United States 

Department of 

Agriculture

Forest

Service

Final Environmental 

Impact Statement

Pacific 

Southwest 

Region

Record of Decision

February 2010 Sierra National Forest 

Sugar Pine Adaptive Management 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 –

February 2010.
i

Sierra National Forest

Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project

Record of Decision

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service

Responsible Official: Edward C. Cole, Forest Supervisor

Sierra National Forest

1600 Tollhouse Road

Clovis, CA 93611

For Further Information Contact:

Mark Lemon, District Fuels Officer

Sierra National Forest

Bass Lake Ranger District 

57003 Road 225 

North Fork, CA 93643-9734

(559) 877-2218 extension 3110

Abstract: A Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) that discusses alternatives for the 

Sugar Pine Adaptive Management 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.

The decision (1) allows treatments designed to strategically place area treatments on the 

landscape to reduce the intensity and spread of wildfires across the landscape and near 

communities and (2) allows treatments to reduce stand densities to provide for increased stand 

resiliency, growth and vigor; (3) implements these treatments in such a way as to maintain 

adequate habitat elements for species at-risk; (4) makes one non-significant Land and Resource 

Management Plan amendment.

1

Introduction

This Record of Decision (ROD) documents my decision on the Sugar Pine Adaptive Management 

Project (Sugar Pine 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.

The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) discloses the environmental impacts 

associated with the agency’s original proposed action, a no action alternative, and two additional 

action alternatives developed to meet the purpose and need and respond to issues raised by the 

public. 

My decision makes one non-significant Forest Plan amendment to the Sierra National Forest 

Land and Resource Management Plan (SNF LRMP)/Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment 

Record of Decision 2004 (SNFPA ROD 2004).

Background

As directed by the SNF LRMP, as amended in 2004, projects are to be developed and planned 

utilizing an ecosystem management approach that compares the current condition of key 

ecosystem elements to the desired conditions set by the SNFPA ROD 2004. A landscape 

analysis for the Fresno River watershed was completed in July 2005. The Sugar Pine Adaptive 

Management Project brings forward the opportunities provided in the Fresno River Landscape 

Analysis where management actions could bring key ecosystem elements closer to their desired 

condition.

Location

The project is located on the SNF in Madera and Mariposa Counties, California (See Vicinity 

Map, Figure 1). The project area includes SNF System lands within the Bass Lake Ranger 

District of the SNF. 
2

Figure 1-Vicinity Map

Purpose and Need

The underlying needs for this decision include:

1. The need for fuel reduction (in the surface and ladder fuels) that protects human 

communities from moderate/high intensity wildfires as well as minimizes the spread of 

wildfires that might originate in urban areas into the forested lands. The reasons for this 

need are to increase the efficiency of firefighting efforts and reduce risks to firefighters, 

the public, facilities and structures, and natural resources from moderate/high intensity 

wild fires. 

2. The need for conifer stands to be resilient to attack from insects, diseases, drought

conditions, and/or wildfire. The reason for this need is conifer stands are well above 

normal stocking levels (stand densities) resulting in a decline in growth, health and 

resiliency, thus increasing a stands potential for higher rates of mortality.

In meeting the aforementioned needs the action must also achieve the following purposes:

1. A purpose of this proposal is to reduce the intensity and spread of wildfires across the 

landscape and near communities. The reason for this purpose is to provide a buffer 

between developed areas and wildlands where fire suppression capabilities are enhanced 

by modified fire behavior inside the WUI zones as well as provide a safe and effective 

area for fire suppression activities to occur (USDA-FS 2001, page 9). 
3

2. A purpose of this proposal is to reduce stand density, within the lower and mid-canopy 

layers of conifer stands, to such a level as to provide for increased stand resiliency, 

growth and vigor. The reason for this purpose is to increase the capability for forested 

stands to withstand drought conditions, attacks from insects and diseases, and the effects 

from wildfire. 

Decision 

Based on the analysis and the associated planning record, I have decided to implement 

Alternative 3, which includes the following actions:

 Commercial and biomass thin from below on an estimated 760 acres natural conifer

stands. 

 Commercial and biomass thin an estimated 65 acres of ponderosa pine plantations. 

 Biomass thin an estimated 240 acres [4 to 10 inch diameter at breast height (dbh)] conifer

stands. 

 Pre-commercial hand thin and remove fuel ladders, hand pile and burn approximately 17 

acres. 

 Pre-commercial thin, tractor pile and burn approximately 30 acres of natural conifer

stands.

 Masticate brush fields and masticate pre-commercial thin reproduction areas 

approximately 245 acres.

 Masticate brush fields, fuel ladders, and pre-commercially thin reproduction areas 

approximately 395 acres. 

 Perform fuelbreak maintenance on approximately 40 acres. 

 Pre-commercial thin/release plantations approximately 115 acres.

 Plant and hand release of approximately 40 acres site prepared openings.

 Prescribed understory burn, as a primary fuels treatment, approximately 215 acres. 

 Complete maintenance operations on approximately 28.2 miles of National Forest 

Transportation System (NFTS) roads.

 Complete reconstruction operations on approximately 9.8 miles of NTFS roads.

 Construct approximately 0.5 miles of temporary road.

 Construct approximately 0.2 miles of new NTFS road.

 Prescribed burn and/or manually treat infestations of noxious weeds, where located 

within the project treatment areas, with the goal of eradication and prevention of their 

spread.

In making the decision to implement Alternative 3, I have included as part of the decision the 

following amendment to the SNF LRMP/SNFPA ROD 2004 Standard and Guideline #86. The 

amendment wording is shown in italics. The rest of Standard and Guideline #86 is retained as 

written in the SNFPA ROD 2004. 
4

“Avoid fuel treatments in fisher densite buffers to the extent possible. If areas within densite 

buffers must be treated to achieve fuels objectives of the urban wildland intermix zone, limit 

treatments to mechanical clearing of fuels. Treat ladder and surface fuels to achieve fuels 

objectives. Use piling or mastication to treat surface fuels during initial treatment. Burning of 

piled debris is allowed. Prescribed fire may be used to treat fuels if no other reasonable 

alternative exists.” Vegetation treatments designed to meet Forest Health objectives and defined 

in Chapter 2, (Alternatives Considered in Detail of the Sugar Pine Project FEIS, may occur in 

designated Pacific fisher densite buffer(s) within the Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project 

boundary during the implementation phase of this project (see FEIS Map 1 for project 

boundary). 

