United States 

Department of

Agriculture

Forest 

Service

March 2015

Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement

Westside Fire Recovery Project

Happy Camp Oak Knoll and Salmon/Scott River Ranger Districts,

Klamath National Forest

Siskiyou County, California

Township (T) 39 North (N) Range (R) 10 West (W) Sections (S) 1-11, 17, 18; T39N 

R11W, S 1-3 , 10-15; T40N R9W, S 6-7, 18, 30; T40N R10W S 1-36; T40N R11W S 1-

4, 9-16, 21-28, 33-36); T41N R10W S 18 -22 , 27-35; T41N R11W S24-25, 33-

36;T43N R12W S 2-11, 14-20; T44N R10W S 6; T44N R11W S1-11,15-22, 28-

30;T44N R12W S1-36; T45N R10W S5-9, 16-21, 28-32; T45N R11W S1-36; T45N 

R12W S 1-36; T46N R10W S 1-3, 10-15, 31-32; T46N R11W S 16-22, 26-36; T46N 

R12W S10-11,13-17, 20-36; T46N R8W S 2-7, 9-11; T46N 9W S 1-14, 18; T47N R8W 

S 4-10, 15-22, 27-34; T47N R9W S 1, 9-17, 19-36); T47 N10W S 25,34-36, Mount 

Diablo Meridian. 

T14N R8E S 5, 8, 17, 20; T15N R7E S 1, 2, 12, 13, 24; T15N R8E S3-10,15-22, 27-28, 

34; T16N R7E S 1, 2, 10-15, 23-25, 35-36; T16N R8E S6-10,15-22, 27-34, Humboldt 

Meridian.

For Information Contact: Wendy Coats, Environmental Coordinator 

Klamath National Forest Supervisor’s Office

1711 South Main Street, Yreka, CA 96097 

(530) 841-4470 or wcoats@fs.fed.us 

Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Envrionmenal Impact Statement

Non Discrimination Policy

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination against its customers, employees, and 

applicants for employment on the bases of race, color, national origin, age, disability, sex, gender identity, 

religion, reprisal, and where applicable, political beliefs, marital status, familial or parental status, sexual 

orientation, or all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program, or protected 

genetic information in employment or in any program or activity conducted or funded by the Department. (Not all 

prohibited bases will apply to all programs and/or employment activities.)

To File an Employment Complaint

If you wish to file an employment complaint, you must contact your agency's EEO Counselor within 45 days of 

the date of the alleged discriminatory act, event, or in the case of a personnel action. Additional information can 

be found online at www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_file.html. 

To File a Program Complaint

If you wish to file a Civil Rights program complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program 

Discrimination Complaint Form, found online at www.ascr.usda.gov/ complaint_filing_cust.html, or at any USDA 

office, or call (866) 632-9992 to request the form. You may also write a letter containing all of the information 

requested in the form. Send your completed complaint form or letter to us by mail at U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Director, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, 

by fax (202) 690-7442 or email at program.intake@usda.gov. 

Persons with Disabilities

Individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing or have speech disabilities and you wish to file either an EEO or 

program complaint please contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339 or (800) 845-

6136 (in Spanish).

Persons with disabilities, who wish to file a program complaint, please see information above on how to contact 

us by mail directly or by email. If you require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., 

Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) please contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). 
ii 
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmenal Impact Statement

Westside Fire Recovery Project

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Siskiyou County, California

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service

Responsible Official: Patricia A. Grantham, Forest Supervisor

Klamath National Forest

1711 South Main Street, Yreka, CA, 96097 

For Information Contact: Wendy Coats, Environmental Coordinator

Klamath National Forest Supervisor’s Office

1711 South Main Street, Yreka, CA 96097

(530) 841-4470 or wcoats@fs.fed.us

Abstract: The Westside Fire Recovery Project was developed in response to the 2014 wildfires on 

the Happy Camp/Oak Knoll and Salmon/Scott River Ranger Districts of the Klamath National Forest 

(Forest). The project will address the needs for 1) worker and public safety and access; 2) safe 

conditions for firefighters performing fire suppression for community protection; 3) a project that is 

economically viable, meeting project objectives and benefiting our local communities; and 4) restored 

and fire-resilient forested ecosystems. Alternatives considered in detail are: (1) Alternative 1, no 

action; (2) Alternative 2, the refined proposed action (preferred alternative); (3) Alternative 3, an 

alternative that emphasizes the development of future late successional forest habitat, habitat 

connectivity, northern spotted owl habitat and legacy components within the post fire landscape; (4) 

Alternative 4, an alternative that is designed to reduce watershed disturbance and impacts to water 

quality and fisheries, relative to the proposed action; and, (5) Alternative 5, that adds fuels treatments 

adjacent to private timber lands and removes treatment of salvage logging and site preparation from 

late successional reserves, riparian reserves, and inventoried roadless areas. 

Reviewers should provide the Forest Service with their comments during the review period of the 

draft environmental impact statement. This will enable the Forest Service to analyze and respond to 

the comments at one time and to use information acquired in the preparation of the final 

environmental impact statement, thus avoiding undue delay in the decision-making process. 

Reviewers have an obligation to structure their participation in the National Environmental Policy Act 

process so that it is meaningful and alerts the agency to the reviewers’ position and contentions. 

Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). Environmental objections 

that could have been raised at the draft stage may be waived if not raised until after completion of the 

final environmental impact statement. City of Angoon v. Hodel (9th Circuit, l986) and Wisconsin 

Heritages, Inc. v. Harris, 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). Comments on the draft 

environmental impact statement should be specific and should address the adequacy of the statement 

and the merits of the alternatives discussed (40 CFR 1503.3). In order for a reference to be 

considered, commenters are required to supply all referenced literature and discuss its relevancy to 

the project and its effects as part of their comments. The opportunity to comment will end 30 days 

following publication of the notice of availability (NOA) in the Federal Register, as published.

Publication of the NOA in the Federal Register is anticipated on March 13, 2015 and is the sole 

means of calculating the comment period. The acceptable format(s) for electronic comments include: 

plain text (.txt), rich text format (.rtf), Word (.doc, .docx), or portable document format (.pdf). Submit 

comments at: http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/nepa_project_exp.php?project=45579. Or, send hard-copy 

comments to: Patricia A. Grantham, ATTN: Wendy Coats, fax (530) 842-6131 or mailed to 1711 S. 

