United States 

Department of 

Agriculture

Forest

Service

Final Environmental 

Impact Statement

Pacific 

Southwest 

Region

Record of Decision

R5-MB-242

March 2012 Sierra National Forest 

Greys Mountain Ecological Restoration

Project
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. Printed on recycled paper.
i

Sierra National Forest

Greys Mountain Ecological Restoration Project

Record of Decision

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service

Responsible Official: Scott G. Armentrout, Forest Supervisor

Sierra National Forest

1600 Tollhouse Road

Clovis, CA 93611

For Further Information Contact:

Burt Stalter, District Fuels Specialist 

Sierra National Forest

Bass Lake Ranger District 

57003 Road 225 

North Fork, CA 93643-9734

(559) 877-2218 extension 3208

Abstract: A Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) analyzing alternatives for the Greys Mountain 

Ecological Restoration Project (Project) on the Sierra National Forest is available for public review in the 

Bass Lake Ranger District Office. This Record of Decision documents the Deciding Officer’s decision 

pertaining to the alternatives identified in the FEIS.

This FEIS analyzes the effects of two action alternatives designed to restore fire-adapted forests and create 

resilient, healthy forests. A no action alternative was also analyzed. The area affected by the proposal 

includes 9,600 total Project boundary acres within the Willow Creek and Fresno River watersheds, in the 

Southern Sierra Nevada. The Project is immediately north of the community of Bass Lake, California and 

south of Soquel Meadow, east of Nelder Grove Historical Area and west of Graham Mountain. 

The purpose of the proposal is to achieve ecological restoration objectives and protect communities in the 

Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) from wildfire. The ecological restoration goals of the Greys Mountain 

Project is multi-faceted and includes the following: (1) increase forest resilience to insects, disease, and 

drought through prescribed fire and mechanical thinning treatments, (2) promote heterogeneity in forest 

structure for improving wildlife habitat, (3) decrease the occurrence of uncharacteristically severe wildfires

and their impacts to ecosystems and watersheds, (4) promote native biodiversity, (5) restore degraded 

montane meadows, (6) improve habitat quality and connectivity for sensitive wildlife species, (7) decrease 

impacts of invasive species, (8) decommission and restore unneeded user defined vehicle trails, and (9) 

provide sustainable delivery of ecosystem services, such as clean water and carbon sequestration, in an era 

of changing climate. 

1

Introduction

This Record of Decision (ROD) documents my decision on the Greys Ecological Restoration

Project (Project) on the Sierra National Forest (SNF or Forest). The purpose of this project is

multifaceted and includes:

• Strategically placing area treatments [known in the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan 

Amendment (SNFPA, ROD, USDA-FS, 2004) as SPLATs] on the landscape to reduce 

the intensity and spread of wildfires across the landscape and near communities and;

• Reducing inter-tree competition (stand density) to improve tree vigor and tree growth 

whereby providing increased stand resiliency to drought conditions, insect and disease

attack and wildfire effects.

As this project is located in the Southern Sierra Fisher Conservation Area land allocation (2004 

Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment ROD (SNFPA 2004 ROD)), the Forest was mindful of the 

goal of retaining and maintaining fisher habitat and the desired condition canopy cover goals in 

female fisher home ranges. Effort was made to design the Project to meet the above purposes as 

well as the land management guidance. 

Background

The Sierra National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (SNF LRMP) was amended in 

2001 by the SNFPA Record of Decision (ROD) (USDA-FS 1992, 2001b). In the 2001 SNFPA 

ROD Standards and Guidelines (S&Gs) for project planning were to focus on the modification of 

fire behavior through fuels treatments. These treatments were to have the highest priority in areas 

described as Wildland Urban Interface/Intermix (WUI). In 2004, a Supplemental EIS (USDA2004a) was written to the SNFPA and a new ROD was signed (USDA-FS 2004b). This SNFPA 

2004 ROD replaced the 2001 decision in its entirety. This decision recommended an ecosystem 

approach whereby the development and planning of projects would not only be based on fuels 

reduction treatments, but would create an overall approach by looking at all key elements within 

an ecosystem; however, WUI continued to be the highest priority area for treatments.

Ecological restoration is an important priority for the Forest Service Region that oversees the 

SNF (Region 5). The Region 5 Leadership Intent (http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/EcologicalRestoration/) 

states in part:

Activities to be promoted include, among others, forest thinning and prescribed fire to 

decrease fuel loading and increase forest heterogeneity; meadow and riparian 

restoration to improve watershed function; environmentally and ecologically sensitive 

fire management practices; invasive species eradication; and wildlife and fish habitat 

improvement.

The project has been designed to meet the Forest’s needs and to implement the Region 5 

Leadership intent.

Location

The Project is located on the SNF in Madera County, California (See Vicinity Map, Figure 1). 

The Project area includes SNF System lands within the Bass Lake Ranger District of the SNF and 

includes portions of Township (T) 6 South (S), Range (R) 22 East (E), Sections 13, 14, 15, 16,

21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 32, 33, 34 and 35; T6S R23E Sec 18 & 19 and T7S R22E Sec 

2&3. Mount Diablo Base and Meridian.
2

Figure 1-Vicinity Map

Purpose and Need

The objectives for this project are:

• Protect human communities from moderate/high intensity wild fires as well as minimize 

the spread of wildfires that might originate in urban areas into the forested lands created 

by unnaturally high levels of fuel ladders and dead and downed fuels. 

• Improve resiliency in stands that are currently overstocked and are becoming more 

susceptible to attack from insects, diseases, drought conditions, and/or wildfire.

• Restore hydrologic function in five meadows that have vertically and laterally unstable 

stream systems and changed soil moisture conditions has resulted in conifer 

encroachment beyond the range of natural variability.

• Improve the quality and quantity of culturally significant vegetation which has 

deteriorated due to the absence of fire as a tool for maintenance and rejuvenation.

• Reduce the potential for undesirable damage from high intensity fire behavior to 

historical sites which are over grown with dense conifers and high fuels loads.
3

• Reduce resource damage caused by user-created vehicle routes in undeveloped recreation 

sites causing offsite movement of soil into streams and riparian areas that is reducing 

water quality for downstream users.

• Improve forest health conditions in developed recreation sites which are in a distressed 

state with mortality occurring and threatening public safety. 

• Improve the integrity and characteristics that make cultural resources eligible for the 

NRHP by reducing fuels within cultural resource sites through hand thinning and piling 

with follow up burning, prescribed under burning, and mechanical treatments in an effort 

to reduce damage to the sites from the threat of intense forest fires, to decrease the 

potential for slope failure along railroad grades and stream channels, and to restore 

setting where setting in a key aspect of a site’s integrity.

Decision 

Based on the analysis of the purpose and need for action, the issues, the LRMP as amended and, 

current policies and regulations, the analysis of alternatives contained in the FEIS, public 

comments received, and other information in the project record, I have decided to implement 

Alternative 2 which was the Proposed Action in the FEIS. Alternative 2 includes the following 

actions within the Project area:

Table 1. Summary of Proposed Action treatments

Proposed Action Treatments Units of 

Measure 

Structural Restoration Treatments

Commercial 

Thinning Acres 1535

Mechanical Fuels and Vegetation Treatments Acres 882

Handwork Fuels and Vegetation Treatments Acres 124

Mastication Fuels and Vegetation Treatments Acres 318

Fuel Break Construction and Reconstruction Acres 325

Reforestation Acres 50

Meadow Restoration

(Conifer Removal) Acres 13

Meadow Restoration (WIN)

(Watershed Improvement Need Site Work) Acres 36

Developed Recreation Sites 

(Hazard Tree and Thinning) Acres 31

Cultural /Historical Site Restoration Acres 100

Noxious Weed Management Acres 10

Wildlife Habitat Restoration Acres 3,6071

 1 Acres of wildlife habitat would be improved through) 1. Reducing the risk of uncharacteristically

severe wildfires; And 2. Promoting stand heterogeneity of forest vegetation, thereby making it 

more resilient to natural disturbances, and enhancing native wildlife species habitat and diversity. 

Units of measure for proposed treatments are approximate. 
4

Range Maintenance

 (Stock Drive) Miles 7.6

Road Maintenance Miles 56

Road Reconstruction Miles 20.3

Temporary Road construction Miles 0.25

Designated OHV Trail maintenance Miles 5.5

User Defined Vehicle Trail Reclamation Miles 0.42

Process Restoration Treatments

Prescribed Fire 

(Initial Entry) Acres 596

Prescribed Fire 

(After structural restoration treatments have been 

completed)

Acres 1855

Total Process Restoration Acres 2,451

Part of my decision includes the implementation of design criteria found in ROD Appendix B (as 

well as in the FEIS Chapter 2). These design criteria contain, among other resource protection 

actions, important actions designed to address fisher habitat that include:

• retention of large tree elements, 

• clumpy, irregular treatments,

• retention of high canopy cover in female fisher home ranges, and 

• retention of downed woody debris (SNFPA 2004 ROD p. 41 & 47).

My decision also includes the implementation of the BMP and Monitoring Plan described in 

ROD Appendix C & D respectively. To clarify my decision, ROD Appendix F includes a stand 

by stand description of the treatments included as part of my decision. The Project treatments are 

strategically placed on the landscape (SPLATs) to reduce the intensity and spread of wildfire. A 

treatment area map displaying this strategic placement can be found in ROD Appendix G. 

Of the 9,600 total acres within the project boundary, approximately 3,575 acres were analyzed as 

areas where some form(s) of treatment are proposed (treatment areas). The remaining 6,140 acres 

have no treatments proposed due to slopes greater than 35 percent, standard and guideline 

limitations on treatment and/or no treatment is needed to meet the purpose and need.

In Alternative 2 (proposed action) the treatments would include:

• Commercially thin from below 10 – 30 inch dbh mixed conifer, pine, and white fir stands 

on approximately 1535 acres (treats surface and ladder fuels, enhances heterogeneity in 

forest stand structure and reduces conifer stand density);

• Remove hazard trees and commercially thin within three campgrounds on approximately 

31 acres (Reduce conifer stand densities within developed recreation sites for public 

safety and increased stand resiliency as described in Chapter 1 Proposed Action);

• Mechanically treat fuels and overstocked vegetation outside of commercially thinned 

stands on approximately 882 acres (treats surface and ladder fuels, enhances 

heterogeneity in forest stand structure and reduces conifer stand density);
5

• Pre-commercially thin by masticating approximately 318 acres of conifer stands and 

brush covered areas (treats surface and ladder fuels, enhances heterogeneity in forest 

stand structure, reduces conifer stand density, ties restoration treatment areas and fuel 

breaks together, as described in Chapter 1 Proposed Action); 

• Plant and hand release treated openings within commercial thin and mastication 

treatment areas on up to 50 acres (prepare sites within failed plantations for reforestation 

and release needs)

• Treat slash concentrations within commercially thinned stands by a combination of 

tractor or hand piling and burning or mastication (enhances heterogeneity in forest stand 

structure, reduces natural and activity generated surface fuel loads, ties restoration 

treatment areas and fuel breaks together,);

• Prescribe underburn on up to approximately 596 acres within 13 stands (prescribed fire 

only treatment) (enhances heterogeneity in forest stand structure, ties restoration 

treatment areas and fuel breaks together, restore production and enhance vitality of plant 

material); 

• Prescribe underburn within treatment areas H 2, 3 and 4, and T 1,2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, , 16, 17, 

21, 26, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 38 and 39 on approximately 1,855 acres (enhances 

heterogeneity in forest stand structure, ties restoration treatment areas and fuel breaks 

together, reduces fuel loadings to pre-1900 levels restore production and enhance vitality 

of plant);

• Construct and reconstruct three existing fuelbreaks on approximately 325 acres(treat 

surface and ladder fuels to modify wildland fire spread and fire intensity levels, ties 

restoration treatment areas and fuel breaks together, restore production and enhance 

vitality of plant material)

• Improve and restore native plant communities important to local Native American tribes 

for traditional uses. This will be accomplished within the areas that are planned for 

prescribed burning and will be completed by using prescribed burning and hand pruning 

with tools (restore production and enhance vitality of plant material)

• Reduce fuel loading and fuel ladders from encroaching conifers within prehistoric and 

historic sites by thinning and prescribed burning on approximately 100 acres (improves 

the integrity that make cultural resources eligible for the);

• Restore degraded meadows by reducing encroaching conifers on approximately 13 acres 

(restores degraded meadows); 

• Restore hydrologic function through meadow stabilization on approximately 36 acres 

(restores degraded meadows); 

• Manually pull and/or prescribed burn of noxious weed patches on approximately 10 acres 

(treats infestations of noxious weeds);

• Perform range stock drive maintenance by cutting out encroaching conifers and clearing 

stock drive tread over approximately 7.6 miles (improves and maintains resources for 

range management activities);

• Perform maintenance on approximately 56 miles of forest system roads (improves and 

maintains existing forest transportation routes);
6

• Perform reconstruction on approximately 20.3 miles of forest system roads (improves 

and maintains existing forest transportation routes);

• Construct 0.25 miles of temporary road (Improve and maintain existing forest 

transportation routes within the project)

• Restore approximately 0.42 miles of user defined OHV tracks (restores user defined 

vehicle tracks and roads) ;

• Perform annual trail maintenance on 5.5 miles of designated OHV trails. (improve and 

maintain existing forest transportation routes within the project).

Meadow Restoration Plans

My decision also includes meadow and Watershed Improvement Need (WIN) site restoration. 

Table 2 lists meadow/WIN site locations and Figure 2 displays the location of these sites within 

the Project area. Appendix D includes a site map showing the location of each WIN site, rock 

cache location, and potential ingress route into the meadow.

Ten meadows have been selected for restoration. These meadows were identified as having 

multiple restoration needs, which include the physical repair of WIN sites, removal of 

encroaching conifers, and restoration of other related meadow degradation issues such as OffHighway Vehicle (OHV) and/or road impacts.

Table 2. Meadows and WIN sites identified for restoration within the project area (ND = no 

quantified measurement of encroachment).

WIN Site Meadow Number/Name Identified as 

top five in 

Conifer 

Encroachment 

Study?

Acres of 

Encroachment

Total Acres 

of 

Structural 

Meadow 

Restoration

51295 503M7 Yes 2.5 3.0

51104 503M8 No 3.5 3.5

51038 504M132/Meserv Meadow Yes 0.5 0.0

51246 504M198/Railroad Meadow No 2.4 3.5

51244 504M208 No 0.1 0.3

51036 504M209/Poison Meadow No 0.86 7.5

51037 504M211 Yes 0.0 3.3

None 504M212 Yes 0.75 0.0

51241 504M220/Chipmunk 

Meadow

No ND 3.6

51245/51015 504M292/504M293 Yes 1.25 5.3

Totals 11.86 30.0
7

Figure 2. Locations of meadow restoration sites within the Greys Mountain ERP (note: 

Meadows 504M292 and 293 have been combined into one site). 

Restoration methodology 

Physical restoration designs are detailed in Appendix C. The restoration methods and designs will 

address essentially three types of erosional feature:

• Vertical instabilities (knick points and headcuts)

• Lateral instabilities (channel banks)

• Incised channels and/or straightened channels 
8

Design Criteria Included in the Decision

Based on site specific review of the Project area, resource specialists identified design criteria to 

reduce potential impacts caused by the various alternatives. My decision includes 

implementation of the design criteria and Best Management Practices (BMPs) shown in the ROD,

Appendix B and C respectively. These design criteria and BMPs minimize, reduce or eliminate 

impacts on sensitive resources. 

Monitoring Included in the Decision

My decision includes the implementation of the Monitoring Plan found in Appendix E.

Best AvailableScience

I adopted all practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental harm in the design of this 

project. I included all of the project design criteria that I believe are necessary to avoid, minimize, 

or rectify impacts on resources affected by the implementation of this decision. My conclusions 

are based on a review of the record that is based on the best available science. The resource 

sections in Chapter 3 of the FEIS identify the effects analysis methodologies, reference scientific 

sources which informed the analysis, discuss responsible opposing views and disclose limitations 

of the analysis.

Rationale for My Decision

My decision to approve Alternative 2 is based on consideration of the purpose and need for 

action, the issues, the LRMP and associated amendments, current policies and regulations, the 

analysis of alternatives contained in the FEIS, public comments received, and other information 

in the project record. I considered the concerns expressed throughout this process relating to tree 

size, use of fire and wildlife impacts. I considered the emphasis on ecological restoration laid out 

in the Forest Service Region 5 Leadership Intent.

Alternative 2 is expected to substantially reduce the potential for high fire severity under all but 

the most extreme weather conditions which would protect the public and fire fighters; restore 

meadow to improve watershed function; improve wildlife habitat; benefit cultural resources; and 

improve forest health and resiliency.

Compelling Need for the Project

There is a need to restore the Greys Mountain Project (Project) area ecosystem to a system that is 

in balance and where the right species are growing in the right locations to allow for long term 

sustainability. Immediate action is needed to make this ecosystem more sustainable, more 

resilient, and healthier under current and future conditions. Ecologically healthy and resilient 

landscapes, rich in biodiversity, will have greater capacity to adapt and thrive in the face of 

natural disturbances and large scale threats to sustainability, especially under changing and 

uncertain future environmental conditions such as those driven by climate change and increasing 

human use. 