This Forest Plan Amendment would allow both fuels treatments and vegetation treatments 

designed to meet Forest Health objectives, to be implemented in designated Pacific fisher densite 

buffers within the Sugar Pine Project boundary. Treatments designated within the 2008 795-acre 

Pacific fisher densite of the Sierra Nevada Adaptive Management Project (SNAMP) F011female 

fisher are limited to mechanical treatment of ladder and surface fuels that achieve fuels objectives 

of the “urban intermix zone”. Use of piling and mastication to treat surface fuels during initial 

treatment is allowed. Burning of piled debris is allowed. Prescribed fire may be used to treat 

fuels if no other reasonable alternative exists. This particular fisher densite buffer is chosen 

because it is the only one entirely within the Sugar Pine Project boundary.

Project Research

As part of the SNFPA ROD 2004, an adaptive management and monitoring strategy designed to 

address high priority, key questions that relate to the uncertainties associated with management 

activities was to be initiated. In 2006, Region 5 (Pacific Southwest Region) of the Forest Service, 

as well as other Federal and State Agencies, entered into an agreement with the University of 

California whereby the university would act as a neutral third party to study the effects of 

management actions associated with implementation of the SNFPA ROD management direction. 

This study, known as SNAMP is designed around cause (management actions directed through 

Standards and Guidelines from the SNFPA ROD 2004) and effects monitoring is conducted to 

gain a better understanding of how components, structures and processes in four key areas

(wildlife [Pacific fisher]; fire and forest health; water quality/quantity; and public participation)

respond to management activities, and how ecosystem components interrelate. The information 

collected from this study will be assembled, reviewed, and integrated into a feedback loop that 

can inform subsequent management decisions. The Sugar Pine Project is one of two projects 

within the region where this research is being conducted.

Adjustments to Alternatives in Response to Comments

I have read all of the public comments received in response to the Draft EIS and I have made 

some adjustments to Alternative 3. These changes respected the original theme and intent of the 

alternative, and address issues that arose through the public comments. 

The Biological Assessment/Biological Evaluation has been revised and updated to include the 

“best science available” (scientific reports and SNAMP pre-treatment data) regarding the 

movement patterns, location of Pacific fisher densites and what is known to be the habitat 

conditions preferred by species considered at risk within the Sugar Pine Project area.

 

1

SNAMP scientists have trapped and radio collared several Pacific fishers within the Sugar Pine 

area to track their movement and use of the area. Each individual fisher has been given a 

number. “F” designates a Female fisher. “01” is this individual fisher’s number.
5

Design Criteria Common to All Action Alternatives (FEIS, pages 16-26) has been revised to 

clearly reflect their intent and desired results. Based on comments, additional design criteria have 

been included: 1) to expand a Limited Operating Period to all suitable Pacific fisher denning 

habitat within the Sugar Pine Project boundary; 2) to provide adequate snag and down woody 

material retention; and 3) to provide shrub cover and understory diversity. 

The Air Quality Analysis was updated and revised to reflect the recent attainment status changes

for the San Joaquin Air Basin. The analysis includes the General Conformity Determination for 

project activities, by alternative, as they relate to the State Implementation Plans for Ozone and 

Particulate Matter.

Finally, in response to public comment, the Economic Analysis was updated and expanded.

Design Criteria Included in the Decision

Based on their site specific review of the project area, resource specialists identified design 

criteria to reduce potential impacts caused by the various alternatives. The FEIS, Chapter 2 

describes and defines the actions. My decision includes implementation of the Design Criteria 

shown in the ROD, Appendix A. These design criteria minimize, reduce or eliminate impacts on 

sensitive resources. 

Monitoring Included in the Decision

Monitoring is critical for evaluating the effectiveness of management decisions and the accuracy

of analysis assumptions and conclusions. Monitoring is required and must meet regional and/or 

National standards. If monitoring determines additional resource damage is occurring, steps to 

prevent further damage must be taken. Addressing resource damage discovered during 

monitoring may require additional National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis. 

Monitoring requires establishment of a condition baseline prior to project implementation then

data is gathered for future management decisions. Once implementation begins, more effective 

monitoring elements may be identified and implemented. 

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

In making the decision to implement Alternative 3, I have considered its compliance with all 

applicable laws, regulations and policies relevant to this decision. This includes, but is not 

limited to, NEPA; National Forest Management Act; Endangered Species Act; Clean Water Act; 

Clean Air Act; National Historic Preservation Act; applicable Executive Orders; Forest Service 

Manuals and Handbooks; and the SNF LRMP as amended by the SNFPA ROD 2004. In 

reviewing the documentation provided in Chapter 3-Legal and Regulatory Compliance section in 

the FEIS, the FEIS itself and the supporting resource specialist reports and Biological 
6

Assessments/Biological Evaluations, this decision is in compliance with these and all applicable 

laws, regulations and policies.

Alternative 3 best meets the purpose and need of this project while providing the opportunity for 

the Sierra Nevada Adaptive Management Project (SNAMP) to provide information on the Pacific 

fisher’s response to vegetation management treatments. These treatments were developed with 

an ecosystem restoration approach that relies primarily on creating and maintaining the desired 

conditions for Pacific fisher and designed to meet forest health objectives as well as fire/fuels 

objectives. Alternative 3, by excluding the designated 2008 SNAMP female fisher F01densite 

from the non-significant Forest Plan Amendment, provides the additional opportunity for 

SNAMP to provide information on the Pacific fisher’s response to having no vegetation 

management treatments designed to meet forest health objectives implemented. 