Main Street, Yreka, CA 96097, or hand-delivered during normal business hours (8am to 4:30 pm 

Monday-Friday, excluding holidays). For oral comments contact Wendy Coats at (530) 841-4470. 

i 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Summary

The Forest Service prepared this draft environmental impact statement (EIS) in 

compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant 

federal and state laws and regulations. In response to issues raised by the public during 

scoping and consultation efforts with tribes and regulatory agencies, the Forest Service 

refined the proposed action and developed three additional action alternatives analyzed in 

detail. This EIS discloses the environmental impacts that would result from the proposed 

action or its alternatives.

Background

Severe drought and exceptionally dry fuel conditions made the 2014 fire season one of 

the most impacting in the history of the Klamath National Forest. Fires within the Happy 

Camp Complex were ignited by lightning near the town of Happy Camp, which is located 

on the middle portion of the Klamath River. Hot, dry and windy conditions caused three 

of the original 19 fires to escape containment, burn actively for several weeks, and 

eventually grow together and spread south along the Scott River and into the Marble 

Mountain Wilderness. The Beaver Fire occurred on the north side of the Klamath River 

about 30 miles east of Happy Camp, and eventually consumed approximately 32,400 

acres. The July Complex was comprised of the Log and Whites Fires, which burned 

approximately 37,000 acres southeast of Fort Jones. The July Complex burned both 

private and Forest Service land, ultimately spreading into the Marble Mountain 

Wilderness and into the drainage of the North Fork of the Salmon River. The 2014 fire 

season ultimately burned about 215,000 acres on the Forest, of which the Beaver Fire, the 

Happy Camp Complex, and the Whites Fire of the July Complex are a subset1. The 

Beaver Fire, Happy Camp Complex, and Whites Fire burned a total of 183,100 acres, 

including 162,300 acres of National Forest System lands and 20,800 acres of private land 

(table S-1 below). 

Table S- 1: Acres of burned Forest Service and private lands within the proposed project area

Project 

Area

Fire Fire Start 

Date

Containment 

Date

Acres Burned: 

Forest Service

Acres Burned: 

Private 

Total Acres 

Burned

A Beaver Fire July 30, 

2014

August 30, 

2014

14,600 17,800 32,400

B Happy Camp 

Complex

August 

12, 2014

October 29, 

2014

114,800 2,100 116,900

C Whites Fire July 31, 

2014

September 

25, 2014

32,900 900 33,800

Total of All Fires

(acres)

162,300 20,800 183,100

1 The Beaver Fire, Happy Camp Complex, and Whites Fire were identified as requiring critical treatments 

due to post-fire conditions. Some other fires were also entirely within wilderness, preventing treatment. On 

the Goosenest Ranger District on the east side of the Klamath National Forest, the Forest has proposed the 

Little Deer project, which has much different conditions and no significant effects; the Environmental 

Assessment has moved forward without an Emergency Situation Determination request and an objection 

filing period that begins in late February 2015.

ii

 
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Envrionmenal Impact Statement

Burned Area Emergency Response 

Burned Area Emergency Response (BAER) actions, currently underway, aim to identify 

and manage imminent and unacceptable threats to human life, safety, property, and 

critical natural and cultural resources on National Forest System lands. BAER actions 

include repairing road drainages (grading, culvert cleaning, installation of rolling 

drainage dips, etc.), felling only imminent hazard trees along 650 miles of roads, and 

posting closure signs along roads and trails. Hazard trees felled during fire suppression 

and BAER activities were very limited in scope compared to the fire event and consisted 

of the most high-priority danger tree hazards2 along only the most frequented of 

roadways. Due to the objectives of BAER activities and the scale of the event, the many 

recently fire-killed trees were considered to be structurally sound at the time and were left 

standing. As snags along the roadways in burned areas are exposed to winter rains, snow, 

and winds and subsequently deteriorate and decay, threats to human health and safety 

substantially increase. While BAER activities mitigate many of the immediate hazards, 

additional emergency actions are needed to address the remaining safety concerns and to 

move the affected areas towards recovery.

Purpose and Need

The Westside Fire Recovery project was developed in response to landscape-level 

changes to forested habitat resulting from the 2014 wildfires on the Klamath National 

Forest. Forest Service resource specialists began evaluating conditions in the project area 

immediately following the fires. The BAER analyses provided resource assessments on 

the fires’ effects on soils, watersheds, vegetation, and wildlife. Post-fire inventories of the 

transportation system were conducted to obtain condition status. Field crews conducted 

surveys on forested stands to collect data on stand mortality and salvage viability. Soil 

burn severities and vegetation burn severities were mapped to determine the changed 

post-fire conditions. The initial post-fire assessments were completed by the fall of 2014. 

Resource specialists used this information to make recommendations to the responsible 

official, Forest Supervisor Patricia Grantham, for developing the proposed action. 

The purpose and need of the project is to address the following: 

 There is a need for worker and public safety and access. 

 There is a need for safe conditions for firefighters performing fire suppression for

community protection. 

 There is a need for a project that is economically viable, meeting project 

objectives and benefiting our local communities. 

 There is a need for restored and fire-resilient forested ecosystems. 

See chapter 1 for the detailed purpose and need. 

Proposed Action

The project area comprises 218,600 total acres, including 187,100 acres of National 

Forest System land and 31,500 acres of private land. It is divided into three subparts: 

2 A high-priority danger tree hazard is defined as “a road or road segments where danger trees are 

determined to be highly likely to fail and where those failures would be highly likely to cause injuries” 

(FSH7709.59 Section 40.5).

iii

 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

project area A (Beaver Fire), project area B (Happy Camp Complex), and project area C 

(Whites Fire of the July Complex). The boundary was expanded beyond the fire 

perimeters near private property structures in order to incorporate hazardous fuel 

reduction treatments and fire breaks for community protection. See the vicinity map in 

appendix A. 

In order to accomplish these objectives, the Forest Service proposes: 

 11,700 acres of salvage harvest units3 where fire-killed trees (snags) would be 

removed to reduce future fire risk and severity and to provide for public and forest 

worker safety; 

 650 miles of roadside hazard treatments (i.e., snag removal) along Forest system 

roads, state highways, and county roadways; 

 22,900 acres of hazardous fuels treatments (including strategic fuel breaks and 

treatments within 1⁄4 mile of private property structures and other infrastructure); 

and 

 7,900 acres of reforestation (site preparation, planting, and release) to accelerate 

the restoration of forest habitat.

