. 6

Table ROD-B-1. Selected alternative stand treatments ................................................................ 13

Table ROD-B-2. Project design features for the selected alternative ........................................... 16

Record of Decision

ROD-1

Background

The Hi-Grouse Project was developed to reduce fuel hazards and improve forest health 

conditions on about 3,850 acres of national forest system lands. The project is located in the 

southeast portion of the Goosenest Ranger District of the Klamath National Forest in Siskiyou 

County, California. 

This record of decision (ROD) is based upon analysis documented in the Hi-Grouse Project final 

environmental impact statement (FEIS) and draft environmental impact statement (DEIS). The 

DEIS and FEIS present the analysis of two action alternatives, a no action alternative, and three 

alternatives considered, but eliminated from detailed study (DEIS and FEIS, sections 2.2 through 

2.4). The DEIS and FEIS identified the modified proposed action, alternative 4, as the preferred 

alternative (DEIS and FEIS, abstracts). Changes between the DEIS and FEIS were minimal; no 

new alternatives were developed between the DEIS and FEIS (FEIS, summary section on page 

S-9, “Summary of Changes from the Draft Environmental Impact Statement”). Throughout the 

DEIS and FEIS, reference is made to using non-system roads for access to the project. My ROD 

for Motorized Travel Management on the Klamath National Forest prohibits cross-country travel 

and eliminates the category of non-system roads. All references to non-system roads in the Hi 

Grouse DEIS and FEIS should be interpreted as being temporary roads on existing roadbeds.

Implementation of this project is needed to address differences between the existing conditions 

and the desired conditions described in the Forest Plan (page 4-131) (USDA Forest Service 

1995a) and for the Goosenest Adaptive Management Area (pages 6-8 to 6-9) (USDA Forest 

Service 1996). See FEIS section 1.3 for management direction and existing condition 

descriptions and corresponding map A-3 in appendix A. The purpose and need for this project is 

to (FEIS, section 1.4):

1) Improve and maintain habitat for species associated with late-successional forests.

2) Promote restoration of historic forest composition and structure.

3) Promote restoration of fuels-related historic fire regime.

Decision

Based on my review of the Hi-Grouse Project FEIS, I have decided to implement alternative 4, 

as described in section 2.2.3 of the FEIS. This alternative was described as the modified 

proposed action and the preferred alternative in the DEIS and FEIS, but will from hereafter be 

referred to as the “selected alternative.”

The selected alternative treats about 3,850 acres within the project boundary. The treatments will 

include 2,429 acres of thinning-from-below, 970 acres of lodgepole pine thinning and fuels 

reduction, 99 acres of plantation thinning, 42 acres with underburning only, and fuel 

management zones will be created along approximately 13 miles of major road corridors and 

certain access roads for fire control. In addition to the above treatments, the selected alternative 

includes temporary access along 1.3 miles of new temporary roads, with 1.9 miles along 

temporary roads on existing roadbeds within the project area (see also ROD appendix A).

The selected alternative includes the interrelated and interdependent actions, and incorporates the 

project design features, project-related monitoring, and best management practices (see ROD 

appendix B).
Hi-Grouse Project

ROD-2

Decision Rationale

The Hi-Grouse Project FEIS documents the analysis upon which my decision is based. Direct, 

indirect, and cumulative effects were addressed for each resource area potentially affected by the 

project. Some key conclusions to support my rationale are described below.

The selected alternative best addresses the significant issues and purpose and need identified for 

the project over the long term (FEIS, section 2.6; ROD, page ROD-4). All practical means to 

avoid or minimize environmental harm from the selected alternative have been adopted through 

project design features and incorporation of the best management practices (FEIS, section 2.5). 

The selected alternative is the environmentally preferable alternative (ROD, page 9).

The selected alternative is designed to conform to Forest Plan goals, meet or move toward the 

desired conditions, and comply with standards and guidelines for Forest-wide management 

direction (Forest Plan, pages 4-3 through 4-66) and the following management areas: Special 

Habitat Late-Succession Reserve (Forest Plan, pages 4-84 through 4-89), Special Interest Area 

(Forest Plan, pages 4-97 through 4-100), Partial Retention Visual Quality (Forest Plan, pages 4-

126 through 45-127), and General Forest (Forest Plan, pages 4-177 through 4-180). Consistency

with Forest Plan goals, desired conditions, and standards and guidelines is addressed throughout 

the DEIS, FEIS, and supporting documents. The selected alternative is also consistent with 

applicable laws, regulations, and policies (FEIS, section 3.9).

Public Involvement

A variety of efforts was made to involve the public (FEIS, section 1.7).

Native American representatives were contacted by a letter (July 24, 2007) describing the project 

and requesting comments. Scoping letters were sent to representatives from two federally 

recognized tribes, the Pit River Tribe and the Klamath Tribe, resulting in a field trip on 

September 7, 2007, with members of both tribes. Additional tribal consultation meetings were 

held on January 28, 2009, with the Klamath Tribes at the Goosenest Ranger District Office in 

Macdoel, California; and on January 23, 2009, with the Pit River Tribes at the Pit River Tribal 

Council Room in Burney, California. Tribes expressed concerns regarding the need for 

vegetation management, access, and cultural plants; these concerns were considered in the 

development of action alternatives. 

The District consulted with USDI Fish and Wildlife Service and conferred with the California 

Department of Fish and Game regarding other species, including deer, within the project area.

District personnel met with a representative from the Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Center for 

field visits early in the project development stage on July 5, 2006; and later on August 9, 2007, to 

discuss site-specific concerns for the Hi-Grouse Project Area.

Forest personnel met with representatives from the American Forest Resource Council, Sierra 

Pacific Industries, Siskiyou County, and the California Forestry Association on August 26, 2008,

to discuss forest monitoring and field review the Hi-Grouse Project Area. 

A notice of intent to prepare an EIS was published in the Federal Register on December 19, 2008

(73 FR 77595). In addition, the proposed action was listed in the Klamath National Forest

Schedule of Proposed Actions beginning July 1, 2008, and updated periodically during the 

environmental analysis. People were invited to review and comment on the proposal through

scoping letters sent to interested individuals, organizations, and other government agencies. The 
Record of Decision

ROD-3

FEIS lists agencies, organizations, and people who received copies, or notice of availability, of 

the DEIS in section 4.1.4.

The following two issues were identified from scoping comments and were used to determine the 

scope of the analysis. A full description of issues significant to the proposed action appears in the 

EIS in section 1.8.

Significant Issue #1: There is a concern that the proposed activities could remove the best 

remaining wildlife habitat for species associated with late-successional habitat within the 

project area, specifically removing and or altering habitat for northern spotted owl and 

northern goshawk (e.g., degrade or downgrade habitat).

Significant Issue #2

An announcement of the availability of the DEIS for public comment was mailed to interested 

and affected parties on May 24, 2010. The notice of availability was published May 28, 2010, in 

the Federal Register (75 FR 30022) and a legal notice of the opportunity to comment was also 

published on May 28, 2010, in the Siskiyou Daily News. The FEIS is available for public review 

on the Forest Service website at http://www.fs.usda.gov/klamath. Select “Land and Resource 

Management” and then select “Projects” and “View a Listing of All Projects” to navigate to the 

FEIS. The FEIS is also available for review at the Goosenest Ranger District in Macdoel, 

California, and at the Klamath National Forest Supervisor’s Office in Yreka, California.