Design Criteria are an integral part of Alternative 3. They direct the design of treatment areas, 

treatment types and implementation. As listed in the FEIS on pages 16-26, these are directly 

from Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines (S&G); Forest Service Manual/Handbook directions, 

such as Best Management Practices (BMP); based on past implementation experience; legal 

requirements; and based on the “best science available”. I have reviewed the conclusions and 

biological determinations made relative to Alternative 3 and with the inclusion of these Design 

Criteria, environmental impacts would be minimized and/or eliminated for all resources areas.

Important habitat elements are part of these Design Criteria. The Biological 

Assessment/Biological Evaluation for Terrestrial Wildlife, in analyzing the effects of Alternative 

3, found that Alternative 3 will retain a high degree of overstory forest canopy cover (>50% with

a preference for 60%, where conditions allow); all trees >30 inches dbh and all snags (except 

where they pose an immediate safety hazard) will be retained during mechanized treatments. 

Trees >21 inches dbh will be retained, in adequate quantity, to help assure availability of resting 

and denning structures now and into the future. Black oaks will be retained, as well as large tree 

groups. The project will not impede movement or dispersal to other currently connected suitable 

habitat because habitat connectivity will be maintained within and adjoining the project area. No 

treatments will occur throughout suitable fisher habitat during their breeding season. 

The Sugar Pine Project FEIS documents the analysis and conclusions upon which this decision is 

based. 

Alternatives Considered in Detail but Not Selected

In addition to the selected alternative, I considered four other alternatives in detail, which are 

summarized below. A more detailed comparison of these alternatives can be found in Chapter 2 

of the FEIS pages 27-31.

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

management plans would continue to guide activities in the project area. 

Alternative 1 would take no action at this time to address the purpose and need of this project. 

With the potential effects that would be caused if a stand replacing wildfire in a Wildland Urban 

Intermix area was to occur and/or the loss of stands from epidemic levels of insects and disease, 

drought conditions and uncharacteristic increases in fire behavior, Alternative 1 is not a viable 

option.

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action): Under Alternative 2, treatment areas would be treated 

to meet both fire/fuels (treatments to reduce surface and ladder fuels) and the forest health 

objectives (basal area treatments to reduce stand density) to such a level as to improve growth and 
7

vigor of remaining trees. Treatments included in this alternative are: thinning from below, either 

pre-commercially, commercially, biomassing and/or mastication the lower and mid- level canopy 

of conifer stands to reduce stand densities and ladder fuels; mastication of ladder fuels and 

brush/shrub patches; prescribed burning, both understory and pile burning as a primary, postthinning and/or maintenance treatment to reduce ladder and surface fuels; manually treat and/or 

prescribed burn noxious weed infestations to reduce and/or eliminate known infestations; and site 

preparation and planting of failed conifer plantations. A non-significant Forest Plan amendment 

to Standard and Guideline #86 would allow fire/fuels (reduction of ladder and surface fuels) and 

vegetation treatments (stand density treatments to meet forest health objectives) within designated 

Pacific fisher densite buffers. 

Alternative 2 would provide the same opportunity as Alternative 3, but Alternative 2 does not 

provide the additional opportunity for SNAMP to gather and obtain information on the Pacific 

fisher’s response to the protection measures set forth in the SNFPA ROD 2004 Standard and 

Guideline #86. 

Alternative 4: Under Alternative 4, mechanical treatment types would be similar to 

Alternative 2, but intensity would be limited to that needed to meet fire/fuels objectives 

(reduction of surface and ladder fuels) in the lower-level and limited mid-level canopy in 

designated Pacific fisher densite buffers as well as areas outside of the densite buffers. This 

alternative would implement all Standards and Guidelines, as written, from the SNFPA ROD 

(USDA-FS 2004) and would not include the non-significant forest plan amendment.

Alternative 4, while meeting the purpose and need for fire/fuels it does little to meet the purpose 

and need for forest health. 

EnvironmentallyPreferable 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 3 to be the environmentally preferable alternative. I believe the management 

actions under Alternative 3 protect and preserve important historic, cultural, and natural resources 

and maintain the quality of habitat needed to protect sensitive species. In addition, this 

alternative provides the means by which to gather and obtain information on sensitive species 

response to management actions directed by the SNFPA ROD 2004. Alternative 3 provides three 

distinctively different intensities of treatment within it that include areas where no treatment 

occurs, only fire/fuels treatments occur and fire/fuels/forest health treatments occur. 

Public Involvement

An important goal of this effort for me was to engage the public in a process. A notice of intent 

to prepare an EIS was published in the Federal Register on October 12, 2007 (74 FR 34753). In 

addition, the proposed action was listed in the SNF Schedule of Proposed Actions and updated 

periodically during the environmental analysis. People were invited to review and comment on 

the proposal through scoping letters sent to residences with properties within 1.5 mile radius of 

the project boundary, members and groups of the Native American communities, public meetings 

and field trips (specifically for the Sugar Pine Project and those associated with the SNAMP).

The FEIS lists agencies, organizations, and people who received copies on page 196.
8

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

scope of the analysis. Centered as the issue from scoping comments was the proper balance 

between where forest functionality and susceptibility can be improved and human habitations 

susceptibility to wildland fire can be reduced while retaining important species habitat elements. 

A full description of issues significant to the proposed action appears in the FEIS on page 7. 

A DEIS was published for review and comment on July 17, 2009. 

Significant Issues

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

proposed action. An issue is defined as a matter of public concern regarding the proposed action 

and its environmental impacts. The Forest Service separated the issues into two groups:

significant and non-significant. Significant issues were defined as those directly or indirectly 

caused by implementing the proposed action. Non-significant issues were identified as those (1) 

outside the scope of the proposed action; (2) already decided by law, regulation, LRMP or other 

higher level decision; (3) irrelevant to the decision to be made; or (4) conjectural and not 

supported by scientific or factual evidence. The Council on Environmental Quality NEPA 

regulations explains 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)...” A list of non-significant issues and reasons why they were found non-significant 

may be found at the SNF Bass Lake Ranger District Office, North Fork, CA in the project record.