Changes in one component of the ecosystem (such as the type of dominant trees, the density of 

trees, or hydraulic function of a meadow) result in corresponding changes to other ecosystem 

components (such as wildlife diversity and availability of water.) Currently the forest is too 

homogenous with too much non-fire resistant fir and too little fire resistant pine. Pine has 
9

historically been the dominant tree over most of this area however with the suppression of fire 

and past railroad logging, shade tolerant fir and cedar have been outcompeting pine and have

become dominant as well as growing at an unsustainable density. Additionally conifers are 

encroaching on meadows reducing meadow habitat. Changing meadow hydraulics are altering 

meadow characteristics threatening cultural resources and historic gathering sites.

The Project area is overstocked with tree stands proposed for treatment having tree densities too 

high for a sustainable healthy and resilient forest. The forest density has increased in the era of 

fire suppression to conditions that are out of alignment with the conditions for a healthy forest. 

With so many trees, the forest is under stress due to over competition and will not be able to adapt 

and overcome stressors in the environment such as drought, insect attack, air pollution, fire and 

climate change which will lead to more dead trees than is desirable (FEIS Chapter 3 Forest 

Vegetation/Silviculture Section). 

Additionally the forest in its current condition is susceptible to uncharacteristic wildfire which 

can cause stand replacement. Fire is an important component of the forest ecosystem however 

the fire conditions that were in effect prior to fire suppression resulted in fires typically low to the 

ground and of moderate intensity. Fires, under current conditions would be more intense and 

would negatively impact natural resources, the public and firefighter safety. High fire severity is 

commonly characterized by complete mortality of the vegetation, soil damage, water pollution, 

ineffective suppression efforts with associated high financial costs, and loss of life and/or 

property (FEIS Chapter 3 Fire/Fuels Section).

Before fire suppression, many natural low-intensity fires (possibly as many as 20 based on 

projections from similar areas without suppression) would have occurred in the Project area. The 

lack of frequent mixed-intensity fires has caused timber stands to become overstocked with fire 

intolerant trees and shrubs, converting it to a fire susceptible forest type in which high intensity 

fires are more likely. Fire intolerant species tend to form unhealthy stands prone to 

uncharacteristically large and severe wildfires, drought-induced mortality, and increased outbreak 

of disease and insect infestation (Graham et al. 1999) (FEIS Chapter 3 Fire/Fuels and Forest 

Vegetation/Silviculture Sections).

Currently the Forest tends to have increased susceptibility to wildfire as trees have limbs that stay 

closer to the ground providing increased ability to take surface fires into the crowns in the form of 

single tree torching or group torching. With more fire resistant, shade intolerant pine fire 

behavior would be modified and there would be fewer trees dying (FEIS Chapter 3 Fire/Fuels 

Section).

Finding the Balance

I understand the importance of sustaining fisher populations particularly as this project is situated 

within the Southern Sierra Fisher Conservation Area. I carefully considered effects on the fisher 

(direct, indirect and cumulative) as part of my decision and balanced these with the Project needs. 

The Forest plans and designs our management to address the conservation of fisher as well as 

other wildlife species and other forest resources and uses. My decision may affect individual 

fisher but has been determined not to contribute to the need for Federal listing or result in loss of 

viability for fisher. The forest thinning I have decided upon retains key components important to 

fisher habitat including: the majority of the forest biomass including all large trees (>30 inches 

dbh) and nearly all moderate sized trees 20-30 inches dbh, as well as all oak trees, and all large 
10

snags unless deemed a safety hazard. Additionally my decision includes extensive areas of no 

treatment actions (6,043 acres).

Although under my decision a total of 3556 acres will be treated, design criteria and LRMP, as 

amended, standards and guidelines dictate areas where treatments cannot occur to reduce and/or 

eliminate adverse effects on particular resources. It is estimated that excluding these sensitive 

areas, (for example, cultural resource areas, botanical species areas, wildlife habitat areas, and 

aquatic species areas), from treatment approximately 64 percent of the project area will remain 

untreated. Over the short-term, there will be a relatively low level of change in California 

Wildlife Habitat Relationship fisher habitat types as a result of thinning treatments and an 

increase in total fisher habitat over the longer term. Fisher rest site groups will be identified and 

retained, minimum canopy cover retention levels are established and protected. Enhancing habitat 

heterogeneity at multiple scales will benefit fisher. Tree removal and fuels reduction activities 

are expected to reduce the extent, severity and intensity of wildfires within and adjacent to treated 

stands while maintaining existing habitat functionality (FEIS Chapter 3 Wildlife and Design 

Criteria Sections). 

At a forest-wide scale, there currently are 234 designated California spotted owl Home Core 

Range Areas (HRCAs)/Protected Activity Centers (PACs) which encompass 146,760 acres. 

Approximately 468,861 acres of suitable California spotted owl habitat currently exist on the 

Forest. Considering my decision’s treatment activities, along with other ongoing actions, and 

reasonably foreseeable activities, less than one percent of suitable habitat on the SNF would be 

affected. Silvicultural prescriptions under my decision within California spotted owl PACs would 

maintain >60% canopy closure where available and treatments within spotted owl HRCAs would 

aim to maintain >50% canopy closure where available. Silvicultural prescriptions under my 

decisions outside of spotted owl PAC/HRCAs will maintain canopy cover of at least 50%, with a 

preference for at least 60%, immediately post treatment. These prescriptions focus on removing 

surface and ladder fuels, and thinning from below. There will be very few changes to habitat 

types as a result of my decision (FEIS Chapter 3 Wildlife Section). 

Large trees (30”dbh and above), and all snags, will be retained during mechanized treatments, 

except where they pose an immediate safety hazard. My decision will not impede wildlife 

movement or dispersal to other currently connected suitable habitat areas because habitat 

connectivity will be maintained within and adjoining the Project area through Old Forest 

Linkages and non-treated areas. Because my decision will increase forest stand structure and 

heterogeneity, and retain high canopy cover, along with increasing large diameter trees there will 

be a long-term increase in California spotted owl suitable habitat over time. Based on the 

relatively stable geographic distribution and population levels of spotted owls in the area, my 

decision will not result in a loss of viability for the California spotted owl (FEIS Chapter 3 

Wildlife Section).

Although I acknowledge that individual sensitive species may be impacted by my decision, the 

overall viability of sensitive species is preserved both at the Project level and landscape level. 

The benefits to the Forest in resiliency; and the benefits to the Forest, the public and to worker 

safety from reduced fire severity outweigh the impact to these individuals in my mind. 

Additionally in the long run, habitat for many Forest species will be enhanced as trees grow 

larger, large trees are more numerous, and the habitat is more heterogeneous making it a richer 

environment for wildlife. I am aware of the impacts to the environment and have decided that 

these impacts are acceptable in light of the benefits (FEIS Chapter 3 Wildlife Section). 
11

Additionally to meet the ecosystem restoration objectives my decision will restore meadows in 

the Project area. My decision will improve the ecological condition and hydrologic function of 

the meadows and associated riparian channels. The meadow restoration activity will reduce 

erosion and impacts on water quality for downstream beneficial use, and thus will be a proactive 

protective measure to watershed resources and forest health. Direct benefits of the meadow 

restoration will be increased water storage and reduced erosion. The effect of this meadow 

restoration will move sites towards desired conditions (FEIS Chapter 3 Hydrology Section).

Additionally my decision includes reduction of meadow conifer encroachment. My decision

targets removal of conifers on forest-meadow edges or small tree islands maximizing dispersal of 

meadow species. Conifer encroachment removal and channel restoration under my decision will

increase the area covered by meadow or riparian vegetation. Trees that invade a meadow alter 

light and soil moisture available to herbaceous plants which leads to undesirable changes in 

species composition and biomass productivity. A decrease in conifer seedling establishment will 

occur as the meadow conditions improve from increased water storage under this decision and 

result in saturated soil for a longer period in the growing season inhibiting seedling establishment

(FEIS Chapter 3 Hydrology Section).

The restoration and maintenance of Project area stock drive trails, OHV routes, and systems roads 

will also improve watershed condition and move the watershed and its subdrainages toward 

desired conditions. Subsoiling trails to de-compact the soil will allow the regeneration of native 

grasses and herbaceous plants and allow subsurface water to move freely down gradient. 

Roughly 0.231 acres of soil will be reclaimed back to its natural condition after subsoiling is 

completed (FEIS Chapter 3 Hydrology Section).

There are approximately 72 cultural resource sites and several miles of historic linear resources 

that have the potential to be affected by my decision. A reduction in fuels through thinning of 

vegetation including hand and mechanical treatments and prescribed burning will not only 

enhance the setting, design and feeling of cultural resources, it will also protect these resources 

from the devastating effects of high severity wildfires enabling the future preservation of these 

resources. Uncharacteristic wildfire would be devastating to maintaining the characteristics and 

values of cultural resource sites. Prescribed burning through designated cultural sites will reduce 

fuel loading and prevent future loss of data potential from excessive heat damage and minimize 

the need for suppression actions (FEIS Chapter 3 Cultural Resources Section). 

I also considered the issues raised by the public during the analysis process. One key issue 

identified was the concern that the use of prescribed fire put homes at risk. My decision will 

increase the capacity for fire fighters to control fires at initial attack with minimized risk to their 

safety (and the public) and increased ability to keep these fires small in size with the use of direct 

attack tactics. Fires will drop from the tree crowns to the forest floor. Aerial firefighting 

resources will be better able to penetrate the canopy to aid ground resources with a moderately 

reduced canopy density. Prescribed fire treatments have been carefully designed under my 

decision to have clear boundaries to stop fire spread (FEIS Chapter 3 Fire/Fuels Section). 

Another key issued raised were the diameter of the trees that were to be thinned. Some 

commenters expressed a desire to see only the smallest trees removed so that the Forest 

maximizes the size of trees. My decision supports the goal of large tree growth by increasing tree 

resilience and decreasing tree competition. Although I have chosen to remove trees up to 30 inch 

dbh, removal of larger size trees is selective and has been minimized by only being done where 

the need for maintaining forest resilience depended on it. I believe that my decision will result in 

more large trees in the long term than would result under the other alternatives (FEIS Chapter3 

Vegetation/Silviculture Section). Additionally I reviewed the analysis which included an 
12

alternative that thinned less and smaller trees. My reasons for not selecting this alternative are 

articulated in the next ROD section.

The public raised the key issue of maximizing the use of fire as a treatment technique. In my 

mind my decision does maximize the use of fire as a treatment tool in light of the dense high fuel 

conditions; the need to reduce tree density for forest resilience; the need to be strategic and 

selective in the trees removed to maximize wildlife habitat; environmental regulations including 

air quality requirements; and the need to protect the public and fire fighter safety. (FEIS Chapter 

3 Fire/Fuels, Air Quality, Vegetation/Silviculture, Wildlife Sections and FEIS Appendix G 

Response to Public Comments.)

The public raised another key issue of allowing for opportunity of intense fire effects on the 

landscape which would enhance wildlife habitat for species that inhabit burned areas. It is 

expected that based on the design of the project that during burn implementation there will likely 

be pockets of fuels and thick vegetation that will created patches of high severity fire effects 

throughout the project burn areas. Past burn history has shown the project will induce some 

pockets of tree mortality from burning to create the desired habitat.

During the comment period, I heard concerns about the potential adverse effects of the Project on 

future snag densities and habitats for species that depend on snags. Commenters also expressed 

concerns that the thinning prescriptions could potentially reduce habitat quality for species that 

prefer stands with higher canopy cover and basal area, particularly the California spotted owl. I 

also heard concerns that the EIS did not adequately address black backed woodpecker habitat. I 

have carefully considered these concerns in the Responses to Public Comments (FEIS Appendix

G) and have, in some cases, added to the analyses in the FEIS and supporting resource specialist 

reports to ensure these potential effects have been adequately explored and disclosed. I believe 

Alternative 2 strikes a responsible balance between meeting the needs to take action, as described 

above, while addressing public concerns regarding the potential adverse effects associated with 

ecological restoration activities.

The longer the Forest waits to restore the ecosystem, the more vulnerable the stands become to 

mortality caused by uncharacteristic wildlife and other stressors such as insects, parasites and 

climate change. This immediate need weighed on my decision to move forward even though 

there may be some unanswered questions.

Alternatives Considered in Detail but Not Selected

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

which are summarized below. I also have also considered three alternatives that were eliminated 

from detailed study:

• An alternative was suggested that would use high intensity fire to create high severity fire 

effects to create and increase snag habitat for avian wildlife species;

• An alternative was suggested that would use landscape scale fires to manage fuels and 

vegetation instead of logging.

• An alternative was considered that would allow mechanical treatment in 100 acres of 

subdrainage 503.0056.

• An alternative was considered that would “within the acres of natural forest proposed for 

mechanical/commercial thinning, instead of the live trees over 16” dbh being removed, 

the trees that would otherwise be marked for removal would instead be girdled or killed 
13

in some other way in order to actively recruit more large snags for wildlife, or such trees 

would be felled to provide large downed log structure for small mammals, amphibians, 

and invertebrates”.

• An alternative was considered that would limit treatments within fisher habitat, 

specifically the alternative would not allow treatments within the 0.4 and greater CBI 

predicted probability of occurrence model for fisher. This alternative was eliminated for 

several reasons: 

(For more information on these alternatives see FEIS Chapter 2.)

Alternative 1 No Action Alternative: Under the No Action alternative, current 

management plans would continue to guide activities in the project area. This alternative was not 

selected because it would not meet the purpose and need of this project and allows the Forest to 

become more susceptible to attack from insects, diseases, drought conditions, and/or wildfire nor 

would it protect human communities from moderate/high intensity wild fires or minimize the 

spread of wildfires. None of the other project purposes would be met as well.

Alternative 3: In Alternative 3, treatment areas would remain the same as in Alternative 2, 

however treatments within these areas would include only those needed to reduce the surface and 

ladder fuels (within the lower and limited mid-level canopy levels) needed to achieve fire and 

fuels objectives. Under Alternative 3 there would be no additional treatments (i.e. additional 

thinning in the mid-level canopy) to fully address stand density and forest restoration objectives. 

Although Alternative 3 addresses the need for surface and ladder fuel reduction, it does not 

address the need for conifer stands to be resilient to attack from insects, diseases, drought 

conditions. Conifer stands in the project area are well above normal stocking levels (stand 

densities) resulting in declining growth, health and resiliency, thus increasing a stand’s potential 

for higher rates of mortality.

Environmentally Preferable Alternative

The environmentally preferable alternative is the alternative that will promote the national 

environmental policy as expressed in NEPA’s Section 101. Ordinarily, this means the alternative 

that causes the least damage to the biological and physical environment; it also means the 

alternative which best protects, preserves and enhances historic, cultural, and natural resources. 

Based on my consideration of the factors listed above and the effects disclosed in the FEIS, I 

consider Alternative 2 to be the environmentally preferable alternative. I believe the management 

actions under Alternative 2 protect and preserve important historic, cultural, and natural resources 

and maintain the quality of habitat needed to protect sensitive species. Alternative 2 provides 

different treatment intensities depending on stand conditions over 30 percent of the landscape as 

well as a large amount of acreage where no treatment will occur.

Public Involvement

A Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Greys Mountain 

Project was published in the Federal Register on July 15, 2011. The notice asked that comments 

on the proposed action be received no later than 30 days after the publication date. The scoping 

letter was sent on June 6, 2011 to residents within 1.5 mile radius of the project area, to members 

and groups in the Native American community and to publics expressing interest in the project. 

The project was also listed in the SNF Schedule of Proposed Actions. On June 25, 2011 the FS 

held a public field trip to the project area. The scoping letter included an invitation to participate 
14

in the field trip and a news release announcing the public meeting was sent to the Sierra Star 

(local newspaper) on June 17, 2011. The public field trip was attended by one individual from the 

local community.

There were four respondents, all of whom raised concerns and issues regarding the proposed 

project. All of the responses are in the project record on file at the Bass Lake Ranger Station. 

Using the comments from the public, the interdisciplinary team developed a list of issues to 

address. A portion of these comments led to the development of Alternative 3.

The DEIS Notice of Availability was published in the Federal Register on December 16, 2011 

with the comment period ending January 31, 2012. The document was made available on the 

SNF website and hard copies of the document, compact disks or letters of notification were 

mailed to 51 interested parties.

Public Comments on the DEIS 

In response to the Forest’s request for comments during the DEIS comment period, Seven 

interested parties submitted responses. The SNF documented, analyzed, and summarized public 

comments. Although only substantive comments are required to be responded to in NEPA 

regulation, the forest chose to respond to all comments submitted. One hundred and thirty five

(135) comments were responded to and these responses can be found in FEIS Appendix G.

Tribal Government and Native American Interests 

Tribal Governments and Native American Interests representing constituents in the Project area 

were sent all public correspondence and have consulted on aspects of the proposed projects. The 

following offices received mailing: 

North Fork Mono Rancheria, Sierra Mono Museum, Southern Sierra Miwok Nation, Picayune

Rancheria and the Mono Nation, a non-profit organization.

Changes between the DEIS and the FEIS

Based on both public comment and Forest Service review, changes were made between DEIS and 

FEIS. The following types of changes and clarifications were applied to the FEIS:

Data Omissions – In cases where omissions in data were identified by the Forest Service or the 

public, those omissions were fixed in the FEIS. Where data pertinent to the analysis was 

identified between DEIS and FEIS it was include and analyzed. 

Corrections and Edits – Where typos or errors were identified they were corrected. 

Clarifications – Public comment inspired the clarification of items in many sections of the FEIS. 