: There is a disagreement about whether or not a sufficient amount of the 

lodgepole stand is treated to protect values at risk.

Alternatives Considered

In addition to the selected alternative, I considered two other alternatives in detail. Three 

additional alternatives were determined not to meet the purpose and need for this project, and 

therefore, were not analyzed in detail. These are briefly discussed below. More detailed 

discussions of alternatives can be found in the FEIS in sections 1.5, 2.4, 2.5, and 2.6. 

Alternative Analyzed in Detail

Alternative 1 (the no action alternative). Current management plans would continue to guide 

management of the project area. No forest health or fuels vegetation management would be 

implemented to accomplish project goals. The purpose and need would not be met. The no action 

alternative is required (40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1502.14(d)) and served as a 

baseline for comparison of the effects for all action alternatives.

Alternative 3. Developed in response to significant issue #1 (section 1.8), this alternative would 

use light thinning treatments throughout the project area to maintain higher tree densities (basal 

area) and canopy closure. Alternative 3 would treat approximately 3,568 acres. Thinning-frombelow is proposed on 2,094 acres; in particular, thinning within late-successional habitats is 

proposed on 180 acres. This alternative maintains areas of untreated mid/late-successional 

habitat for wildlife. Small openings will only be created in stands with a greater proportion of 

pine to enhance NGH (northern goshawk) foraging habitat. There will be no machine piling 

outside of landing areas with this alternative. Use of underburn only (without silviculture 

treatment) is proposed on 426 acres. Approximately 2.3 miles of temporary road will be needed 

to access thinning units, of which approximately 1.6 miles would be on temporary roads on 

existing roadbeds from previous harvest entries. Please see “Decision Rationale” (ROD, page 1) 

for reasons this alternative was not selected.
Hi-Grouse Project

ROD-4

Modified Alternative 4. This alternative is the selected alternative (ROD, pages 1 and 2), and 

also the environmentally preferred alternative (ROD, page 9).

Alternatives Not Analyzed in Detail

Proposed Action From Scoping. The original proposed action from scoping (noted in the EIS in 

section 1.5) proposed restoration of ponderosa pine and mixed conifers, thinning, and fuel

reduction treatments on approximately 5,085 acres. Silvicultural treatments included thinningfrom-below, ponderosa pine/mixed conifer restoration and re-establishment, and lodgepole pine 

thinning. The overall fuels abatement prescriptions included whole-tree yarding, biomass 

removal, lopping and scattering, piling and burning, underburning, and mowing. Less than 1 mile 

of new temporary road was proposed with the remaining access provided by existing roads. No 

new system roads were proposed. Monitoring to ensure proper project implementation was also 

planned. This alternative was eliminated from detailed analysis since it would not meet Forest 

Plan standard and guideline 8-20 regarding providing habitat for NGH. 

Avoid Root Disease Areas. An alternative was considered that avoided all known areas of root 

disease. As noted in the existing condition, most of the white fir stands have annosus and are 

experiencing mortality. This alternative was dismissed from detailed analysis because it did not 

address the purpose and need to provide for resilient stocking levels of desired species.

No Temporary Roads. An alternative was considered that eliminated the use of all temporary 

roads, including temporary roads on existing roadbeds (pre-existing spur roads). This alternative 

would greatly reduce access to stands in need of treatment, greatly reducing treatment of stands 

for forest health. To achieve the same level of stand treatment without the use of temporary roads

on existing roadbeds, new roads would need to be constructed. New road construction was not 

considered, since impacts to resources would be greater than the use of temporary roads on 

existing roadbeds. This alternative was eliminated from detailed analysis since it would not 

address the purpose and need of the project.

The project is expected to be active over about the next 7 to 10 years, or from the time the 

decision is made to full implementation. See FEIS table 2.5-1 for a summary comparison of the 

alternatives. See FEIS section 2.2.4 and appendix C for descriptions of treatments. 

Effects Related to the Significant Issues and Purpose and Need

Following is a brief summary of the effects as related to the significant issues (FEIS, section 

2.6).

Significant Issue #1

Alternative 3 responds to this significant issue through use of less intensive thinning 

treatments throughout the project area that would maintain higher tree densities (basal area) 

and canopy closure. This alternative would maintain, but degrade, some NSO (northern 

spotted owl) foraging habitat in the short term. This alternative would maintain the existing 

amount of nesting and foraging habitat available to NGH across the project area in the short 

term. However, in the long term many of the untreated, densely spaced stands that are 

currently infected with root disease and pine and fir engraver beetles would be expected to 

: There is a concern that the proposed activities could remove the best 

remaining wildlife habitat for species associated with late-successional habitat within the project 

area, specifically removing and or altering habitat for northern spotted owl and northern 

goshawk (e.g., degrade or downgrade habitat).
Record of Decision

ROD-5

decline to the point that they would no longer provide habitat for NGH. This alternative was 

not chosen for this reason.

The selected alternative also responds to this significant issue through use of less intensive 

thinning-from-below treatments within NSO and NGH nesting and roosting areas to maintain 

higher basal area and canopy closure. More intensive thinning-from-below treatments in 

NSO foraging habitat would cause short-term degradation or downgrading of NSO foraging 

habitat in white fir/ponderosa pine units (see FEIS, appendix C for detailed prescriptions). 

The alternative would remove some NGH foraging habitat, but improve overall long-term 

stand health. There would be a short-term reduction in quality of nesting and foraging habitat 

for NGH in four of the five territories and across the project area. NGH habitat will benefit 

over the long term with the reduced risk of a stand-replacing fire.

The determination for NSO under both the selected alternative and alternative 3 is: may 

affect, but not likely to adversely affect NSO; and may affect, and not likely to adversely 

affect NSO Critical Habitat. The determination for NGH for both the selected alternative and 

alternative 3 is: may impact individual goshawks but would not likely result in a trend toward 

listing or loss of viability. The project is not likely to adversely affect any federally listed 

species or Region 5 sensitive species and complies with Forest Plan management direction. 

Management indicator species that prefer late-successional habitat would benefit most from 

the selected alternative, followed by alternative 3, then alternative 1 (FEIS, section 3.2.3).

Significant Issue #2

The selected alternative responds to this significant issue by treating the entire lodgepole 

stand on the west side of the Hi-Grouse Project Area to improve stand health and reduce fuel 

loadings. Treatments are designed to reduce fuel loadings from tree mortality and promote a 

stand composition of healthy small trees that would be more resilient to the mountain pine 

beetle in the future.

: There is disagreement about whether or not a sufficient amount of the 

lodgepole stand is treated to protect values at risk.

