United States Department of Agriculture

Forest 

Service

Pacific Southwest 

Region

R5-MB-281b February 2016

Jess Project

Draft Record of Decision
In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and 

employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are 

prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, 

gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, 

marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance 

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

any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all 

programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. 

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for 

program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, 

etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 

720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service 

at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in 

languages other than English. 

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program 

Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.

gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed 

to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To 

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

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

Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, 

D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: program.intake@usda.gov. 

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
United States Department of Agriculture 

Forest Service

Jess Project

Draft Record of Decision

Salmon/Scott Ranger District, Klamath National Forest, Siskiyou County, California

Township (T) 40 North (N) Range (R) 12 West (W), Sections 23-24, 26-28, & 34-36; T40N R11W, 

Sections 28-33; T39N R12W, Sections 1-4 & 9-12; and T39N R11W, Sections 4-6, Mt. Diablo

Meridian

R5-MB-281b February 2016
Table of Contents

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

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

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

Purpose and Need ......................................................................................................................................... 2

Relevant Issues.............................................................................................................................................. 3

Other Alternatives Considered ............................................................................................................................ 5

Alternative 1-No Action................................................................................................................................... 5

Alternative 2 – Preferred Alternative..................................................................................................................... 5

Alternative 3........................................................................................................................................................ 5

Environmentally Preferred Alternative ................................................................................................................... 6

Public Involvement................................................................................................................................................. 6

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

National Environmental Policy Act...................................................................................................................... 7

National Forest Management Act ....................................................................................................................... 8

Prime Farmland, Rangeland and Forest Land.................................................................................................... 8

Clean Air Act....................................................................................................................................................... 8

Clean Water Act.................................................................................................................................................. 9

Endangered Species Act .................................................................................................................................... 9

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation Management Act.............................................................................. 9

Migratory Bird Treaty Act .................................................................................................................................... 9

Invasive Species...............................................................................................................................................10

National Historic Preservation Act ....................................................................................................................10

Environmental Justice.......................................................................................................................................10

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act...............................................................................................................................10

Administrative Review (Objection) Opportunities................................................................................................10

Implementation Date.............................................................................................................................................11

Contact Information..............................................................................................................................................11

Appendix A – Vicinity Map and Selected Alternative Treatment Map ............................................................13

Appendix B – Best Management Practices, Project Design Features, Stand Treatment Table, and 

Monitoring for the Jess Project .........................................................................................................................17

Best Management Practices.............................................................................................................................17

Project Design Features ...................................................................................................................................18

Stand Treatment Table .....................................................................................................................................27

Monitoring for Selected Alternative...................................................................................................................32

List of Tables

Table 1. Acres and Treatment Types of the Selected Alternative .......................................................................... 2

Table 2: Best management practices selected for the Jess Project......................................................................18

Table 3: Project Design Features by resources, and where they apply ................................................................18

Table 4: Treatment Objectives by Unit..................................................................................................................27
—Draft Record of Decision—

Page 1 of 33

Background

The Jess project was developed to improve defensibility against wildfire to the municipal watershed 

and nearby communities; restore ecosystem processes, and support rural economic health on about

8,535 acres of National Forest System land. The project islocated on the Salmon/Scott River

Ranger District of the Klamath National Forest in Siskiyou County,California. A vicinity map 

and a map of treatment by unit for the selected alternative are displayed in Appendix A of this 

Record of Decision (ROD). The project is planned under the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of

2003 (HFRA). The HFRA was created to expedite implementation of projects for several purposes

including the existence of an insect or disease epidemic on National Forest Service lands (HFRA, Sec 

(102 (a) (4))).

The purpose and need (final EIS, Chapter 1.3) of this project is to:

• Improve defensibility against wildfire to the municipal watershed and nearby communities;

• Improve compositional, structural, and functional attributes of biologically diverse forest 

ecosystems by restoring ecological processes that build resiliency to high-intensity wildfire and 

insect and disease infestation; and

• Provide a broad range of ecosystem services including wood products, rural economic health, 

biodiversity and beneficial uses of water.

This Record of Decision is based upon analysis documented in the Jess Habitat Restoration and

Fuel Reduction Project Final Environmental Impact Statement (final EIS) which references and

summarizes supporting documents found in the project record. The final EIS discloses the analysis

of two action alternatives, a no action alternative, and five alternatives considered but eliminated

from detailed study (final EIS, Chapter 2).

To view the ROD, final EIS, or supporting documents, please visit the project website at

http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/fs-usda-pop.php/?pro ject=38943. The ROD and final EIS are also

available at the Salmon/Scott River Ranger District office (11263 N. Hwy 3, Fort Jones, CA 96032)

or the Klamath National Forest headquarters (1711 South Main Street, Yreka, CA 96097; 530-

842-6131).

Decision

[This section may be updated prior to decision in order to reflect the latest information.]

Based on the analysis presented in the final EIS, supporting documentation, and review of public

and other agency input, I have decided to implement Alternative 2 (the preferred alternative) as 

the draft, selected alternative. For a full description of this alternative and a detailed comparison

with other alternatives considered, see Chapter 2 of the final EIS. The selected alternative

incorporates the implementation of best management practices, project design features, and

monitoring, all of which are described in Appendix B of this ROD. Appendix B also includes a

description of prescriptions that will be implemented and a table of treatments by treatment unit.

Table 1 below summarizes the acres by treatment type of the selected alternative.
—Draft Record of Decision—

Page 2 of 33

Table 1. Acres and Treatment Types of the Selected Alternative

Treatment Type Acres

Ridgetop Fuels Treatments 435 acres (85 acres handpile, 70 acres mastication, 30 acres fuel 

break, and 250 acres of underburn)

Commercial Silvicultural 

Treatments

810 acres (followed by activity-fuels treatments as needed)

Non-commercial Silvicultural 

Treatments

130 acres

Roadside Fuels Treatments 615 acres

Meadow Treatments 10 acres

Project implementation is scheduled to begin in 2016 and will last about ten years. To facilitate

treatment prescriptions, about two miles of temporary roads on existing roadbeds will be used for 

short-term access to the project; these will then be hydrologically stabilized following project 

completion. No new temporary roads are proposed. Existing landings will be used to the extent 

possible. There will be approximately one landing for each commercial harvest unit that will be about 

one acre in size. 

Pursuant to 36 CFR 218, this project is subject to a pre-decisional administrative review (or 

objection) process. More information on the results of the objection resolution is provided in the 

Public Involvement section of this ROD.

Decision Rationale

[This section may be updated prior to decision in order to reflect the latest information.]

In the following section, I provide my rationale for choosing the selected alternative, including

how well the selected alternative meets the purpose and need (final EIS, Chapter 2, summarized in

Table 8); addressesrelevant issues (final EIS, Chapter 2, summarized inTable 9); and benefits or

negatively affectsthe physical, biological, social and economic environment (final EIS, Chapter 

2, summarized in Table 10 and disclosed in detail in Chapter 3). My decision to actively manage

this area by approving the selected alternative is based upon the analysis presented in the final 

EIS, supporting documentation, and review of public and other agency feedback. My

considerations also included relevant scientific information,opposing views, acknowledgment of

incomplete or unavailable information, and a careful evaluation of both the benefits and the harm

of implementing the selected alternative. I believe the final EIS presents an objective and welldocumented analysis of environmental effects expected to result from implementation of the

selected alternative. Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects were addressed for each resource area 

potentially affected by the project. Analysis in the final EIS included interrelated and interdependent 

actions.

Purpose and Need

Although all of the action alternatives meet the purpose and need of the project, it is to varying 

degrees. Compared to the other action alternative, the selected alternative moves a substantial portion 

of the project area toward conditions that are more ecologically resilient to high-intensity wildfire and 

insect and disease infestation; and is more defensible against wildfire. Treatments in the selected 
—Draft Record of Decision—

Page 3 of 33

alternative will increase resiliency of stands to insects, disease, and stand replacing wildfire on a 

larger proportion of the project area than the other action alternative (final EIS, Chapter 2.5). 

Compared to Alternative 3, the selected alternative will improve compositional, structural, and 

functional attributes of biologically diverse forest ecosystems by restoring ecological processes that 

build resiliency to high-intensity wildfire and insect and disease while providing a broad range of 

ecosystem services, including wood products, rural economic health, biodiversity, and the beneficial 

uses of water. There will be a reduction in the amount of understory that has developed since the 

1920s when local fire suppression became more successful. Stands that have a hardwood component 

and were historically more species diverse will be restored by removing significant numbers of 

conifers. The selected alternative will result in a reduction in the amount of dwarf mistletoe in all 

species but particularly in white fir and Douglas-fir; and a reduction in stand density to reduce insect 

and disease outbreak potential. Natural regeneration will occur in plantations, and stands will be more 

resilient to unexpected wildland fire occurrences, potential changes in climate, and increasing drought 

conditions.

Relevant Issues

I considered public comments on the following relevant issues:

Relevant Issue #1: There is a disagreement about the effects of logging on northern 

spotted owl habitat and increasing barred owl competition.

The selected alternative will remove or downgrade 535 acres of northern spotted owl foraging habitat

(44 acres within critical habitat) which represents about 5 percent of the foraging habitat that occurs 

in the analysis area, however, there will be 810 acres of long-term stand improvements (increased 

resiliency to disturbance, species diversity and stand complexity) (final EIS, Table 10). Alternative 3 

was developed in response to this relevant issue and would remove or downgrade 15 acres of northern 

spotted owl foraging habitat, zero of which are considered critical habitat, with 210 acres of long-term 

stand improvements. There will be no change in barred owl competition between alternatives, since

this project is not expected to negatively impact barred owl/northern spotted owl interactions.