These clarifications ranged from adding a few words to help the reader more fully understand the 

content and rationale of a section to changing the treatment methods for two areas and creation of 

two new maps. The following proposed treatment areas were modified to a less intensive 

treatment method after public comments showed the land allocation provided only prescribed fire 

as a treatment: 

T-18 and FX-9 were originally planned for pre-commercial and commercial thinning by hand and 

or mechanical methods but the WUI land allocation was removed during the planning process 

after field verifications showed the private property did not meet the WUI criteria. After the land 
15

allocation was changed the treatments proposed were inadvertently not modified to reflect this 

change. Public review of the DEIS pointed out this error and the treatments were changed to 

correct method that was allowed for that land allocation which was prescribed burning only. 

Additions in Response to Comments –These comments were evaluated and the reasons proposed 

alternatives were not included in the FEIS were explained. The proposed alternatives were 

included in the Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study in Chapter 2. 

Appendix E was created to display proposed treatments and acreage by area. More information 

regarding the effects of Alternatives 2-3 has been brought forward from the BA/BE to make the 

FEIS a more clear and informative summary of the BA/BE analysis. This includes providing 

more of the BA/BE direct, indirect and cumulative effects information for Alternatives 2-3. Map 

18 and 19 have been created and added into Appendix A Map package as requested by 

commenters Edits and corrections to maps that displayed treatment area boundaries drawn on 

private lands have been made. Additional citations have been added in the Vegetation Section 

related to stocking levels, drought, insect and other stressors on trees as newer information is now 

available. 

Significant Issues

Comments from the public and other agencies were used to formulate issues concerning the 

proposed action. No scoping comments were received from members or groups from the Native 

American community. Other comments received were either from the environmental community 

or the timber industry. The FS separated Project issues into two groups: significant and nonsignificant issues. Issues are statements of cause and effect, linking environmental effects to 

specific actions. Significant issues are issues with potentially significant impacts. The Council 

on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations explain this delineation in Sec. 1501.7, 

“...identify and eliminate from detailed study the issues which are not significant or which have 

been covered by prior environmental review (Sec. 1506.3)...” Project significant issues were 

used to design Alternative 3, create design criteria and focus the effects analysis. 

The Forest Service identified the following significant issues during scoping:

1. Improper use of prescribed fire may put homes at risk.

2. Allow for opportunity of intense fire effects on the landscape.

3. Use fire as a treatment method on a greater scale rather than timber removal.

4. Removal of trees over 10” dbh is unnecessary for reducing potential for high 

intensity fire.

5. Removal of trees up to 30” dbh is unnecessary for fire/fuels management and for 

reducing fire severity.

Legal and Regulatory Compliance

My decision complies with the laws, policies, and executive orders listed below and described in 

Chapter 3 of the FEIS. 

Forest Plan Consistency

My decision complies with all management direction contained in the SNF LRMP. 
16

Findings Required by Other Laws and Regulations

The project was designed with the intent of integrating the management goals and objectives set 

forth in the SNF LRMP as amended (Chapter 1 FEIS) while meeting the purposes and needs of 

the Project.

The findings for other pertinent laws associated with this decision are listed below:

1. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

NEPA requires that Federal agencies prepare detailed statements on proposed actions 

that significantly affect the quality of the human environment to provide decision makers 

with a detailed accounting of the likely environmental effects of a proposed action prior 

to its adoption, and to inform the public of, and allow comment on, such effects. 

Resource specialist have compiled and utilized information relevant to the effects of the 

alternatives considered in the Greys Mountain Ecological Restoration Project FEIS. All 

DEIS substantive comments that have been summarized and responded to in Appendix G

of the FEIS. 

I find that the environmental analysis and public involvement process complies with 

each of the major elements of the requirements set forth by the Council for 

Environmental Quality for implementing NEPA (40 CFR 1500-1508).

2. National Forest Management Act (NFMA)

The National Forest Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1604) and the Multiple-Use SustainedYield Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 528–531) give direction to National Forests to develop 

National Forest Land and Resource Management Plans that (A) ensure consideration of 

the economic and environmental aspects of various systems of renewable resource 

management, including the related systems of silviculture and protection of forest 

resources, to provide for outdoor recreation (including wilderness), range, timber, 

watershed, wildlife, and fish; (B) provide for diversity of plant and animal communities 

based on the suitability and capability of the specific land area in order to meet overall 

multiple-use objectives, and for steps to be taken to preserve the diversity of tree species. 

As set forth by these Acts the SNF LRMP, as amended, sets specific S&Gs which are to 

be followed during project level planning and implementation. By the inclusion of 

design criteria as part of my decision to minimize or eliminate significant environmental 

effects from this project as well as the inclusion of standards and guidelines from the 

SNF-LRMP and SNFPA ROD as amended (USDA-FS 2004b) used to design this 

project, I have determined this Project complies with this Act. 

3. Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973

The Forest Service is directed to comply with this Act and has does so through 

Biological Assessments that are used to analyze the effects of the proposed alternatives. 

These assessments and evaluations make determinations on Federally-listed endangered, 

threatened, candidate and proposed species and their habitat. The analysis was 

conducted in part to determine whether formal consultation or conference is required 

with the United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, pursuant to 

this Act.

My decision, through the inclusion of design criteria for species covered under this Act, 

in consideration of the analysis and determinations contained in Biological Assessments 

and Evaluations for Botanical (J. Clines 2012), Aquatic Wildlife (P. Strand 2012), and 
17

Terrestrial Wildlife (A. Otto 2012) species, is in compliance with the ESA. Additionally,

as there are no federally threatened or endangered botanical, terrestrial wildlife or aquatic 

species potentially affected by the project, I find the project is in full compliance with the 

ESA (FEIS Chapter 3 Terrestrial, Botanical and Aquatics Sections).

4. Clean Water Act (CWA)

The Clean Water Act delegates authority for management of water quality to the states, 

and waives sovereign immunity for state and local laws pertaining to water-quality 

protection. Compliance with the federal CWA is primarily through the California PorterCologne Act as administered by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control 

Board Basin Plans and implementation of Best Management Practices (FEIS Chapter 3,

FEIS Appendix B and ROD Appendix C). The Water Resources analysis concluded that 

my decision complies with the CWA through implementation of the design criteria and 

BMPs (FEIS Chapter 3 Hydrology Section). 

5. Clean Air Act of 1970 (CAA)

The CAA provides for the protection and enhancement of the nation’s air resources. 

Under the General Conformity Rule my decision has been determined to comply with 

this Act and the California State Implementation Plan through the implementation of 

treatments following Best Available Control Measures) for prescribed burning as well as 

rules and regulations established by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control 

District and Mountain Counties Air Pollution Control District as required under section 

190 of this Act, as amended in 1990. No exceedance of the federal and state ambient air 

quality standards is expected to result from any of the alternatives (FEIS Chapter 3 Air 

Quality Section). For these reasons I find that this Project complies with the CAA.

6. National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966

Section 106 requires federal agencies to consider the potential effects of a Preferred 

Alternative on historic, architectural, or archaeological resources that are eligible for 

inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places and to afford the President’s 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation an opportunity to comment. Section 110 

requires federal agencies to identify, evaluate, inventory, and protect National Register 

of Historic Places resources on properties they control. Potential impacts to 

archaeological and historic resources were evaluated in compliance with Section 106. 

In accordance with the Regional Programmatic Agreement (PA), a cultural resource 

identification effort was conducted of the Area of Potential Effect by a professional 

archaeologist. The goal was to identify cultural resources at risk of adverse effects from 

the proposed actions. No direct effects to cultural resources with archaeological values 

are anticipated from implementation of my decision. Specific protection and 

management measures derived from the PA would be applied to archaeological sites as 

project design measures (FEIS Chapter 2). All National Register eligible and potentially 

eligible properties would be managed for no effect (per the PA) from project activities 

(FEIS Chapter 2). 

Cultural resource design criteria are established for all action alternatives and are based 

on stipulations within the PA. Because of the design criteria and the Project’s 

compliance with the PA, I find my decision would be in compliance with historic 

preservation law, policy and regulation (FEIS Chapter 3 Cultural Resources Section).
18

Administrative Review or Appeal Opportunities

This decision is subject to appeal pursuant to 36 CFR 215. In accordance with the April 24, 2006 

order issued by the U. S. District Court for the Missoula Division of the District of Montana in 

Case No. CV 03-119-M-DWM, only those individuals and organizations who provided 

comments during the comment period are eligible to appeal [36 CFR 215.11(a), 1993 version]. 

Appeals must be filed within 45 days from the publication date of the legal notice in the Fresno 

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

including attachments, must be filed (regular mail, fax, e-mail, 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 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 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, during normal business hours 

(Monday-Friday 8:00am to 4:00pm). Electronic appeals, in acceptable [plain text (.txt), rich text 

(.rtf) or Word (.doc)] formats, may be submitted to appeals-pacificsouthwest-regionaloffice@fs.fed.us with Subject: Greys Mountain Ecological Restoration Project.

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

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

automated acknowledgment of the receipt of the appeal, it is the sender’s responsibility to ensure 

timely receipt by other means [36 CFR 215.6(a)(4)(iii)].

Implementation Date

If no appeals are filed within the 45 day appeal period, implementation of the decision may occur 

on, but not before, 5 business days from the close of the appeal filing period. When appeals are 

filed, implementation may occur on, but not before, the 15th business day following the date of 

the last appeal disposition.

Contact Person

The FEIS and supporting documents are available for public review at the Sierra National Forest, 

Bass Lake Ranger District, 57003 Road 225, North Fork, CA 93643, (559) 877-2218. For further 

information on this decision, contact Burt Stalter (bstalter@fs.fed.us), Interdisciplinary Team 

Leader at (559) 877-2218 extension 3208.

___________________________________ __________________

Scott G. Armentrout Date

Forest Supervisor, Sierra National Forest
1

Appendix A

Alternative 2 – The Proposed Action

An adaptive management study known as Sierra Nevada Adaptive Management Study (SNAMP), 

which studies Pacific fisher, focuses on an area directly west of the Greys Mountain Project. As 

the Greys Mountain Project falls within the Pacific fisher habitat zone, knowledge gained by the 

SNAMP project was utilized in the design of the Greys Mountain Project. Information used in 

developing the project alternatives includes: current movement patterns and 2008 through 2011 

denning sites (both birthing and maternal) of Pacific fisher that have been radio collared and 

intensively monitored within and outside of the project area, and information about what type of 

habitat conditions are preferred by denning females. Protection measures in light of this new 

information were incorporated into the design measures for both action alternatives.

The Proposed Action adheres to the suite of standards and guidelines to selectively maintain and 

develop these habitats of large coniferous trees, hardwoods, overstory canopy gaps, tree group 

retention areas, understory vegetation retention areas, and conifers with structural defects in 

accordance with the LRMP as amended. Adherence to the required standards and guidelines 

would help ensure that the native wildlife populations would be sustained over the long-term, 

while also meeting other forest management goals and mandates, such as fuels management, 

forest health, and commodity production. 

Tree Removal Methods

Under the Proposed Action, implementation of thinning strategies would be accomplished using 

mechanical and hand treatments to remove excess fuels, reduce stand densities, and restore large 

tree dominance, species composition and heterogeneity. These treatments consist of: 

1. Commercial thin consists of two methods of commercial tree removal are envisioned in the 

alternatives. Commercial tree harvest is envisioned within the project area. This method 

involves manual tree felling followed by skidding the logs to the landing. With this method limbs 

and tops are removed in the woods and left. Mechanical tree removal uses harvesting machines 

to remove commercial-size trees greater than 10 inches dbh. Once felled whole trees are skidded 

to the landing where they are limbed and topped via a de-limbing machine. The residual limbs 

and tops remaining are piled and either burned or potentially available for biomass removal if 

circumstances allow. Commercial-size trees are hauled to a process mill and converted to lumber 

and generate revenue, while small biomass material is hauled to an electrical generation plant. 

Biomass removal requires appropriated funds. Harvest of commercial-size trees is done using 

ground based vehicles with rubber tires or tracks. These vehicles are often called skidders and 

are equipped with grapples or cables to transport trees or logs to a landing. Tractor logging occurs 

in areas with road systems and slopes that are consistently less than 35 percent slope. Some small 

areas over 35 percent slopes are also treated in this manner. 

2. Pre-commercial thin of smaller sized trees less than 10 inches dbh for density management and 

fuel ladder reduction needs. These thinnings will be completed by hand with chainsaws and 

mechanically by mastication. Fuels created by these operations will be piled and burned and or 

underburned with prescribed fire. 

3. Mechanical mastication (shredding) of biomass and fuels is typically accomplished by a 

mastication cutting head mounted on an articulating arm on a track-laying, low ground pressure 

vehicle. The cutting head chops the vegetation to a height of approximately 1-2 inches above 
2

ground height. The equipment is able to treat vegetation on slopes up to 55 percent while having 

little ground impact. The debris is left on the ground where it rapidly decomposes and provides 

erosion protection while it is decomposing, or it is burned after it has dried out.

4. Hand cutting (also called pre-commercial thinning) involves the felling of unwanted trees, 

either with a chain saw or a machine feller, for burning in place or in preparation for piling. 

5. Mechanical (tractor) piling of fuels for prescribed burning involves using heavy equipment to 

scrape slash and other debris into piles for burning.

6. Lop and Scatter involves cutting the limbs from felled trees and scattering them in the general 

area where the trees were cut to allow the nutrients from the branches to be returned to the soil. 

Fuel Treatment Methods

Upon completion of the tree removal work FS personnel would apply prescribed fire to the area 

by using either pile burning or understory burning of pretreated stands to reduce activity-created 

slash and natural downed woody fuels. RX 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 15, 22, 23 and 24 are designated for 

only understory burning as a treatment. Acres of prescribed fire are located in Table 1. Initial 

fuels treatments (first entry of understory burning and the pile burning) would be completed after 

treatment on each unit, but the units may be treated in different years. Treatment areas planned 

for understory burning would have multiple entries but in the post harvest burn areas, only 1 entry 

is planned for in the time span of this NEPA document. Any further burning in these areas would 

require analysis in another NEPA document. In the understory burning area alone, two to three 

entries over the first 15 – 20 years of the project may be necessary to reach and maintain the 

desired condition. In the post harvest burning areas understory burning would be accomplished at 

least once every ten years to reach and maintain desired conditions. Understory burning in 

untreated natural stands as well as treated stands are part of the Proposed Action. Reductions in 

hazardous fuels and the resulting fire behavior and severity would be consistent with the goals 

and objectives of the SNFPA (USDA-FS, 2004).

Fuel reduction treatments are used to lower the volume of flammable brush and slash across all 

emphasis areas. Prescribed burning occurs both in conjunction with tree removal and without 

tree removal. Actual protection levels would depend on how fast the brush and trees grow back 

following the fuel treatment or any subsequent site preparation treatments. Proposed fuels 

reduction would involve using prescribed fire in specific areas throughout the project area, 

thinning of some overstocked plantations, emphasis area treatments, and thinning from below. 

‘Thinning from below” refers to the removal of subordinate and intermediate trees to reduce 

ladder fuels and reduce the competition for resources like sunlight and water. The following 

techniques would be used:

1. Understory burning: is a prescribed burn under an existing canopy of trees (hardwood or 

softwood), designed to reduce live and dead vegetation. This type of burning is completed in the 

fall or spring when fuel moistures are low enough to carry fire and still be within prescription 

parameters. Understory burning differs from broadcast burning as it has cooler temperatures to 

protect overstory vegetation. Permission to burn is granted by the San Joaquin Valley Air 

Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). Mechanical treatments are not practical for Rx1 and Rx2 

underburn units due to the location and slope present. Other than very expensive hand work, 

underburning is the only practical method available to tie treatment units together. To minimize 

ground disturbance, roads were used as the upper boundaries for the proposed burn units.
3

2. Pile Burning: involves burning piles created by hand labor or tractors. Usually kraft paper is 

used to protect an ignition point so piles can be burned in more cold and wet weather conditions. 

Pile burning is known to be of a higher intensity than broadcast burning and; therefore produces 

less particulate matter. Permission to burn is granted by the SJVAPCD.

3. Fire line: involves construction of areas that create a break in fuels used to control fire. Areas 

are scraped to mineral soil removing all organic material. The width of fire line varies from 2 

feet around hand piles to 6 feet around tractor piles. Fire lines are used to contain fuel-burning 

treatments (understory burns, pile burns, jackpot burns, and broadcast burns) when natural 

barriers to fire are lacking. Fire lines are usually located on topographic features that make 

control operations easier for onsite personnel. These are usually ridgetops and drainage bottoms 

with flowing water. 

How this Alternative was developed

Alternative 2 is a series of treatments that were developed over several years by a SNF 

interdisciplinary team in an attempt to restructure the forest and restore it to a resilient condition 

while minimizing adverse impacts to resources in the Project area that could result from changing 

weather patterns, drought stress, insect infestation, and wildfire. The alternative was developed to 

meet applicable landscape objectives consistent with the goals and objectives of the LRMP, as 

amended by SNFPA (USDA-FS, 2004) including:

1) Enhancement of shade intolerant (sun loving) trees through thinning; 

2) Meeting habitat needs of sensitive species; 

3) Reintroduction of fire to mimic historic forest structures and to reduce fuel loading and small 

diameter (less than 10 inches dbh) tree density to more pre-1900 levels);

4) Beginning to return stand structure and composition to more closely resemble historical 

conditions prior to railroad logging and increasing growth rates of residual trees to promote larger 

diameter, taller trees more quickly; and

5) Improvement of forest health and ecological resiliency through density management by 

thinning to promote resilience to changing weather patterns resulting in increased threats from 

insects, diseases, wildfire, and drought. 