Thinning in the selected alternative will reduce tree densities, decreasing stand susceptibility 

to bark beetle infestations. Tree and stand growth would be enhanced while improving longterm understory plant diversity (FEIS, section 3.2.1). Thinning treatments will use whole-tree 

yarding and be followed by fuels treatments (mowing, pile and underburning); these actions 

will decrease the hazardous fuels within the project area. 

In comparison, alternative 3 would only treat about two-thirds of the stand and is, therefore, 

less effective at addressing this significant issue.

In conclusion, the selected alternative best addresses both significant issues for the long term.

As described in comparison format in table ROD-1, the selected alternative best meets the 

purpose and need for this project with greater long-term benefits (FEIS, section 2.6). In 

comparison, alternative 1 (no action) proposes no treatments for fuel reduction or forest health 

and would not meet the purpose and need of this project. Although alternative 3 would meet 

some of the purpose and need for this project, there would be fewer long-term benefits relative to 

the selected alternative. Table ROD-1 summarizes effects of each alternative, as related to the 

purpose and need elements discussed in the FEIS in sections 1.4 and 2.6. 
Hi-Grouse Project

ROD-6

Table ROD-1. Summary of alternative effects related to the project purpose and need elements

Purpose and Need Alternative 1 Alternative 3 Selected Alternative

Improve and maintain habitat for species associated with late-successional forests

Maintain sustainable owl 

habitat elements in the 

Goosenest AMA and the 

LSR MAs by promoting 

resiliency to fire, insects, 

and disease on the 

landscape, and by 

culturing young trees to 

increase growth and 

crowns for future suitable 

habitat (see also 

Significant Issue #1).

No change in the short 

term. 

Long-term level of infection 

in white fir-dominated 

stands would lead to 

significant losses in 

canopy cover and high 

levels of down wood as 

annosus root disease 

progresses in the next 

20−30 years.

Maintains habitat elements 

through use of less 

intensive thinning 

treatments throughout the 

project area that would 

maintain higher tree 

densities (basal area) and 

canopy closure. 

This alternative would 

maintain, but degrade, 

some NSO foraging habitat 

in the short term.

Maintains habitat 

elements across NSO 

and NGH nesting and 

roosting habitat through 

use of less intensive 

thinning treatments to 

maintain higher basal 

area and canopy closure. 

Thinning in NSO foraging 

habitat would cause 

degradation or 

downgrading of some 

NSO foraging habitat in 

the short term, but would 

improve some aspects of 

foraging by allowing owls 

to maneuver better 

through stands that are 

currently very dense. 

Some foraging habitat

would be removed, but 

overall long-term stand 

health would improve.

Promote restoration of historic forest composition and structure

Decrease stand density 

over most of the project 

area.

No change. 3,568 acres.

Stand density decreased 

for the short term through 

light thinning treatments on 

approximately 48 percent 

of the project area. 

Thinning will reduce tree 

densities, decreasing 

stand susceptibility to bark 

beetle infestations. Tree 

and stand growth would be 

enhanced while improving 

long-term understory plant 

diversity (FEIS, section 

3.2.1).

3,847 acres.

Stand density decreased 

on approximately 52 

percent of the project 

area. Reduction in stand 

density would last for at 

least 20 years. Reduced

tree densities decrease

stand susceptibility to 

bark beetle infestations. 

Tree and stand growth 

would be enhanced while 

improving long-term 

understory plant diversity 

(FEIS, section 3.2.1).

Increase proportion of 

ponderosa pine, sugar 

pine, and white pine on 

suitable sites to mimic 

historical stand 

conditions.

No change.

Continued loss of tree 

species diversity and 

movement away from 

desired conditions (FEIS, 

section 3.2.1).

No planting. Plant up to 644 acres 

PP/MC where needed.

Release understory in 

lodgepole pine stands to 

increase stand diversity 

and remove dead and 

dying trees to reduce 

current and future fuels

(see also Significant 

Issue #2).

No change. 673 acres. 970 acres.
Record of Decision

ROD-7

Purpose and Need Alternative 1 Alternative 3 Selected Alternative

Increase stand diversity 

to enhance overall 

vegetative diversity.

No change.

Continued loss of tree 

species diversity and 

movement away from 

desired conditions (FEIS, 

section 3.2.1).

Increases stand diversity 

through thinning and 

lodgepole treatments.

Movement toward desired 

conditions (FEIS, section 

3.2.1).

Increases stand diversity 

through thinning and 

lodgepole treatments, 

planting pine, and small 

openings within thinning 

treatments.

Movement toward 

desired conditions (FEIS, 

section 3.2.1).

Maintain aesthetic 

values.

No change in the short 

term.

Would perpetuate 

conditions and trends that 

increases the scenery 

hazards of standreplacement fire (FEIS, 

section 3.4.3).

Yes.

Would cause short-term, 

low-intensity adverse 

effects to scenery in 

foreground views during 

project activities. Scenic 

character attribute 

changes would improve 

scenic stability over the 

long term (FEIS, section 

3.4.3).

Yes.

Would cause short-term, 

low-intensity adverse 

effects to scenery in 

foreground views during 

project activities. Scenic 

character attribute 

changes would improve 

scenic stability over the 

long term (FEIS, section 

3.4.3).

Identify appropriate 

monitoring.

No change. Yes. Yes.

Promote restoration of fuels-related historic fire regime

Mimic natural processes 

through management 

actions to promote 

healthy ecological 

conditions and replicate 

the role of natural

disturbances.

No change. Thinning and use of 

prescribed burning.

The potential for crown fire 

would decrease across 

about 40 percent of the 

project area (FEIS, section 

3.2.2).

Thinning with openings, 

inter-planting PP/MC, and 

use of prescribed 

burning.

The potential for crown 

fire would decrease 

across about 50 percent 

of the project area (FEIS, 

section 3.2.2).

Treat heavy fuel loadings 

to reduce the threat of 

stand-replacing wildfire, 

protect old forest habitat 

components in the project 

area, and provide for 

firefighter safety.

No change. 3,568 acres, including 13 

miles FMZ.

The fuel management 

zones would create 

defensible space for 

firefighters, and reduce the 

potential for fire to burn 

into the late-successional 

stands (FEIS, section 

3.2.2).

3,847 acres, including 13 

miles FMZ.

The fuel management 

zones would create 

defensible space for 

firefighters, and reduce 

the potential for fire to 

burn into the latesuccessional stands 

(FEIS, section 3.2.2).

Findings Required by Other Laws and Regulations

The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) requires projects to be consistent with minimum 

specific management requirements as provided in the implementing regulations at 36 CFR 

219.12 and described in Forest Service Manual 1921.12a. NFMA also requires projects to be 

consistent with the intent of the Forest Plan. This decision is consistent with the Klamath 

National Forest Land Management Plan (Forest Plan). The project was designed in conformance 

with the long-term goals identified in the Forest Plan (pages 4-4 through 4-9). The project was 

designed to conform to Forest Plan goals, move toward desired conditions, and comply with 

standards and guidelines for Forest-wide management direction (Forest Plan, pages 4-3 through 

4-66) and the following management areas: Special Habitat Late-Succession Reserve (Forest 
Hi-Grouse Project

ROD-8

Plan, pages 4-84 through 4-89), Special Interest Area (Forest Plan, pages 4-97 through 4-100), 

Partial Retention Visual Quality (Forest Plan, pages 4-126 through 45-127), and General Forest 

(Forest Plan, pages 4-177 through 4-180). Consistency with Forest Plan goals, desired 

conditions, and standards and guidelines is addressed throughout the DEIS and supporting 

documents.