Public Engagement

The Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS for the Westside Fire Recovery project was 

published in the Federal Register on October 15, 2014, beginning the 30-day public 

scoping period. The Forest is using news releases and social media to inform broader 

audiences. The Forest has created a project website4 to provide an independent electronic 

news outlet, as well as the standard legal notices and public notifications to meet the 

requirements of the NEPA. Field trips and public open house meetings in the local 

communities of Yreka, Fort Jones, Scott Bar, Sawyers Bar, Happy Camp, Klamath River, 

and Seiad have occurred and will continue to be used to inform, consult, and involve 

interested parties in an interactive, in-person manner. These efforts will also help us 

gauge public understanding and perception of the project. The Forest Service has also 

met with representatives of the timber industry regarding this project in order to gauge 

industry interest and capacity for salvage harvest using commercial timber sales.

Beyond the Forest’s typical means of outreach, the Westside Fire Recovery project has 

also inspired the creation of two local collaborative groups: 

 On January 6, 2015, the Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors unanimously 

approved the formation of a Citizens’ Advisory Committee, charged with

developing consensus recommendations for the Board to consider in responding 

to federal and state agencies on a variety of topics, including the Westside Fire 

Recovery project. An objective of the Board is to have the committee represent a 

broad spectrum of interests within Siskiyou County. 

3 Treatment in salvage harvest units is limited to moderate to high severity areas (>50% mortality) outside 

of riparian reserves. An estimated 6,800 acres of fire-killed trees would actually be removed. See chapter 2 

for a complete description of harvest units.

4 http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/nepa_project_exp.php?project=45579

iv

 
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Envrionmenal Impact Statement

 The locally-based National Institute for the Elimination of Catastrophic Wildfire 

is forming a diverse citizens’ collaborative group to address the Westside Fire 

Recovery project. The group (“The Westside Klamath Steering Committee”) will 

be comprised of Siskiyou County residents representing a wide range of interests 

who reflect the social and economic diversity within the affected area. The 

purpose of the group is to generate, through a collaborative process, consensus 

recommendations to the Forest Service, Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors, 

the California State Legislature, the Governor’s Office, and the California 

Congressional Delegation regarding treatments for the Westside Fire Recovery 

project. 

The two groups are not expected to compete with one another, but, rather, to complement 

each other in representing the views of Siskiyou County residents. It is anticipated that 

both collaborative groups will: 

 serve as advocates for actions regarding the recovery and restoration of the 

Westside Fire Recovery project area that are reflective of, and responsive to, 

the needs of the residents of Siskiyou County; 

 help evaluate the draft EIS; and

 suggest guidance for finding balance between protecting resources (such as 

wildlife, fisheries, and water quality) and protecting human life and safety, 

public infrastructure, private property, and communities. 

The Forest has been actively consulting with regulatory agencies as well as local and 

national elected officials. The Forest has also initiated government to government 

consultation with federally recognized local tribes. The Karuk Tribe has raised specific 

concerns regarding reforestation actions and project timelines; the Forest is increasing its 

engagement with the Karuk to address these concerns. The Forest is developing a projectspecific programmatic agreement with the State Historic Preservation Office for 

compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act. Regarding the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA), the Forest is consulting and conferencing with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service about the effects of the project on the ESA-listed northern spotted owl 

and ESA listing candidate Pacific fisher, respectively. The Forest is also consulting with 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NOAA Fisheries or NFMS) about the effects of the project on the ESA-listed Coho 

Salmon. The Forest is also working up-front with the North Coast Regional Water 

Quality Control Board regarding compliance with the Clean Water Act. The Forest will 

continue consultation efforts with all parties to ensure there is a full understanding of the 

project and that the resource needs of these groups are recognized and addressed.

Results of Scoping

The Forest Service received 749 unique comments by means of 98 unique letters, and 

1,556 form letters during the scoping period. In response to comments received, the 

Forest Service determined four issues to be relevant to alternative development. Other 

issues were also considered during the refinement of the proposed action (chapter 2) or 

addressed in the disposition of scoping comments (appendix B). 

Four issues were determined to be relevant to alternative development:

v 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

1. There is a disagreement about effects of salvage logging on wildlife habitat (e.g. 

northern spotted owl, Pacific fisher, and snag-associated species) and general wildlife 

habitat fragmentation and connectivity. (Alternative 3 responds to this issue.) 

2. There is a disagreement about the effects of salvage logging and required 

infrastructure on watershed health (e.g. beneficial uses, Coho Salmon habitat, and soil 

productivity). (Alternative 4 responds to this issue.) 

3. There is a disagreement about the effects of salvage logging, site preparation, and 

planting on late successional reserves and riparian reserves. (Alternatives 3, 4, and 5 

respond to this issue.) 

4. There is a disagreement about whether or not the proposed action sufficiently reduces 

fuels adjacent to private timber lands in the Beaver Fire area. (Alternative 5 responds 

to this issue.) 

These issues led the agency to develop alternatives to the proposed action summarized 

below. 

Alternatives Considered in Detail

In response to relevant issues, the Forest Service developed three alternatives to the 

proposed action and several alternatives considered but eliminated from detailed study. 

These are described in detail in chapter 2.

 Alternative 1 (No Action) -There will be no treatment with this alternative. The no 

action alternative provides reviewers a baseline to compare the magnitude of 

environmental effects of the action alternatives. It also provides a picture of the 

results of allowing natural regeneration to take place across the project area. 

 Alternative 2 (Refined Proposed Action) – This alternative is the proposed action as 

scoped, except refined in response to public scoping comments and the acquisition 

of field-verified information about the project area. See above for a brief description 

or chapter 2 for details.

 Alternative 3 – This alternative was developed in response to relevant issues about 

the effects of the proposed action on spotted owl and fisher habitat, habitat 

connectivity, and legacy components (i.e. old growth trees) and concerns about 

treatments in late-successional reserves. Alternative 3 emphasizes the development 

of future late successional habitat, habitat connectivity, northern spotted owl habitat 

and legacy habitat components within the post fire landscape. Alternative 3 is 

designed to retain legacy components for future habitat development, reduce effects 

to northern spotted owl nests, and lessen the effects to connectivity while still 

meeting the purpose and need for action. 