One of the resultant adaptive management studies known as Sierra Nevada Adaptive 

Management Study (SNAMP) focuses on an area directly west of the Greys Mountain Project. 

As the Greys Mountain Project falls within the Pacific fisher habitat zone, knowledge gained by 

the SNAMP project and utilized in the design of the Greys Mountain Project include; current 

movement patterns and 2008/2009/2010/2011 denning sites (both birthing and maternal) of 

Pacific fisher that have been radio collared and intensively monitored within and outside of the 

project area, and information about what type of habitat conditions are preferred by denning 

females.

Alternative Description

Of the 9,600 total acres within the project boundary, approximately 3,575 acres were analyzed as 

areas where some form(s) of treatment are proposed (treatment areas). The remaining 6140 acres 

have no treatments proposed due to slopes greater than 35%, standard and guideline limitations 

on treatment and/or no treatment is needed to meet the purpose and need.

In Alternative 2 (proposed action) the treatments would include:
4

• Commercially thin from below 10 – 30 inch dbh mixed conifer, pine, and white fir stands 

on approximately 1535 acres (treats surface and ladder fuels, enhances heterogeneity in 

forest stand structure and reduces conifer stand density, increases the percentage and 

perpetuation of shade intolerant trees, increases diameter and height growth and vigor of 

residual trees, moves stands towards more historical composition as described in 

Chapter 1 Proposed Action);

• Remove hazard trees and commercially thin within three campgrounds on approximately 

31 acres (Reduce conifer stand densities within developed recreation sites for public 

safety and increased stand resiliency as described in Chapter 1 Proposed Action);

• Mechanically treat fuels and overstocked vegetation on approximately 882 acres (treats 

surface and ladder fuels, enhances heterogeneity in forest stand structure and reduces 

conifer stand density as described in Chapter 1 Proposed Action );

• Pre-commercially thin by masticating approximately 318 acres of conifer stands and 

brush covered areas (treats surface and ladder fuels, enhances heterogeneity in forest 

stand structure, reduces conifer stand density, ties restoration treatment areas and fuel 

breaks together, as described in Chapter 1 Proposed Action); 

• Plant and hand release treated openings within commercial thin and mastication 

treatment areas on up to 50 acres (prepare sites within failed plantations for reforestation 

and release needs as described in Chapter 1 Proposed Action)

• Treat slash concentrations within commercially thinned stands by a combination of 

tractor or hand piling and burning or mastication (enhances heterogeneity in forest stand 

structure, reduces natural and activity generated surface fuel loads, ties restoration 

treatment areas and fuel breaks together, as described in Chapter 1 Proposed Action);

• Prescribe underburn on up to approximately 596 acres within 13 stands (prescribed fire 

only treatment) (enhances heterogeneity in forest stand structure, ties restoration 

treatment areas and fuel breaks together, restore production and enhance vitality of plant 

material as described in Chapter 1 Proposed Action); 

• Prescribe underburn within treatment areas H 2, 3 and 4, and T 1,2, 4, 5,7, 8, 9, 10, , 16, 

17, 21, 26, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 38 and 39 on approximately 1855 acres (enhances 

heterogeneity in forest stand structure, ties restoration treatment areas and fuel breaks 

together, reduces fuel loadings toward pre-1900 levels, restores production and enhance 

vitality of plant material as described in Chapter 1 Proposed Action);

• Construct and reconstruct three existing fuelbreaks on approximately 325 acres(treat 

surface and ladder fuels to modify wildland fire spread and fire intensity levels, ties 

restoration treatment areas and fuel breaks together, restore production and enhance 

vitality of plant material as described in Chapter 1 Proposed Action)

• Improve and restore native plant communities important to local Native American tribes 

for traditional uses. This will be accomplished within the areas that are planned for 

prescribed burning and will be completed by using prescribed burning and hand pruning 

with tools (restore production and enhance vitality of plant material as described in 

Chapter 1 Proposed Action);

• Reduce fuel loading and fuel ladders from encroaching conifers within prehistoric and 

historic sites by thinning and prescribed burning on approximately 100 acres (improves 
5

the integrity that make cultural resources eligible for the NRHP as described in Chapter 

1 Proposed Action);

• Restore degraded meadows by reducing encroaching conifers on approximately 13 acres 

(restores degraded meadows as described in Chapter 1 Proposed Action); 

• Restore hydrologic function through meadow stabilization on approximately 36 acres 

(restores degraded meadows as described in Chapter 1 Proposed Action); 

• Manually pull and/or prescribed burn of noxious weed patches on approximately 10 acres 

(treats infestations of noxious weeds as described in Chapter 1 Proposed Action);

• Perform range stock drive maintenance by cutting out encroaching conifers and clearing 

stock drive tread over approximately 7.6 miles (improves and maintains resources for 

range management activities as described in Chapter 1 Proposed Action ;

• Perform maintenance on approximately 56 miles of forest system roads (improves and 

maintains existing forest transportation routes as described in Chapter 1 Proposed 

Action);

• Perform reconstruction on approximately 20.3 miles of forest system roads (improves 

and maintains existing forest transportation routes as described in Chapter 1 Proposed 

Action);

• Construct 0.25 miles of temporary road (Improve and maintain existing forest 

transportation routes within the project as described in Chapter 1 Proposed Action);

• Restore approximately 0.42 miles of user defined OHV tracks (restores user defined 

vehicle tracks and roads as described in Chapter 1 Proposed Action) ; and

• Perform annual trail maintenance on 5.5 miles of designated OHV trails. (improve and 

maintain existing forest transportation routes within the project as described in Chapter 

1 Proposed Action)

More detail on these actions can be found in Chapter 1 Proposed Action (pg. Error! Bookmark 

not defined.).

Meadow Restoration Plans

This section outlines each meadow restoration plan in the project area. Table 2 can be referenced 

for meadow/WIN site location; however this Chapter also includes a site map showing the 

location of each WIN site, rock cache location, and potential ingress route into the meadow.

Ten meadows have been selected for restoration within the project area. (Table 2) These 

meadows were identified as having multiple restoration needs, which include the physical repair 

of Watershed Improvement Need (WIN) sites, removal of encroaching conifers, and management 

related issues such as Off-Highway Vehicle (OHV) and/or road impacts. 

Table 3. Meadows and WIN sites identified for restoration within the Project area (ND = no 

quantified measurement of encroachment).

WIN Site Meadow Number/Name Identified as 

top five in 

Conifer 

Encroachment 

Study?

Acres of 

Encroachment

Total Acres 

of 

Structural 

Meadow 

Restoration
6

51295 503M7 Yes 2.5 3.0

51104 503M8 No 3.5 3.5

51038 504M132/Meserv Meadow Yes 0.5 0.0

51246 504M198/Railroad Meadow No 2.4 3.5

51244 504M208 No 0.1 0.3

51036 504M209/Poison Meadow No 0.86 7.5

51037 504M211 Yes 0.0 3.3

None 504M212 Yes 0.75 0.0

51241 504M220/Chipmunk 

Meadow

No ND 3.6

51245/51015 504M292/504M293 Yes 1.25 5.3

Totals 11.86 30.0

Vegetation Treatments

Physically degraded meadows (i.e., meadows suffering from excessive gully erosion) will often 

have lowered ground water tables, which in turn can lead to accelerated conifer encroachment 

outside the range of natural variability. This phenomenon may also be related to or have been 

exacerbated by fire suppression over the last several decades. As the density of encroaching 

conifers increases, so will the rate of evapotranspiration, which will continue to lower the ground 

water table and encourage even more conifer encroachment. To stop this cycle and allow for 

ground water recovery and more water availability, removal of conifers that are encroaching 

within the meadow should be done before or during other restoration activities. Thus it is 

proposed that conifers up to 12” dbh be removed from the meadows to help reduce the depletion 

of ground water. Select cedar and/or fir trees within the project meadow (>12” dbh) may be 

girdled for snag creation if the area is deemed snag deficient.

An internal Forest Service study of conifer encroachment was conducted for the project area 

(Gallegos, personal communication, 2011). Five meadows were identified as having significant 

encroachment since the late 1940’s (Table 2), and additional acreage estimates of encroachment 

were made for the other meadows. It is proposed that a total of approximately 12 acres of 

encroaching conifer be removed from the selected meadows (no other woody vegetation is 

recommended for removal). These treatments are consistent with the Sierra Forest Plan 

Amendment, Riparian Conservation Objects, Standard and Guide 105 (USDA, 2004). 
1

Appendix B Design Criteria 

The design criteria listed by resource area below are included in and are an integral part of each 

action alternative analyzed in detail within this document. They directed the design of treatment 

areas, the design of treatment types and/or are direction to follow during implementation. In 

listing these as part of all action alternatives, they are considered when analyzing the direct, 

indirect and cumulative effects of each alternative and have been incorporated to minimize 

potential environmental impacts of the management actions proposed by alternatives. As listed, 

they are a subset of the management direction provided in the SNF-LRMP (USDA-FS 1992) as 

amended by the 2004 SNFPA (USDA-FS 2004b) and 2007 SNF MIS standard and guidelines 

(S&G); applicable Forest Service Manuals and Handbooks; and Best Management Practices 

(BMP). The design criteria are also based on past implementation experience; the best available 

science and/or to address significant issues. 

Cultural Resources

Cultural resources would be protected through implementation of Standard Protection Measures 

of the Regional Programmatic Agreement (PA), the primary protection measure being avoidance 

for all project activities, including resource design criteria. The District Archaeologist would 

approve all landings; borrow sources, and temporary roads prior to Project implementation as 

needed. 

In addition, where the proposed action is to reduce fuel loading and fuel ladders within prehistoric 

and historic sites, the cultural resources would not be managed under the above referenced 

measures. Instead the following design criteria would be followed in order to address the purpose 

and need, and comply with applicable regulation and policy.

1. For prehistoric and historic cultural sites with heavy fuel loading, treatment measures 

by way of hand thinning brush and understory would utilize chainsaws to thin fuels. 

Brush shall be piled for future burning outside site boundaries in prehistoric sites. 

Piles may be placed within historic sites where there are no wooden components and 

away from features. Pile locations would be delineated through coordination with 

the District Archaeologist and where necessary, hand lines shall be constructed 

around piles to contain fire. 

2. For prehistoric cultural sites with heavy fuel loading, treatment measures by way of 

low-intensity burning through cultural sites may occur. Handlines would be 

constructed outside site boundaries where necessary to control direction of the fire. 

This would be done in coordination with the District Archaeologist and fuels 

personnel. Underburning would only occur in sites with a potential for a low 

intensity fire focused on cleaning out the understory. 

3. For prehistoric and historic cultural sites with heavy fuel loading, thinning of forest 

stands may occur through mechanical treatment. Should identified tree stands need 

to be thinned in order to meet forest stand health requirements, those trees that can 

be reached from the site edge by a feller-buncher and would be cut and removed 

from prehistoric sites without disturbing the ground. Mechanical equipment may 

enter historic sites to reach trees to be cut in areas with no observed cultural deposits 

or features in coordination with the District Archaeologist.

4. An archaeologist would monitor all fuel reduction activities within and around 

cultural resource sites during implementation if necessary.
2

5. If necessary, all cultural resource sites would be delineated prior to implementation.

6. Gathering areas would be improved through hand thinning and piling and 

underburning of fire-dependent species.

7. The cultural resource sites within WIN sites are currently unevaluated and must be 

treated as eligible. To mitigate the potential adverse effect, a determination of 

eligibility shall be conducted for these sites and any adverse effects mitigated prior 

to project implementation. 

8. Harvest activities of potential hazard trees would avoid historic campground features 

in accordance with Standard Resource Protection Measures of the Regional PA

Botany: Forest Service Sensitive Plants 

1. All short-leafed hulsea populations will be flagged for avoidance (SNF 1992 LRMP 

S&G #s 67 and 68, SNFPA 2004 ROD S&G # 125).

2. Open granitic and/or gravelly areas in or adjacent to units M2, T-8, T-17, and T-21 will 

not be driven through for project implementation (except for on existing system roads) 

nor used for parking of vehicles, heavy equipment nor used as log landings. This is to 

ensure protection of the Yosemite bitterroot (known to occur near units M2 and T8) and 

suitable habitat for the following sensitive plant species that have not been discovered in 

the project area but may exist: Mono Hot Springs evening primrose, and Kelloggs’ 

lewisia. (SNF 1992 LRMP S&G #s 67 and 68, SNFPA 2004 ROD S&G # 125).

Noxious Weeds

1. All heavy equipment used for implementing the project will be washed before arriving on 

site to remove soil and seeds of noxious weeds. This is to ensure that weed seeds or 

propagules are not inadvertently introduced into the project area (SNFPA 2004 ROD 

S&G # 38 and 39; USDA Forest Service FSM 2081.3, Timber Sale Contract Clause 

B.6.35). See Appendix D of this document for more details.

Geology/Soils

1. Leave a 100-foot wide buffer of 100 percent soil cover below large rock outcrops. These 

areas have a high potential to generate runoff that can cause accelerated erosion on soils 

down slope (FS Handbook).

2. Conduct mechanical equipment operations (mechanical thinning and biomass removal

equipment, log skidders and tractor-piling operations) when the soil is sufficiently dry in 

the top 12 inches to prevent unacceptable loss of soil porosity (soil compaction). Field 

checking by a soil scientist would be done to determine if operations could continue 

under moist soil conditions. “Maintain 90% of the soil porosity over 85% of an activity 

area (stand) found under natural conditions” (BMP; FS Handbook). 

3. Subsoil and water bar skid roads and trails in areas where soil compaction exceeds 15% 

of a treatment area (BMP; FS Handbook).
3

4. Limit mechanical operations, where sustained slopes exceed 35%, except where 

supported by on-the-ground interdisciplinary team evaluation. Apply slope limitation to 

mastication treatment units (FS Handbook; SNF-LRMP S&G).

5. Maintain 50% soil cover over all treatment areas. Where shrub species predominate, 

attempt crushing before piling to create small woody fragments left scattered over the site 

for soil cover and erosion protection (FS Handbook; SNF-LRMP S&G).

6. Maintain at least five well-distributed logs per acre as large woody debris (LWD) 

representing the range of decomposition classes defined in the Regional Soil Quality 

Standards and Guidelines (SNF- LRMP and SNFPA ROD S&G).

7. To avoid adverse soil disturbance, the soils would need to have soil moisture content 

below 14% to minimize the potential of detrimental soil disturbance.

Recreation/Lands/Special Uses 

 Lands and Special Uses

A number of the proposed activities may affect areas under special use permit. Forest Service 

project managers would notify permit holders and agencies, in person or writing, when Project 

activities including mastication, pre-commercial thinning and/or understory proscribed fire would 

be implemented that may affect their authorized special uses or agency jurisdictions. A list of 

permit holders is located in the Project record. Forest Service managers responsible for 

implementation would work with permit holders to ensure authorized improvements and/or rightof-ways are clearly identified on all contracts and visible during Project implementation. 

Appropriate protection measures would be put in place.

The following design criteria allow the Forest to meet commitments specified in special use 

permits:

1. Use of apiary site (in unit T39) for project activities would be upon notification to 

the permit holder prior to project activities occurring. 

2. If the apiary site would be used for staging or landing, The site would be cleaned of 

debris and brought back to pre-project condition. 

3. The apiary site consists of a flat area surrounded by an electric fence where up to 

100 hives of bees are located. The electric fence would be protected and any 

damage to fence or apiary site shall be repaired immediately. 

4. To avoid vibration disturbances to the occupied apiary site by project activities, the 

permitted bee keeper would be notified in advance of project activities.

5. During project activities, continue to provide access to private property authorized 

under permit (located between units T28 and T29). The private road authorized 

under permit is native surfaced, 12-feet wide and approximately 950 feet long 

leading from road 6S10 to the Sturrock property at Soquel.
4

6. During project activities, continue to provide access to a Forest Roads and Trails 

Act (FRTA) easement providing access to private property located in unit T38. The 

easement would be used for project activities only after arrangements have been 

made to pay or perform pro-rata share of road maintenance. Project activities would 

not interfere with grantees use of road.

7. Ensure the culvert containing electronic equipment, satellite data transmitter and 

wooden walk way to the Madera Irrigation District stream gauging station (T16, T4, 

located on the stream bank of Willow Creek adjacent to a bridge near the Greys 

Mountain campground) continues to be accessible and is not damaged by project 

activities. 

8. During preliminary activities and during implementation of project activities, 

protection of Madera Irrigation District ditch tender cabin (a wooden structure and 

gate off of spur road 6S10A) is necessary (T29).

9. The Forest Service has permanent full public easements for Road 6S10 across 

private property in the Paradise Springs and Soquel areas. Commercial hauling 

would be allowed across the easement only after arrangements have been made to 

pay or perform pro-rata share of road maintenance.

Mining

1. One mining claim is located in the project area in units (T31, T33, T34, and T37). 

There are no active operations occurring at this time. Consultation and coordination 

with District Minerals staff regarding mining activity status would take place when 

activities occur in affected project areas.

Developed Campgrounds, Dispersed Camping and Use Areas, Designated Motorized trails.

Developed Campgrounds

The Forest Service operates 4 developed campgrounds in the project area; 

In developed campgrounds: 

1. To avoid conflicts with Forest visitors, a limited operating period (LOP) would be 

established during the developed campgrounds’ peak season months which is 

between Memorial Day and Labor Day for Units T4, 7, 9, 38.

2. Outside the LOP and contingent upon the safety of the public, developed 

campgrounds would be fully accessible to the public on week-ends.