Relevant Issue #2: There is a disagreement about the effects of logging and fuels 

treatments within riparian reserves on canopy cover and wildlife habitat connectivity.

There will be 60 acres of riparian reserve commercially treated in Alternative 2. Shade and stream 

temperature will not be reduced in the short term as a result of commercial or fuels treatments; project 

treatments will increase shade and stand health within the riparian reserve in the long term. There will 

be no change to canopy cover on late-flowing intermittent and perennial streams between alternatives. 

Alternative 2 will result in three acres more dispersal habitat being removed than would Alternative 3

leaving a total of 3,033 acres of dispersal habitat remaining in the project area for connectivity.

The key indicators used to analyze how alternatives address these issues are displayed in chapter 1

of the final EIS (Section 1.8). A comparison of how alternatives address issues is summarized in

Table 9 of Chapter 2 of the final EIS. The selected alternative provides the best balance in

addressing these issues while meeting the purpose and need.

Benefit and Harm

I recognize that minor, short-term adverse effects to resources will occur as a result of project

implementation. However, as the responsible official, I am willing to accept short-term adverse
—Draft Record of Decision—

Page 4 of 33

effects because of the anticipated long-term beneficial effects and achievement of the purpose and

need. Project design features and best management practices are incorporated to minimize

environmental harm and to address concerns raised by the interdisciplinary team, other agencies

and governments, and the public.

The selected alternative will result in multiple public benefits including economic and

environmental benefits as summarized in the final EIS in Chapter 2 and disclosed in more detail in

Chapter 3. Social and economic benefits include revenue andjobs. Social benefits also include

improved defensibility against wildfire to the municipal watershed and nearby communities.

Environmental benefits include increased resiliency to high-intensity wildfire and insect and disease 

infestation; enhanced natural meadows and a mix of historically dominant species; improved longterm watershed conditions; and movement toward a more resilient ecosystem.

The selected alternative will result in some minor, short-term negative environmental effects as

summarized in Chapter 2 and discussed more in depth in Chapter 3 of the final EIS. Potential

negative effectsinclude smoke and dust emissions, sediment fromroads and other treatments, soil

disturbance, impactsto certainThreatened, Endangered, and Sensitive wildlife and plant species,

spread of noxious weeds, impactsto dispersed recreational users and release of greenhouse gas

emissions. All ofthese environmental impacts will be minimized by adherence to project design 

features and best management practices (ROD, Appendix B); this adherence will bemonitored to

ensure effectiveness. These environmental effects will be short-term, occur primarily during the

course of project implementation, and diminish overtime.

The long-term public benefits will outweigh the short-term harm caused by implementing the selected 

alternative. If the selected alternative is not implemented or implementation is delayed, then the risk

of continued decline in forest health will continue.

Conclusion

The selected alternative best meets the purpose and need for action and minimizes adverse

impacts. It will move more acres toward a diverse, resilient ecosystem and a functioning forest

compared with the other action alternatives. The selected alternative provides protection for natural

and public resources in the project area within the framework of existing laws, regulations,

policies, public needs and desires, and the capabilities of the land.

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

conditions, and comply with standards and guidelines for forest-wide management direction (Forest

Plan, pages 4-3 through 4-66) and the direction specific to several individual management areas.

Management areas within the project area are described in the final EIS (Chapter 1). Consistency

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

the final EIS and supporting documents; consistency is summarized on the Forest Plan compliance

table (available on the project website). The selected alternative is also consistent with applicable

laws, regulations, and policies (final EIS, Chapter 3).
—Draft Record of Decision—

Page 5 of 33

Other Alternatives Considered

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

alternatives were determined not to meet the purpose and need for this project or not to be

feasible; therefore, these are not analyzed in detail (detailed descriptions ofthese alternatives can

be found in the final EIS, Chapter 2). More detailed descriptions of the three alternatives analyzed

in detail can be found in the final EIS in Chapter 2.

Reasons for not selecting one of the two other alternatives are discussed below:

Alternative 1-No Action

The no action alternative isrequired (40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1502.14(d)) and

serves as a baseline for comparison of the effects for all action alternatives (final EIS, p. 13).

Alternative 1was not selected for implementation because it will not address the purpose and need

for action. Alternative 1will not reduce fire risk to private property, communities, or forest

resources, and will not improve stand health or improve resiliency to insect and disease. No jobs

orrevenue will be provided. Furthermore this alternative does nothing to address the critical need 

of restoring ecosystem function and processes, primarily through mechanisms that allow for the 

re-introduction of fire in this system. This alternative does not further the actions in this 

watershed that are working to address landscape scale needs to decrease stressors and increase 

system resilience.

Alternative 2 –Preferred Alternative

This alternative was selected. Reasons for selecting this alternative are provided in the decision 

rationale section of this ROD.

Alternative 3

This alternative was developed in response to relevant issues 1 and 2 (final EIS, Section 1.8) to 

address the disagreements about effects of logging on northern spotted owl habitat and effects of 

treatments within riparian reserves. Treatments in Alternative 3 are identical to Alternative 2 with the 

exception of the differences described below and listed in table 7 of Section 2.5 of the final EIS:

• There are about 1,505 acres proposed for treatments (compared to about 1,960 acres in 

Alternative 2).

• Commercial treatment will occur on 210 acres. (compared to 810 acres in Alternative 2)

• There will be no commercial harvest in the riparian reserves. Handpiling and underburning will 

still occur in the riparian reserves with restrictions provided by watershed project design features 

(final EIS, Section 2.2.4). There will be 165 acres of riparian reserves receiving roadside fuels 

treatments with project design features to mitigate impacts and meet the Aquatic Conservation 

Strategy objectives (Table 6).

• Roadside fuels treatments will occur on 775 acres; and strategic ridgetop treatments on about 215 

acres, including 90 acres of thinning and hand-piling, 40 acres of fuel break maintenance and 

burning, and 85 acres of mastication.

Alternative 3 will treat fewer acres and result in fewer impacts to northern spotted owl foraging 

habitat and riparian reserves than the selected alternative. Additionally, the community protection 
—Draft Record of Decision—

Page 6 of 33

aspect is comparable between Alternatives 2 and 3. However, Alternative 3 will move less of the 

project area toward desired conditions for forest resiliency, and will not put the infection levels of 

dwarf mistletoe on a trajectory towards endemic levels. Alternative 3 would provide fewer jobs and 

ecosystem services. For these reasons, Alternative 3 does less to meet the purpose and need of the 

project. In addition when entering areas for treatment it is crucial to meet the need for treatment in the 

area to improve resiliency of the landscape and promote ecosystem function. 

Environmentally Preferred Alternative

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations require that the ROD specify "the

alternative or alternatives which were considered to be environmentally preferable"(40

CFR1505.2 (b)). The environmentally preferable alternative is the alternative that will promote the

goals of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Section 101. Ordinarily, this means the

alternative that causes the least damage to the biological and physical environment. However, it

also means the alternative which best protects, preserves, and enhances historic, cultural, and

natural resources. This definition can be generalized to mean the alternative that best balances

benefits and potential negative impacts.

Alternative 3 will treat fewer acres and result in fewer impacts to northern spotted owl foraging 

habitat and riparian reserves than the selected alternative however; Alternative 3 will also move

less of the project area toward desired conditions for forest resiliency. For this reason, Alternative 3

will not put the infection levels of dwarf mistletoe on a trajectory towards endemic levels and is not 

the environmentally preferable alternative.

Alternative 1 will not result in any direct environmental impacts but does nothing to move the

project area toward desired conditions and will not produce social or economic benefits. For this 

reason, Alternative 1 is not the environmentally preferable alternative.

I believe the selected alternative is the environmentally preferable alternative and best meets NEPA

Section 101 goals. It provides the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without

degradation of the environment and balances resource use and protection. The selected alternative

incorporates project design features and best management practices that will minimize negative

environmental effects.

Public Involvement

[This section will be updated prior to decision in order to reflect the latest information.]

Recognizing the need to move toward a more ecologically resilient landscape in an area that is 

currently dominated by dense stands of timber with increasing susceptibility to insects and 

diseases, the Jess project was first published to the Schedule of Proposed Actions and the Forest 

website on July 1, 2012. The Forest has been working collaboratively on Jess project planning 

with local landowners, government agencies, and interested parties. All collaborative meetings 

have been held in Sawyers Bar, California. A summary of how the collaborative effort 

influenced the project can be found in Appendix E of the final EIS. 
—Draft Record of Decision—

Page 7 of 33

A proposed action was developed and a Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact

Statement was published in the Federal Register on May 6, 2013. The Notice of Intent asked for

public comment on the proposal for 30 days following publication in the Federal Register. In

addition, as part of the public involvement process, a legal notice of the NOI was published in the

newspaper of record for the Klamath National Forest, the Siskiyou Daily News, on May 5, 2013,

notifying the public that comments were being sought on the project and had to be received by

June 20, 2013, to be fully considered in the analysis. A letter that included the information in the

Notice of Intent was sent to individuals who had expressed interest in the project; adjacent

landowners and residents; federal, state, and local agencies; Siskiyou County government; tribes;

and other individuals or organizations who may be interested in or affected by the proposed action.

Following publication of the Notice of Intent, interested parties met to look at the area proposed to

be treated and collaboratively develop options for treatment. Opportunities to attend these

meetings were published in the local news media to invite attendance by the general public. During

the scoping period, several verbal requests for information were received from adjacent

landowners who were encouraged to submit comments. 