In deciding to implement Alternative 3, I have considered significant issues that were brought 

forward during public scoping. These centered on the proper balance between improved forest 

functionality and sustainability and human habitation (Wildland Urban Intermix) vulnerability to 

wildfire while retaining important species habitat elements. Specifically, retention of important 

habitat elements for Pacific fisher, California spotted owl, Northern goshawk and Management 

Indicator Species as measured by:

High canopy cover (average in a stand should not drop below 50% and significant 

portions of the treated stands should be at 60% or greater canopy cover),

Retention of larger [>20 inch diameter] trees,

Relatively high basal areas,

Understory structure (provide for understory diversity),

Adequate large snags and downed wood, and

Available movement corridors linking to suitable habitat outside of project area (habitat 

connectivity).

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 includes one amendment to the management direction contained in the LRMP. 

More information about these amendments and the evaluation of significance under the NFMA is 

provided below.
9

LRMP Amendments

The Forest Plan Amendment standard and guideline #86 to read as follows. The Amendment is 

shown in italics. The rest of standard and guideline #86 in quotes is retained as written in the 

SNFPA ROD 2004: 

“Avoid fuel treatments in fisher densite buffers to the extent possible. If areas within densite 

buffers must be treated to achieve fuels objectives of the urban wildland intermix zone, limit 

treatments to mechanical clearing of fuels. Treat ladder and surface fuels to achieve fuels 

objectives. Use piling or mastication to treat surface fuels during initial treatment. Burning of 

piled debris is allowed. Prescribed fire may be used to treat fuels if no other reasonable 

alternative exists.” Vegetation treatments as designed to meet Forest Health objectives and

defined in Chapter 2, Alternatives Considered in Detail of the Sugar Pine Adaptive Management 

Project Environmental Impact Statement, may occur in Pacific fisher densite buffer(s) within the 

Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project boundary (the specific Sugar Pine Project Boundary is 

shown on Map 1 in the Appendix A-Map Package) during the implementation phase of this 

project.

Significance of Forest Plan Amendment

Adoption of either of two of the action alternatives, (Alternative 2 or 3), would result in the above 

amendment of the SNF LRMP/SNFPA ROD. If an amendment to a Forest Plan results in a

“significant change in the plan,” the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) and its 1982 

implementing regulations, under which this EIS is prepared, require that the amendment process 

follow the procedures used in the initial development of the plan. If the proposed change in the 

plan is not significant, public notification and completion of the NEPA procedures are still 

required (16USC 1604(f)(4) and 36 CFR 219.10(f). Determining whether a plan amendment is a 

significant change uses different criteria than those used in evaluating significance in the NEPA 

process. For the NFMA requirement, the Forest Service Manual (FSM 1922.51 and 52) provides 

specific direction.

Forest Service Manual 1933.51 – Changes to the Forest Plan that are Not Significant. 

Changes to the forest plan that are not significant can result from:

1. Actions that do not significantly alter the multiple-use goals and objectives for the 

long-term land and resource management.

The actions proposed in these alternatives would not alter the objectives and the multiple-use 

goals of the SNF LRMP as amended by the SNFPA ROD 2004. The purpose of the action 

alternatives is to facilitate achieving these goals and objectives of these. The action 

alternatives will continue to provide species protection in compliance with all applicable laws 

and regulations, while making more Agency resources available for other forest management 

priorities. The underlying need to which the action alternatives are responding is the need to 

achieve the objectives originally established for the SNFPA ROD 2004. Without the SNF 

LRMP/SNFPA ROD 2004 amendment the forest health objectives are frustrated as fisher 

densite buffers would encompass the vast majority of the 5,416 acres in the project boundary.

2. Adjustment of management area boundaries or management prescriptions 

resulting from further on-site analysis when the adjustments do not cause 
10

significant changes in the multiple-use goals and objectives for long-term land 

and resource management.

The action alternatives would change Pacific fisher densite protection management. The 

action alternatives would not reduce species protection below legally required levels or 

increase timber harvest beyond levels identified in the SNFPA FSEIS or SNF LRMP. The 

action alternatives improve the Sierra National Forest’s ability to conduct forest management 

activities at a level described in the SNF LRMP/SNFPA ROD 2004. Selection of one of the 

action alternatives would enable the SNF to better meet the long-term goals and objectives 

currently identified in the SNF LRMP/SNFPA ROD 2004.

3. Minor changes in standards and guidelines.

The action alternatives would modify a mitigation measure added during preparation of the 

SNFPA FSEIS. The action alternatives would not significantly change any key elements of 

the underlying strategy or standards and guidelines. Removing or modifying SNFPA ROD

2004 Standard and Guideline #86 would be a relatively minor change because: (1) the Sugar 

Pine Project forest health treatments have been developed with an ecosystem based approach 

that relies primarily on creating and maintaining the desired conditions for areas surrounding 

fisher den sites; (2) the amendment of Standard and Guideline #86 is limited in scope (5,416 

acres out of the more than 1.3 million acres in the SNF (0.4 percent of the total forest) and in 

time frame (amendment is only applicable during the implementation phase of the Sugar Pine 

Project); (3)information will be generated on fisher’s response to the vegetation treatments 

for forest health as this area is part of the SNAMP study that can help inform future 

decisions; and (4) the vegetation treatments for forest health will help sustain the habitat 

conditions needed by the fisher in the long-term. The effects discussion in Chapter 3-

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (Terrestrial Wildlife) helps to 

quantify the change within the context of the proposed project.

4. Opportunities for additional management practices that will contribute to 

achievement of the management prescription.

The action alternatives are specifically designed to better and more efficiently meet the 

underlying needs identified in the SNFPA FSEIS.

Forest Service Manual 1922.52 – Changes to the Forest Plan that are Significant. The 

following examples are indicative of circumstances that may cause a significant change in a 

forest plan.

1. Changes that would significantly alter the long-term relationship between level of 

multiple-use goals and services originally projected (36 CFR 219.10(e)).

The changes proposed by the action alternatives would help achieve, not alter, the 

relationship between levels of multiple-use goods and services originally projected. The 

Pacific fisher will continue to receive protection as required to meet all applicable laws and 

regulations.
11

2. Changes that may have an important effect on the entire forest plan or affect land 

and resources throughout a large portion of the planning area during the 

planning period.