3. Stump cuts would be flush cut to ground and treated with borax.

4. Slash or fuels treatment would be completed soon after treatment to ensure 

developed campgrounds are clear of accumulated slash, limbs and cull logs, i.e. 

removed, piled, burned and/or chipped.

5. Any damage to developed campground structures such as fire rings, tables, bulletin 

boards, site barriers as a result of project activities would be repaired or replaced 

immediately, to pre-project condition.

6. The location of landings and staging areas for project equipment within developed 

campgrounds would be in coordination with district recreation staff.
5

Dispersed Camping and Dispersed Use Areas 

Several heavily used, popular dispersed recreation sites including the Texas Flat Overflow, 

Soquel Overflow, and Madera Ditch dispersed area; Slide Rock and Moon Rock are located in the 

project area and are accessed by Forest Service system roads. During project activities, access to 

dispersed camping areas and/or dispersed use areas that are on designated roads or designated 

trails would continue contingent upon the safety of the Forest visitor. 

Designated Motorized Trails

1. The designated motorized trails in the project area would not be used for skidding, 

hauling, or moving equipment. Note: All designated motorized trails are marked 

with a brown fiberglass carsonite post with decals showing trail number, skill level 

and vehicle type markers are posted at the beginning and end of the trail. 

2. If necessary, movement of equipment across designated trail would be only at a right 

angle to trail, only at selected areas of the designated trail and upon consultation with 

Recreation OHV Staff.

3. If “gouging” or berms occur as a result of moving equipment across a designated 

trail, trail would immediately be repaired to ensure the safe passage of the Forest 

visitor and brought up to Forest Service motorized trail standards.

4. A clearing limit of 3 feet (from each side of a designated trail) would be established. 

(FSH 2309.18 Trails Management Handbook) 

5. Designated trails would be kept clear of any debris or forest material, burned or 

otherwise. This includes material with-in trail clearing limits.

6. Directional felling and yarding away from designated trails is required.

7. Stump cuts adjacent to designated trails and within clearing limits, would be flush cut 

to ground and treated with borax. 

8. During project activities, access to the designated trails would continue contingent 

upon the safety of the Forest visitor.

9. A as a result of project activities, any damage to designated trails or associated trail 

head facilities, such as trail signs, bulletin boards, or barriers would immediately be 

repaired or replaced to pre-project condition.

Wildlife – Terrestrial

Specific Management Provisions

Forest Service requirements for managing Federally Listed and Forest Service Sensitive species 

and their habitats are defined in the following documents.

 National Forest Management Act (NFMA) 

 Forest Service Manual and Handbooks (FSM/FSH-2670) 
6

 Endangered Species Act (ESA)

 (SNF-LRMP) as amended by (2004 SNFPA)

In addition to the LRMP standards and guidelines, the following management actions would help 

maintain and/or enhance important Pacific fisher and American marten habitat for all action 

alternatives considered. These measures include information from the 2008 Conservation 

Biology Institute Document “Baseline Evaluation of Fisher Habitat and Population Status and 

Effects of Fires and Fuels Management on Fishers In the Southern Sierra Nevada, Final Report to 

USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region” (Spencer et al 2008); “An Ecosystem 

Management Strategy for Sierran Mixed-Conifer Forests” (North et al 2009); and Sierra Nevada 

Adaptive Management Study Integration Team discussions, fieldtrips to the project area, as well 

as Land Allocations.

1. Maintain highest canopy cover possible to meet the prescription within stands, aim for 

60% immediately post-harvest.

2. Thinning would not remove any trees larger than 30-inch dbh (SNFPA ROD, pg. 50).

3. Protect all suitable fisher denning habitat with a (LOP) from March 1 through June 30. 

This LOP would protect reproductively active fisher and young that may be present in the 

project area from treatment actions during their denning and early rearing periods. 

4. Snags would be felled only if they meet the definition of a danger tree, have the potential 

to fall across prescribed fire control lines, and/or pose a threat to firefighter safety during 

prescribed fire implementation. Both OSHA 29 CFR 1910.266(c) and FSH 6709.11, 

glossary define a “danger tree” as “A standing tree that presents a hazard to employees 

due to conditions such as, but not limited to, deterioration or physical damage to the root 

system, trunk, stem or limbs, and the direction and lean of the tree.” Down logs created 

as a result of snag felling would remain in the stand where needed to meet down log 

requirements of S&G #10. Snags not meeting the criteria of a danger tree will remain as 

standing snags within the project area.

5. Retain dense groups of larger trees (greater than 30-inch dbh) with touching crowns at the 

rate of approximately one group per 2.5 to 3.5 acres. Ideally these groups would contain 

“defect” trees, those that have cavity and platform creating defects (mistletoe, rot, fork 

topped, broken limbs and tops) for pacific fisher denning and resting sites. Within these 

large tree groups, all trees over 20” dbh will be retained. These large tree groups will 

have a residual basal area of 240 ft2 or more for mixed conifer and 210 ft2 or more for 

pine and in many instances may reach 300 to 400 ft2 per acre. Retention of these large 

tree groups with higher basal areas and the inclusion of defect trees are designed to 

maintain the integrity of suitable fisher denning and resting sites throughout the treatment 

units. Non-treated areas within proposed treatment units, such as riparian areas and steep 

slopes, will also provide extensive areas of tree group retention as no treatments will be 

occurring in these areas. 
7

6. In certain incidences, small (five to ten acre) pockets or inclusions of decadent, high 

quality, dense fisher/spotted owl habitat that are identified in the field during project 

layout may be dropped from commercial treatment upon field review by the district 

biologist. A number of predominant trees are often observed within these types of 

inclusions, which may be remnant old forest pockets not previously logged during the 

extensive railroad logging that occurred on the district throughout the turn of the century. 

Due to the high habitat value present in these stands, and in accordance with Standard 

and Guideline #90 from the SNFPA ROD, this unique habitat inclusion may be removed 

from the treatment unit and will not be available for commercial entry.

7. Conifers with structural decadence, and/or the potential to become future dead tree snags, 

would be retained throughout the non-treatment areas of the project area. To maintain 

decadent stand characteristics within the treatment units, conifers >16”inches dbh with 

structural decadence and/or the potential to become future snags would be identified for 

retention within the treatment areas. Standard and Guideline #11 provides direction for 

retention of these structural elements. Within treatment units, conifers with the greatest 

existing or potential for structural decadence will be retained at an average of 1 every 100 

feet. Conifers would be selected using the following characteristics listed in order of 

priority: evidence of known or potential cavities; broken top; conks or other heart-rot 

indicators; mistletoe or other abnormal witches broom formation or other diseased or 

insect damaged trees; teakettle branches; forked top; or broken large branches. 

8. All black oaks would be retained throughout the project area. Within the treatment areas, 

conifers would be removed that overtop those black oaks, or that otherwise restrict 

sunlight from reaching them (e.g. from the south and west) now or within 15 years 

following treatment; the amount of conifer removal will be limited by the overall basal 

area thinning prescription thresholds. Hiding cover around oaks, such as shrubs and 

small trees would be retained around 2-3 decadent oaks per acre. These oak retention 

areas will be protected with a buffer area 35 feet from the bole, or to the dripline, 

whichever is greater, where no thinning or fuels treatments would occur. 

 

9. Promote diversity in pine plantations by creating 1/10 acre openings associated with 

young black oaks between 1”inch and 12”inches dbh to encourage diameter growth of the 

oak through increased sunlight, release the oak from competition, and encourage future 

stand heterogeneity. To achieve this, Ponderosa and Jeffrey pine trees within pine 

plantations would be removed from a 180° swath on the Southern aspect around crowded 

young black oaks for a 50 foot radius. Additional Ponderosa and Jeffrey pine trees 

directly adjacent to the oak on the northern aspect may need to be cut to eliminate 

competition for space within the over-story and would be identified at the marker’s 

discretion. Other species that may be present within plantations such as cedar, fir, sugar 

pine, and giant sequoia would not be removed to maintain current diversity where it 

exists. (S&G #3; #26).
8

10. Shrub and understory diversity would be retained throughout the project area. All 

understory vegetation would be maintained in Old Forest Linkages associated with 

riparian areas (cooler, moister sites); black oak buffer zones; as well as areas where no 

treatment would be conducted such as heritage resource sites, botanical areas, slopes 

>35%, and rocky areas. Tree species associated with riparian areas, such as dogwoods, 

alders, and willows would not be removed. In addition, post sale treatments would retain 

pockets of understory growth spread throughout the treatment units so that an additional 

15-20% of the total understory growth would be maintained in 1/10 acre pockets within 

plantations and 1⁄4 acre pockets within wild stand treatment units.

11. The district biologist would be notified immediately if a nest or den of any TESCP 

species is discovered within or adjacent to a treatment area so that proper protection 

measures can be identified and implemented.

12. All temporary roads and skid trails necessary for project implementation would be 

obliterated or decommissioned according to the USDA Forest Service (BMP) 2-26 

(USDA 2000).

13. Standards and Guidelines 28 and 29 provide guidance for developing and maintaining 

adequate habitat connectivity within riparian areas. Recent studies (Spencer 2008; North 

et al 2009) have also shown that fisher utilize riparian areas as travel corridors between 

high quality habitat. To provide for this habitat connectivity, design criteria have been 

developed to incorporate and expand upon established riparian area management zones; 

i.e. Streamside Management Zones (SMZ) and Riparian Management Areas (RMA) 

associated with perennial streams (Class I). The forest wildlife biologists have termed 

these zones (OFL). They incorporate and expand upon the measures required for SMZs 

and RMAs. OFLs consist of buffers measuring 300 feet total on either side of perennial 

streams. Design criteria for these Old Forest Linkages are detailed in Table 5.

Table 4. Riparian Area Management Zones

Distance from 

Perennial Stream* 

Vegetation Management Activities 

Allowed within zone Zone Designation

0-50 feet No activities allowed SMZ/RMA/OFL

50-100 feet

No ground disturbing equipment 

allowed into area (dozers, skidders, 

etc.) Activities allowed include handfelling of trees smaller than 

12”inches dbh, pile-burning, and 

equipment reach-in with boom arm. 

Canopy cover is to remain ≥60%.

SMZ/RMA/OFL

100-150 feet Mechanical entry is allowed. Trees OFL
9

*Distance from Perennial Stream is measured and applied to each side of the stream from bankfull left and bank-full right.

Figure 1: Associated Bounds and Treatments within Old Forest Linkages

Wildlife – Aquatics

Current Known Information

Generalized SMZ designation is outline in Table 5 based on stream class and mapped in the 

Project Hydrology Report.

Table 5. Summary of Relationship between Riparian Area Criteria

Feature Type RCA 

Width

Stream 

Class

SMZ Width RMA Width

Perennial Streams 300 feet I At least 100 

ft

100 feet

Seasonally Flowing 

Streams 

150 feet II At least 75 ft N/A

III At least 50 ft

IV At least 25 ft

V None 

required

≤12” dbh may be removed for fire 

and fuels reduction purposes by 

equipment. Canopy cover is to 

remain ≥60%.

150-300 feet

Mechanical entry is allowed. 

Thinning from below would occur. 

Canopy cover is to remain ≥60%.

OFL
10

Streams in Inner Gorge Top of 

inner 

gorge

Varies

Special Aquatic Features 

(fens, bogs, springs, 

seeps, lakes, ponds, 

wetlands, etc.)

300 feet N/A N/A 100 feet

Streamside Management Zones (USDA-FS 1992 (S&G 33 and 71); USDA Forest Service 2000 

(BMP 1-8)) are mapped in the Project Hydrology Report. Activities within Class I streams are 

identified under the OFL prescription under Terrestrial Wildlife. Specific to MYLF:

Class I MYLF occupied (USDA-FS 1992 (Forestwide goal and objective 9, S&G 40): two known 

sites in analysis area (Soquel and Tex Flat). The extent of the populations will be delineated as 

part of the herpetology (amphibian) surveys. Occupied habitat would apply the OFL prescription 

of 150 feet.

1. Applicable to all SMZs:

1. Heavy mechanical equipment would not be allowed within SMZs.

2. To protect bank stability, do not cut stream bank trees (trees with drip line extending to or 

over edge of stream bank). 

3. Do not cut any tree located within a channel.

4. When lighting piles, start burn from one end only to allow escape route for any species 

inhabiting piles.

5. No prescribed fire lighting into SMZs, but fire can creep into zone.

For water drafting (USDA-FS 2000 (BMP 2-21), a screened intake device and pumps with low 

entry velocity would be used to minimize removal of aquatic species, including juvenile fish, 

amphibian egg masses and tadpoles, from aquatic habitats. A hydrologist or aquatic biologist 

would approve water-drafting sites. 

If newly listed or unknown occurrences of Federally listed threatened, endangered, proposed, 

candidate or Forest Service sensitive aquatic species are found within the affected project area 

during sale preparation and implementation, additional species protection measures may need to 

be imposed by the district fisheries and aquatic biologist. 

Mountain Yellow-legged Frog:

1. Class I MYLF occupied (USDA-FS 1992 (Forestwide goal and objective 9, S&G 40): two 

known sites in analysis area (Soquel and Tex Flat). The extent of the populations would be 

delineated as part of the amphibian surveys. Occupied habitat would apply the OFL prescription 

of 150 feet. In addition to the above requirements for all SMZs: 

1. Treatments within the outer 100 feet of the SMZ would be limited to those prescribed 

for Pacific fisher. 
11

2. Hand treatments of non-merchantable trees could be implemented within the inner 50 

feet of the SMZ, although piled material should not be left within 50 feet. 

3. Project activities would occur after June 15th. 

4. No heavy equipment would enter the SMZ. 

5. Treatments within the outer 100 feet would be limited to those prescribed for Pacific 

fisher. 

6. Hand treatments of non-merchantable trees could be implemented within the inner 50 

feet of the SMZ, although piled material should not be left within 50 feet. 

7. Project activities occur after June 15th. 

Special Aquatic Features (USDA-FS 2004 (S&G 91): 

Do not allow mechanical equipment within 100 feet of meadows or other special aquatic

features. This requirement includes treatment areas: T2, 17, 26, 27, 32, 33, 36, 37, 38, 42, 44, 46, 

47, all Rx treatment areas.

Hydrology

Design measures to protect water quality and ensure watershed health are detailed by BMPs 

described in the Water Quality Management for Forest System Lands in California, (USDA, 

2000), the Riparian Conservation Objective Standards and Guides as set forth in the SNF LRMP 

(USDA, 1991) as amended by the 2004 SNFPA . General project BMPs with their corresponding 

design measures are listed in Appendix B. 

Soil and Water conservation Practices Handbook, Sierra National Forest Supplement No.1, 

(FSH2509.22 ) provides standards for the establishment and management of SMZ’s. Included is 

the incorporation of RMA’s and their functional/hierarchical relationship to SMZ’s.

All stream courses in the project area would be protected and assigned SMZ’s). The stream 

courses mapped on the Project Area Maps provide information for development of watercourse 

protection measures such as: 

1. Skidding would be designed in a manner to skid logs away from the drainages and cross 

drainages at designated locations. 

2. Skidding would not occur across perennial creeks, and limited treatment could occur in 

streams with riparian vegetation.

3. Any project generated material that would cause obstruction of storm flows would be 

removed. 

4. All channels have SMZ’s, which are equipment exclusion zones. Materials may be endlined out of this zone. 

5. Perennial streams would have a minimum SMZ of 100 feet; seasonally 

flowing/intermittent streams would have a minimum SMZ of 50-75 feet and ephemeral 

channels would have a minimum SMZ of 25 feet based on field investigations. The chart 

below provides a summary of SMZ by Stream Class (Table 6). 
12

6. Treatment in prescribed burn units would avoid direct lighting for prescribed fire within 

riparian vegetation and or within the SMZ of stream channel; prescribed fires may back 

into riparian vegetation areas or SMZ’s.

7. Within RCAs reduce as much as possible ground disturbing impacts (i.e., soil 

compaction, vegetation disturbance, etc.). 

8. Best Management Practices Evaluation Program form T01 would be utilized to evaluate 

implementation on those units with SMZ’s and other aquatic protection requirements.

Most units have avoided crossing stream channels. The exception is 4th order ephemeral draws. 

Fuels treatments should be laid out to utilize designated and/or existing crossings. 

Table 6. Streamside Management Zone designation by stream class

Stream 

Class

Minimum 

Ground 

Cover Density 

(%)

SMZ 

Width (ft)

30% Slope

SMZ Width 

(ft)

40% Slope

SMZ 

Width (ft)

50% Slope

SMZ 

Width

(ft) 60% 

Slope

SMZ 

Width (ft)

70% 

Slope

I 50 100 130 160 190 220

II 50 75 105 135 165 195

III 50 50 80 110 140 170

IV 50 25 45 65 85 105

V 50 0 0 0 0 0

Figure 2. Associated Bounds and Treatments within Old Forest Linkages

Meadow Restoration
13

1. Wildlife and botanical surveys would be conducted prior to any restoration activity to 

ensure protection of those resources and compliance with all relevant BMP’s.

2. All encroaching conifers approved for removal (up to 12” dbh) would be felled, 

lopped-and-scattered, bucked in place, or bucked and carried to the meadow edge. 

All conifer material would be left as biomass, burned or used in the restoration

structures.

3. In all cases, native vegetation (e.g., sod) removed during restoration activities would 

be saved and preserved for later planting. Areas of bare soil in the floodplain would 

also be planted with native willows to expedite and enhance the stabilization process. 