 Alternative 4 – This alternative was developed to reduced impacts to watershed, 

including to federally-listed Coho Salmon. This alternative was developed through 

consultation discussions between the Forest Service and NMFS and in response to 

relevant public issues about the effects of the proposed action on watershed 

conditions and recovery. Alternative 4 is designed to reduce watershed disturbance 

and impacts to water quality and fisheries, relative to the proposed action, while still 

meeting the purpose and need for action. This alternative takes a more conservative 

approach to implementing the Forest Plan’s Aquatic Conservation Strategy by 

reducing or eliminating temporary road actions, especially within key watersheds 

and sensitive watersheds, as identified by the interdisciplinary team. 

vi
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Envrionmenal Impact Statement

 Alternative 5 – This alternative addresses disagreements about the effects of salvage 

logging and site preparation on late successional reserves, riparian reserves, and 

inventoried roadless areas. Alternative 5 also addresses disagreements about 

whether or not the proposed action sufficiently addresses the needs for fuels 

reduction adjacent to private timber lands in the Beaver Fire area. Salvage harvest, 

site preparation, planting, and release are only proposed within management areas 

considered as matrix lands. Additional hazardous fuels treatments are proposed 

adjoining private land treatments to increase fuel breaks along ridge and road 

systems within the Beaver Fire area.

In addition to the 14 alternatives developed, the Forest Service received an alternative 

from the Karuk Tribe on March 5, 2015 at 4:30 pm, the day before printing; it has been 

incorporated into appendix G of the DEIS and is available for public review and 

comment. For the final EIS and for consideration in the decision, the Forest Service may 

likely produce another alternative to be analyzed in detailed study. This alternative 

would be reflective of ideas raised during the public comment period, collaborative 

efforts, and consultation. It would be comprised of actions already proposed among the 

existing action alternatives. Actions would be within the range of alternatives already 

proposed and their effects would be within the scope of analysis already considered in 

this draft EIS.

Emergency Situation Determination

In order to facilitate implementation of the project, the Forest is seeking an Emergency 

Situation Determination pursuant to 36 CFR 218.21. Under 36 CFR 218.21(d), a 

proposed action is not subject to the pre-decisional objection process if the Chief or 

Associate Chief of the Forest Service determines that an emergency situation exists with 

respect to all or part of the proposed action or activity. 36 CFR 218.21(b) defines an 

emergency situation as: 

a situation on National Forest System (NFS) lands for which immediate 

implementation of a decision is necessary to achieve one or more of the 

following: relief from hazards threatening human health and safety; 

mitigation of threats to natural resources on NFS or adjacent lands; 

avoiding a loss of commodity value sufficient to jeopardize the agency’s 

ability to accomplish project objectives directly related to resource 

protection or restoration. 

If the Emergency Situation Determination is granted, it would mean that there would be 

no provision for administrative challenge (objection) prior to issuance of a Record of 

Decision. 

Alternative Arrangements

In order to facilitate implementation of this project, the Forest Service requested

alternative arrangements with the Council on Environmental Quality pursuant to 40 CFR 

1506.11, which states: 

Where emergency circumstances make it necessary to take an action with 

significant environmental impact without observing the provisions of these 

regulations, the Federal agency taking the action should consult with the Council 

about alternative arrangements.

vii
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

The Forest Service received alternative arrangements that shortened the 45-day comment 

period requirement for the draft EIS by 15 days, resulting in a 30-day comment period 

(40 CFR 1506.10(c)). 

The Forest Service is also requesting alternative arrangements with the Council on 

Environmental Quality to: 

• Eliminate the 90-day requirement between the notice of availability of the draft 

EIS and the Record of Decision (1506.10(b)(1)) and 

• Eliminate the 30-day wait period between the final EIS and the Record of 

Decision (40 CFR 1506.10(b)(2)). 

Decision Framework

As the Responsible Official, the Forest Supervisor may decide to: (1) select the proposed 

action; (2) select one of the alternatives; (3) select one of the alternatives after modifying 

the alternative with additional mitigating measures or a combination of activities from 

other alternatives; or, (4) select the no action alternative, choosing not to authorize the 

Westside Fire Recovery project. In making this decision, the Forest Supervisor will 

consider such questions as: 

• How well does the selected alternative meet the purpose and need described in 

this EIS?

• How well does the selected alternative move the project area toward the desired 

conditions established in the Forest Plan? 

• Does the selected alternative mitigate potential adverse effects?

viii
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmenal Impact Statement

Table of Contents

....................................................................................................................ii

Westside Fire Recovery Project ............................................................................. i

Draft Environmental Impact Statement...................................................................................... i

Summary ............................................................................................................................. ii

Chapter 1 Purpose of and Need for Action ........................................................................ 1

Document Structure........................................................................................... 1

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

Geographic Area Affected...................................................................................................... 1

Emergency Triggering Event .................................................................................................. 2

Resources Affected ............................................................................................................... 3

Burned Area Emergency Response .......................................................................................... 5

Westside Fire Recovery Project............................................................................................... 5

Management Direction ....................................................................................... 7

Purpose and Need for Action .............................................................................10

Proposed Action .............................................................................................14

Decision Framework........................................................................................17

Public Involvement .........................................................................................18

Pre-Scoping....................................................................................................................... 18

Scoping ............................................................................................................................ 19

Public Engagement in Support of Alterative Arrangements...................................................... 20

Ongoing Collaborative Efforts ............................................................................................. 23

Ongoing Tribal Consultation................................................................................................ 24

Upcoming Public Engagement ............................................................................................. 25

Ongoing Regulatory Consultation......................................................................................... 25

Issues...........................................................................................................25

Other Issues...................................................................................................27

Chapter 2 Alternatives, Including the Refined Proposed Action .......................................29

Introduction...................................................................................................29

Best Available Information and Data Quality ......................................................................... 29

Alternatives Considered in Detail........................................................................29

Alternative 1 ..................................................................................................................... 29

Alternative 2 ..................................................................................................................... 30

Alternative 3 ..................................................................................................................... 43

Alternative 4 ..................................................................................................................... 49

Alternative 5 ..................................................................................................................... 55

Comparison of Alternatives ...............................................................................60

Project Design Features....................................................................................77

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study......................................91

Alternative A..................................................................................................................... 92

Alternative B..................................................................................................................... 94

Alternative C..................................................................................................................... 95

Alternative D..................................................................................................................... 96

Alternative E ..................................................................................................................... 98

Alternative F ..................................................................................................................... 99

Alternative G................................................................................................................... 103

Alternative H................................................................................................................... 104

Alternative I.................................................................................................................... 105

Alternative J.................................................................................................................... 106

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences..............................107

Analyzing Environmental Consequences.............................................................107

ix
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects ..............................................................................107

Vegetation.................................................................................................. 109

Methodology ...................................................................................................................109

Analysis Indicators ...........................................................................................................109

Spatial and Temporal Context ............................................................................................110

Affected Environment .......................................................................................................110

Environmental Consequences.............................................................................................112