The changes proposed would modify an SNFPA ROD 2004 mitigation measure. The action 

alternatives do not change land allocation or other elements of the SNF LRMP or SNFPA

ROD 2004. There will be a reduction in the area managed known fisher den site buffers; 

however, no other SNF LRMP or SNFPA ROD 2004 resource objective is dependent on 

these sites. There is predicted to be an increase in vegetation treatments for forest health 

from current levels; the current levels are well below the predictions displayed in the SNFPA 

FSEIS. The purpose of the proposal is to achieve levels of vegetation treatments for forest 

health that were expected when the SNFPA ROD was signed in 2004. Thus, the action 

alternatives will help achieve (and not change) the multiple use goals and objectives set forth 

in the SNFPA ROD 2004.

In conclusion, it is my finding that the Forest Plan Amendment is non-significant.

Findings Required by Other Laws and Regulations

This decision is consistent with the SNF LRMP as amended by the SNFPA ROD 2004. The 

project was designed in conformance with the intent of moving towards the management goals 

and objectives set forth in these documents to ensure that fuels treatments will effectively modify 

wildfire behavior while including other management objectives such as reducing stand density for

forest health and restoring and maintaining ecosystem structure and composition.

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

A. 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 Final Sugar Pine Adaptive Management Project EIS. All 

substantive comments, written and oral, made on the DEIS have been summarized and 

responded to in Appendix D 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).

B. National Forest Management Act (NFMA)

My decision conforms to the 1982 planning regulations (36 CFR 219) that implement the 

National Forest Management Act. By implementing this decision under the Standards 

and Guidelines set forth in the SNF LRMP as amended by the SNFPA ROD 2004, as 

well as the inclusion in this decision of the design criteria to minimize and/eliminate 

potential significant environmental effects, I have determined this decision is in 

compliance with NFMA. I have determined that this decision includes a non-significant 

Forest Plan amendment. Based on direction provided in Forest Service Manual 1933.51 

and 1933.52 to meet requirements under this act and used to determine the amendments 
12

significance, as well as the public notification and completion of the NEPA procedures 

still required (16USC 1604(f)(4) and 36 CFR 219.10(f) it is my finding this is a nonsignificant Forest Plan Amendment and complies with NFMA. 

C. Endangered Species Act

It is my finding that this decision is in compliance with this Act by the inclusion of 

design criteria and implementation of Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines as well as 

the completion of Biological Assessments and Evaluations for Botanical (J. Clines 

2008), Aquatic Wildlife (P. Strand 2008), and Terrestrial Wildlife (A. Otto/G. Schroer/K. 

Williams 2010) species. 

D. Clean Water Act

It is my finding that this decision is in compliance with this Act by the inclusion of 

design criteria, implementation Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines and 

implementation of Best Management Practices.

E. Clean Air Act

It is my finding that this decision is in compliance with this Act and is determined to be 

in conformance with applicable State Implementation Plan for criteria pollutants.

F. National Historic Preservation Act

It is my finding that this decision is in compliance with this Act through the 

incorporation of design criteria.

It is my finding that this decision is in compliance with all Executive Orders that provide 

direction to Federal agencies and apply to this decision.

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: Sugar Pine Adaptive Management 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 
13

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 Mark Lemon (mlemon@fs.fed.us), Interdisciplinary Team 

Leader at (559) 877-2218 extension 3110.

_/s/ Edward C. Cole_____________________ _February 22, 2010_________

EDWARD C. COLE Date

Forest Supervisor, Sierra National Forest

1

Appendix A- Design Criteria

Cultural Resources

Procedures and standard protection measures from the Programmatic Agreement Among the 

U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, California State Historic Preservation 

Officer, and Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Regarding the Identification, Evaluation 

and Treatment of Historic Properties Managed by the National Forests of the Sierra Nevada, 

California (the Sierran PA) will be utilized for the protection of Heritage Resources within the 

project area. The primary protection measure will be avoidance, but additional measures, such as 

directional felling and monitoring can be used to minimize potential effects.

Botany: Rare and Noxious Weeds

Project design criteria for protection of Forest Service sensitive plants (Project specific 

implementation of SNF LRMP (USDA-FS 1992) and SNFPA ROD (USDA-FS 2004b) S&G’s 

and Endangered Species Act requirements):

All known lady’s slipper orchid populations will be flagged for avoidance unless they

occur in streamside management zones where no management activities will occur. 

Populations of short-leafed hulsea that occur along Forest Roads 5S22Y and 5S06 

will be flagged for avoidance prior to project implementation. 

Project design criteria for prevention of spread of noxious weeds (SNFPA ROD (USDA-FS 

2004b) S&G, pages 54-55): 

All heavy equipment used for implementing the project will be washed before 

arriving on site to remove soil and seeds of noxious weeds so that they are not 

transported into the project area.

Infestations of foxglove, klamathweed, oxeye daisy, broom, and bull thistle will be 

removed prior to project implementation, and a buffer zone will be flagged for 

avoidance to prevent heavy equipment from transporting seeds in the soil to other 

areas within the project boundary and beyond. 

Any plantings or straw used for erosion control will be approved by the Forest 

Botanist to minimize the likelihood of accidental introduction of noxious weeds and 

to ensure compliance with the FS Pacific Southwest Region Native Plant Policy.

Geology/Soils

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).

A. 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)
2

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

treatment area. (BMP; FS Handbook)

C. Limit mechanical operations, where sustained slopes exceed 35%, except where supported by 

on-the-ground interdisciplinary team evaluation (FS Handbook; SNF LRMP S&G).

D. 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).

E. 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).

F. Provide for road surface stabilization (gravel) on roads over 5% grade that are located on 

sensitive soils, including Holland and Musick soils (SNF LRMP S&G #129) and are affecting 

soil productivity and/or water quality.