Service received 160 comments by means of five letters during public scoping. The comments were 

grouped into 45 subject categories. Comments from the public and other agencies were used to 

formulate issues concerning the proposed action (final EIS, Appendix G). The interdisciplinary team 

identified two relevant issues and developed Alternative 3 based on these two relevant issues.

Using the comments from the public, other agencies and organizations, the interagency

interdisciplinary team developed a draft environmental impact statement (draft EIS) that was

distributed as noted in chapter 4 of the final EIS. ANotice ofAvailability of the draft EIS was

published in the Federal Register on October 3, 2014; a legal Notice of Availability of the draft 

EIS was published in the Siskiyou Daily News on October 6, 2014, beginning a 45-day comment

period that ended on November 20, 2014. Comments were received from two timber industry

representatives, three environmental organizations, and two federal agencies. Appendix G of the 

final EIS includes a summary of all comments received and the Forest Service response. Because no new 

action alternatives were developed to address public comments on the draft EIS, and the changes between 

the draft EIS and final EIS (documented in the final EIS, chapter 1.1) were minor, a comment period on the 

final EIS before the decision was not warranted (FSH 1909.15 25.1). The final EIS and supporting 

documents are available on the project website.

Findings Required by Other Laws and Regulations

[This section will be updated prior to decision in order to reflect the latest information.]

Implementation of the project would not violate any federal, state, or local environmental protection 

laws. As discussed throughout the final EIS and supporting documents, the selected alternative is 

consistent with applicable law, regulation, and policy. The selected alternative will be located entirely 

on National Forest System lands and is not in conflict with planning objectives for Siskiyou County.

National Environmental Policy Act
—Draft Record of Decision—

Page 8 of 33

I find the selected alternative is consistent with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The 

final EIS fulfills the requirements for environmental analysis found in NEPA and in the Council on 

Environmental Quality implementing regulations at 40 CFR, Parts, 1500-1508. The selected 

alternative will not result in irreversible damage to soils or other watershed characteristics such as 

detrimental soil loss, blockage of waterways, or riparian habitat. Vegetation that is removed as a 

result of commercial thinning will result in a loss of productivity of individual trees; however, there 

will be no loss of entire stands of trees. Over the long term, the treatments are expected to improve 

productivity by improving individual tree health and reducing the risk of damage from potential 

wildfire.

National Forest Management Act

I find the selected alternative to be consistent with the provisions of the National Forest Management 

Act (NFMA), which requires projects on this forest to be consistent with the intent of the Forest Plan. 

The selected alternative was designed to conform to Forest Plan goals, meet or move toward desired 

conditions, and comply with standards and guidelines for forest-wide management direction (Forest 

Plan, pp. 4-3 through 4-66) and the direction specific to several individual management areas. The 

selected alternative is also consistent with applicable laws, regulations, and policies (final EIS, 

Chapter 3.20).

The selected alternative is consistent with the Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives (Forest Plan, 

pp. 4-6 and 4-7). Activities in the selected alternative were evaluated to determine the effects to 

riparian reserves (Forest Plan, pp. 4-106 through 4-114) at the site, reach, and 7th-, 6th- and 5th-field 

watershed scales in the short and long term to meet the Aquatic Conservation Strategy requirements, 

and were found to improve, protect or have neutral effects to riparian reserve conditions in the long 

term. Although there may be some negative, short-term impacts at the site and reach scales, most of 

these negative effects would have a low risk of occurrences. There would be no adverse effects to 

stream temperatures or flow and sediment regimes. In the long term, the selected alternative will 

maintain and restore conditions evaluated under the Aquatic conservation strategy objectives and 

would therefore meet those objectives (final EIS, Appendix F).

I have reviewed the final EIS for the Jess project and have determined it is consistent with the 

Klamath Forest Plan as amended by the 2001 ROD and Standards and Guidelines for Amendments to 

the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines 

(2001 ROD).

Prime Farmland, Rangeland and Forest Land

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

prime farmland, rangeland, and forest land. The project area does not contain any prime farmland or 

rangeland. Prime forest land is a term used only for non-Federal land, which will not be affected by 

proposed activities under any alternative.

Clean Air Act

The selected alternative activities, including prescribed burning, will be implemented in full 

compliance with the Siskiyou County Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and California 
—Draft Record of Decision—

Page 9 of 33

Air Resource Board (CARB) air programs and the Forest Plan standards and guidelines. The selected 

alternative is consistent with the Clean Air Act (final EIS, Chapter 3).

Clean Water Act

The selected alternative complies with the Clean Water Act through use of best management 

practices, which were designed to minimize or prevent the discharge of both point and non-point 

source pollutants from Forest roads, developments, and activities. The project is also consistent with 

the California Porter Cologne Water Quality Act, the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control 

Board Basin Plan and the mid-Klamath total maximum daily load (TMDL). This project will operate 

under the criteria and conditions of the 2010 Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements for Nonpoint 

Source Discharges Related to Certain Federal Land Management Activities on National Forest 

System Lands in the North Coast Region (Order No. R1-2010-0029). Following this decision, a 

notice of intent will be submitted to the Water Board for this project. The Forest Service will work 

with the Water Board to secure the appropriate waiver for this project prior to implementation.

Endangered Species Act

The selected alternative complies with the Endangered Species Act (final EIS, Section 3.3.5). 

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

Service (USFWS), Section 7 of Endangered Species Act consultation requirements have yet to be 

completed (19 U.S.C. 1536 (c). The Forest Service made a determination of "likely to adversely 

affect" for the NSO and its designated or proposed critical habitat (CH) and submitted a Biological 

Assessment to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on January 25, 2016 The USDA Forest Service 

awaits a Biological Opinion from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service prior to signing a decision.

Based upon consultation timelines, the Biological Opinion is due within135 days after confirmation 

that the USFWS has received the final Biological Assessment. The FWS will issue a final biological 

opinion prior to implementation of the Project. The Forest Service will adjust the project as needed to 

comply with terms and conditions of the final biological opinion.

The Fish Biological Assessment was prepared in accordance with legal requirements set forth under 

Section 7 of the ESA of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et. Seq. 50 CFR 402).The National 

Marine Fisheries Service and Klamath National Forest agree that the project may affect, but is not 

likely to adversely affect, federally threatened Southern Oregon Northern California Coastal 

(SONCC) Coho salmon or their designated Critical Habitat (Letter of Concurrence April 1, 2014).

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation Management Act

An analysis for Essential Fish Habitat is contained in the Fisheries Biological Assessment/Biological 

Evaluation, prepared in accordance with 305 (b) (4) (A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation Management Act, consistent with standards established in Forest Service Manual 

direction (FSM 2672.42; USDA Forest Service 1991). The Fisheries Biological 

Assessment/Biological Evaluation documents that the project will have no effect on EFH for Coho

salmon or Chinook salmon.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act

The selected alternative complies with Executive Order 1386 because migratory birds of management 

concern are identified as Threatened or Endangered, Forest Service Sensitive, or MIS; effects to these 
—Draft Record of Decision—

Page 10 of 33

birds and their habitats are disclosed above and in the Biological Assessment, Biological Evaluation, 

Management Indicator Species, and Wildlife resource reports available on the project website.

Invasive Species

The selected alternative complies with Executive Order 13112, which directs federal agencies to 

prevent the introduction of invasive species; detect and respond rapidly to and control such species; 

not authorize, fund, or carry out actions that the agency believes are likely to cause or promote the 

introduction or spread of invasive species unless the agency has determined and made public its 

determination that the benefits of such actions clearly outweigh the potential harm caused by invasive 

species; and take all feasible and prudent measures to minimize the risk of harm in conjunction with 

the actions. The requirements of this executive order are met through project design features that 

minimize or eliminate negative environmental effects as disclosed in the Non-native Invasive Species 

section of the final EIS.

National Historic Preservation Act

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

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

Preservation Act, and other laws and regulations (final EIS, chapter 1.7 – Public Involvement). 

Scoping letters, the draft EIS, and the final EIS were sent to the tribes listed in the final EIS (chapter 

4.2.2). The selected alternative is in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (final EIS, Chapter 3.20.5). An Archeological Survey Report (ASR Number R2014-

05-05-2054-0) was completed and signed by the KNF Heritage Program Manager on September 12, 

2013 in accordance with the Region 5 Programmatic Agreement. The selected alternative will not 

result in any negative impacts to cultural resource sites (final EIS, Chapter 3.15).

Environmental Justice

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

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

Effects on minorities and low-income populations are disclosed in the final EIS (Chapter 3.11).

There will be no adverse effects on human health or the environment that are significant,

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

effects on minorities or low income populations (final EIS, Chapter 3.11.4).

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act

The selected alternative complies with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act as disclosed in the final EIS

(Chapter 3.20.6). The selected alternative will not adversely affect the North Fork Salmon River 

section of the Klamath Wild and Scenic River (designated as Recreational in the potentially affected 

sections).

Administrative Review (Objection) Opportunities

[This section will be updated prior to decision in order to reflect the latest information.]

This proposed decision is subject to objection pursuant to 36 CFR 218, Subparts A and C. Objections 

will only be accepted from those who submitted project-specific written comments during scoping or 
—Draft Record of Decision—

Page 11 of 33

other designated comment periods. Issues raised in objections must be based on previously submitted 

comments unless based on new information arising after the designated comment period.

Objections must be submitted within 30 days following the publication of the legal notice in the 

Siskiyou Daily News. The date of this legal notice is the exclusive means for calculating the time to 

file an objection. Those wishing to object should not rely upon dates or timeframes provided by any 

other source. It is the objector’s responsibility to ensure evidence of timely receipt (36 CFR 218.9).