The FEIS fulfills the requirements for environmental analysis found in NEPA and in the Council 

on Environmental Quality implementing regulations at 40 CFR, Parts 1500-1508. NEPA at 40 

CFR 1502.25 (a) directs, “to the fullest extent possible, agencies shall prepare draft 

environmental impact statements concurrently with and integrated with...other environmental 

review laws and executive orders.”

The selected alternative would be located entirely on national forest system lands and is not in 

conflict with planning objectives for Siskiyou County.

The Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act, the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning 

Act, and the NFMA direct the national forests to supply goods and services and to be managed 

for a broad array of resources. Consistent with these guiding laws, the Forest Plan established 

land allocations and management direction for the Forest. The selected alternative does not 

propose changes in the management of the Forest, but rather is a mechanism for implementing 

management direction. Therefore, the social effects of this single proposal are limited in scope. 

Forest Service Manual 1973 requires a social effects analysis if the potential social effects of 

Forest Service actions are important to the decision (USDA Forest Service 1992). Social effects 

are important; however, social effects were not identified as a significant issue in the FEIS, 

therefore an extensive analysis was not completed nor required (USDA Forest Service 1988). 

The selected alternative is in accordance with the Secretary of Agriculture Memorandum 1827 

for prime farmland, rangeland, and forestland. “Prime” forestland is a term used only for nonFederal land, which would not be affected by proposed activities under any alternative. 

The selected alternative activities including prescribed burning would be implemented in full 

compliance with the Siskiyou County Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and 

California Air Resource Board (CARB) air programs and the KNF LRMP standards and 

guidelines. The selected alternative is consistent with the Clean Air Act (FEIS, section 3.4.6).

The selected alternative would not have adverse impacts on water quality and complies with the 

Clean Water Act through use of best management practices designed to minimize or prevent the 

discharge of both point and non-point source pollutants from Forest roads, developments, and 

activities. This project is also consistent with the California Porter Cologne Water Quality Act, 

and the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (NCWQCB) Basin Plan. This project 

falls under the 2004 NCWQCB waiver. Following the decision, a notice of intent will be 

submitted to NCWQCB for this project. The Forest Service will work with NCWQCB to secure 

the appropriate permit(s) for this project.

Thorough analyses of federally listed species and consultation with the USDI Fish and Wildlife 

Service was completed fulfilling section 7 of Endangered Species Act consultation requirements 

(19 U.S.C. 1536(c )). The USDI Fish and Wildlife Service concurred with a determination that 

the project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the NSO and NSO critical habitat on 

May 7, 2010 (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2010).
Record of Decision

ROD-9

I am required to determine the environmentally preferable alternative. The Council on 

Environmental Quality defines the environmentally preferable alternative as “the alternative that 

will promote the national environmental policy as expressed in NEPA Section 101.” Ordinarily, 

this means the alternative that causes the lease damage to the biological and physical 

environment; it also means the alternative which best protects, preserves, and enhances historic, 

cultural, and natural resources. This definition can be generalized to mean the alternative that 

best balances negative impacts with benefits. In the short term, alternative 3 is environmentally 

preferable because it would cause the least short-term impacts to NSO habitat (no downgrades in 

habitat [FEIS, section 3.2.3.2]). Given the long term considerations for this project area, I regard 

the selected alternative to be environmentally preferable. The reasons for this are two-fold. The 

selected alternative would most effectively decrease potential fuels over the project area with a 

greater reduction in fire behavior. The selected alternative would also improve resiliency to 

disturbance by reducing susceptibility to mortality from bark beetles and create stand structures 

more conducive to low-severity surface fires (FEIS, sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2).

Federally recognized tribes were contacted early in project planning and consulted at various 

phases of this project in accordance with the Region 5 Programmatic Agreement, National 

Historic Preservation Act, and other laws and regulations (see FEIS, section 1.7, “Public 

Involvement,” in chapter 1). Relevant archaeological sites have been identified and will be 

protected by applying standard resource protection measure in or adjacent to the area of potential 

effect. The selected alternative is in compliance with section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act. The action alternatives will not result in any negative impacts to cultural 

resource sites (FEIS, section 3.4.5). 

Executive Order 12898 relating to environmental justice requires an assessment of whether 

minorities or low-income populations will be disproportionately affected by proposed actions. 

Proposed actions, including the road closures proposed in the selected alternative, were reviewed 

and there would be no adverse effects on human health or the environment that are significant, 

unacceptable, or above generally accepted norms and, therefore, there will be no 

disproportionate effects on minorities or low income populations. Since there are no amendments 

to the Forest Plan associated with the selected alternative and a civil rights impact analysis 

review was included as part of environmental justice (FEIS, section 3.4.2), no further civil rights 

impact analysis is required (FSM 1730 and FSH 1709.11).

Administrative Review (Appeal) Opportunities

This decision is subject to appeal pursuant to 36 CFR 215. An appeal pursuant to 36 CFR

215.11(a) may be filed by any person or any non-federal organization or entity that has provided 

comment or otherwise expressed interest in this project. Appeals must be filed within 45 days 

from the publication date of the legal notice in the Siskiyou Daily News. 

Notices of appeal must meet the specific content requirements of 36 CFR 215.14. An appeal, 

including attachments, must be filed (regular mail, fax, email, hand-delivery, express delivery, or 

messenger service) with the appropriate Appeal Deciding Officer (36 CFR 215.8) within 45 days 

following the publication date of the legal notice. The publication date of the legal notice in the 

newspaper of record is the exclusive means for calculating the time period to file an appeal (36 

CFR 215.15 (a)). Those wishing to appeal should not rely upon dates or timeframe information 

provided by any other source. Appeals must be submitted to the Regional Forester, USDA Forest 

Service, 1323 Club Drive, Vallejo, CA 94592, (707) 562-8737. Appeals may be submitted by 

FAX (707-562-9091) or by hand-delivery to the Regional Office at the address shown above, 
Hi-Grouse Project

during normal business hours (Monday—Friday from 8:00am to 4:30pm). Electronic appeals, in

acceptable [plain text (.txt), rich text (.rtf) or Word (.doc)] formats, may be submitted to appealspacificsouthwest-re2ional-office@fs.fcd.us .

Implementation Date

If no appeals are filed within the 45-day time period, implementation of the decision may begin

on, but not before, the 5th business day following the close of the appeal-tiling period (36 CFR

215.9 and 215.15). When an appeal is filed, implementation may occur on, but not before, the

15th business day following the date of appeal disposition (36 CFR 215.2). In the event of

multiple appeals, the implementation date is controlled by the date of the last appeal disposition.

Contact

For additional information concerning this decision, please contact: Wendy Coats,

Environmental Coordinator, 1312 Fairlane Road, Yreka, California 96097 (phone: 530-841-

447 ; email: wcoats@fs.fed.us).