Lands/Special Uses

There are numerous land type special uses authorized under permit in the project area including 

water systems (spring developments, water lines and storage tanks), buried fiber optic and 

telephone lines, a telephone carrier site near Sugar Pine, the Madera Irrigation District gauging 

station, overhead and buried electrical lines, roads, and apiary sites. These Special Use areas are 

shown in Map 6 in Map Package. Based on past experience and to minimize potential negative 

effects to permitted special uses and associated infrastructure associated with them.

To provide a measure of protection, permit holders will be responsible for identifying 

the location(s) of their authorized improvements and/or right-of-ways so they are 

clearly visible during project implementation. Holders shall identify their 

improvements by using a combination of flagging and surveyors stakes; holders shall 

print their name and contact phone numbers on the flagging/stakes with indelible ink 

that is capable of lasting several years. 

Roads authorized under permit that are damaged by project activities will be repaired 

by the operator(s) to pre-project condition.

The Madera Irrigation District Ditch is located in Treatment Areas T15 and M5 

where mastication would occur. The Ditch has been in use for over 150 years, and a 

riparian vegetation type has developed along the banks of the ditch. There should be 

a minimum setback of 25 feet on either side of the ditch where the use of mechanical 

equipment should be restricted, or project activities are limited to the hand removal 

of brush. All slash that enters the ditch resulting from project activities will be 

removed by the end of the days operating period by the operator to prevent blockage 

of the ditch. 

Recreation special uses authorized under permit in the project area include the Yosemite 

Mountain Sugar Pine Railroad (YMSRR) and Yosemite Trails Pack Station (YTPS). The 

YMSRR improvements located within their permit area include the railroad right-of-way, office, 

parking areas, amphitheater, bathroom, seating areas, etc. These are easily identifiable and should 

be avoided during project activities. The YMSRR operates the railroad 6 months a year between 

March and October; however, their peak visitor season is between June and mid-August. Project 

activities would occur adjacent to and within the permit area. 
3

During project implementation various contractors and/or operators may need to

cross the railroad tracks to gain access to treatment units. The Bass Lake Ranger 

District will identify the locations where rail crossings need to occur; and will work 

with the owner of YMSRR to design and construct the crossings to ensure heavy 

equipment does not damage the rail system during project implementation.

The district will work with the owner of YMSRR to minimize interruptions to 

YMSRR operations during Project implementation. 

Contractors and/or operators will provide advance notification to the YMSRR when 

Project activities occur adjacent to the right-of-way and/or permit area, and advise the 

YMSRR when Project activities may result in a delay of YMSRR operations.

Contractors and/or operators will remove all activity slash generated from project 

activities that land on the railroad tracks and/or within the railroad right-of-way. The 

contractor and/or operator will provide a spotter, whose responsibility is to remove 

slash from the tracks and right-of-way concurrent with the operation, or as soon as 

project activities cease, and the right-of-way is safe to enter.

The YTPS offers horseback rides three seasons of the year from their pack station headquarters 

adjacent to Big Sandy road, and offers horse driven sleigh rides from a secondary location south 

of Tenaya Lodge during winter months when snow conditions are favorable. The YTPS is 

authorized to use and maintain many of the horseback riding trails they take their clients on. 

Trails used by YTPS and the Lewis Creek Recreation Trail may need to be crossed with 

equipment by operators to gain access to units. These trails are identified in the project folder and 

on the map entitled “Special Uses” within the Sugar Pine Project.

All project-related equipment will cross at locations perpendicular to identified 

recreation trails. 

All slash will be pulled out of and away from trails. Activity fuels and slash will not 

be piled or treated within 5 feet of those trails. 

Wildlife – Terrestrial

Limited Operating Periods (LOPs) (SNFPA ROD, pgs. 37-39)

Should surveys locate activity centers or active nests for California spotted owls or Northern 

goshawks, LOPs will be applied within a 1⁄4 mile radius of the activity center or nest. All areas 

within the project area have been surveyed to Regional Protocol for California Spotted owl and 

Northern Goshawk. Should a great gray owl nest be located, nesting location will be protected by 

an LOP. The district biologist will be notified when a nest or den of any Threatened (T) 

Endangered (E), Candidate (C), Proposed (P), or Forest Service sensitive species is discovered 

within or adjacent to a treatment area and an LOP would be established for that nest area. 

2. Snags and Down Woody Material (SNFPA ROD, Pg. 51-52): 

Down Woody Material (S&G #10): “Determine down woody material retention levels 

on an individual project basis, based on desired conditions. Emphasize retention of wood 

in the largest size classes and in decay classes 1, 2, and 3. Consider the effects of followup prescribed fire in achieving desired down woody material retention levels.” This will 

be met by maintaining at least five well-distributed logs per acre as large woody debris 

(LWD) representing the range of decomposition classes from the Geology/Soils design 

criteria throughout the implementation of this project.
4

Snag Retention (S&G #11): “Design projects to implement and sustain a generally 

continuous supply of snags and live decadent trees suitable for cavity nesting wildlife across 

a landscape. Retain some mid- and large-diameter live trees that are currently in decline, have 

substantial wood defect, or that have desirable characteristics (teakettle branches, large 

diameter broken top, large cavities in the bole) to serve as future replacement snags and to 

provide nesting structure. When determining snag retention levels and locations, consider 

land allocation, desired condition, landscape position, potential prescribed burning and fire 

suppression line locations, and site conditions (such as riparian areas and ridge tops) avoiding 

uniformity across large areas.

The general guidelines for large-snag retention are as follows:

 Westside mixed conifer and ponderosa pine types – four of the largest snags 

per acre.

 Use snags larger than 15 inches dbh to meet this guideline. Snags should be 

clumped and distributed irregularly across the treatment areas. Consider 

leaving fewer snags strategically located in treatment areas within the WUI. 

When some snags are expected to be lost due to hazard removal or the effects 

of prescribed fire, consider these potential losses during project planning to 

achieve desired snag retention levels.”

Snag Felling: Snags can be felled only if they meet the definition of a danger tree (as 

described in the Engineering Design Criteria), have the potential to fall across prescribed fire 

control lines, and/or pose a threat to firefighter safety during prescribed fire implementation. 

Snags that meet this definition and are felled during project implementation will be retained 

on site for down woody debris. All snags not meeting these criteria will remain as standing 

snags within the project area.