Compliance with law, regulation, policy, and the Forest Plan..................................................117

Fire and Fuels.............................................................................................. 117

Methodology ...................................................................................................................118

Analysis Indicators ...........................................................................................................118

Spatial and Temporal Context ............................................................................................119

Affected Environment .......................................................................................................119

Environmental Consequences.............................................................................................120

Compliance with law, regulation, policy, and the Forest Plan ..........................................130

Terrestrial Wildlife ....................................................................................... 130

Methodology ...................................................................................................................131

Analysis Indicators, Spatial and Temporal Context by Status of Species...................................131

Affected Environment .......................................................................................................141

Environmental Consequences.............................................................................................147

Compliance with law, policy, regulation and the Forest Plan...................................................170

Botany and Non-Native Invasive Species............................................................ 170

Methodology ...................................................................................................................170

Analysis Indicators ...........................................................................................................172

Spatial and Temporal Context ............................................................................................173

Affected Environment .......................................................................................................173

Environmental Consequences.............................................................................................175

Determination of Effects....................................................................................................186

Compliance with Law, Regulation, Policy, and the Forest Plan ...............................................186

Range........................................................................................................ 187

Methodology ...................................................................................................................187

Analysis Indicators ...........................................................................................................187

Spatial and Temporal Context ............................................................................................187

Affected Environment .......................................................................................................188

Environmental Consequences............................................................................................. 191

Water Quality.............................................................................................. 194

Methodology ...................................................................................................................194

Analysis Indicators ...........................................................................................................197

Spatial and Temporal Context ............................................................................................199

Affected Environment .......................................................................................................199

Environmental Consequences.............................................................................................202

Aquatic Resources (includes fisheries)............................................................... 209

Methodology ...................................................................................................................209

Analysis Indicators ...........................................................................................................209

Spatial and Temporal Context ............................................................................................210

Affected Environment .......................................................................................................211

Environmental Consequences.............................................................................................213

Compliance with law, regulation, policy, and the Forest Plan..................................................227

Soil........................................................................................................... 227

Methodology and Analysis Indicators..................................................................................227

Spatial and Temporal Context ............................................................................................228

Affected Environment .......................................................................................................228

Environmental Consequences.............................................................................................229

Compliance with law, regulation, policy, and the Forest Plan ..........................................235

Geology..................................................................................................... 235

x 
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Envrionmenal Impact Statement

Methodology ................................................................................................................... 235

Spatial and Temporal Context............................................................................................ 236

Affected Environment....................................................................................................... 237

Environmental Consequences ............................................................................................ 238

Air Quality..................................................................................................240

Methodology ................................................................................................................... 241

Affected Environment....................................................................................................... 241

Environmental Consequences ............................................................................................ 242

Compliance with law, regulation, policy, and the Forest Plan ................................................. 243

Cultural Resources ........................................................................................243

Methodology ................................................................................................................... 244

Analysis Indicators........................................................................................................... 244

Spatial and Temporal Context............................................................................................ 245

Affected Environment....................................................................................................... 245

Environmental Consequences ............................................................................................ 246

Compliance with law, regulation, policy, and the Forest Plan ................................................. 250

Social and Economic Environment ....................................................................250

Methodology ................................................................................................................... 251

Analysis Indicators........................................................................................................... 251

Spatial and Temporal Context............................................................................................ 252

Affected Environment....................................................................................................... 252

Environmental Consequences ............................................................................................ 254

Compliance with law, regulation, policy and the Forest Plan .................................................. 260

Scenery ......................................................................................................261

Methodology ................................................................................................................... 261

Analysis Indicators........................................................................................................... 262

Spatial and Temporal Context............................................................................................ 263

Environmental Consequences ............................................................................................ 267

Compliance with law, regulation, policy, and the Forest Plan ................................................. 276

Recreation...................................................................................................277

Methodology ................................................................................................................... 277

Analysis Indicators........................................................................................................... 277

Spatial and Temporal Context............................................................................................ 277

Affected Environment....................................................................................................... 277

Environmental Consequences ............................................................................................ 280

Compliance with law, regulation, policy, and the Forest Plan ................................................. 285

Wild and Scenic Rivers ..................................................................................285

Methodology ................................................................................................................... 285

Analysis Indicators........................................................................................................... 285

Spatial and Temporal Context............................................................................................ 286

Affected Environment....................................................................................................... 286

Environmental Consequences ............................................................................................ 288

Compliance with law, regulation, policy, and the Forest Plan ................................................. 299

Inventoried Roadless Areas .............................................................................299

Methodology ................................................................................................................... 299

Analysis indicators........................................................................................................... 299

Spatial and temporal bounding ........................................................................................... 300

Affected Environment....................................................................................................... 300

Environmental Consequences ............................................................................................ 300

Alternative 3 ................................................................................................................... 302

Alternative 4 ................................................................................................................... 302

Alternative 5 ................................................................................................................... 302

Compliance with law, policy, regulation and the Forest Plan .................................................. 303

Climate Change............................................................................................303

Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity........................................................305

xi
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Unavoidable Adverse Effects .......................................................................... 305

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ....................................... 305

Legal and Regulatory Compliance .................................................................... 306

Clean Air Act...................................................................................................................306

Clean Water Act...............................................................................................................306

Endangered Species Act ....................................................................................................306

National Historic Preservation Act ......................................................................................307

National Forest Management Act........................................................................................307

Executive Orders..............................................................................................................307

Chapter 4 Consultation and Coordination .................................................................... 309

Preparers and Contributors.............................................................................. 309

ID Team Members:...........................................................................................................309

Federal, State, and Local Agencies:.....................................................................................310

Tribes: ............................................................................................................................310

Additional Organizations and Individuals:............................................................................310

Literature Cited........................................................................................................... 311

Appendix A: Vicinity and Alternative Treatment Maps................................................. 319

Appendix B: Public Scoping Comments Disposition and Open House Record ................ 377

Methodology............................................................................................... 377

Results ...................................................................................................... 378

Public Open House Summary Input................................................................... 388

Appendix C: Actions Considered for Cumulative Effects............................................... 393

On-going Actions (Klamath National Forest)....................................................... 393

On-going Actions (Private)............................................................................. 400

Future Foreseeable Actions (Klamath National Forest)........................................... 401

Appendix D: Best Management Practices...................................................................... 404

References for Best Management Practices ......................................................... 413

Appendix E: Photo Journal.......................................................................................... 414

Appendix F: Treatment by Prescription by Project Area and Alternative ...................... 434