4/2. /D

tricia Grantham Date

Forest Supervisor

Attached are:

Appendix A: Selected Alternative Treatment Map

Appendix B: Selected Alternative Stand Treatment Table, Project Design Features,

Monitoring, and Best Management Practices for the Hi-Grouse Project
Record of Decision

ROD-11

Appendix A: Selected Alternative Treatment Map
Hi-Grouse Project

ROD-12
Record of Decision

ROD-13

Appendix B: Stand Treatment Table, Project Design Features, Monitoring, and Best 

Management Practices for the Hi-Grouse Project

Table ROD-B-1 lists the stand treatments with the stand-specific design features identified for the selected alternative. See the FEIS 

appendix C for detailed prescription descriptions. Project design features developed to address overall project objectives and ensure 

Forest Plan compliance are listed in table ROD-B-2. Also listed are the monitoring and the applicable best management practices that

apply to this project. 

Table ROD-B-1. Selected alternative stand treatments

Unit

No.

Unit_

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

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; 

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 175AIR1-2; 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-
Hi-Grouse Project

ROD-14

Unit

No.

Unit_

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

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

23 23 HTH-WF-PP-lite-NGH WTY/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-lite-NSO WTY/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-lite-NGH WTY/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-lite-NGH WTY/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-
Record of Decision

ROD-15

Unit

No.

Unit_

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

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/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
Hi-Grouse Project

ROD-16

Table ROD-B-2. Project design features for the selected alternative

Design 

Feature Description Applicable Units

AIR-1 A wetting agent (water or other dust-reduction material) will be applied as 

needed to decrease or eliminate dust generated from timber hauling on dirt

roads to provide for air quality and public safety. If water is unavailable, other 

means of dust abatement may be necessary. This may include, but is not limited 

to, rocking, applying cinders, or hauling during winter months on snow-covered 

roads. Temporally closing public access to interior roads during short-term 

hauling activities may occur, but main haul routes should stay open to the 

public.

Where needed

AIR-2 Prescribed burning will be conducted in accordance with an approved burn plan 

and an approved smoke management plan. Pre-treatment methods will be used 

to minimize smoke emissions and/or reduce fuel loadings, such as biomass 

removal, and public firewood utilization opportunities. Burning when piles are 

dry increases the combustion efficiency and therefore reduces the emissions 

from the burn. The burn prescription shall specify an acceptable range of fuel 

moisture contents for the burn to proceed. These plans will address mitigations 

and requirements to minimize impacts of smoke. A smoke permit will be issued 

by the Siskiyou County Air Pollution Control District.

All burn units

ARCH-1 All proposed activities, facilities, improvements, and disturbances shall avoid 

archaeological and historic sites. Avoidance means that no activities associated 

with the project that may affect an archaeological or historic site shall take place 

within the site’s boundaries, including any defined buffer zones. Examples of 

such activities include, but are not limited to, felling, skidding, mowing, and 

burning.

All units

ARCH-2 All cultural resource sites within the area of potential effect shall be clearly 

delineated prior to implementing any associated activities that have the potential 

to affect cultural resource sties. This includes, but is not limited to, flagging site 

boundaries.

All units

ARCH-3 When any changes in proposed activities are necessary to avoid cultural 

resource sites (e.g., project modifications), these changes shall be completed 

prior to issuance of the decision.

All units

ARCH-4 The sites within the project area will not be affected by road use as long as the 

roads are used “as-is”. Should through-site road maintenance become 

necessary, the following provisions will apply per the First Amended Regional 

Programmatic Agreement Among the USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest 

Region California State Historic Preservation Officer, and Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation Regarding the Process for Compliance with Section 106 of 

the National Historic Preservation Act for Undertakings on the National Forests 

of the Pacific Southwest Region:

 Routine road maintenance (e.g., blading and brushing) and resurfacing is 

allowed where work is confined to previously maintained surfaces (other 

than native surfaces), ditches, culverts, and other clearly disturbed contexts.

 Where road surfaces are native, blades must be lifted or placement of nonarchaeological material (e.g., padding or filter cloth) must be placed over the 

archaeological deposit to prevent surface and subsurface impacts.

 Ground-disturbing road-decommissioning activities are not allowed within the 

boundaries of archaeological sites.

All units

BOT-1 Currently, TES plants are not known from areas proposed for treatments. If any 

are located prior to or during implementation they will be flagged for avoidance. 

Appropriate buffers to maintain light regime, or to protect plants from local soil 

movement or heating during prescribed fire will be maintained.

Where identified 

during 

implementation; 

there are no known 

sites

GEO-1 New lava tube or fault caves discovered during unit layout and tree marking will 

be identified and protected by the 50-foot, mechanical-equipment-exclusionbuffer, but may require wider buffers that will be designated by the district cave 

coordinator or biologist.

All units

GEO-2 Newly discovered cave locations will not be identified in the EIS, 

implementation, or sale area map, and confidentiality will be maintained in a 

manner similar to that used for archaeological sites.

All units
Record of Decision

ROD-17

Design 

Feature Description Applicable Units

GEO-3 If caves are discovered, prescribed fire will be allowed to back into cave 

entrance buffers and fault zones, unless otherwise specified by the district cave 

coordinator or biologist for certain caves. Ignition of fuels within entrance buffers 

and fault zones is not appropriate, unless such action is needed to prevent 

unacceptable damage to vegetation and organic materials within or immediately 

adjacent to a cave entrance. Burning of packrat middens or other accumulations 

of flammable material within caves or entrance buffers will be avoided. Fire will 

be excluded from the entrance buffers for caves discovered with sensitive bat 

habitat. 

All units

GEO-4 Equipment will be excluded from any discovered cave entrance buffers and 

outcrops and talus within fault zones. This can be accomplished by either 

flagging the exclusion zones around cave entrances, or designating and 

flagging the equipment road locations after the trees are marked. Crossings of 

fault zones will be allowed, but will be designated or approved in the field by the 

district cave coordinator or designated representative. Crossings will be where 

the fault trace is not exposed on the surface.

All units

GEO-5 Fault zones will have no-disturbance buffers which coincide with the rock 

outcrops and talus deposits within the fault zone. Since outcrops and talus are 

easily recognizable, they will not be flagged on the ground unless required by 

unique circumstances. There will be no tree removal from the outcrop and talus 

areas. Equipment operators will typically avoid the talus and outcrops found in 

fault zones.

All units

GEO-6 Cave entrance buffers will either be flagged in the field prior to implementation 

or other similarly effective measures taken to prevent disturbances there. Subtle 

cave entrances that are difficult to spot on the ground, such as those which are 

flush with the soil surface, will have the buffers flagged.

All units

GEO-7 Any discovered lava-tube caves, associated sink holes, or fault caves will be 

protected by a minimum 50-foot no-disturbance-buffer around the entrance.

Some caves may require wider buffers and if so, will be designated by the 

district cave coordinator or biologist. 