Protected Activity Centers (PACs) and Home Range Core Area (HRCA) treatments

(SNFPA ROD, page 40): Where treatments will occur within PACs aim to maintain >70% 

canopy closure where available. Where treatments will occur within HRCAs aim to maintain 

>60% canopy closure where available.

Pacific Fisher Specific Design Criteria (SNFPA ROD, pgs 39 & 61-62):

Den Site Designation, Standards and Guidelines

“Fisher densites are 700-acre buffers consisting of the highest quality habitat (CWHR size 

class 4 or greater and canopy cover greater than 60 percent) in a compact arrangement 

surrounding verified fisher birthing and kit rearing dens in the largest, most contiguous 

blocks available.” 

“Protect fisher den site buffers from disturbance with a limited operating period (LOP) from 

March 1 through June 30 for vegetation treatments as long as habitat remains suitable or until 

another Regionally-approved management strategy is implemented. The LOP may be waived 

for individual projects of limited scope and duration, when a biological evaluation documents 

that such projects are unlikely to result in breeding disturbance considering their intensity, 

duration, timing, and specific location.” (S&G #85)

“Avoid fuel treatments in fisher den site buffers to the extent possible. If areas within den 

site buffers must be treated to achieve fuels objectives for the urban wildland intermix zone, 

limit treatments to mechanical clearing of fuels. Treat ladder and surface fuels to achieve 

fuels objectives. Use piling or mastication to treat surface fuels during initial treatment. 
5

Burning of piled debris is allowed. Prescribed fire may be used to treat fuels if no other 

reasonable alternative exists.” (S&G #86)

Additional Design Criteria for Pacific Fisher

“Prior to vegetation treatments, design measures to protect important habitat structures as 

identified by the wildlife biologist, such as large diameter snags and oaks, patches of dense 

large trees typically 1⁄4 to 2 acres, large trees with cavities for nesting, clumps of small 

understory trees, and coarse woody material. For example, use firing patterns, place fire lines 

around snags and large logs, and implement other prescribed burning techniques to minimize 

effects to these attributes. Use mechanical treatments when appropriate to minimize effects 

on preferred fisher habitat elements.” (S&G #90)

“Assess the potential impact of projects on the connectivity of habitat for old forest 

associated species” (S&G #28) 

“Consider retaining forested linkages (with canopy cover greater than 40 percent) that are 

interconnected via riparian areas and ridgetop saddles during project-level analysis” (S&G 

#29)

The following Design Criteria have been developed to protect, maintain, and/or enhance 

important Pacific fisher habitat elements for all action alternatives and are based on 

information from Spencer 2008: 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; North et. al. 2009: An Ecosystem 

Management Strategy for Sierran Mixed-Conifer Forests and Sierra Nevada Adaptive 

Management Study Integration Team discussions/fieldtrips.

 Maintain highest canopy cover possible to meet the prescription within stands, aim for 

50-60% immediately post-harvest.

Thinning will not remove any trees larger than 30-inch dbh (SNFPA ROD, pg. 50). 

Protect all suitable fisher denning habitat with a Limited Operating Period (LOP) from March 

1 through June 30. Map 7 in the Map Package shows specific treatment areas with 

suitable fisher denning habitat and where the LOP will be implemented.

Retain groups of larger trees (greater than 20-inch dbh) 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 den and rest sites. These groups are being retained to maintain habitat 

heterogeneity throughout the treatment areas. 

Snag and Down Woody Material retention will meet the criteria listed in Criteria #2 (page 19-

20).

Standard 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 Old Forest Linkages (OFL). They incorporate 
6

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 the table and figure below.

For perennial streams (Class I) within the project area:

Distance from 

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”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 

≤12” dbh may be removed for fire 

and fuels reduction purposes by 

equipment. Canopy cover is to 

remain ≥60%.

OFL

150-300 feet

Mechanical entry is allowed. 

Thinning from below will occur. 

Canopy cover is to remain ≥60%.

OFL

*Distance from Stream for Activities is measured and applied to each side of the stream from bank-full left 

and bank-full right.
7

Figure 1. Associated Zones and Treatments within Old Forest Linkages 

Oaks: Recent studies (see reference listed in Additional Design Criteria for Pacific Fisher 

beginning paragraphs on page 21) have shown that oaks are an important habitat element 

for denning and resting sites. Project surveys revealed that oaks in the project area 

tended to show evidence of cavity development once they had reach 20 inches in 

diameter or greater. Although no oaks are proposed for removal within this project, to 

maintain hiding cover for fisher and their prey, a buffer of 35 feet from the bole or to 

dripline whichever is greater around 2-3 black oaks >20-inch dbh per acre will have no 

vegetation treatment occurring.

Shrub Cover and Understory Diversity: Shrub and understory will be retained throughout 

the project area on a total of 3,458 acres of the 5,416 total project boundary acres. This 

understory diversity will be maintained in Old Forest Linkages associated with riparian 

areas (cooler, moister sites); oak buffer areas; as well as areas where no treatment will be 

conducted such as cultural resource sites, botanical areas, and steep and rocky areas. 

Species associated with riparian areas, such as dogwoods, alders, and willows will not be 

removed. 

Remove unneeded roads in high quality fisher habitat.

The district wildlife biologist will be notified immediately if any den site(s) are located 

within or adjacent to a treatment area and protection measures will be implemented. 

Wildlife – Aquatics

Follow all applicable aquatic wildlife species and riparian habitat standards and guidelines from 

the 2004 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment, Final Supplemental Impact Statement and 

Record of Decision (USDA-FS 2004b), the existing Sierra National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan direction (USDA-FS 1992), Forest Service handbook (FSH) 2509.22 Sierra 

Supplement #1 for treatments within Streamside Management Zones (SMZ, USDA 1989), Best 

Management Practices and other applicable laws and regulations (USDA-FS 2000a). Generalized 

SMZ designation is outline in Table 1.
8

The Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (USDA-FS 2001b, amended 2004b) provides an 

Aquatic Management Strategy (AMS). The fundamental principle of the AMS is to retain, 

restore, and protect the processes and landforms that provide habitat for aquatic and ripariandependent organisms, and produce and deliver high-quality waters. The AMS includes 

designation of Riparian Conservation Areas (RCAs). RCAs are designated along streams and 

around water bodies and are areas for specific management direction and analysis, as described 

below (USDA-FS 2004b). RCA consistency with the AMS was evaluated under the project 

Riparian Conservation Objective Consistency Analysis (Strand, Stone, Gallegos, Clines, 2009).