Willows would be either cultivated or harvested locally from the same meadow(s) or 

meadows in the same watershed and at the same elevation range.

4. Water would be dammed and diverted around the restoration areas during 

construction. This would be done either by pumping the water using a portable pump 

or by gravity draining impounded water using a 10” inch flexible corrugated plastic 

pipe. Diverted water would be put back into the channel at the bottom of the meadow 

or spread on the meadow surface.

Rock used to build step-pool structures would come from local forest stock piles. 

Currently, rock comes from the tunnel talus at Powerhouse 8 off Forest Road 8S03.

5. All ingress-egress by equipment would occur only when soil moisture conditions are 

low and the ground firm. If equipment does need to enter the meadow, it would only 

travel and work on the periphery (or dry portions) of the meadow, and in all cases, 

1⁄2”inch to 3⁄4”inch plywood and or 1⁄2”inch polyethylene mats would be laid down 

along the equipment route in order to distribute the load more uniformly over the 

meadow surface and mitigate any tread damage that may occur.

6. Any ingress routes enlarged and/or created for equipment to access to the meadow(s) 

would be obliterated upon completion of the project or properly closed if access to 

the project area is required for maintenance within the first five years after 

completion.

7. Refueling of equipment would occur at least 100 feet from any riparian area.

8. To allow vegetation to recover and to protect the area(s) from trampling damage by 

cattle stock, enclosing the restoration areas would be done for two years. To offset 

the potential loss of available water for stock, offsite watering systems can be 

evaluated on a case-by-case basis and be installed in coordination with the Range 

specialist and the permittee.

Prescribed Fire: 

1. For the SMZ’s defined, a minimum protective ground cover of 50% would be established 

and continuously maintained from October 15th to June 15th of each year consisting of 

any combination of living plants, litter, slash, and duff.

• Living plants must be at least 5 feet high to qualify as protective ground cover.

• Litter and/or slash must be at least 2 inches deep and made up of material 4 

inches or less in diameter to qualify as protective ground cover.

• Duff or humus must be 2 inches deep to qualify as protective ground cover.
14

• The 50% ground cover would be determined by using a series of random 100 

point transects.

2. Where ground cover is less than the required 50% minimum, treatment would be applied 

to increase the protective efficiency of the SMZ/RCA to minimum standards. Treatments 

may include the establishment of living plants, introduction of litter, slash, or other 

treatments as prescribed by the district hydrologist or fisheries biologist. 

3. Prescribed burning within SMZ/RCA may be implemented as follows: hand piling and 

burning, jackpot burning, and/or broadcast burning provided that the ground cover is not 

reduced more than 50%. If the protective ground cover is reduced more than 50%, then 

protective mitigation measures would have to be employed under the guidance of the 

district hydrologist or fisheries biologist.

4. Treatment in prescribed burn units would avoid direct lighting for prescribed fire within 

riparian vegetation and or within 5 feet of the edge of stream channel; prescribed fires 

may back into riparian vegetation areas. 

5. Living woody, riparian vegetation would not be willfully killed, destroyed or removed. 

Riparian vegetation includes but is not limited to the following species:

• Maples (Acer species)

• Alders (Alnus species)

• Dogwoods (Cornus)

• Poplars, cottonwoods, aspens (Populus species)

• Oaks (Quercus species)

6. Enough streamside shading would be maintained so as not to adversely affect the existing 

temperature regimes (confer with Phil Strand, Fisheries Program Manager for more 

information and guidance for shading requirements).

Roads

Forest Service system roads and temporary roads used for project activities would be constructed 

or brought to maintenance level 3 standards and follow relevant water quality protection BMP’s 

(Appendix C). Roads used in subdrainage 503.0056 would be repaired and rocked (especially at 

points of hydrologic connectivity and high stream bypass potential –Table 7, Figure 3) to 

mitigate the very high CWE potential in this subdrainage.

Table 7. Roads that have hydrologically connected drain points and culvert problems in 

subdrainage 503.0056.

Subdrainage Road Drain Points Hydrologically 

Connected to Streams or 

Meadows

Stream Crossings with 

Non-Functional 

Culverts

503.0056 06S011 3 3
15

06S013 6 0

06S013Y 4 0

Figure 3. Points of hydrologic connectivity and bypass potential along system roads in 

subdrainage 503.0056. Repair of the crossings (i.e., culverts) and relocation of the 

hydrologically connected drain points should be part of the road maintenance plan for 06S0

Stream Crossings

The greatest potential for the proposed action or Alternative 3 to affect the hydrologic 

connectivity of streams and aquatic habitat exists at stream crossings. To minimize the potential 

for project-related effects on hydrologic connectivity, existing crossings would be used whenever 

possible. In the event that it is necessary to construct a temporary crossing, the methods used for 

construction would be selected to avoid or minimize detrimental soil and vegetation disturbance 

and to maintain hydrologic connectivity between upstream and downstream features. All 

temporary crossings would be removed following the completion of project-related activities and 

would be treated as necessary to restore to pre-project conditions (final approval of treatment to 

pre-project conditions would be done by the Timber Sale Administrator after consultation with 

the district hydrologist and/or forest fisheries biologist). Implementation of the activity-specific 

BMP’s (Appendix B) would further ensure that hydrologic connectivity in streams and special 

aquatic features not be adversely affected by the proposed action or Alternative 3.
16

Silviculture

1. An LOP would be imposed in well stocked stands heavy to fir (over 50% fir) where 

operations could begin August 1st or later when the sap is not running (fir bark is much 

more easily dislodged when the sap is running than later in the year). The District 

Silviculturist would determine which stands require a LOP during the thinning layout 

phase. 

2. Based on SNFPA ROD (USDA-FS 2004b) S&Gs for mechanical treatments, as well as 

design criteria, silvicultural prescriptions would be written utilizing thinning from below 

techniques with basal area levels for stand species composition.

3. To minimize the threat of insect attack, all pine logs created as a part of harvest 

operations would be removed from the sale areas as either logs or biomass material 

within 6 weeks of creation. Unutilized pine material would not be concentrated but 

spread to dry quickly or chipped and spread. Pine logs greater than 3 inches in diameter 

that are created between July 1st and October 15th and left in the stand would not exceed 8 

feet in length. 

4. Commercial thinning operations taking place before July 1st or after October 15 th in pine 

stands would require additional measures to minimize creation of pine slash 

concentrations. Additional bucking of slash may be needed to minimize creation of 

favorable insect breeding habitat. Any pine logs greater than 3 inches in diameter created 

after October 15th or before July 1st left in the stand should not exceed 4 feet in length. 

Precommercial thinning of pine stands should not take place before July 1st or after 

October 30th each year.

5. Where whole tree yarding is utilized, careful consideration must be given to the 

protection of the residual trees from damage. Rub trees (previously designated for 

removal) and/or rub logs should be retained where needed to minimize damage. These 

would then be removed upon completion of yarding. Skid trails should be as straight as 

possible and approved prior to skidding. Landing size should be kept to a minimum 

especially in areas where additional trees must be felled to create landings. To minimize 

landing size, logs/biomass should be removed as quickly as feasible from landings during 

skidding operations and not allowed to accumulate. 

6. During post sale treatments, 15 to 20 percent of the understory growth would be retained 

within plantations and wild stands in pockets approximately 1/10 acre in size. (When 

determining understory pockets to be retained, understory pockets around oaks, 

groupings of larger diameter trees, steep slopes, draws, etc. within treatment units would 

be included.) Understory pockets would not be retained in locations where they would 

jeopardize the effectiveness of planned fuels treatments.

7. To minimize damage to the residual stand, such as loss of canopy and hiding cover and 

reproduction needed to maintain stand structure and down logs, underburning in proposed 

T underburn stands should be undertaken during the spring when duff and down log 

moisture content is high and before actively growing trees become susceptible to 

excessive damage. Where concentrations of existing and/or created slash are present, 

spot piling may be needed prior to burning. Following thinning and prior to 

underburning, each stand proposed to be underburned should be reviewed by the District 
17

Silviculturist and the Fuels Officer to formulate prescriptions that ensure proper measures 

are in place to accomplish desired results. 

8. To minimize damage to the residual stand during slash piling, tractor size should be 

limited to a D-5 or smaller size tractor. 

Fire/Fuels

SNFPA ROD (USDA-FS 2004b) S&G #1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 addresses fuels treatments. S&G #1, 2, 

3, 4, and 5 implementation criteria include: 

The utilization of prescribed fire to maintain appropriate levels of surface and ladder fuels to meet 

fire and fuels objectives would be conducted in prescribed fire treatment areas and units identified 

in the proposed action. To reduce the potential impacts (fire effects) that may occur with the 

implementation of prescribed fire, the following criteria would need to be considered in the areas 

where prescribed fire would be used:

1. Prescribed fire areas should be considered where there are larger residual trees (of size 

less susceptible to fire damage) with light fuel loadings, and/or areas where conifer 

reproduction is not being used for re-generation of openings.

2. Prescribed fire will be conducted as outlined in a burn plan, to minimize effects to trees 

during active growing period and within Spotted owl, Goshawks, and Pacific fisher 

denning habitat areas.

3. The best available control measures (BACMs) for prescribed fire would be done as 

required under Section 190 of the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990.

4. Prescribed fire should be used during the late fall, winter, late spring or early summer, to 

minimize effects to trees during active growing period and within Pacific fisher denning 

habitat areas.

Air Quality

1. Avoid cumulative impacts to air quality by coordinating prescribed burning activities 

within the Forest, with burning activities conducted by others (SNF LRMP 1992 S&G # 

216)

2. Mitigate fugitive dust impacts on air quality by including dust abatement as a 

requirement for construction activities that have potential to generate dust (SNF LRMP 

1992 S&G # 217).

3. Avoid prolonged effects from prescribed burning activities on air quality by burning only 

on Air Quality Control Board (AQCB) approved burn days when satisfactory wind 

dispersion conditions prevail (SNF LRMP 1992 S&G # 218).

4. Participate with AQCB to qualitatively define air quality control regulations and 

guidelines and effects of air quality on the Forest, from sources outside the Forest (SNF 

LRMP 1992 S&G # 219).

5. Obtain appropriate permits prior to conducting prescribed burning activities (SNF LRMP 

1992 S&G # 220).
18

6. Incorporate air quality management considerations into fire management (SNF LRMP 

1992 S&G # 230).

7. Employ commonly used reduction techniques such as burning units after harvest before 

new live fuels appear; burning in the springtime prior to “green-up,” burning when 1,000-

hour fuels (woody debris larger than 3 inches in diameter) moistures are high, and 

burning when the duff is wet (after fall precipitation, or during winter and spring).

8. Employ avoidance techniques such as burning on cloudy days when the plume and 

residual smoke cannot be seen, burning during periods of atmospheric instability for 

better smoke dispersal, and burning during periods of low visitor use.

9. Employ techniques to optimize flaming combustion, including burning piled fuels rather 

than broadcast burning, reducing the amount of soil in piles, and employing rapid ignition 

to create a high intensity fire.

10. Ensure that all activities conform to the State Implementation Plan (SIP)

11. As part of prescribed fire implementation, burn bosses are to make observations on a 

regular basis of the smoke conditions that are being created by implementation. These 

include the travel direction and dispersion quality of smoke such as smoke settling into 

smoke sensitive areas and continued or potential for visibility degradation especially 

across main travel routes. When possible, lighting techniques and/or burn operations are 

changed to minimize the continuance of these impacts.

Engineering

1. Perform road maintenance, reconstruction, and new road construction activities to 

support project access needs in accordance with the standards and guidelines established 

in the Forest Plan, Forest Service Handbook 7709 and 6709, as well as the Bass Lake 

Ranger District Hazard Tree guidance (BLRD Hazard Tree EA 2006)..

2. Maintain all National Forest System roads to standards established in the.58. Insure 

drainage structures are functional and stable to prevent potential resource damage and 

degradation of water quality. (S&G #78, #79, #124, #206 and BMP’s)

3. Perform a final field review of project roads to determine reconstruction needs prior to 

project activities. Where economically feasible, place aggregate on existing native 

surface roads located in areas with high and very high soil erosion hazard ratings. (S&G 

#129)

4. Close all temporary roads required for unit access upon completion of use; remove all 

culverts, rip and ditch landings, construct waterbars, block the entrance with a log and 

dirt berm, and disguise the entrance with brush to discourage additional traffic. 

5. Roadways would be managed for safe passage by road users. This would include the 

management of hazards associated with roadside vegetation, including the identification 

and mitigation of danger (hazard) trees. A danger tree, as defined in Forest Service 

Handbook (FSH) 7709.59, Chapter 40, is a standing tree (live or dead) that presents a 

hazard to people due to conditions such as, but not limited to, deterioration or physical 

damage to the root system, trunk, stem, or limbs and the direction of lean of the tree (FSH 

6709.11, Glossary). Selection criteria guidelines for the marking and removal of danger 

trees would be tiered to the BLRD Hazard Tree Environmental Assessment, (USDA-FS 

2006a).
19

Water could be available for dust abatement during project activities; however, water may not be 

drafted from creeks if the stream flow is less than 1.5 cubic feet per second. Other methods of 

dust abatement such as trip restrictions, speed reductions, or approved dust oil may be considered 

as an alternative to using water. Disposal of clearing slash would be by pile and burn or chipping. 

Stumps may be treated by scattering beyond the toe-of-fill and below the road surface. When 

feasible, roads would be out sloped to reduce concentrations of water and soil erosion.

1

Appendix C – Best Management Practices Specific to Greys 

Mountain Project

BMP Name, Objective, and 

Direction Application to the Greys Mountain Project

BMP 1-1 Timber Sale Planning 

Process: To incorporate water 

quality and hydrologic 

considerations into the timber sale 

planning process.

Implemented through the Riparian Conservation Objectives/Forest 

Plan Consistency report, specification of operational BMPs, 

Environmental Analysis including interdisciplinary team office and 

field discussions, and incorporation of water quality protection 

measures in the Timber Sale Contract for the GRERP EIS.

BMP 1-4 Use of Sale Area Maps 

(SAM) and/or Project Maps for 

Designating Water Quality 

Protection Needs: To ensure 

recognition and protection of 

areas related to water quality 

protection delineated on a SAM 

or project map. 

The sale administrator and purchaser will review these areas on the 

ground prior to commencement of ground disturbing activities. 

Examples of water quality protection features that will be designated 

on the project map include:

1)Location of stream courses and riparian zones to be protected, 

including the width of the protection zone for each area.

2)Wetlands (meadows, lakes, springs, etc.) and other sensitive 

areas (such as shallow soils) to be protected. 

3)Boundaries of harvest units, specified roads and roads where 

hauling activities are prohibited or restricted, areas of different 

skidding and/or yarding methods, including post-harvest fuels 

treatments, and water sources available for purchaser’s use.

BMP 1-5 Limiting the Operating 

Period of Timber Sale Activities: 

To ensure that the purchasers 

conduct their operations, 

including erosion control work, 

road maintenance, and so forth, in 

a timely manner, within the time 

frame specified in the Timber 

Sale Contract.

The purchaser’s contract operation period will be limited to contractspecified periods when adverse environmental effects are not likely. 

The Sale Administrator will close down operations due to rainy 

periods, high water, or other adverse operating conditions in order to 

protect resources.

BMP 1-8 Streamside 

Management Zone Designation: 

To designate a zone along 

riparian areas, streams and 

wetlands that will minimize 

potential for adverse effects from 

adjacent management activities. 

Management activities within 

these zones are designed to 

improve riparian values. 

Streamside management zones (SMZs ) have been supplemented 

with RMAs and RCAs (USDA 2004b) as described in the Design 

Measures section of the EIS. 

Within SMZs, the constraints defined in Sierra Supplement No. 1 

(USDA Forest Service, 1989) apply. This includes no self-propelled 

ground based equipment, a minimum groundcover of 50%, and 

shade canopy may not be modified in a way that affects stream 

temperature. 

Modifications to these guidelines are possible where site-specific 

needs exist if the action is reviewed by a hydrologist or fisheries 

biologist.
2

BMP Name, Objective, and 

Direction Application to the Greys Mountain Project

BMP 1-9 Determining Tractor 

Loggable Ground: To minimize 

erosion and sedimentation 

resulting from ground disturbance 

of tractor logging systems. 

Limit ground skidding and machine piling with tractors to slopes 

less than 35%. Endlining can be used to remove logs from steeper 

slopes. Ground disturbance on areas of shallow soils, notably soils 

adjacent and abutting to rock outcrops, will be avoided. 

BMP 1-10 Tractor Skidding 

Design: By designing skidding 

patterns to best fit the terrain, the 

volume, velocity, concentration, 

and direction of runoff water can 

be controlled in a manner that 

will minimize erosion and 

sedimentation.

The sale administrator and purchaser will designate all skid trails 

prior to ground disturbing activities. If uncertainty arises regarding 

potential resource impacts of skid trail location, consult with an 

earth science specialist (i.e., hydrologist, aquatic biologist, or soil 

scientist). 

BMP 1-12 Log Landing Location: 

To locate new landings in such a 

way as to avoid watershed 

impacts and associated water 

quality degradation 

The following criteria are to be used by the Sale Administrator when 

evaluating landings:

a. The cleared or excavated size of landings will not exceed that 

needed for safe and efficient skidding and loading operations. 