All units

GEO-8 Several fault zones, rock outcrops, and talus deposits were identified in the 

project area, and caves may be present (cave locations are protected from 

disclosure to the public by the Federal Cave Resources Protection Act of 1988).

All units

NNIS-1 Ensure equipment coming to and from the project is weed free. All units

NNIS-2 Do not park vehicles or stage equipment in areas with known weed populations, 

including parking in infested areas outside of the project area.

All units

NNIS-3 Wherever seed, straw mulch, or gravel are used to restore or maintain areas 

within the project area, certified weed-free seeds, straw, mulches, and/or gravel 

should be specified in any contract.

All units

REC-1 During winter operations, use alternative hauling routes away from the NFS 15 

and 77 roads or leave an unplowed lane about 8-feet wide so that groomed 

snowmobile access to Medicine Lake is maintained.

Forest Roads 15 

and 77

REC-2 Protect dispersed campsites within the project area to maintain the integrity of 

these sites. Do not use or dispersed campsites for landings, burn piles, or 

contractor campsites or parking areas.

All units

REC-3 Remove all identified live or dead hazard trees within or in close proximity to 

dispersed campsites and along high-use recreation access roads.

All units

REC-4 Physical improvements, such as a water pond in the northern section of the 

project area, would be protected from damage from project treatments.

All units

RDS-1 Provide safety signing or temporary road closures in active project areas to 

provide for public safety.

Temporary roads

RDS-2 To make road closures more effective, no trees other than hazard trees will be 

removed within 50 feet of the entry for a temporary road, where it intersects a 

system road. Exceptions may be possible based upon site-specific concerns

and equipment needs.

Temporary roads

RDS-3 All temporary roads used for entry will be closed immediately following 

operations. When multiple entries are necessary for project completion, roads 

used by contractors will be closed in between each entry. Road closure will 

Temporary roads
Hi-Grouse Project

ROD-18

Design 

Feature Description Applicable Units

include all or a combination of the following activities: (1) placing earth or log 

mound barriers to prevent vehicle traffic; (2) subsoiling and outsloping the road 

surface; (3) installing water bars and other drainage structures; and (4) mulching 

with native materials (logging slash) or certified weed-free straw.

SAF-1 Hazardous trees or snags may be cut, if necessary, for safety. All units

SAF-2 Signs will be placed on roads to identify areas as active sale or prescribed burn 

areas.

Where needed

SAF-3 If necessary, dust abatement will be done (see also AIR-1). Where needed

VEG-1 Where found within units, patches of late-successional forest consisting of 

predominant trees, high canopy cover, and/or snags and down logs will be 

retained.

All units

VEG-2 No-treatment clumps will be left in all treatments to increase structural diversity 

and retain elements of biodiversity such as snags, logs, and predominant trees 

in a clumped distribution. The amount will vary by prescription from up to 10 or 

15 percent, with higher amounts being left in the heavier treatments where 

suitable habitat is available. Due to the nature of the FMZs, no-treatment clumps 

will be minimized and designed to meet specific elements of adjacent habitat. 

Emphasis will be placed on leaving clumps that provide the most diversity within 

the unit, as well as habitat elements for other species.

All units

VEG-3 Predominant trees of all species will be retained in all treatments. In rare 

instances it may be necessary to cut them for safety of workers or for equipment 

access, but this will require approval of the Forest Service contract 

administrator. Predominant trees have the following characteristics: generally 

taller and older than the general canopy, more deeply furrowed bark with plate 

formation (especially ponderosa pine), large limbs, and often patchy crowns with 

flat tops. In ponderosa pine the bark is orange to yellow and composed of many 

puzzle-like pieces in older trees. As trees age the bark plates become much 

wider than the fissures separating them. In white fir the bark plates appear more 

vertical and depth of fissures can be equal to the width of the plates. Diameter is 

often poorly correlated with age, but most trees with these characteristics are 24

inches dbh and larger.

All units

VEG-4 In all treatments the largest ponderosa pine and white fir would be left. In heavy 

thinning prescriptions involving removal of substantial amounts of true fir, the 

following elements would be retained: essentially all ponderosa pine/sugar 

pine/white pine, pre-dominant trees, widely spaced true fir, and no-treatment 

clumps.

All units

VEG-6 Lava flows will be excluded from units to the extent possible during layout. No 

trees will be marked for cutting on inclusions of lava flow outcrops within units, 

unless deemed a safety hazard by the contract administrator.

All units

VEG-7 Machine piling of hazardous fuels outside of landing areas will be used where 

reductions of heavy fuel loadings in excess of down log objectives are 

necessary for effective fire suppression and/or underburning. This will apply in 

units with heavy accumulations of either natural or past treatment-generated 

fuels where hand piling will be cost prohibitive. It is anticipated that machine 

piling may be needed on up to 25 percent of the area of units where it is 

prescribed. Units will be evaluated post-thinning to determine the need for this 

treatment. Piles will be burned under appropriate meteorological conditions for 

smoke dispersal.

Selected alternative

VEG-8 Whole-tree yarding will be the primary method for minimizing thinning-generated 

slash. Trees will be limbed and topped at landings for disposal by chipping or 

burning methods. Piles will be burned under appropriate weather conditions for 

smoke dispersal. 

All units

VEG-10 Prescribed burning treatments would be implemented to provide a mosaic1 of All units

understory vegetation, except where treatments are immediately adjacent to

private property. Forty percent of underburn treatment areas will remain 

untreated to provide wildlife habitat. 

VIS-1 Within 300 feet from roadways, skid patterns, slash, soil exposure, and stumps 

should be visually minor or unnoticed (6 inch maximum height of stumps, 

possible follow-up stump or soil disturbance concealment with hand raking of 

Units within 300 feet

from roadways in 

the partial retention 
Record of Decision

ROD-19

Design 

Feature Description Applicable Units

dirt and duff as needed). foreground visual 

quality objectives 

(VQO) VIS-2 Road closures along the 15/77 roads should appear natural and not attract 

attention, preferably through native boulders and logs and landforms, rather 

than dirt piles, trenches, signs, or gates.

VIS-3 To the extent possible, the following approximate proportions of the view will 

remain after treatments: thinned canopy 90 to 95 percent, un-thinned canopy 5 

to 10 percent, untreated brush/seedling/saplings 15 to 25 percent, hand-piled 

slash removal 75 percent, tractor-piled 15 percent, mowed areas 35 percent

maximum, underburn areas 35 to 60 percent.

VIS-4 To the extent possible FMZs should be undulating, consisting of thinned canopy 

retaining irregular spacing along the roads immediate foreground not to exceed 

100 feet, then sweeping away from the road to retain stretches of un-thinned

canopy along the road to create a diverse and natural-appearing forest edge.

Where possible, FMZs treatments may have feathered edges to blend the 

treatment of the canopy into the surrounding vegetation.

VIS-5 Foreground clearings (in natural appearing configurations with less than 2 acres 

visible to viewpoints) should not be used frequently, but can be used in specific 

circumstances to treat insect or disease infestations, or to open views to scenic 

attributes such as rock formations, large ponderosa pine or larch components, 

or views to distant mountain peaks.