Table 1. Summary of Relationship between Feature Types, RCA Widths, Stream 

Classes, SMZ Widths, RMA Widths, and Stream Orders (and other GIS data)

Feature Type RCA 

Width

Stream 

Class

SMZ Width RMA 

Width

Corresponding 

GIS Layer 

Stream Order

Perennial Streams 300 

feet

I At least 100 ft 100 feet 4+

Seasonally Flowing 

Streams 

150 

feet

II At least 75 ft N/A 3

III At least 50 ft 2

IV At least 25 ft 1

V None required -

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 Either identified on 

GIS layers 

(meadows, springs, 

lakes), or identified 

in the field

1. Class I SMZs are within or adjacent to treatment areas: T4, T5, T7, T8, T9, T10, T11, 

T13, T14, T15, T23, T24, T26, T32, T33, M2, M5, M6, M7, M8, M10, M9, M11, M12, 

M13, M16, M24, M25, Rx 1, Rx 3, and Rx 5. Old Forest Linkage Prescriptions apply to 

these SMZs. No treatments within inner 50 feet from stream bank.

2. Protect any Special Aquatic Features (seeps, springs, bogs, fens, and/or wet areas) that 

may be found during project implementation that are not already identified on project 

analysis maps. Treat these areas as perennial (Class I) areas with 300 foot Riparian 

Conservation Areas (RCAs). This includes treatment areas: T3, T4, T7, T26, T30, T32, 

T33, T34, M11, and M16.

3. Within 50-100 feet distance from either side of Class I perennial stream (SMZs), reduce 

fuel loading by:

4. Removing vegetation < 12 inches in diameter;

5. Hand-piling slash as necessary to reduce the effects of under-burning;
9

6. Apply SMZs as mapped in Project Hydrology report (Stone, K. 2009).

7. General aquatic species and riparian habitat protection measures are:

8. Do not allow mechanical equipment within 100 feet of meadows or other special aquatic

features. Includes treatment areas: T3, T4, T7, T26, T30, T32, T33, T34, M11, and M16.

9. Do not allow mechanical equipment within SMZ.

10. To protect bank stability, do not cut streambank trees (trees with drip line extending to or 

over edge of streambank). 

11. Do not cut any tree located within a channel.

12. For water drafting, use a screened intake device and pumps with low entry velocity to 

minimize removal of aquatic species, including juvenile fish, amphibian egg masses and 

tadpoles, from aquatic habitats. A Hydrologist and Aquatic Biologist would approve 

water-drafting sites. See Best Management Practices (BMP) 2-21 in Appendix B for 

specific requirements.

13. Monitor potential project effects to streams and aquatic habitat using the Region 5 (R5) 

Stream-Condition Inventory protocols (Frazier et al. 2005).

14. When lighting piles, start burn from one end only to allow escape route for any species 

inhabiting piles.

15. No lighting into SMZs, but fire can creep into zone.

16. Report any discovery of amphibians or reptiles (e.g. frogs, toads, salamanders, and 

turtles) during project sale preparation and implementation to the district biologist 

immediately.

17. 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. 

Hydrology

Project specific Best Management Practices, listed in Appendix B of this document, will be 

implemented (FS Handbook).

Silviculture

A limited operating period 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 

will determine which stands require a LOP during the thinning layout phase.

Based on SNFPA ROD (USDA-FS 2004b) S&Gs for mechanical treatments, as well as design 

criteria, silvicultural prescriptions will be written utilizing thinning from below techniques with 

basal area levels for stand species composition. 

Fuels

The utilization of prescribed fire is considered a viable treatment in all treatment areas within the 

project boundary, as either a primary treatment to maintain appropriate levels of surface and 
10

ladder fuels to meet fire and fuels objectives (RX treatment areas), as a follow-up treatment 

needed to further reduce surface and ladder fuels, and/or as a maintenance treatment. 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 designation of areas where prescribed fire 

would be used: 

1. In treatment areas designated with a (M), Map 1 in the Map Package, prescribed fire 

should first be considered where it is too steep and /or rocky for the masticator to work 

effectively, oak dominates the stand and/or as a maintenance treatment in areas where 

brush re-growth has not been slowed and have not been planted with conifers.

2. In treatment areas designated with a (T), Map 1 in the Map Package, prescribed fire 

should first be considered where there are larger residual trees (of size less susceptible to 

fire damage) with light fuel loadings, areas not being thinned due to steepness, follow-up 

treatments have been completed or are not required, and/or areas where conifer

reproduction is not being used for re-generation of openings.

3. Prescribed fire should be used during the late fall, winter or early spring, to minimize 

effects to trees during active growing period and within Pacific fisher denning habitat 

areas.

Engineering

1. Maintain all National Forest Transportation System (NFTS) roads to standards 

established in the Forest Service Handbook 7709.58. Perform road maintenance, 

reconstruction and new road construction activities to support project access needs. 

Insure drainage structures are functional and stable to prevent potential resource damage 

and degradation of water quality (SNF LRMP S&G #78, #79, #124, #206 and BMPs).

2. 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 (SNF 

LRMP S&G #129). 

3. Close 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.

4. Roadways will be managed for safe passage by road users. This will 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 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 will 

be tiered to the Bass Lake Ranger District Hazard Tree Environmental Assessment, 

Appendix X. 
11

A Route, NFTS Roads and NFTS Trails Information

A-1 Route Card Summary Roads and Trails Additions

A-2 Route Card Summary Area Additions 

A-3 NFTS Roads 

A-4 NFTS Trails 

A-5 Monitoring 
12

B Effects of Changes to Alternative 5