Appendix G: Alternative Sent by the Karuk Tribe ........................................................ 440

List of Tables and Figures

List of Tables

Table S- 1: Acres of burned Forest Service and private lands within the proposed project area ......................... ii

Table 1-1: General fire information.................................................................................................................. 3

Table 1-2: Percentage of vegetative canopy killed (basal area)........................................................................... 4

Table 1-3: Acres burned within the project area on private and National Forest System lands by fire area. ....... 6

Table 1-4: General location by project area ...................................................................................................... 6

Table 1-5: Notable Forest Plan management area goals for management areas found within the project 

boundary ......................................................................................................................................................... 9

Table 1-6: Existing and Desired Conditions.................................................................................................... 12

Table 1-7: Relevant issues and how they were addressed in project design ...................................................... 26

Table 2-1: Acres of salvage harvest treatment within units by logging system.................................................. 31

Table 2-2: Acres of salvage harvest units by land allocation ............................................................................ 32

Table 2-3: Miles of Roadside Hazard Treatments by National Forest Transportation System maintenance level

...................................................................................................................................................................... 35

Table 2-4: Acres of Roadside Hazard Treatments considered by management area......................................... 35

Table 2-5: Acres of hazardous fuels treatments by management area. ............................................................. 35

xii
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Envrionmenal Impact Statement

Table 2-6: Acres of hazardous fuels treatment by treatment type.....................................................................36

Table 2-7: Site preparation by unit type ..........................................................................................................39

Table 2-8: Acres of site preparation, planting, and release by management areas for alternative 2 

(does not include acres of site preparation, planting, and release in salvage harvest units) ..............40

Table 2-9: Acres of reforestation and release by unit type................................................................................41

Table 2-10: Miles of road access by Forest Transportation System maintenance level and temporary road access

.......................................................................................................................................................................42

Table 2-11: Description of treatment, number of sites, and actions needed for legacy site treatment .................42

Table 2-12: Concerns addressed by the development of alternative 3 ...............................................................44

Table 2-13: Acres of salvage harvest proposed in alternative 3 by logging system .............................46

Table 2-14: Acres of salvage harvest units proposed in alternative 3 by land allocation.....................46

Table 2-15: Acres of site preparation, planting, and release in alternative 3 by unit treatment type. ..48

Table 2-16: Acres of only site preparation, planting, and release for alternative 3 by management 

area (does not include acres of site preparation, planting, and release in salvage harvest units)......48

Table 2-17: Acres of salvage harvest in alternative 4 by logging system............................................................51

Table 2-18: Acres of salvage harvest units in alternative 4 by land allocation ...................................................52

Table 2-19: Miles of roadside hazard treatments by maintenance level ............................................................53

Table 2-20: Acres of roadside hazard treatment by management area .............................................................54

Table 2-21: Acres of site preparation, planting, and release in alternative 4 by treatment type .........................54

Table 2-22: Acres of site preparation, planting and release in alternative 4 by land allocation ..........................54

Table 2-23: Miles of road access for alternative 4 ............................................................................................55

Table 2-24: Acres of treatment proposed in alternative 5 by logging systems....................................................56

Table 2-25: Acres of proposed salvage harvest units in alternative 5 by management area ...............................56

Table 2-26: Alternative 5 treatment acres by treatment type............................................................................58

Table 2-27: Alternative 5 fuels treatment by land allocations...........................................................................58

Table 2-28: Acres of proposed site preparation, planting, and release for alternative 5 by treatment type.........59

Table 2-29: Acres of only site preparation, planting, and release for alternative 5 by management area (does not 

include acres of site preparation, planting, and release in salvage harvest units)...............................................59

Table 2-30: Miles of road access for alternative 5 ............................................................................................59

Table 2-31: Comparison of miles of roads and acres of treatment ....................................................................63

Table 2-32: Comparison of alternative effects related to the purpose and need of the project ...........................64

Table 2-33: Comparison of alternative indicators by relevant issue..................................................................66

Table 2-34: Comparison of effects of all alternatives by resource .....................................................................67

Table 2-35: Westside Fire Recovery Project Design Features and applicable stands and/or alternatives ...........77

Table 2-36: Recommendations of the 1995 Beschta report and how each is addressed by alternatives in the 

Westside Fire Recovery project.......................................................................................................................92

Table 2-37: Recommendations on specific treatments and how each is addressed by alternatives in the Westside 

Fire Recovery project .....................................................................................................................................94

Table 2-38: Recommendations on specific treatments and locations, and how each is addressed by alternatives in 

the Westside Fire Recovery project .................................................................................................................96

Table 2-39: Recommendations on additional project design features and how each is addressed by alternatives 

in the Westside Fire Recovery project .............................................................................................................97

Table 2-40: Recommendations for the exclusion of specific areas and how each is addressed by alternatives in 

the Westside Fire Recovery project .................................................................................................................98

Table 2-41: Recommendations to meet tribal concerns and how each is addressed by alternatives in the Westside 

Fire Recovery project .....................................................................................................................................99

Table 2-42: Recommendations for no new infrastructure and how each is addressed by alternatives in the 

Westside Fire Recovery project.....................................................................................................................104

Table 2-43: Recommendations for increased salvage opportunities and how each is addressed by alternatives in 

the Westside Fire Recovery project ...............................................................................................................105

Table 2-44: Recommendations to remove the Beaver Fire from the project and how this is addressed by 

alternatives in the Westside Fire Recovery project ........................................................................................105

Table 2-45: Recommendations for a no-salvage, safety-focused alternative and how this is addressed by 

alternatives in the Westside Fire Recovery project ........................................................................................106

Table 3-1: Percentage of size classes within the project area ..........................................................................110

Table 3-2: Comparison of analysis indicators for each alternative..................................................................117

Table 3-3: Potential fire behavior (by acreage) over the span of 50 years within the Westside Fire Recovery 

project area ..................................................................................................................................................121

Table 3-4: Comparison of post-fire effects of alternatives on fire and fuels after ten years..............................130

Table 3-5: Analysis Indicators, Spatial and Temporary Boundaries by Species ..............................................140

Table 3-6: The level of risk to northern spotted owl (NSO) reproduction given the current condition of the core 

and home range for known activity centers ...................................................................................................141

Table 3-7: Critical Habitat Acres by Northern Spotted Owl Habitat Type .....................................................142

Table 3-8: Affected Environment Summary ..................................................................................................145

xiii
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Table 3-9: Change in Critical Habitat Acres for Alternative 2....................................................................... 149

Table 3-10: Comparison of effects to species and associations by alternative ................................................. 167

Table 3-11: Requirements for Survey and Manage categories. ...................................................................... 171

Table 3-12: List of Sensitive and Survey and Manage botanical species known to be present in the Westside Fire 

Recovery project area. ................................................................................................................................. 174

Table 3-13: List of Non-native Invasive species known to be present in the Westside Fire Recovery project area.