Objections must be submitted to the reviewing officer: Randy Moore, Regional Forester, USDA 

Forest Service; Attn: Objection for the Jess Project; 1323 Club Drive, Vallejo, CA 94592. Ph. 

(707)562-8737. Electronic objections, in common formats (.doc, .pdf, .rtf, .txt) formats, may be 

submitted to: objections-pacificsouthwest-regional-office@fs.fed.us with Subject: Objection for the

Jess Project.

Objections must include (36 CFR 218.8 (d)): 1) name, address, and telephone; 2) signature or other 

verification of authorship; 3) identify a single lead objector when applicable; 4) project name, 

Responsible Official name and title, and name of affected Ranger District(s); 5) reasons for, and 

suggested remedies to resolve, your objections; and, 6) description of the connection between your 

objections and your prior comments. Incorporate documents by reference only as provided for at 36 

CFR 218.8 (b).

Implementation Date

[This section may be updated prior to decision in order to reflect the latest information.]

Timing of my decision is pursuant to 36 CFR 218.12:

(a) The responsible official may not sign a ROD or DN subject to the provisions of this part 

until the reviewing officer has responded in writing to all pending objections (see § 

218.11(b)(1)). (b) The responsible official may not sign a ROD or DN subject to the 

provisions of this part until all concerns and instructions identified by the reviewing officer in 

the objection response have been addressed. (c) When no objection is filed within the 

objection filing period (see §§ 218.26 and 218.32): (1) The reviewing officer must notify the 

responsible official. (2) Approval of the proposed project or activity documented in a ROD in 

accordance with 40 CFR 1506.10, or in a DN may occur on, but not before, the fifth business 

day following the end of the objection filing period. 

Implementation of this project can begin immediately following my decision. My intention is to 

implement this project through service contracts, timber sale contracts, and/or stewardship contracts.

Project activities will be seasonally restricted, as described in Table 6 of the final EIS. Seasonal 

restrictions mainly apply to activities relating to the northern spotted owl, northern goshawk, and their 

associated habitats.

Contact Information
—Draft Record of Decision—

Page 12 of 33

For additional information concerning this decision, please contact: Danika Carlson, Botanist, 

Salmon/Scott River Ranger District, 11263 N. Hwy 3, Fort Jones, California; phone 530-468-5351; 

email: dcarlson02@fs.fed.us. For additional information concerning objections, please contact: 

Wendy Coats, Environmental Coordinator, 1711 South Main Street, Yreka, California 96097; phone 

530-841-4470; email: wcoats@fs.fed.us.

[This is a DRAFT document only. The signature and date are purposefully omitted until the final record 

of decision is signed.]
—Draft Record of Decision—

Page 13 of 33

Appendix A: Vicinity Map and Selected Alternative Treatment Map

Figure 1. Vicinity map for Jess project.
—Draft Record of Decision—

Page 14 of 33

This page intentionally left blank
—Draft Record of Decision—

Page 15 of 33

Figure 2: Alternative 2
—Draft Record of Decision—

Page 16 of 33

This page intentionally left blank
—Draft Record of Decision—

Page 17 of 33

Appendix B: Best Management Practices, Project Design Features, 

Stand Treatment Table, and Monitoring for the Jess Project

Best Management Practices

Table 2 lists the best management practices identified for the selected alternative. Project design 

features developed to address overall project objectives and ensure Forest Plan compliance are listed 

in Table 3. Also listed are the selected alternative treatments and objectives identified by unit in Table 

4. Lastly, monitoring practices that apply to this project are included in this appendix.

Best Management Practices were developed to comply with Section 208 of the Clean Water Act. Best

management practices have been certified by the State Water Quality Resources Control Board and 

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

water quality from impacts stemming from non-point sources of pollution. These practices have been

applied to forest activities and have been found to be effective in protecting water quality within the 

Klamath National Forest. Specifically, effective application of the Region 5 USFS best management 

practices has been found to maintain water quality that is in conformance with the Water Quality 

Objectives in the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board’s Basin Plan 

(http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/northcoast/water_issues/programs/basin_plan/).

Region 5 Forest Service best management practices have been monitored and modified since their 

original implementation in 1979 to make them more effective. Numerous on-site evaluations by the 

North Coast Region Water Quality Control Board have found the practices to be effective in 

maintaining water quality and protecting beneficial uses.

The Forest monitors the implementation and effectiveness of best management practices on randomly 

selected projects each year. From 2000 to 2012, best management practice implementation 

requirement were met on 78-100 percent (91 percent average) of sites sampled, and best management 

practice effectiveness requirements were met on 88-100 percent (94 percent average) of the sites 

sampled (USDA Forest Service, 2013c). The critical best management practice evaluation is 

effectiveness which is a field evaluation to determine how well the best management practice worked 

to prevent sedimentation. The success rate for effectiveness has been in the high 80s and 90s each 

year since 1993.

Best Management Practices first identified and utilized by the Klamath National Forest are listed in 

Appendix D of the Forest Plan. These basic best management practices have been revised over the 

years, and are currently similar to those listed in the 2012 Region 5 best management practice update 

in Chapter 10 of the Soil and Water Conservation Handbook, which additionally includes a narrative 

and objective of each (USDA USFS 2012); and where there are differences, direction is to employ the 

newer best management practice list.
—Draft Record of Decision—

Page 18 of 33

Table 2: Best management practices selected for the Jess Project

Best Management 

Practice ID

Best Management Practice Title

1.1 Timber Sale Planning Process

1.2 Timber Harvest Unit Design

1.3 Use Of Erosion Hazard Rating For Unit Design

1.4 Use Of Sale Area Maps For Designating Water Quality Protection

1.5 Limiting Operating Period Of Timber Sale

1.6 Protection Of Unstable Lands

1.8 Streamside Management Zone Designation

1.9 Determining Tractor Loggable Ground

1.10 Tractor Skidding Design

1.11 Suspended Log Yarding In Timber Harvesting

1.12 Log Landing Location

1.13 Erosion Prevention And Control Measures During Timber Sale Operations

1.16 Log Landing Erosion Prevention And Control

1.17 Erosion Control On Skid Trails

1.18 Meadow Protection During Timber Harvest

1.19 Streamcourse Protection

1.20 Erosion Control Structure Maintenance

1.21 Acceptance Of Erosion Control Measures Before Timber Sale Closure

2.4 Road Maintenance And Operations (Temporary Roads)

2.4 Road Maintenance And Operations (System Roads)

2.5 Water Source Development Consistent With Water Quality Protection

2.11 Servicing And Refueling Of Equipment

2.13 Erosion Control Plan

5.2 Slope Limitations For Mechanized Equipment Operations

5.5 Disposal Of Organic Debris

5.6 Soil Moisture Limitations For Mechanical Equipment Operations

6.3 Protection Of Water Quality From Prescribed Burning Effects

Project Design Features

Table 3: Project Design Features by resources, and where they apply

Resource Project Design Feature Applicable

Unit/Area and 

Alternatives

Air Quality-1 Native surface roadways will be watered to suppress dust and

maintain fine material on road surface.

All Areas

Air Quality-2 Ignition will only take place on permissive burn days as determined

by California Air Resources Board and the Siskiyou County Air

Pollution Control District.

All Areas
—Draft Record of Decision—

Page 19 of 33

Resource Project Design Feature Applicable

Unit/Area and 

Alternatives

Air Quality-3 Notices of burning will be issued to advise the public and local

residence when burning may occur and areas that might be 

affected by smoke.

All Areas

Botany-1 The boundary of each population of Cypripedium fasciculatum –

clustered lady’s slipper and Cypripedium montanum – mountain

lady’s slipper will be flagged as buffer areas for avoidance. No 

heavy equipment will operate within flagged buffer areas.

105, 113,120, 

121,122, 129,and 

130

Botany-2 Within the flagged buffer areas for Cypripedium fasciculatum –

clustered lady’s slipper and Cypripedium montanum – mountain

lady’s slipper, handwork may be allowed provided that habitat

characteristics will be maintained including shade (primarily 

provided by overstory conifers), hardwood and shrub

components, and duff layer.

105, 113,120, 

121,122, 129,and, 

130

Botany-3 Within the flagged buffer areas for Cypripedium fasciculatum –

clustered lady’s slipper and Cypripedium montanum – mountain

lady’s slipper, small diameter fuels may be removed by hand and

piled outside of the flagged buffer area provided that design 

feature Botany-2 is met. Consultation with the District Botanist is 

required prior to implementation of fuels treatment to determine

the needs of each individual population.

105, 113,120, 

121,122, 129,and 

130

Botany-4 No project activity will occur within the flagged buffer boundary for

Cypripedium fasciculatum – clustered lady’s slipper and 

Cypripedium montanum – mountain lady’s slipper.

Roadside fuels 

treatment on road 

40N46 and 39N27,

unit 70, and all 

under- burning

activities

Botany-5 To maintain potential host species for Otidea leporina, retain a 

large component distributed throughout the stand and healthy 

conifer and hardwood species that exist in the stand including, 

sugar pine, ponderosa pine, Douglas fir, madrone, and black oak.

110

Botany-6 To protect Otidea leporina habitat, minimize soil compaction and

soil disturbance by maximizing use of existing skid trails for 

project implementation.

110

Botany-7 At the end of project activities, maintain a layer of duff over 50

percent of the unit area to retain surface organic matter and 

moisture retention for Otidea leporina population.