Trees considered dangerous will be removed around landings to 

meet the safety requirements of OSHA.

b. Selected landing locations will involve the least amount of 

excavation and fill possible. Landings must be located outside 

of SMZs.

c. Locate landings near ridges away from headwater swales in 

areas that will allow skidding without crossing stream channels, 

violating SMZs, or causing direct deposit of soil and debris to a 

stream. 

d. Locate landings where the least number of skid roads will be 

required, and sidecast can be stabilized without entering 

drainages or affecting other sensitive areas. Keep the number of 

skid trails entering a landing to a minimum.

e. Position landings such that the skid road approach will be nearly 

level as feasible, to promote safety and to protect soil from 

erosion.

f. Avoid excessive fills associated with landings constructed on 

old landslide benches. 

g. Construct stable landing fills or improve existing landings by 

using appropriate compaction and drainage specifications. 

In some cases, using an existing landing located within an RCA or 

CAR is preferable to constructing a new landing outside of it. These 

situations will be reviewed on a site-by-site basis by an earth science 

specialist (aquatics, hydrology, geology, or soils). 
3

BMP Name, Objective, and 

Direction Application to the Greys Mountain Project

BMP 1-13 Erosion Prevention 

and Control Measures during 

Timber Sale Operations: To 

ensure that the purchasers’ 

operations will be conducted 

reasonably to minimize soil 

erosion.

Timber purchaser responsibilities for erosion control will be set forth 

in the Timber Sale Contract. Equipment will not be operated when 

ground conditions are such that excessive damage will result. The 

kinds and intensity of control work required of the purchaser will be 

adjusted by the sale administrator to ground and weather conditions 

with emphasis on controlling overland runoff, erosion, and 

sedimentation. 

Erosion control work required by the contract will be kept current. 

At certain times of the year this means daily, if precipitation is likely 

or weekly when precipitation is predicted for the weekend. Erosion 

prevention measures must be applied no later than October 1 and 

immediately upon completion of activity begun after November 1. 

If the purchaser fails to perform seasonal erosion control work prior 

to any seasonal period of precipitation or runoff, the Forest Service 

may temporarily assume responsibility, complete the work, and use 

any unencumbered deposits as payment for the work.

BMP 1-16 Log Landing Erosion 

Protection and Control: To reduce 

the impacts of erosion and 

subsequent sedimentation 

associated with log landings by 

use of mitigating measures. 

Landings will be properly cross-ditched, ripped (if soils are 

compacted), re-contoured (as necessary), and mulched after use and 

before the winter precipitation period, whichever comes first. Excess 

material not needed for erosion control can be piled and burned. 

Upon completion of the project, consult with the hydrologist or soil 

scientist to determine the need for additional soil protection 

measures.

BMP 1-17 Erosion Control of 

Skid Trails: To protect water 

quality by minimizing erosion 

and sedimentation derived from 

skid trails. 

Erosion control measures will be installed on all skid trails, tractor 

roads, and temporary roads. Erosion control measures include, but 

are not limited to, cross ditches (water bars), organic mulch, and 

ripping. 

Cross ditches will be spaced according to the guidelines below, 

maintained in a functioning condition, and placed in locations where 

drainage would naturally occur (i.e., swales). The level of 

maintenance will be contingent upon existing or predicted weather 

patterns as determined by the Sale Administer (see BMP 1-13).

 Minimum Cross Drain Spacing 

% Slope Maximum Spacing

0 - 15 125 feet

15 - 35 45 feet

BMP 1-18 Meadow Protection 

during Timber Harvesting: To 

avoid damage to the ground 

cover, soil, and hydrologic 

function of meadows.

Mechanical equipment is not permitted in meadows. Additionally, 

the SNF has implemented a 100’ protection buffer around meadows 

that are equipment exclusion zones. Access is not permitted in 

meadows or the 100’ buffer unless specifically authorized by an 

aquatic biologist and/or hydrologist.
4

BMP Name, Objective, and 

Direction Application to the Greys Mountain Project

BMP 1-19 Streamcourse and 

Aquatic Protection: The 

objectives of this BMP are:

 To conduct management 

actions within these 

areas in a manner that 

maintains or improves 

riparian and aquatic 

values. 

 To provide unobstructed 

passage of stormflows. 

 To control sediment and 

other pollutants entering 

streamcourses.

 To restore the natural 

course of any stream as 

soon as practicable, 

where diversion of the 

stream has resulted from 

timber management 

activities. 

a. The location and method of crossings on Class IV and V streams 

must be agreed to by the sale administrator (SA) prior to 

construction. 

b. Stream crossings on Class I – III streams must be approved by 

the hydrologist and/or aquatic biologist. 

c. Damage to stream banks and channels will be repaired to the 

extent practicable. 

d. All sale-generated debris will be removed from streamcourses, 

unless otherwise agreed to by the SA, and in an agreed upon 

manner that will cause the least disturbance. 

e. Felled trees will not be pulled across perennial or intermittent 

stream channels without prior approval by the hydrologist and/or 

aquatic biologist. 

f. Methods for protecting water quality while utilizing tractor skid 

trail design in stream course areas where harvest is approved 

include: (1) end lining, (2) falling to the lead, and (3) utilizing 

specialized equipment with low ground pressure such as feller 

buncher harvester. 

g. Water bars or other erosion control structures will be located so 

as to disperse concentrated flows and filter out suspended 

sediments prior to entry into streamcourse. 

h. Material from temporary road construction and skid trail 

streamcourse crossings will be removed and streambanks restored 

to the extent practicable. 

i. Special slash treatment site preparation activities will be 

prescribed in sensitive areas to facilitate slash disposal without use 

of mechanized equipment. 

j. Project-related bare soil areas (e.g. skid trails, landings, 

temporary roads, etc.) will be covered with existing native 

vegetation mulch, organic debris, or certified weed free straw to at 

least 50%, well distributed cover, and cross-ditched per BMP 1-17 

requirements.

BMP 1-20 Erosion Control 

Structure Maintenance: To 

ensure that constructed erosion 

control structures are stabilized 

and working

During the period of the timber sale contract, the purchaser will 

provide maintenance of soil erosion control structures contracted by 

the purchaser until they become stabilized, but not more than one 

year after their construction. If the purchaser fails to do seasonal 

maintenance work, the Forest Service may assume the responsibility 

and charge the purchaser accordingly. The Forest Service sale 

administrator is responsible for ensuring erosion control 

maintenance work is completed.
5

BMP Name, Objective, and 

Direction Application to the Greys Mountain Project

BMP 1-21 Acceptance of Timber 

Sale Erosion Control Measures 

before Sale Closure: To ensure 

the adequacy of required erosion 

control work on timber sales. 

The sale administrator must inspect erosion control measures to 

ensure their adequacy prior to accepting closure on the unit and/or 

sale. 

The effectiveness of erosion control measures will be evaluated 

using BMPEP protocols (see Monitoring Plan) after the sale area has 

been through one or more wet seasons. This evaluation is to ensure 

that erosion control treatments are in good repair and functioning as 

designed before releasing the purchaser from contract responsibility. 

The purchaser is responsible for repairing erosion control treatments 

that fail to meet criteria in the Timber Sale Contract, as determined 

by the Sale Administer, for up to one year past closure of the sale. 

BMP 1-22 Slash Treatment in 

Sensitive Areas: To maintain or 

improve water quality by 

protecting sensitive areas from 

degradation which would likely 

result from using mechanized 

equipment for slash disposal. 

All burn piles made with mechanical equipment must be located 

outside of the SMZ.

Hand piles will be kept at least 20 feet away from all streams, 

meadows, springs, seeps, and other sensitive aquatic areas. 

BMP 2-1 General guidelines for 

the Location and Design of 

Roads: To locate and design 

roads with minimal resource 

damage. 

The following considerations are incorporated into the planning 

process of road location and design. These measures are 

preventative, apply to all transportation activities, and indirectly 

protect water quality:

a) Transportation facilities will be developed and operated to 

best meet the resource management objectives with the 

least adverse effect on environmental values. 

b) The location, design, and construction of roads will include 

the use of the IDT. 

c) Sensitive areas such as wetlands, inner gorges, and unstable 

ground will be avoided to the extent practicable.

d) Stream crossings will be designed to provide the most cost 

efficient drainage facility consistent with resource 

protection, facility needs, and legal obligations. 

BMP 2-2 Erosion Control Plan: 

To mitigate and control erosion 

through effective planning prior 

to initiation of construction. 

Any new construction would be subject to erosion control measures 

as per an IDT approved plan that may include but not be limited to 

waterbar installation, sediment fencing, culvert installation and 

armoring, placement of straw waddles, approved straw cover and/or 

slash and any other method necessary to mitigate erosion and 

sediment routing in the project subdrainage(s).
6

BMP Name, Objective, and 

Direction Application to the Greys Mountain Project

BMP 2-3 Timing of Construction 

Activities: To minimize erosion 

by conducting operations during 

minimal runoff periods and when 

soils are dry and less prone to 

compaction. 

Ground-disturbing activities will occur when soils are dry. In some 

cases soils may never dry sufficiently. Ground-disturbing work that 

occurs off of existing roads will occur during the dry season and will 

reduce ground disturbance as much as possible.

BMP 2-5 Road Slope 

Stabilization Construction 

Practices: To reduce 

sedimentation by minimizing 

erosion from road slopes and 

slope failure along roads.

An adequate soils and geologic investigation will be conducted 

when finalizing new road construction designs for: correct cut and 

fill steepness based on the angle of repose for the type of material; 

methods to handle surface runoff; and necessary compaction 

standards and surfacing needs.

BMP 2-7 Control of Road 

Drainage: To minimize the 

erosive effects of water 

concentrated on roads, to disperse 

runoff from road surfaces, to 

lessen sediment yield from roaded 

areas, and to minimize erosion of 

the road prism. 

Newly constructed or reconstructed roads will be designed to reduce 

hydrologic connectivity and soil erosion wherever feasible. The sale 

administrator or other Forest Service representative will ensure that 

roads are adequately maintained during project implementation to 

ensure that road drainage features function as designed.

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. 

Erosion control must be completed before the rainy season (usually 

October). Preventative measures for timely erosion control include:

Removal of temporary culverts, culvert plugs, diversion dams, or 

elevated stream crossings.

Installation of temporary culverts, side drains, flumes, cross drains, 

diversion ditches, energy dissipaters, dips, sediment basins, berms, 

debris racks, or other facilities needed to control erosion. 

Removal of debris, obstructions, and spoil material from channels 

and floodplains. 

Planting vegetation, mulching, and/or covering exposed surfaces 

with jute mates or other protective material.

BMP 2-10 Construction of Stable 

Embankments: To construct 

embankments with materials and 

methods which minimize the 

possibility of failure and 

subsequent water quality 

degradation. 

Roadways will be designed and constructed as stable and durable 

earthwork structures with adequate strength to support the treadway, 

shoulders, subgrade and road traffic loads.
7

BMP Name, Objective, and 

Direction Application to the Greys Mountain Project

BMP 2-11 Control of Sidecast 

Material During Construction and 

Maintenance: To minimize 

sediment production originating 

from sidecast material during 

road construction or maintenance.

Sidecasting is not permitted within SMZs. 

Waste areas must be located where excess material can be deposited 

and stabilized.

BMP 2-12 Servicing and 

refueling equipment: To prevent 

pollutants such as fuels, 

lubricants, bitumens and other 

harmful materials from being 

discharged into or near rivers, 

streams and impoundments, or 

into natural or man-made 

channels. 

Storage of hazardous materials (including fuels) and servicing and 

refueling of equipment will be conducted at pre-designated locations 

outside of RCAs and CARs. If fueling and/or storage of hazardous 

materials are needed within RCAs or CARs, those sites must be 

reviewed and approved by the District Hydrologist or Aquatic 

Biologist. Additional protection measures, such as containment 

devices, may be necessary. 

BMP 2-13 Control of 

Construction and Maintenance 

Activities Adjacent to SMZs: To 

protect water quality by 

controlling construction and 

maintenance actions within and 

adjacent to SMZs so that SMZ 

functions are not impaired. 

Construction and maintenance fills, sidecast, and end-hauled 

materials will be kept out of SMZs except at designated crossing 

sites to minimize the effect to the aquatic environment. 

BMP 2-14 Controlling InChannel Excavation: To 

minimize stream channel 

disturbances and related sediment 

production.

There will be no in-channel or streambank excavation during any 

phase of project activities unless authorized by the district 

hydrologist or aquatic biologist.

BMP 2-16 Stream Crossings on 

Temporary Roads and Skid 

Trails: 

Mechanical equipment crossing of perennial and intermittent 

(generally class I – III) streams is not permitted unless approved by 

the district hydrologist or aquatic biologist. Ephemeral streams 

(stream class IV and V) may be crossed at designated locations as 

agreed upon by the sale administrator and purchaser. Designate skid 

trails to avoid stream crossings and SMZs wherever possible. 

Designated crossings must be as perpendicular to the channel as 

possible and avoid sensitive soils and riparian vegetation damage. 

Stream banks must be repaired upon completion of the project.
8

BMP Name, Objective, and 

Direction Application to the Greys Mountain Project

BMP 2-19 Disposal of Right-ofWay and Roadside Debris: To 

ensure that organic debris 

generated during road 

construction is kept out of 

streams so that channels and 

downstream facilities are not 

obstructed. 

If slash generated by road work is disposed of within SMZs, it will 

be piled and burned or chipped. Material may also be removed from 

the SMZ for disposal.

BMP 2-21 Water Source 

Development Consistent with 

Water Quality Protection: To 

supply water for roads and fire 

protection while maintaining 

existing water quality.

Water drafting will not occur in streams when the base discharge is 

less than 1.5 cfs, and will not draft more than 50% of the ambient 

discharge over 1.5 cfs. New drafting sites would be approved by the 

District Hydrologist or Fisheries/Aquatic Biologist and located to 

minimize sediment and maintain riparian resources, channel 

condition, meadow integrity, and aquatic species viability and 

habitat. Approaches will be as near perpendicular to the stream as 

possible and will be gravel surfaced or otherwise stabilized. 

If water-drafting is required, pumps with low entry velocity and 

suction strainers with screens less than 2 mm in size (1/8 in.) will be 

used.

BMP 2-22 Maintenance of Roads: 

To maintain roads in a manner 

that provides for water quality 

protection by minimizing rutting, 

failures, sidecasting, and 

blockage of drainage facilities, all 

of which can cause erosion, 

sedimentation, and deteriorating 

watershed conditions.

Roads needed for project activities will be brought to current 

engineering standards of alignment, drainage, and grade before use, 

and will be maintained through the life of the project. Roads will be 

inspected at least annually to determine what work, if any, is needed 

to keep ditches, culverts, and other drainage facilities functional and 

the road stable. 

BMP 2-23 Road Surface 

Treatment to Prevent Loss of 

Materials: 

Surface stabilization will be considered where grades exceed 12% or 

road is within riparian conservation areas.

BMP 2-24 Traffic Control During 

Wet Periods: To reduce road 

surface disturbance and the 

rutting of roads, and to minimize 

sediment washing from disturbed 

road surfaces.

On roads not designated for all weather or winter haul, heavy 

equipment operations will be limited until the period after the soil 

has dried in the top 12 inches in the spring.
9

BMP Name, Objective, and 

Direction Application to the Greys Mountain Project

BMP 2-26 Obliteration or 

Decommissioning of Roads: To 

reduce sediment generated from 

temporary roads, unneeded 

system and non-system roads by 

obliterating or decommissioning 

them at the completion of the 

intended use.

Temporary roads will be obliterated after serving their intended 

purpose for this project. This includes: (1) road effectively 

barricaded; (2) road effectively drained by measures such as recontouring or outsloping to return surface to near natural hydrologic 

function; (3) a well distributed mulch or organic cover provides at 

least 50% cover, or road surface is re-vegetated using local native 

species; (4) sideslopes are reshaped and stabilized to match the 

natural contour (as necessary); and (5) stream crossings are removed 

and natural channel geometry is restored. 

If non-local mulch is used (such as straw), it must be approved by 

the Forest Service botanist as weed free. 

BMP 6-1 Fire and Fuel 

Management Activities: To 

reduce public and private losses 

and environmental impacts which 

result from wildfires and/or 

subsequent flooding and erosion 

by reducing or managing the 

frequency, intensity and extent of 

wildfire. 

The project action alternatives are designed to achieve the desired 

conditions of BMP 6-1. 

BMP 6-2 Consideration of Water 

Quality in Formulating Fire 

Prescriptions: To provide for 

water quality protection while 

achieving the management 

objectives through the use of 

prescribed fire. 

Prescribed burning is planned at the minimum intensity and severity 

necessary to achieve management objectives, and each Burn Plan 

will incorporate all relevant design measures from this EIS. 

BMP 6-3 Protection of Water 

Quality from Prescribed fire 

Effects: To maintain soil 

productivity, minimize erosion, 

and minimize ash, sediment, 

nutrients, and debris from 

entering water bodies.

Fires will be allowed to back into riparian vegetation, but direct 

lighting within riparian vegetation will not occur. 

All fire lines within RCAs and CARs will be water barred per BMP 

1-17 spacing requirements. Fire lines within RCA (i.e., 150 ft., 

seasonal streams, and 300 ft. perennial streams, springs, and 

meadows) will be designed and constructed to reduce sediment entry 

into channels. Fire lines in RCAs will cross perpendicular to streams 

and follow the natural landscape contour as much as possible. Fire 

lines within the SMZ will be hand cut. Waterbars will be placed on 

either side of each stream crossing to prevent or reduce sediment 

entry into streams. 
10

BMP Name, Objective, and 

Direction Application to the Greys Mountain Project

BMP 6-5 Repair or Stabilization 

of Fire Suppression Related 

Watershed Damage: To stabilize 

all areas that have had their 

erosion potential significantly 

increased, or their drainage 

pattern altered by suppression

related activities.