.................................................................................................................................................................... 175

Table 3-14: Comparison of effects to Species of Concern and NNIS by Alternatives. ..................................... 185

Table 3-15: Allotments within the project boundary ..................................................................................... 188

Table 3-16: Condition based on Rooted Frequency Plots............................................................................... 189

Table 3-17: Most current BMPEP rating for each allotment within the project area...................................... 190

Table 3-18: Fire intensity ............................................................................................................................. 190

Table 3-19: Approximate acres of proposed activities within allotment boundaries ....................................... 192

Table 3-20: Percentage of allotment acres treated under alternative 2 ........................................................... 193

Table 3-21: Comparison of alternatives for rangeland resources................................................................... 194

Table 3-22: Number of 7th field watersheds in each risk category for analysis indicators................................ 209

Table 3-23: Summary of stream channel burn severity data from BAER Reports (USFS 2014a-2014f) for the 

2014 fires. .................................................................................................................................................... 213

Table 3-24: Miles of temporary roads needed for the action alternatives and number of stream crossings...... 226

Table 3-25: Summary of comparison of effects of alternatives for aquatic resource analysis indicators.......... 227

Table 3-26: Comparison of Social and Economic Effects of Alternatives........................................................ 260

Table 3-27: Identified potential viewsheds, Sensitivity Level, and Distance Zone by project area ................... 264

Table 3-28: Desired Visual Quality Objective (VQO) by Management Area (per Forest Plan) ....................... 267

Table 3-29: Acres of Treatment Types by Alternative by Visual Quality Objectives for the project area........ 269

Table 3-30: Visibility of Project Treatments From Sensitive Viewpoints for Three Project Areas. ................. 270

Table 3-31: Preliminary Results of Meeting or Not Meeting VQO by Alternative by Treatment Type............ 274

Table 3-32: Scenery Comparison of Effects of Alternatives ........................................................................... 276

Table 3-33: Summary of Recreation Features located within Beaver Fire, Happy Camp Complex Fire, and 

Whites Fire Project Areas ............................................................................................................................ 278

Table 3-34: List of Recreation Facilities benefiting from Roadside Hazard and Fuels Treatments.................. 281

Table 3-35: Applicable Desired Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Classes by Management Area ................. 282

Table 3-36: Compatibility of Visual Quality Objectives (VQOs) and Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) 

Classes......................................................................................................................................................... 283

Table 3-37: Recreation Comparison of Effects of Alternatives for all three fire areas .................................... 284

Table 3-38: Summary of Potentially Affected Wild and Scenic Rivers by Segment Number, Classification, and 

Outstandingly Remarkable Value(s)............................................................................................................. 287

Table 3-39: Acres of Proposed Treatments for Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 located within Wild and Scenic River 

corridors by River Classification and Segment ............................................................................................. 289

Table 3-40: Wild and Scenic River Comparison of Effects of Alternatives..................................................... 293

Table 3-41: Acres within each IRA, and within the portions of each IRA that retain roadless character ........ 300

Table 3-42: Alternative 2 proposed activities within each IRA, in portions that retain and do not retain roadless 

character ..................................................................................................................................................... 301

Table 3-43: Alternative 5 proposed activities within each IRA, in portions that retain and do not retain roadless 

character ..................................................................................................................................................... 302

Table B-1: Concern statements and responses .............................................................................................. 379

Table B-2: Open houses offered prior to the release of the draft EIS ............................................................. 388

Table C-1: The twenty-nine 6th field watersheds that intersect the Westside Fire Recovery Project boundary 

separated by fire area subpart...................................................................................................................... 393

Table C-2: Active Livestock Grazing Allotments within the Westside Fire Recovery Project area.................. 399

Table C-3: Active Timber Harvest Plans within the Westside Fire Recovery Project area.............................. 400

Table F-1: Treatment by Prescription within the Beaver Project Area by Alternative ................................... 434

Table F-2: Treatment by Prescription within the Happy Camp Project Area by Alternative ......................... 435

Table F-3: Treatment by Prescription within the Whites Project Area by Alternative ................................... 436

Table F-4: Treatment by Prescription within the Total of all Project Areas by Alternative ............................ 437

List of Figures

Figure 2-1: Fire Severity by Mortality Class and Estimated Net Harvest Acres ............................................... 32

Figure 2-2: Acres of Salvage Harvest and Retention Areas within Alternative 2 Treatment Units.................... 33

Figure 2-3: Fire Severity by Mortality Class and Estimated Net Harvest Acres for Alternative 3 ..................... 47

Figure 2-4:Acres of Salvage Harvest and Retention Areas within Treatment Units in Alternative 3 ................. 47

Figure 2-5: Fire Severity by Mortality Class and Estimated Net Harvest Acres in Alternative 4....................... 52

Figure 2-6: Acres of Salvage Harvest and Retention within Treatment Units for alternative 4 ......................... 53

Figure 2-7: Fire Severity by Mortality Class and Estimated Net Harvest Acres in Alternative 5....................... 57

Figure 2-8: Acres of Salvage Harvest and Retention within Treatment Units in Alternative 5 .......................... 57

Figure 3-1: Representative stand from the Walker Creek Drainage with, and without salvage harvest and 

xiv
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Envrionmenal Impact Statement

treatment of activity fuels..............................................................................................................................124

Figure 3-2: Fire disturbance recovery curves for the Forest cumulative watershed effects ERA model ...........196

Figure 3-3: Fire and vegetation management recovery curves for the Forest cumulative watershed effects USLE 

model ...........................................................................................................................................................196

Figure 3-4: Recovery curves for the Forest cumulative watershed effects mass-wasting model........................197

Figure 3-5 : Walker Creek in the Happy Camp Complex Fire area (Photo by Zack Mondry 11/15/14). ..........200

Figure 3-6: Effects of high-severity fire on a forested hillslope in Whites Gulch (Photo by Zack Mondry 

11/26/14).......................................................................................................................................................200

List of Maps

Map A-1: Westside Fire Recovery Vicinity Map............................................................................................319

Map A-2: RAVG Map – Happy Camp Complex............................................................................................321

Map A-3: Alternative 2 – northwest section of the Happy Camp Complex. Please note: Each alternative of the 