110

Engineering- 1 National Forest Transportation System roads will be maintained, 

as needed, and prior to and during harvest activities. Maintenance 

activities include the clearing of brush and small trees within the

road prism, surface blading to provide a smooth road surface,

water drainage control, and dust abatement.

All National Forest

Transportation 

System roads

Engineering- 2 All temporary roads on existing road beds used for this project will 

be closed immediately following operations. Road closure will 

include any, all, or a combination of the following activities: (1) 

placing boulders, earth, or log mound barriers to prevent vehicle 

traffic; (2) sub-soiling and out-sloping the road surface; (3) 

installing water bars and other drainage structures; and (4) 

mulching with native materials (logging slash) or certified weedfree straw.

All temporary roads 

on existing roadbeds 

Temporary road B. 

will be blocked 

above the progeny 

site.
—Draft Record of Decision—

Page 20 of 33

Resource Project Design Feature Applicable

Unit/Area and 

Alternatives

Engineering- 3 For more effective road closures, no trees will be removed within 

50 feet of the entry of any temporary roads on existing road beds 

used for project access, where it intersects a National Forest

Transportation System road. Exceptions to this restriction include 

the removal of hazard trees and a few trees to provide equipment

access.

All temporary roads 

on existing

roadbeds

Engineering- 4 When multiple entries are necessary for project completion, roads

used by contractors will be closed in between each entry.

All temporary roads 

on existing

roadbeds and 

National Forest

Transportation 

System roads

Heritage-1 Heritage sites will be flagged and avoided by all project actions 

during implementation of the project.

All Areas

Heritage-2 All skid roads, road improvements, landings, and burn pile areas 

will be designated on a map and reviewed by the district

archaeologist prior to project implementation.

All Areas

Heritage-3 If any late discoveries of human remains or heritage resources

sites not previously recorded are identified during the project

implementation, work within the area of potential affect will

immediately stop and the district archaeologist and Heritage 

Program Manager will be consulted to determine how best to 

proceed.

All Areas

Noxious Weeds-1 If landings are needed within an infestation of Isatis tinctoria 

(Dyer’s woad), consult with the district botanist to determine the 

best location. If a landing is placed in a location that is infested 

with Dyer’s woad, equipment will be used to push the top layer of 

soil with the seed bank into a pile away from where equipment 

and vehicles will be operating prior to use of the landing. All Dyer’s 

woad infestations will be flagged prior to implementation.

101, 105,106, 

107,118, and121

Noxious Weeds2Avoid parking equipment and vehicles in locations infested with 

Isatis tinctoria (Dyer’s woad).

101, 105, 106, 107, 

118, 121, 43, 71, 

and Roadside Fuels 

Treatments on roads 

39N27, 39N41, 

39N60, and 38N22

Noxious Weeds-3 No burn piles will be created directly within noxious weed 

infestations of Isatis tinctoria (Dyer’s woad). Fuels may be 

removed by hand from within the infestation and piled outside the 

flagged area.

43 and 71, Roadside 

Fuels Treatments

on roads 39N27, 

39N41, 39N60, and 

38N22

Noxious Weeds-4 Equipment will be cleaned of soil, seeds vegetative matter, and 

other debris that could contain or hold seed prior to moving to the 

project area, after operating within an area with a known site, and 

after leaving the project area.

Entire Project Area

Noxious Weeds-5 Wherever seed and/or straw is used to restore areas of ground

disturbance, certified weed-free seed and straw will be required 

and specified in the contract.

Entire Project Area
—Draft Record of Decision—

Page 21 of 33

Resource Project Design Feature Applicable

Unit/Area and 

Alternatives

Noxious Weeds-6 There will be no parking or project activity within the infestation of 

Centaurea maculosa (spotted knapweed) that is adjacent to Unit 

#145. The district botanist will inventory unit #145 prior to project 

implementation to determine if the Whites Fire suppression 

activities spread this infestation into the treatment unit. If spotted 

knapweed is discovered within this treatment unit the infestation 

will be flagged for project avoidance.

145

Recreation-1 Only cut trees consistent with Region 5 Hazard Tree guidelines 

that are within the 100-foot buffer of dispersed sites 54D013, 

54D013A, and 54D014.Establish 100-foot “no-cut buffer” around 

dispersed recreation sites 54D013, 54D013A, and 54D014. 

Hazard trees will be removed.

107 and 102

Recreation-2 Locate skid trails and landings away from and out of sight of the

above dispersed areas. If skid trails or landings are required within

sight of dispersed sites, remove or pile and burn all slash, debris, 

dirt piles and berms, and rehabilitate area.

107 and 102

Watershed-1 When working in hydrologic Riparian Reserves, if there is a 30

percent chance of rain in the next 24 hours the Timber Sale 

Administrator will be on site to insure that winterization or erosion

control procedures are implemented in a timely manner and

shutdown procedures are implemented. Operations will not 

resume until suitable weather, soil, and forecast conditions exist, 

as determined by the Timber Sale Administrator.

102, 103,104, 

106,107, 108,110, 

111,113, 118,119, 

121,122, 129,and 

138

Watershed-2 Cable corridors will be placed on the landscape in order to 

minimize disturbance to inner gorges and avoid disturbance of 

active landslides and landslide toe zones.

Units 125, 128, 

109,110, 112, 120, 

122, and 138

Watershed-3 No silvicultural treatments will occur on unstable lands and 

ground- based equipment will be excluded from active landslides 

and landslide toe zones.

128 and 122

Watershed-4 Trees directly rooted into the banks or otherwise and obviously

integral to the stability of the channel bank will not be removed.

102, 103, 104, 106, 

107, 108, 110, 

111,113, 118, 119, 

121, 122, 129, and

138

Watershed-5 Skidding equipment will be restricted to slopes less than 35

percent. Skid trails that connect benches in dormant landslide 

terrain can have minor portions of the skid trails on slopes greater 

than 35 percent.

All Commercial

Ground- based 

Harvest Units

Watershed-6 To maintain existing coarse woody debris, ground-based 

equipment will avoid larger diameter logs to the extent practical. 

Coarse woody debris consists of downed wood within a terrestrial 

environment.

All Commercial

Ground- based 

Harvest Units

Watershed-7 Limit equipment disturbance within 20 feet on either side of swales

by minimizing equipment crossings and avoiding running trails up 

the axis of swales (swales are shallow ephemeral channels that 

do not meet the definition of a Riparian Reserve because they 

lack annual channel scour).

All Commercial

Ground- based 

Harvest Units

Watershed-8 Existing skid trails will be reused whenever possible. Designation 

of new skid trails will be approved by the Timber Sale 

Administrator.

All Commercial

Ground- based 

Harvest Units
—Draft Record of Decision—

Page 22 of 33

Resource Project Design Feature Applicable

Unit/Area and 

Alternatives

Watershed-9 No skid trails will cross intermittent stream, except when the 

stream is dry and the use and location is designated by the Timber 

Sale Administrator. Perennial streams will not be crossed.

103, 104, 106, 107, 

108, 110, 111, 113, 

118, 119,121, 

122,129, and138. 

The wet area in unit 

102 may be crossed 

by the road.

Watershed- 10 When the Timber Sale Administrator designates the use of skid 

trails across dry intermittent streams or dry swales, the crossing

will be restored before any storm (with reasonable chance of

causing off-site sediment movement) Restoration of crossings will 

be immediate following use consisting of removing excess soil, 

reshaping and waterbarring former approaches, and spreading 

slash on the former crossing.

102, 103,104, 

106,107, 108,110, 

111,113, 118,119, 

121,122, 129,and 

138

Watershed- 11 Slash or water bars will be applied to skyline corridors where

necessary to minimize the concentration of surface runoff and 

where the ground cover is below 50 percent.

All Commercial

Skyline Harvest

Units

Watershed- 12 Place skyline yarding corridors that are parallel to stream channels

outside stream Riparian Reserves.

125, 128,130,

and136

Watershed- 13 Where ground-based yarding/endlining is used to retrieve logs 

from Riparian Reserve equipment exclusion zones and if gouging 

occurs that creates a trough for overland flow to enter the channel, 

waterbars will be installed or slash applied to the area.

102, 103, 104, 106, 

107, 108, 110, 111, 

113, 118, 119, 121, 

122, 129, and 138

Watershed- 14 Construct new landings outside of both stream-course and 

unstable- land Riparian Reserves and away from locations where 

sediment is likely to enter streams (areas that have a hydrologic

connection to streams).

All Commercial

Ground- based and

Skyline Harvest

Units

Watershed- 15 Existing landings will be used to the extent possible. Existing 

landings within 50 feet of the slope break to a stream channel or 

inner gorge with the exception of four landings analyzed for effects 

to resources (in units 108, 110, 118, 119).

All Commercial

Ground- based and

Skyline Harvest

Units

Watershed- 16 All skyline yarding stands will use one end suspension. Full

suspension over stream channels is desired where possible.

All Commercial

Skyline Harvest

Units

Watershed- 17 Once project activities are completed, hydrologically stabilize

landings by re-establishing natural runoff patterns to protect water

quality.

All Commercial

Ground- based and

Skyline Harvest

Units

Watershed- 18 Material will not be side casted (i.e. fill material will not be pushed

downslope of landing) during the reconstruction of any landing.

All Commercial

Ground- based 

Harvest Units and 

all Commercial

Skyline Harvest

Units

Watershed- 19 At project completion, permanent operating water bars will be

installed and/or repaired and slash will be scattered along all skid

trails as needed.