VIS-6 Screen temporary roads and landings from the sensitive offset observer position 

until complete visual recovery is attained. This may be offset due to FMZs or 

other treatment needs. 

Units within the 

partial retention 

VQO in middle to 

background VIS-7 To prevent public use of closed roads, screen landings from sensitive level 1 

roads. Retain existing road screening vegetation as viewed from sensitive offsite 

observer positions.

VIS-8 During any one entry, limit the amount of ground surface viewed to 10 percent

or less of the area as viewed from selected offsite observer positions.

VIS-9 Limit naturally shaped openings to be a maximum of 5 to 10 acres in size with 

blended edges. The openings should not exceed 20 percent of the area. The 

openings should not be located in such a manner that creates unnatural 

appearing patterns as a whole.

VIS-10 Retain species of diverse fall color, such as any deciduous tree species. Units within the 

modification VQO 

(units within the 

modification VQO 

are viewed from 

middleground to 

background 

distances)

VIS-11 Use existing skid roads and landing to the extent possible. To the extent 

possible, new temporary roads and landings will be located out of view of 

sensitive travel routes, or shall be promptly rehabilitated. New temporary roads 

and landings may be evident, but must remain subordinate to the shape and 

pattern of harvest units.

VIS-12 Currently the visual absorption capability is expected to be moderate allowing 

for naturally shaped openings to be a maximum of 10 to 15 acres in size with 

blended edges. The openings should not exceed 40 percent of the area. The 

openings should be located in such a manner to create natural appearing 

patterns as a whole.

WL-1 In the fuel management zone along Road 77 within NSO nesting, roosting, and 

foraging habitat, and critical habitat, only trees less than 8 inches dbh will be 

removed. Thinning will be variably spaced except in existing openings. In some 

areas, leave trees clumpy while other areas can be more open. 

Purpose: To prevent the loss of NSO nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat in 

the fuel management zone and critical habitat, reduce habitat fragmentation, 

and provide screening and travel corridors for wildlife.

Units 29, 30, and 41 

in FMZ along Road 

77

WL-2 NSO surveys to protocol will be conducted during the life of the project. Should 

NSO be detected within the project area or within 1.3 miles of a treatment unit 

outside the project area, the district biologist will contact USDI Fish and Wildlife 

Service.

Purpose: To ensure detection and protection of any NSOs utilizing habitat 

affected by the project.

All units

WL-3 A seasonal restriction between February 1 and September 15 will apply to all 

activities within 0.25 miles of un-surveyed suitable NSO habitat.

Units 1, 2, 3, 4, 12A, 

13, 37, and 53A
Hi-Grouse Project

ROD-20

Design 

Feature Description Applicable Units

Purpose: To ensure protection of any NSOs utilizing previously un-surveyed 

habitat. (This measure is in place since not all habitat areas were previously 

surveyed to protocol.)

WL-4 Maintain habitat specific for goshawk consistent with the KNF LRMP, page 4-29. 

Purpose: To maintain goshawk habitat and use in the project area 

Units 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 9, 

10, 11, 12a, 12b, 13, 

17, 18, 19, 21a, 21b, 

22, 23, 24, 25b, 28, 

29, 30, 32, 35b, 37, 

41, 44, 45a, 46, 48, 

52, 53a, 53b, 55, 58, 

59; (that occur 

within goshawk 

territories, primary 

nest zone, and 

foraging areas)

WL-5 Restrict habitat-modifying activities between March 1 and August 31 within the 

primary nest zone (0.5-mile radius), unless surveys confirm goshawks are not 

nesting or within the area (KNF LRMP, page 4-29).

Purpose: To eliminate disturbance to goshawks during the nesting season.

Units 9, 10, 12a, 13, 

17, 19, 23, 24, 25b, 

29, 30, 45a, 53b, 55, 

58, 59 (within 0.5 

miles of an active 

goshawk nest)

WL-6 Restrict loud and/or continuous noise within 0.25 mile of active goshawk nest 

sites between March 1 and August 31 (KNF LRMP, page 4-29).

Purpose: To eliminate disturbance to nesting goshawks.

All units (including 

FMZ) within 0.25 

miles of an active 

goshawk nest

WL-7 If an active goshawk nest is discovered within a stand prior to or during 

treatment activities, work will be halted and the wildlife biologist notified 

immediately to determine steps to resolve the situation. 

Purpose: To maintain goshawk habitat and eliminate disturbance to goshawks 

during the nesting season.

All units

WL-8 Maintain 5 to 20 pieces (depending upon forest type) of large down woody 

debris of at least 20 inches in diameter (minimum greater than12 inches dbh) 

and about 40 cubic feet in volume in decay classes 3, 4, and 5. Snags felled for 

safety reasons will be retained onsite to provide coarse woody debris, 

consistent with fuels objectives (KNF LRMP, pages 4-23 and 4-24).

Purpose: To meet the habitat needs of prey species of raptors and marten as 

well as denning habitat for various wildlife species.

All units

WL-9 Retain at a minimum five snags per acre of standing dead or dying trees 

(preferably in clumps) greater than or equal to 20 inches dbh in a variety of 

decay classes at locations greater than 75 feet from roads. If the representative 

overstory trees are greater than 20 inches dbh, retain the largest size classes 

available in the stand (KNF LRMP, page 4-30).

Purpose: To provide adequate habitat for snag-dependent wildlife species.

All units

WL-10 Design units, silvicultural prescriptions, and burn plans to ensure snags and 

large down woody debris are retained on the landscape over time. Protect, to 

the greatest extent possible, snags and large down woody debris from 

destruction during treatments (i.e., yarding, machine piling, and crushing by 

equipment, etc.; reduce fuel accumulations around snags and down logs during 

prescribed fire, etc.)

Purpose: To maintain snags and large down wood during and following project 

implementation.

All units

WL-11 Roads proposed for closure will be ripped and seeded or planted with 

appropriate native, non-invasive grasses and/or shrubs.

Purpose: To provide foraging opportunities for ungulates and other wildlife 

species.

Roads 44N80a and 

44N62a 

WL-12 District biologist will designate up to 10 to 15 percent of each unit area to be left 

untreated.

Purpose: To provide additional diversity of habitat for wildlife species.

All units

WL-13 Large-diameter snags (greater than 20 inches dbh) that are felled for safety 

reasons will be left onsite for use by wildlife.

All units
Record of Decision

ROD-21

Design 

Feature Description Applicable Units

Purpose: To provide large down woody debris for down woody-dependent 

wildlife species.

WS-1 Best management practices (BMPs) will be implemented during all project 

activities (see FEIS appendix D for applicable BMPs). 

All units

WS-2 If needed, water drafting sites for dust abatement on roads will occur at 

designated sites for that purpose. Portable pumps used for drafting will 

incorporate a mesh screened intake not to exceed 3/16 inch diameter and be 

placed on an oil-absorbing mat. During water drafting operations, stream flows 

will not be reduced by more than 10 percent at any time. All equipment 

operating on the project will be maintained in good repair and free of abnormal 

leakage of lubricants.