In the event of a wildfire, protection of resources would be evaluated 

under the Burned Area Emergency Response, assessment and 

treatment Implementation protocol.

BMP 6-6 Emergency 

Rehabilitation of Watersheds 

Following Wildfires: To 

minimize as far as practicable: 1.) 

loss of soil and onsite 

productivity; 2.) overland flow, 

channel obstruction and 

instability; 3.) threats to life and 

property both on-site and off-site

In the event of a wildfire, protection of resources would be evaluated 

under the Burned Area Emergency Response, assessment and 

treatment Implementation protocol. 

BMP 7-3 Protection of Wetlands: 

To avoid adverse water quality 

impacts associated with 

destruction, disturbance, or 

modification of wetlands.

Ground disturbing activities will not occur in wetlands or meadows. 

BMP 7-4 Oil and Hazardous 

Substance Spill Contingency Plan 

and Spill Prevention Containment 

and Countermeasure (SPCC) 

Plan: To prevent contamination of 

water from accidental spills.

A spill contingency plan and spill prevention and countermeasure 

plan (SPCC) must be prepared if hazardous materials (including 

fuels and oils) stored on the Sierra National Forest exceed 1320 

gallons, or if a single container exceeds 660 gallons.

The plan will at a minimum include: the types and amounts of 

hazardous materials located in the project area, pre-project identified 

locations for hazardous materials storage and fueling/maintenance 

activities (must be located outside of RCA and CAR unless prior 

approval by District Hydrologist or Aquatic Biologist is obtained), 

methods for containment of hazardous materials and contents of onsite emergency spill kit, and a contingency plan (including contact 

names with phone numbers) to implement in the event of a spill. 

The SPCC plan must be approved by the Forest Service prior to 

project implementation.
11

Stream Crossing Design Measures

Traditionally, live stream crossings for skid trails or temporary roads, were constructed by 

excavating the crossing, placing a culvert in the stream, and filling around the pipe with fill dirt. 

When the project was complete, the culvert and fill dirt were removed, usually with the bulldozer. 

This practice caused excessive sediment input into the stream, along with much disturbance of the 

stream banks. Rehabilitation work consisted of placing waterbars on each bank of the stream 

along with grass-seed and straw. The grass-seed/straw combo was placed from stream bank to 

the first waterbar ditch, on each bank, depending on slope gradient.

Cut-to-Length (CTL) machines changed the way operations were conducted in the woods. The 

harvester/tree processor establishes their route of travel (forwarding trails) through the unit. The 

harvester cuts trees down, delimbs and produces logs along these trails, all the while leaving the 

resulting limbs and tree tops (slash) in the trails as a “slash mat” for ground cover. The forwarder 

follows the harvester, driving over the “slash mat” to pick up the logs and returns to the landing. 

This procedure works well when abundant material is available in the stands; 

The placement and removal of the log fill is accomplished with the harvester, which can grasp the 

processed logs with its cutting-head, feed wheels and limb knives. This allows the logs to be 

lifted into and out of position, much like a crane or boom. This not only reduces or eliminates the 

amount of soil disturbance and stream sediment loading, but the amount of the distubed area is 

greatly reduced.

For perennial streams, a minimum of an 18” culvert should be used with the slash and small logs 

(4-8” dbh) to build the crossing. Culvert sizing should be such that a 25 year flood event could 

pass with no static head development upstream of the culvert. It would be best to consult the 

district hydrologist and roads engineer for proper watershed analysis and culvert sizing prior to 

construction. 

Inspection of the channel before and after the construction of the crossing will need to be done by 

the district hydrologist to determine if any restoration is required. Any stream disturbance will 

have to be restored to pre-disturbance conditions. No fill material (i.e., soil) should be used in the 

crossing.
12

Figure 4. Map of WIN 51036 in Poison Meadow (meadow 504M209); red triangle denotes 

main WIN features. 

WIN 51037 (504M211/212)

Rock step pools would be built to address the two headcuts (P Error! Bookmark not defined.). 

Local rock could be used, or a rock cache could be located along FS Road 6S99 with easy access 

to the toe of the meadow. Meadow 504M212 is located 0.1 miles north of meadow 504M211. 

There are no WIN sites identified in this meadow (thus no physical restoration is planned), but 

there has been 0.75 acres of conifer encroachment identified through satellite and aerial photo 

review. Physical restoration and/or stabilization efforts will restore/preserve approximately 3 

acres of meadow 504M211 (Table 2).
1

Appendix D 

WIN 51015 (504M292/293)

Headcuts and knick points would be repaired by installing rock step pool structures (Appendix 

C). Minimal ground clearing and brushing would be done for small tractor or power wheelbarrow 

access. Rock caches would be located off of FS Road 6S36, and 6S38 for each of the two large 

headcuts (Figure 5). Split rail fencing along FS Road 6S36 would be installed to discourage 

OHV use in meadow. The east end of the meadow has very high conifer encroachment 

(approximately 1.25 acres). Physical restoration and/or stabilization efforts will restore/preserve 

approximately 5 acres of this meadow (Table 2).

Figure 5. Map of WIN 51015 in meadow 504M292 and 504M293; red triangles denote main 

WIN features. 

WIN 51036 (Poison Meadow 504M209)

Reconstruction and repair of existing structures would be done. A rock cache would be located in 

a very large turnout on Beasore road just south of the meadow. Minimal brushing and ground 

clearing would be done to allow access. There is a medium level of conifer encroachment in the 

northern portion of meadow approximately 0.86 acres (11%). Some split rail fencing and signage 

would be needed along track ML91 to discourage OHV use of the meadow. Physical restoration 

and/or stabilization efforts will restore/preserve approximately 7.5 acres of this meadow (Table 

2).
2

Figure 6. Map of WIN 51037 in meadow 504M211; red triangles denote main WIN features. 

WIN 51038 (504M132)

Physical stabilization of this feature is not recommended at this time, but the structure should be 

monitored annually. The meadow was part of a historic ranch site and has many apple trees still 

in evidence. Additionally, the soil moisture conditions seem to have promoted the development of 

alder and willow trees throughout the meadow. There is some conifer encroachment by shade 

tolerant cedars and some small ponderosa saplings. There is an estimated 0.5 acres of 

encroachment. It is recommended that the existing conifers (up to 12” dbh) be removed, but no 

other woody vegetation is proposed for removal.
3

Figure 7. Map of WIN 51038 in Meserve meadow (meadow 504M132); red triangles denote 

main WIN features. 

WIN 51104 (Progeny Meadow 503M8)

Large ruts in southeast portion meadow from 4x4 truck use would be repaired. Primary access 

route is west of the meadow along a closed road/skid trail; this trail would be used to repair 

existing rock structures, and transport rock and equipment in to each headcut. The cache and 
4

access routes on the east side of the meadow are primarily to be used for the repair of the deep 

ruts in the meadow. Conifer encroachment is high throughout meadow (approximately 3.5 acres).

Split rail fencing would be put up along FS Road 6S13 to discourage further degradation due to 

OHV use. Rock step pool structures would be built to stop headward erosion of the headcuts 

(Appendix C). Sand, native soil and local sod may be used to fill OHV ruts. Physical restoration 

and/or stabilization efforts will restore/preserve approximately 3.5 acres of this meadow (Table 

2).

Figure 8. Map of WIN 51104 in Progeny meadow (Meadow 503M8); red triangles denote 

WIN features. 

WIN 51241 (Chipmunk Meadow 504M220)

A trail would be built through manzanita and buckbrush between the meadow and Beasore road 

to allow access for power wheelbarrows or a small tractor. The most topographically suitable area 

for the trail has been depicted on the map (Figure 9). Due to the small dimension of the headcut, 

local rock would be used to create a step pool or a log step fall structure using trees from the 
5

surrounding area would be built. Physical restoration and/or stabilization efforts will 

restore/preserve approximately 3.6 acres of this meadow (Table 2).

Figure 9. Map of WIN 51241 in Chipmunk meadow (Meadow 504M220); red triangle 

denotes main WIN feature. 

WIN 51244 (504M208)

Access is easy from 6S38, and a rock cache would be located at the junction of 6S38 and 6S38X. 

Split rail fencing would be constructed along FS Road 6S38 to discourage OHV use in meadow. 

Rock step pools and rock rundowns would be constructed (Appendix 3). Physical restoration 

and/or stabilization efforts will restore/preserve approximately 0.3 acres of this meadow (Table 

2).
6

Figure 10. Map of WIN 51244 in meadow 504M208; red triangles denote main WIN 

features. 

WIN 51246 (Railroad Meadow 504M198)

Barriers would be installed to prevent access to the meadow. 

An existing breach in the railroad bed would be widened by several feet to lessen the impact from 

livestock trailing and allow overland flow to move from the west to east end of the meadow 

during high flow. Conifer encroachment is very high in the west end of the meadow near 6S11 

(head of meadow) at approximately 2.4 acres (~50%). Physical restoration and/or stabilization 

efforts will restore/preserve approximately 3.5 acres of this meadow (Table 2).
7

Figure 11. Map of WIN 51246 in Railroad meadow (Meadow 504M198); red triangles 

denote WIN features. 

WIN 51295 (503M7)

User created tracks will be barricaded and signage installed on both ends of the trail to prevent 

OHV access the track will be sub soiled to decompact the soils and allow regeneration of native 

vegetation Adequate water bars would be constructed to prevent surface erosion. Downed trees 

and slash along the track alignment that will be cut during the conifer encroachment treatment 

project would be distributed.

Conifer encroachment is very high in small pockets of the lower SE and upper NW ends of the 

meadow (approximately 2.5 acres). Physical restoration and/or stabilization efforts will 

restore/preserve approximately 3.0 acres of the true meadow segments (Table 2).
8

Figure 12. Map of WIN 51295 in meadow 504M7; red triangles denote main WIN features; 

darker green polygons represent the true meadow components. 
9

Figure 13. Map showing the alignment of the OHV track through meadow 503M7. 

This track will be restored to improve soil productivity and allow for native vegetative 

recovery.

1

Appendix E Monitoring Plan

Cultural Resources

Monitoring would be necessary to ensure that identified protection measures are effective 

(Regional PA, Stipulation IV and Interim Fuels Protocol, Stipulation VI) and proposed treatment 

measures have had no adverse effect to cultural resources. Monitoring shall occur within 1 year 

post-project implementation to assess short-term effects and then at intervals of once every three 

years for twenty years to assess long-term effects.

Botany 

Post project; monitor the Sensitive Plant occurrences within the project area to assess their 

presence and condition. Monitor for three to five years to ascertain that the noxious weeds have 

been eradicated successfully. 

Geology/Soils

Monitoring of soil conditions would be conducted on a selection of activity areas to determine if 

soil S&Gs and soil management objectives are being met. Eleven soil transects have been 

established in the project area to determine existing soil conditions. Six of these soil transects 

would be repeated after treatment is implemented. 

Monitoring would be accomplished in accordance with the National Forest Soil Disturbance 

Monitoring Protocol (USDA Forest Service, 2009). Soil monitoring would be conducted along 

transects according to the protocol after the proposed treatments. Soil monitoring should be 

designed to determine the extent of detrimental soil compaction from mechanical treatments. Soil 

cover should be determined from both mechanical treatment and prescribed fire. After 

implementation of the proposed action, pre-treatment soil transects should be re-established in 

activity areas and post-treatment soil transects should be repeated along the same transect that 

were established for the pre-treatment soil transect. Timing for conducting post-treatment soil 

transects is important to determine soil cover after prescribed fire, especially soil cover condition 

going into the following winter.

Monitoring of meadows would consist of establishing photo monitoring points that would record 

the extent of existing conifer encroachment. Photos would be taken initially before treatment and 

every three years for 15 years. Additional monitoring of the reclaimed OHV trail within meadow 

503M7 would be completed primarily looking for the regeneration of native plants and grasses 

along the trail and for the occurrence of unauthorized OHV usage.

Terrestrial Wildlife

It may be possible to lessen the potential effect of CWE in subwatershed 503.0056 by reducing 

the number of acres treated within the HUC8 subwatershed or reducing the miles of system road. 

In addition, correcting problems with road drainage and surface erosion of the road surface could 

reduce effects from a CWE. If all of the treatments proposed within this subwatershed are 

adopted, a Stream Condition Inventory Plot should be established downstream of the site and 

include V* (Hilton and Lisle 1993) to measure possible effects to aquatic habitat.
2

Range 

Establishment of additional long term meadow condition and trend monitoring plots for Texas 

Flat Meadow and Progeny Meadow sites are recommended in order to assess meadow ecological 

status and trend and trend and also to determine the effectiveness of the channel restoration and 

conifer removal on these ecological factors. 

Fire/Fuels 

Monitoring of the conditions following initial treatments would be completed to determine if 

additional treatments are needed to meet fire and fuels objectives. Particular attention would be 

given to those treatment areas associated with SPLATs and DFPZs surrounding the identified 

communities, as these are the priority areas within the project for follow-up treatments to reduce 

surface fuels, if needed.

Air Quality

As part of prescribed fire implementation, burn bosses are to make observations on a regular 

basis of the smoke conditions that are being created by implementation. These include the 

travel direction and dispersion quality of smoke such as smoke settling into smoke sensitive 

areas and continued or potential for visibility degradation especially across main travel 

routes. When possible, lighting techniques and/or burn operations are changed to minimize 

the continuance of these impacts.
1

Appendix F Stand by Stand Description of Treatments

Table 8 Proposed Treatment Acres by Area and Method

Treatment 

#

Commercial 

Thinning

Commercial 

Thinning in 

Fuelbreak

Commercial 

Thinning 

Total Acres

Potential 

Precommercial 

Thinning by 

Mastication or 

Hand thin w/Dozer 

Piling

Mastication

Prescribed 

Burning 

(Post 

Thinning)

Prescribed 

Burning 

Only 

Treatment

Precommercial 

Thinning 

w/Hand Piling

Meadow 

Conifer 

Removal

Reforestation Noxious 

Weed 

Eradication

Analyzes

Area 

Total

T-1 34 34 7 41 41

T-2 76 76 21 97 97

T-3 25 25 27 52

T-4 117 117 19 136 136

T-5 1 5 6 6 6

T-6 27 27 147 174

T-7 13 13 13 13

T-8 137 58 195 75 270 270

T-9 147 147 87 234 234

T-10 38 38 52 90 90

T-11 0 48 48

T-12 15 15 26 41

T-13 2 2 1 3

T-14 34 34 13 47

T-16 124 86 210 65 275 275

T-17 22 22 32 54 54

T-19 15 15 9 24

T-20 31 31 31

T-21 7 26 33 6 39 39

T-26 9 19 28 28 28

T-27 20 20 25 45

T-28 19 19 19

T-29 29 29 5 34

T-30 16 16 3 19 19

T-31 43 43 10 53 53

T-32 29 29 5 34 34

T-33 133 133 116 249 249

T-34 4 4 12 16

T-35 34 34 11 45 45

T-37 48 48 13 61

T-38 47 47 47 94 94

T-39 45 45 45 45

Nonstocked

Areas 

(Within T 

Areas)

50 50

Subtotal 1341 194 1535 882 1822 50 2467

FX-9 97 97

Subtotal 97 97

Treatment # Commercial Commercial Commercial Potential Mastication Prescribed Prescribed Precommercial Meadow Reforestation Noxious Analyzes
2

Thinning Thinning in 

Fuelbreak

Thinning Total 

Acres

Precommercial 

Thinning Mastication or 

Hand thin w/Dozer 

Piling

Burning (Post 

Thinning)

Burning Only 

Treatment

Thinning w/Hand 

Piling

Conifer 

Removal

Weed 

Eradication

Area Total

T-18 30 30

RX-1 133 133

RX-2 91 91

RX-3 43 43

RX-4 49 49

RX-5 13 13

RX-6 12 12

RX-7 35 35

RX-15 35 35

RX-22 30 30

RX-23 11 11

RX-24 17 17

Subtotal 499 499

H-1 13 13

H-2 15 15 15

H-3 10 10 10

H-4 8 8 8

H-5 29 29

H-6 15 15

H-7 10 10

H-8 (Progeny) 24 24

Subtotal 33 124 124

M-1 33 33

M-2 92 92

M-3 23 23

M-4 120 120

M-5 26 26

M-6 24 24

Subtotal 318 318

Mdw 503M7 3 3

Mdw 503M8 0.9 0.9

Mdw 504M132 1.2 1.2

Mdw 504M198 2.4 2.4

Mdw 504M208 0.1 0.1

Mdw 504M209 0.9 0.9

Mdw 504M293 2 2

Subtotal 10.5 10.5

Chilkoot CG 5 5

Greys Mountain CG 17 17

Texas Flat CG 9 9

Subtotal 31 31

Project Wide (As needed) 10 10

Subtotal 10 10

Grand Total 1372 194 1566 882 318 1855 ** 596 124 10.5 50 10 3556.5

** The acreage burned will be over the same thinned acreage so this will not be double counted in the grand total of the acres. Only the bold numbers were summed for total. Estimated 

commercial thinning acreages do not include SMZs, archaeological sites, large tree groups and other aggregations where commercial thinning will not occur within potential treatment areas. 

30 percent of the estimated commercial thinning acreage may require post harvest precommercial thinning and dozer spot pile of slash concentrations.
1

Appendix G Map Displaying Strategic Placement of 

Treatment Areas
2