All Commercial

Ground- based 

Harvest Units
—Draft Record of Decision—

Page 23 of 33

Resource Project Design Feature Applicable

Unit/Area and 

Alternatives

Watershed- 20 Hazard trees that have fallen or are felled within hydrologic 

Riparian Reserves will generally be left on site. Fallen or felled

hazard trees may be removed from hydrologic Riparian Reserves

if:

Trees must be removed to provide safe road passage or

campground access and function; OR

Those trees would pose a substantial risk to the Forest road

drainage system integrity.

All Riparian

Reserves in the 

Project Area

Watershed- 21 The project is proposed to take place during the normal operating

season that is defined as April 15 to October 15 and in dry periods

outside the Normal Operating Season with Line Officer approval.

Actions will be restricted during periods of wet weather during the

Normal Operating Season.

Entire Project Area

Watershed- 22 The proposed temporary roads on existing roadbeds will be

outsloped, covered with slash if needed, and blocked after the

harvest season (and prior to the first winter after use) (see

Engineering-2 and Engineering-3). The temporary roads will be

decommissioned (hydrologically restored) at project completion.

Decommissioning includes the removal of culverts and fills at 

stream crossings, out-sloping of road surfaces, and obliteration 

(re- contouring) of temporary road segments.

All Temporary

Roads on Existing

Roadbeds

Watershed- 23 Improvements on the existing National Forest Transportation 

System roads to the project area will not over-steepen the road 

cuts, will minimize sidecasting, and will maintain the ditches and

cross drains or any outslope of the roadway.

All National Forest

Transportation 

System Roads

Watershed- 24 Spot rocking will be used as needed in wet areas where damage 

to the roadbed may occur and adversely create rills which may 

move sediment into stream channels.

All National Forest

Transportation 

System Roads

Watershed- 25 Use erosion control methods on access and/or main roads that are

treated for dust abatement to prevent any water leakage from 

causing stream sedimentation.

All Temporary

Roads on Existing

Roadbeds and all 

System Roads

Watershed- 26 When drafting from streams occupied by Chinook and Coho 

salmon: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 

Fisheries Water Drafting Specifications: When in habitat potentially 

occupied by Chinook and Coho salmon, intakes will be screened 

with 3/32” mesh for rounded or square openings, or 1/16” mesh for 

slotted openings. When in habitat potentially occupied by 

steelhead trout, intakes will be screened with 1/8” mesh size. 

Wetted surface area of the screen or fish-exclusion device shall be 

proportional to the pump rate to ensure that water velocity at the 

screen surface does not exceed 0.33 feet/second (The use of a 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration approved fish 

screen will ensure the above specifications are met.)Fish screen 

will be placed parallel to flow. Pumping rate will not exceed 350 

gallons-per-minute or 10 percent of the flow of the anadromous 

stream drafted from. Pumping will be terminated when tank is full. 

Additional applicable specifications: Water drafting by more than 

one truck shall not occur simultaneously. Water drafting sites 

located within fish-bearing stream segments may not be modified, 

except rocking the approach to prevent sedimentation

Drafting Sites in 

Chinook and Coho 

salmon Habitat.
—Draft Record of Decision—

Page 24 of 33

Resource Project Design Feature Applicable

Unit/Area and 

Alternatives

Watershed- 27 When drafting from streams that are not occupied by Chinook or 

Coho salmon:

• Drafting rate should not exceed 350 gallons per minute for 

stream flow greater than or equal to 2.0 cubic feet per second.

• Drafting rate should not exceed 50 percent of surface flow.

• Drafting should cease from when bypass surface flow drops 

below ten gallons per minute.

• Drafting by more than one truck shall not occur 

simultaneously.

Water drafting sites located in non-fish-bearing waters only may 

include minor in-stream modification, such as fine sediment 

removal and building of board/plastic dams. 

Rock and gravel drafting sites as needed to prevent stream 

sedimentation.

Drafting Sites 

outside of Chinook 

and Coho Habitat.

Watershed- 28 Draft water only at designated water drafting sites. All Drafting Sites

Watershed- 29 Activities which require culvert replacement or removal will occur 

during the least critical periods for water and aquatic resources: 

when streams are dry; during low-water conditions; and/or in 

compliance with spawning and breeding season restrictions. 

Low-water/dry conditions for the project area occur generally 

between July and October, depending upon snowpack and 

individual drainage characteristics. The district fish biologist or 

hydrologist will be consulted for appropriate timing at specific 

locations.

Legacy Sites

Watershed- 30 No fueling or servicing of vehicles used will take place within 

Riparian Reserves.

No fueling/refueling of mechanical equipment will occur within 100 

feet of any flowing watercourse or intermittent drainage.

All spills will be reported and clean-up initiated in accordance with 

applicable State and Federal laws, rules and regulations. The 

Forest Hazardous Materials Coordinator’s name and phone 

number will be available to Forest Service personnel who are 

administering or managing the use of petroleum-powered 

activities.

NOAA Fisheries will be notified for emergency consultation in the 

event that a spill may affect federally listed aquatic species.

Entire Project Area

Watershed- 31 A spill containment kit will be available at the location of any 

refueling or servicing.

Entire Project Area

Watershed- 32 Limit the operation of track-mounted masticators to slopes of less 

than 45 percent.

All Mastication Units

Watershed- 33 Fuel treatment prescriptions will be designed to maintain posttreatment soil cover ranging between 50 percent and 70 percent, 

depending on slope steepness and fuel reduction treatments (see 

Soils Resource Report for unit details).

All Units

Watershed- 34 Masticators will not operate within 100 feet of perennial and/or 

intermittent streams and not operated within break in slope of inner 

gorge. Crossings of dry intermittent channels may occur at 

locations designated by the Timber Sale Administrator.

42, 48, 70 and 73

Watershed- 35 Hand piles will be placed in a checkerboard pattern whenever 

possible (not one pile directly above another). Hand piles will be 

six feet or less in diameter.

All Units
—Draft Record of Decision—

Page 25 of 33

Resource Project Design Feature Applicable

Unit/Area and 

Alternatives

Watershed- 36 Use of mastication equipment will follow Forest Wet Weather

Operations Standards.

Entire Project Area

Watershed- 37 Burn piles will not be placed within 30 feet of perennial stream

channels greater than one foot wetted width, or within 15 feet of

intermittent stream or perennials less than one foot wetted width.

102, 103, 104, 106, 

107, 108, 110, 111, 

113, 118, 119, 121, 

122, 125, 128, 129, 

138 and underburn.

Watershed- 38 When underburning is prescribed, avoid the construction of 

handlines within Riparian Reserves closer than 25 feet to a 

watercourse and/or within riparian vegetation as possible.

102, 103, 104, 106, 

107, 108, 110, 111, 

113, 118, 119, 121, 

122, 125, 128, 129, 

138 and underburn

Watershed- 39 Handlines will be mitigated (waterbarred and covered with organic

material) immediately following prescribed burning and under safe

conditions.

All Units

Watershed- 40 When underburning within Riparian Reserves, maintain at least 90

percent of the large woody debris (both standing and on the 

ground) as unburned or not consumed.

102, 103, 104, 106, 

107, 108, 110, 111, 

113, 118, 119, 121, 

122, 125, 128, 129, 

138 and underburn

Watershed- 41 Within Riparian Reserves, prescribed fire effects will mimic a low

intensity backing fire and ignition will usually not occur there. Hand

piles may have higher fire intensity in order to consume pile 

material.

102, 103, 104, 106, 

107, 108, 110, 111, 

113, 118, 119, 121, 

122, 125, 128, 129, 

138 and underburn

Wildlife –1 Marking crews will coordinate with a wildlife biologist to ensure 

“skip” areas are clearly marked as to not receive commercial 

treatment.

102, 104, 107, 108, 

110, 111, 112, 118, 

119, 120, 121, 122, 

125, and 128

Wildlife–2 Noise producing treatments that are above ambient noise levels

within 0.25 miles of an occupied northern spotted owl (NSO) 

activity center or within 0.25 mile of un-surveyed nesting/roosting 

habitat will have a seasonal restriction of February 1st to July 9th. 

This limited operating period may be lifted if protocol surveys as 

described in project design feature Wildlife 3 determine NSOs are

not nesting on year of action

46, 47, 48, 103 (a

and c), 104 (a and

b), 105, 110, 111 (a

and c), 114, 115 (b

and c), 116, 117, 

118, 120, 121(b and

d), 122, 125, 128, 

and portions of

39N21, 39N27, 

39N60, and 40N46

Wildlife–3 Surveys will follow regionally approved protocol or as agreed upon

by local Level One Team.

All Units

Wildlife–4 When burning in spring, smoke is managed so that light to 

moderate dispersed smoke may be present within a canyon or 

drainage but dissipates or lifts within 24 hours. When spring 

(February 1 to July 9) burning is conducted within 0.25 mile and 

uphill of a known NSO activity center or 0.25 miles of un-surveyed 

nesting/roosting habitat, smoke is managed as described above, 

and ignition should bed is continued if heavy, concentrated smoke 

begins to inundate suitable habitat late in the afternoon.

46, 47, 48, 103 (a

and c), 104 (a and

b), 105, 110, 111 (a

and c), 114, 115 (b

and c), 116, 117, 

118, 120, 121(b and

d), 122, 125, 128, 

and portions of

39N21, 39N27, 

39N60, and 40N46
—Draft Record of Decision—

Page 26 of 33

Resource Project Design Feature Applicable

Unit/Area and 

Alternatives

Wildlife–5 Mark and avoid treatment in a portion of units identified to be

consistent with Recovery Actions.