All units

WS-3 Erosion control measures will be employed on the access and/or main road to 

prevent water leakage from causing stream sedimentation as needed.

All units

WS-4 Reuse existing skid trails and landings whenever practical. Dedicate no more 

than 15 percent of a harvest unit to primary tractor skid trails and landings by 

good yarding layout and administration.

All units

WS-5 Skidding should cease on skid trails when more than 10 percent of a skid trial 

contains ruts deeper than 6 inches due to saturated soils.

All units

WS-6 Main skid trails in randomly selected units will be monitored post-project for 

compaction to determine the potential need for subsoiling.

All units

WS-7 Waterbar skid trails per Sale Administration Handbook guidelines and as 

needed.

All units

WS-8 Spread fine slash on that portion of skid trails that might exceed 35 percent

slope as needed.

All units

WS-9 Ground-based logging equipment is generally restricted to slopes greater than 

35 percent.

All units

WS-10 Retain existing coarse woody debris whenever possible, providing the amount 

of logs to meet fuel management objectives. 

All units

WS-11 Meet the prescribed soil cover for each harvest unit as measured before the fall 

rainy season (late October/early November). Post-treatment total soil cover 

should range from 70 to 80 percent for machine disturbed areas and 60 to 80

percent for underburned areas depending on slope steepness.

All units

WS-12 Areas where existing soil cover is less than recommended levels, use the 

existing amount of cover as the guideline.

All units

WS-13 Machine piling will use a brush rake that will generally be lifted a few inches 

above the soil surface to minimize soil disturbance, protect duff mat, and 

prevent piling soil into the slash piles. Organic materials less than 3 inches in 

diameter will be left on the soil surface.

Landing areas and 

prescribed units

(see table ROD-B-2 

for stand listing)

WS-14 Machine piling will be done when the soil is dry down to 12 inches. Landing areas and 

prescribed units

(see table ROD-B-2 

for stand listing)

WS-15 Machine mowing of brush is limited to slopes generally greater than 35 percent. All units

WS-16 At least 50 percent cover, as fine organic matter (less than 3-inch material) will 

be retained in all units.

All units

WS-17 Roads used for this project will be graded to outslope where feasible. All units

WS-18 Roads will be cleared and graded as necessary, using minimum disturbance 

methods and minimum clearing widths, to allow log truck and equipment 

access. 

All units

1 Mosaic is defined as the intermingling of plant communities and their successional stages in such a manner to give the 

impression of an interwoven design (National Wildfire Coordinating Group 2005). This could be achieved with a variety of 

burn intensities or lighting/burning patterns.
Hi-Grouse Project

ROD-22

Monitoring

Upon completion of project activities, monitoring may be conducted to assess the 

positive or negative effects of fuels treatments. Monitoring would be completed by the 

Forest and/or interested stakeholders (multi-party monitoring) and would be subject to 

available funding and the ability of stakeholders to contribute funds or in-kind services. 

The immediate (1–3 years post-project) and long-term effects on landscape attributes 

may be monitored using a fire effects monitoring and inventory system (FIREMON). 

Monitoring may be used to (1) document basic information during different phases of 

the project, (2) establish changes in attributes and trends through time, (3) analyze shortand long-term fire effects, and (4) determine if project objectives related to fuels were 

met. Monitoring would be conducted according to the KNF Fuels and Fire Effects 

Monitoring Guide (USDA Forest Service 2007b). Project data would be collected and 

input into the monitoring database at intervals established by the project monitoring 

plan. 

Forest Plan monitoring efforts, including monitoring of BMPs, will continue throughout

the Forest as funded. 

For noxious weeds, the Northern Province Strategy for Monitoring (i.e., inventorying) 

areas for weeds will be followed. The KNF includes the following two objectives: (1) 

prioritize areas of the various Northern Province Forests for inventory, helping to fill in 

existing data gaps of the various counties, and (2) coordinate inventories with other 

ongoing inventories (i.e., botanical surveys, stand exams, range, wildlife, wilderness, 

and others). 

The KNF implements these objectives in the following ways:

1. Annually usually in mid-August, after all weed treatment is completed, areas of 

the Forest that have had activities and/or large disturbances, and have not been 

traveled by the weed crew in the last couple of years, are prioritized for 

inventory. These inventories are documented on a hard copy atlas of quarter 

quadrangle maps. This survey information will eventually be entered into the 

NRIS database and all weed sites found in these inventories are entered into the 

NRIS database. Other areas that may be high priority for inventory are places 

where weeds are just starting to show up, or where there are only a few 

populations of particularly invasive species. The primary focus is to keep areas 

that are currently free of weeds, or that only have a few populations, uninfested.

2. Forest personnel in disciplines other than botany and/or weeds are provided with 

booklets containing photos of the top 18 noxious weeds on the Forest. Many of 

field-going personnel are familiar with noxious weeds, and are committed to 

assisting the Forest in meeting objectives of limiting noxious weed infestations. 

KNF (or contracted) personnel in range, wildlife, fire prevention, recreation, 

wilderness patrol, and timber have alerted the weed manager to locations of 

previously unknown noxious weeds that were then prioritized for treatment. 

Monitoring will continue to be conducted by multiple parties.

Randomly selected tractor units may be monitored to ensure soil disturbance is within 

established guidelines.
Record of Decision

ROD-23

Walk-through monitoring of project implementation will be done by the district 

silviculturist, wildlife biologist, fuels officer, and/or presale forester to assess compliance 

with design features (implementation monitoring). Visits to the project by district, 

Forest, regional, or provincial teams may occur as part of regular Forest Plan 

monitoring. 

Effectiveness of these types of treatments (effectiveness monitoring) in restoring 

ponderosa pine forests in the Goosenest AMA is part of ongoing research (Ritchie 2005).

Reforestation monitoring will consist of first-year survival surveys, third-year exams, 

and fifth-year exams. Results of this monitoring could trigger use of protection measures 

and/or additional planting, and manual release.

NSO surveys will be done to protocol annually throughout the life of the project. NGH 

surveys will be conducted annually throughout the life of the project. 

Hi-Grouse Best Management Practices (BMPs)

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

Board and approved by the 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 to 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 and CT 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 EIS contains a detailed description of specific measures—

project design features—that would be implemented to prevent resource damage. There 

are no perennial waterways in the project area and no fisheries would be impacted from 

project activities. Watershed specialists in hydrology, soils, and geology, along with the 

ID team, developed the BMPs for this project.
Hi-Grouse Project

ROD-24

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 

site-specific 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. 

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 
Record of Decision

ROD-25

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. 

• 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. 
Hi-Grouse Project

ROD-26

• 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).

• 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.
Record of Decision

ROD-27

• 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. 

• 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. 
Hi-Grouse Project

ROD-28

• 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 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.
Record of Decision

ROD-29

• 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 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. 
Hi-Grouse Project

ROD-30

• 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.

• 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.
Record of Decision

ROD-31

• 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.
Hi-Grouse Project

ROD-32

• 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.
Record of Decision

ROD-33

• 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.

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.
Hi-Grouse Project

ROD-34

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.

• 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. 
Record of Decision

ROD-35

• 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.