Unit 116 (approx. 1

acre on the inside 

edge of KL1034

core) and roadside 

unit 40N46 (end of 

unit on the both 

sides of the edge of 

KL0233 core.

Approx. 2 acre).

Wildlife-6 No known bald eagle nest trees, perch trees, or roost trees will be

removed or destroyed as a result of prescribed fire or fuels 

reduction treatments.

Project Area

Wildlife–7 To minimize smoke effects on bald eagles, prescribed burning will

not be implemented within 0.5 mile of a known or suspected nest 

territory from January 1st to August 31st, or a known or suspected 

winter roost area from November 1st to March 31st. If survey 

demonstrates that nest sites are not active, no seasonal 

restrictions are required.

Project Area

Wildlife–8 Actions that create noise above ambient levels within 0.25 miles of

active or suspected bald eagle nests, or be implemented within 0.5

mile line- of -sight of such nests, will be seasonally restricted from

January 1st to August 31st. If surveys demonstrate that bald 

eagles nest sites are not active, no seasonal restriction required.

Project Area

Wildlife–9 Actions that create noise above ambient levels within of an active 

or suspected bald eagle roost will be seasonally restricted from

November 1st to March 31st. If surveys demonstrate that roosts 

are not active, no seasonal restrictions are required.

Project Area

Wildlife–10 If an occupied northern goshawk nest sites is located, no burning 

or use of heavy equipment will be implemented within 0.25 miles 

of the nest site between March 1st and August 31st. If protocol 

surveys are conducted and the site is found to be unoccupied, 

proposed actions may proceed.

Project Area

Wildlife–11 Retain an average of five to 20 of the largest available logs on the

ground in treatment units.

All Commercial

Harvest Units

Wildlife–12 Where present, retain the largest hardwood snags. These provide

valuable habitat components for many species, including fisher 

and marten.

All Commercial

Harvest Units

Wildlife–13 Where possible retain pre- existing large snags greater than 14-

inches dbh distributed across the project landscape.

All Commercial

Harvest Units

Wildlife–14 Retain at a minimum two to five snags on an average per acre 

where available. This is to be assessed on a landscape level. 

Snag retention may not be met equally on every acre but will be 

met at a landscape scale. Retain snags in clump or groups, 

situated around the largest and live trees where possible. Select 

snags with broken tops as first priority.

All Commercial

Harvest Units

Wildlife - 15 Use protection buffers of known Survey and Manage species sites

to minimize impacts to these species.

105, 112, 125, 140, 

147, 40N46, 39N44, 

39N27, and 39N21
—Draft Record of Decision—

Page 27 of 33

Stand Treatment Table

Table 4: Treatment Objectives by Unit

Unit 

Number

Unit Objective Type of 

Treatment

Primary 

Treatment

Removal 

Method

Follow-up 

Treatment

Acres

141 Ridgetop 

Fuels

Handpile N/A Burn Piles 58

142 Ridgetop 

Fuels

Handpile N/A Burn Piles 10

143 Ridgetop 

Fuels

Handpile N/A Burn Piles 10

100 Ridgetop 

Fuels

Handpile N/A Burn Piles 6

145 Ridgetop 

Fuels

Mastication N/A N/A 17

146 Ridgetop 

Fuels

Mastication N/A N/A 53

147 Ridgetop 

Fuels

Underburn N/A N/A 233

140 Ridgetop 

Fuels

Handpile N/A Burn Piles 25

144 Ridgetop 

Fuels

Handpile N/A Burn Piles 7

M1 Meadow 

Treatment

Handpile N/A Burn Piles 4

RO Roadside 

Fuels

Handpile 

and Hazard 

Tree 

Removal

Tractor 

Endlining

Burn Piles 615

43 Release conifers, reduce 

competition.

Silvicultural Handpile N/A Burn Piles 4

44 Release conifers, reduce 

competition.

Silvicultural Handpile N/A Burn Piles 5

45 Release conifers, reduce 

competition.

Silvicultural Handpile N/A Burn Piles 7

46 Release conifers, reduce 

competition.

Silvicultural Handpile N/A Burn Piles 6

47 Release conifers, reduce 

competition.

Silvicultural Handpile N/A Burn Piles 6

71 Release conifers, reduce 

competition.

Silvicultural Handpile N/A Burn Piles 38

P1 Release conifers, reduce 

competition.

Silvicultural Handpile N/A Burn Piles 6

73 Release conifers, reduce 

competition.

Silvicultural Mastication N/A N/A 10

125 Move stand back toward a 

hardwood dominated ridge with 

scattered conifers and reduce 

dwarf mistletoe infections in 

Douglas-fir and white fir conifers 

while favoring larger diameter 

madrone, live oak, and 

chinquapin hardwoods.

Silvicultural Commercial 

Harvest

Skyline 

Harvest

Underburn 37
—Draft Record of Decision—

Page 28 of 33

Unit 

Number

Unit Objective Type of 

Treatment

Primary 

Treatment

Removal 

Method

Follow-up 

Treatment

Acres

128 In the talus portion of this unit, 

move the unit back toward a 

hardwood dominated stand with 

scattered larger conifers. Retain 

Douglas-fir greater than 20” dbh 

with mistletoe infection less than a 

rating of 3 BVR. Increase spacing 

around sugar pine and Douglas-fir 

greater than 28” dbh. Increase 

crown spacing around black oak 

hardwoods greater than 6” dbh 

and madrone greater than 16” 

dbh. Within NSO critical habitat, 

establish multiple 1⁄2 acre skips as 

designated by the wildlife 

biologist.

Silvicultural Commercial 

Harvest

Skyline 

Harvest

Underburn 51

130 Maintain sugar pine, Douglas-fir 

and incense-cedar greater than 

24” dbh while thinning smaller 

diameter naturally regenerating 

white fir and Douglas-fir and 

reduce mistletoe infection by 

removing smaller diameter 

Douglas-fir with dwarf mistletoe 

BVR rating of 2 or greater.

Silvicultural Commercial 

Harvest

Skyline 

Harvest

Underburn 18

136 Maintain sugar pine and incensecedar while reducing Douglas-fir 

and white fir with dwarf mistletoe 

infections (BVR 3 or greater).

Silvicultural Commercial 

Harvest

Skyline 

Harvest

Underburn 12

103 Favor trees that will persist for 

greater than 10 years. Reduce 

dwarf mistletoe infections in 

ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir 

with BVR 3 or greater. Retain 

sugar pine with minimal blister 

rust infection. Retain chinquapin, 

but favor nearby sugar pine and 

ponderosa.

Silvicultural Commercial 

Harvest

Groundbased 

Harvest

Underburn 53

105 Retain trees with best crowns.

Restore vigorous Douglas-fir in 

stand by reducing dwarf mistletoe 

in Douglas-fir with BVR 3 or 

greater. Retain and thin around 

large sugar pine with decent 

crowns. Also retain incense-cedar 

and uninfected white fir where 

they exist to maintain species 

diversity.

Silvicultural Commercial 

Harvest

Groundbased 

Harvest

Underburn 31

104 Reduce dwarf mistletoe in 

Douglas-fir with BVR 3 or greater.

Reduce white fir in stand while 

favoring sugar pine, ponderosa 

pine and incense-cedar. Reduce 

mistletoe in heavily infested 

incense-cedar. Reduce stocking 

and increase crown spacing 

among all trees.

Silvicultural Commercial 

Harvest

Groundbased 

Harvest

Underburn 49
—Draft Record of Decision—

Page 29 of 33

Unit 

Number

Unit Objective Type of 

Treatment

Primary 

Treatment

Removal 

Method

Follow-up 

Treatment

Acres

107 On west side of road, maintain 

NSO foraging habitat, reduce 

competition around predominant 

sugar pine and Douglas-fir, 

maintain groups of older trees, 

and reduce dwarf mistletoe in 

Douglas-fir with BVR 3or greater. 

On east side of road, return to 

open sugar pine, ponderosa pine 

and incense cedar stand and 

encourage pine regeneration.

Silvicultural Commercial 

Harvest

Groundbased 

Harvest

Underburn 36

101 Reduce stand density and 

increase crown spacing on this 

upper 1/3 slope unit. Maintain 

large tree component unless 

disease or pests are present in 

greater than 50 percent of crown.

Reduce dwarf mistletoe infections 

in Douglas-fir and white fir with 

BVR 3 or greater.

Silvicultural Commercial 

Harvest

Groundbased 

Harvest

Underburn 15

102 Reduce stand density, increase 

canopy spacing on this ridgetop 

unit, and maintain dominant and 

co-dominant trees with good 

crowns. Enhance large tree 

component in outer 70’ of 

Riparian Reserves and 

incorporate skips around wet 

features.

Silvicultural Commercial 

Harvest

Groundbased 

Harvest

Underburn 48

106 Reduce competition around larger 

diameter trees, favor incense 

cedar and Douglas-fir in the 

understory and maintain larger 

diameter trees with good crowns, 

except white fir.

Silvicultural Commercial 

Harvest

Groundbased 

Harvest

Underburn 24

115 Enhance Brewer oak along ridge, 

reduce competition around trees 

with good crowns favoring 

primarily sugar pine, ponderosa 

pine, incense cedar, and the 

occasional white fir with good 

crowns, thin understory species to 

retain conifers with best crowns.

Silvicultural Commercial 

Harvest

Groundbased 

Harvest

Underburn 16

116 Maintain sugar pine and incensecedar while reducing mistletoe 

infections in Douglas-fir and white 

fir with BVR 3 or greater.

Silvicultural Commercial 

Harvest

Groundbased 

Harvest

Underburn 19

118 Reduce stocking in stand while 

maintaining larger diameter sugar 

pine and vigorous clumps of 

madrone hardwoods.

Silvicultural Commercial 

Harvest

Groundbased 

Harvest

Underburn 10
—Draft Record of Decision—

Page 30 of 33

Unit 

Number

Unit Objective Type of 

Treatment

Primary 

Treatment

Removal 

Method

Follow-up 

Treatment

Acres

117 In the lower section of the unit, 

increase canopy spacing around 

trees greater than 24” dbh and 

thin smaller diameter conifers 

favoring pine species and incense 

cedar or Douglas-fir with good 

crowns. In the upper section, 

reduce mistletoe infection in 

Douglas-fir with BVR greater than 

2.

Silvicultural Commercial 

Harvest

Groundbased 

Harvest

Underburn 15

121 Enhance dry meadow by thinning 

conifers less than 20” dbh within 

50’ buffer, enhance hardwood 

component by thinning around 

black oak and live oak, reduce 

dwarf mistletoe infections in 

Douglas-fir and white fir with BVR 

greater than 2, maintain and reestablish pines and hardwoods, 

enhance large tree component in 

Riparian Reserves by thinning 

from below in outer 70’.

Silvicultural Commercial 

Harvest

Groundbased 

Harvest

Underburn 42

112 Retain sugar pine and ponderosa 

pine and create openings around 

groups or single pines greater 

than 16” dbh. Create openings to 

establish understory over time 

favoring pine regeneration.

Enhance hardwood component 

removing Douglas-fir from dripline 

of greater than 12”dbh 

hardwoods. Within NSO critical 

habitat, establish multiple 1⁄4- 1⁄2 

acre skips as designated by the 

wildlife biologist.

Silvicultural Commercial 

Harvest

Groundbased 

Harvest

Underburn 69

110 Retain groups of larger sugar 

pine, except those with poor 

crowns. Reduce competition 

around pre-dominant pines and 

increase their longevity in the 

stand. Enhance black oak 

hardwood component by thinning 

Douglas-fir around hardwood, but 

maintaining trees over 24” dbh. 

Reduce mistletoe in Douglas-fir at 

south end of unit with BVR 

greater than 2. Within NSO critical 

habitat, establish multiple 1⁄2-2 

acre skips as designated by the 

wildlife biologist.

Silvicultural Commercial 

Harvest

Groundbased 

Harvest

Underburn 77

111 Reduce dwarf mistletoe-infested 

trees with BVRs greater than 2. 

Increase canopy spacing around 

sugar pine and incense cedar and 

trees greater than 24” dbh. 

Increase spacing between 

hardwoods and conifers on ridge. 

Silvicultural Commercial 

Harvest

Groundbased 

Harvest

Underburn 40
—Draft Record of Decision—

Page 31 of 33

Unit 

Number

Unit Objective Type of 

Treatment

Primary 

Treatment

Removal 

Method

Follow-up 

Treatment

Acres

109 Maintain all trees greater than 26” 

dbh. Create crown separation 

around sugar pine. Thin to reduce 

competition between Douglas-fir.

Silvicultural Commercial 

Harvest

Groundbased 

Harvest

Underburn 1

108 Increase crown separation within 

plantation. Favor natural 

regeneration when possible. 

Silvicultural Commercial 

Harvest

Groundbased 

Harvest

Underburn 8

120 Maintain larger residual sugar 

pines, favor best crowns and 

largest diameter trees in 

plantations, thin around clumps of 

madrone to enhance hardwood 

species diversity.

Silvicultural Commercial 

Harvest

Groundbased 

Harvest

Underburn 11

119 Maintain larger diameter, nonpine species, favor best crowns 

and largest diameter trees in 

plantations, thin around clumps of 

madrone to enhance hardwood 

species diversity and favor natural 

regeneration where it exists.

Silvicultural Commercial 

Harvest

Groundbased 

Harvest

Underburn 12

114 In the pine plantation, reduce 

stand density. In the remainder of 

the unit, retain all conifers greater 

than 26” dbh except to reduce 

dwarf mistletoe infections in 

Douglas-fir with BVR 3 or greater.

Silvicultural Commercial 

Harvest

Groundbased 

Harvest

Underburn 2

113 Reduce dwarf mistletoe infection 

in Douglas-fir with BVR 3 or 

greater. Reduce mistletoe 

infection in white fir and Douglasfir in understory. Maintain 

hardwoods and reduce 

competition around sugar pine 

and ponderosa pine on ridge.

Reduce competition throughout 

unit favoring vigorous species 

with good crowns.

Silvicultural Commercial 

Harvest

Groundbased 

Harvest

Underburn 13

122 Reduce dwarf mistletoe infection 

in Douglas-fir with BVR greater 

than 2. Enhance hardwood 

component by thinning around 

hardwoods. Retain ponderosa 

pine, sugar pine and incensecedar. Plant rust resistant sugar 

pines in openings. Establish skips 

throughout unit to preserve 

botanical and riparian features. 

Reduce stocking in outer 70’ of 

Riparian Reserves to enhance 

large tree component.

Silvicultural Commercial 

Harvest

Groundbased 

Harvest

Underburn 43
—Draft Record of Decision—

Page 32 of 33

Unit 

Number

Unit Objective Type of 

Treatment

Primary 

Treatment

Removal 

Method

Follow-up 

Treatment

Acres

129 Reduce dwarf mistletoe infection 

in Douglas-fir with BVR 3 or 

greater and all white fir with 

visible infection. Reduce 

competition around large sugar 

pine. Establish skips around 

vigorous, well-spaced trees or 

around botanical or riparian 

features. Establish openings 

where pockets of mortality or 

disease are present. Reduce 

stocking in outer 70’ of Riparian 

Reserves to enhance large tree 

component.

Silvicultural Commercial 

Harvest

Groundbased 

Harvest

Underburn 24

137 Maintain all Douglas-fir without 

dwarf-mistletoe infection. Reduce 

competition around sugar pine

and maintain older red fir with 

good crowns and minimal 

Cytospora cankers. Thin 

remainder of stand (less than 20” 

dbh) to reduce stand density.

Silvicultural Commercial 

Harvest

Groundbased 

Harvest

Underburn 21

138 Reduce mistletoe infection in 

smaller diameter Douglas-fir with 

BVR greater than 2 and all white 

fir. Retain trees greater than 24” 

dbh with good crowns favoring 

sugar pine, Douglas-fir and 

incense-cedar. Reduce stocking 

in outer 70’ of Riparian Reserves 

to enhance large tree component.

Silvicultural Commercial 

Harvest

Groundbased 

Harvest

Underburn 8

70 Release conifers, reduce 

competition.

Silvicultural Mastication/ 

Handpile

N/A Burn Piles 31

42 Release conifers, reduce 

competition.

Silvicultural Mastication N/A N/A 9

48 Release conifers, reduce 

competition.

Silvicultural Mastication N/A N/A 9

Monitoring for Selected Alternative

As thinning of larger trees (of a size to be sold commercially, usually greater than ten inches in dbh) 

and of smaller trees (also known as non-commercial) is implemented, projects are monitored by 

Forest Service personnel as part of normal operating procedures. Forest Service employees monitor 

timber marking of harvest units to ensure that prescriptions and marking guides are being followed. 

Forest Service sale administrators monitor the harvest to assure that Forest Plan standards and 

guidelines, best management practices, and project design features are being implemented. Forest 

Service personnel monitor non-commercial thinning as it is being accomplished to determine if 

objectives are being achieved and make sure thinning specifications are being followed.

As fuels treatments are implemented, projects are monitored as part of normal operating procedures. 

Prior to prescribed burning, burn plans are developed. Burn plans for prescribed fire require 

monitoring of the burning to ensure that project objectives are being achieved.

The application of project design features that are identified for wildlife species are monitored in 

implementation and effectiveness monitoring. Assumptions made pertaining to effects to species are 
—Draft Record of Decision—

Page 33 of 33

validated. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will continue involvement through project 

implementation by meeting with the Forest representatives, designated marking crews, and 

contractors before and during project activities within 0.5 miles of northern spotted owl core areas to 

ensure that agreed-upon marking guidelines and protection measures are implemented. Post-project 

surveys for northern spotted owl will be conducted to evaluate pair occupancy and barred owl 

presence.

Post-project monitoring for the spread of non-native invasive species (noxious weeds) will occur as 

part of Forest Plan monitoring. Results will be documented in the Forest annual monitoring reports.

Best Management Practices Evaluation Program monitoring will occur on a sample of the best 

management practices appropriate for this project which are listed in Appendix D. Since many project 

activities do not occur within the same year, they will be included in Best Management Practices 

Evaluation Program monitoring pools for up to a decade as needed. The Forest Sediment Monitoring 

Plan (USDA Forest Service 2013c) and Shade Monitoring Plan (USDA Forest Service 2011) will be 

implemented for Total Maximum Daily Load compliance as displayed in the North Coast Region 

Basin Plan (California State Water Quality Control Board, 2011).

Monitoring to assess the implementation and effectiveness of project design features to meet soil 

Standard and Guidelines in the Forest Plan may occur in the Jess project. Field investigations of soil 

cover, soil compaction, and impacts to soil organic matter will occur on a minimum of 5 percent of 

activity areas forest wide, as described in Chapter 5 of the Forest Plan. Units will be selected 

randomly from all activity areas across the Forest where soil disturbing activities take place; the Jess 

project will be included in the sampling pool for soil monitoring. Results will be documented in the 

Forest annual monitoring reports.