Happy Camp complex has been broken out into four sections to allow for clarity and readability ..................323

Map A-4: Alternative 2 – northeast section of the Happy Camp Complex ......................................................325

Map A-5: Alternative 2 – northeast section of the Happy Camp Complex ......................................................327

Map A-6: Alternative 2 – southeast section of the Happy Camp Complex ......................................................329

Map A-7: Alternative 3 – northwest section of the Happy Camp Complex .....................................................331

Map A-8: Alternative 3--northeast section of the Happy Camp Complex .......................................................333

Map A-9: Alternative 3 – southwest section of the Happy Camp Complex .....................................................335

Map A-10: Alternative 3 – southeast section of the Happy Camp Complex ....................................................337

Map A-11: Alternative 4--northwest section of the Happy Camp Complex.....................................................339

Map A-12: Alternative 4 – northeast section of the Happy Camp Complex ....................................................341

Map A-13: Alternative 4 – southwest section of the Happy Camp Complex....................................................343

Map A-14: Alternative 4 – southeast section of the Happy Camp Complex ....................................................345

Map A-15: Alternative 5 – northwest section of the Happy Camp Complex ...................................................347

Map A-16: Alternative 5 – northeast section of the Happy Camp Complex ....................................................349

Map A-17: Alternative 5 – southwest section of the Happy Camp Complex....................................................351

Map A-18: Alternative 5 – southeast section of the Happy Camp Complex ....................................................353

Map A-19: RAVG Map – Beaver Fire ...........................................................................................................355

Map A-20: Alternative 2 – Beaver Fire..........................................................................................................357

Map A-21: Alternative 3 – Beaver Fire..........................................................................................................359

Map A-22: Alternative 4 – Beaver Fire..........................................................................................................361

Map A-23: Alternative 5 – Beaver Fire..........................................................................................................363

Map A-24: RAVG Map – Whites Fire ...........................................................................................................365

Map A-25: Alternative 2--Whites Fire ...........................................................................................................367

Map A-26: Alternative 3 – Whites Fire..........................................................................................................369

Map A-27: Alternative 4 – Whites Fire..........................................................................................................371

Map A-28: Alternative 5 – Whites Fire..........................................................................................................373

Map A-29: Legacy Map – Elk Creek Restoration ..........................................................................................375

xv

Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Chapter 1 Purpose of and Need for Action

Document Structure _____________________________________ 

The Forest Service has prepared this Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in 

compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant 

federal and state laws and regulations. This EIS discloses the direct, indirect, and 

cumulative environmental impacts that would result from the proposed action and 

alternatives. The document is organized into four chapters and eight appendices: 

 Purpose of and Need for Action (Chapter 1): This chapter briefly describes the 

proposed action, the need for that action, and other purposes to be achieved by the 

proposal. This section also details how the Forest Service informed the public of the 

proposed action and how the public responded. 

 Alternatives, Including the Refined Proposed Action (Chapter 2): This chapter 

provides a detailed description of the agency’s proposed action as well as alternative 

actions that were developed in response to comments raised by the public during 

scoping. The end of the chapter includes a summary table comparing the proposed 

action and alternatives with respect to their environmental impacts.

 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences (Chapter 3): This chapter 

describes the environmental impacts of the proposed action and alternatives. 

 Consultation and Coordination (Chapter 4): This chapter provides a list of preparers 

and agencies consulted during the development of the draft EIS. 

 Appendices: The appendices provide more detailed information to support the 

analyses presented in the draft EIS. 

The draft EIS and supporting documents can be found 

at: http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/nepa_project_exp.php?project=45579 . 

Additional information is located within the project record located at the headquarters 

office in Yreka, CA. 

Background ____________________________________________ 

Geographic Area Affected

On the west side of the Klamath National Forest, the terrain is extremely rugged, with 

total relief in excess of 7,500 feet and hillslopes commonly steeper than 65 percent. The 

Klamath Mountains are also characterized by steep ecological gradients, high vegetation, 

wildlife, and fish diversity, with numerous species including the federal Endangered 

Species Act (ESA)-listed northern spotted owl and Coho Salmon and the federal ESA 

candidate Pacific fisher. Annual precipitation ranges from approximately ten inches in 

eastern valleys to over 70 inches in the highest elevations. Climate is essentially 

Mediterranean, and watershed hydrology is characterized by dry summer and fall months 

followed by significant winter precipitation. Morphology and function of the steep stream 

channels is controlled by large floods and associated landslides and debris flows. 

1
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Prior to the 2014 fires, vegetation types within the project area generally consisted of oak, 

brush, grass, and mixed conifers. Oaks, brush, and grasses are typically found on lowelevation sites on shallow, rocky soils located on the southerly and westerly aspects. 

These southerly and westerly aspects exhibit harsher conditions as opposed to the 

northerly and easterly aspects. As elevations increase, conifer species become more 

prevalent, primarily as a function of higher precipitation amounts. Deeper, more 

developed soils than those at low elevations support mixed conifer stands of Douglas-fir, 

ponderosa pine, incense cedar, and sugar pine. Higher elevation sites within the project 

area are favorable conditions for red fir and white fir survival and growth, with white fir 

becoming a substantial component of the mixed conifer type. Hardwood species, 

including Pacific madrone, California black oak, canyon live oak, Oregon white oak, 

tanoak, and bigleaf maple are generally a minor component of mixed conifer stands. 

Few forested regions have historically experienced fires as frequently and with such high 

variability in fire severity as the Klamath Mountains Bioregion (Skinner, 2006). Within 

the bioregion, lightning has accounted for 74 percent of ignitions and 82 percent of 

burned areas, and median fire return interval ranges from eight to 38 years (Taylor, 

Skinner, and Agee, 2006). A great portion of the landscape had remained unburned from 

20 to 100 years prior to the 2014 fires. Fire will continue to be a presence on the Klamath 

Mountain landscape and shape future vegetation, fuel loadings, and fire severity patterns.

Emergency Triggering Event

Severe drought and exceptionally dry fuel conditions made the 2014 fire season one of 

the most impacting in the history of the Klamath National Forest. The following is an 

outline of some of the difficult conditions that characterized the season: 

• Three consecutive years of drought resulted in record low snowpack, rainfall, 

and stream flows. 

• Live and dead fuel moistures were at record historic lows, with numerous days 

setting new records for severe wildfire burning conditions. 

• Over the course of the summer, five separate waves of lightning storms affected 

the Forest, setting a total of 127 wildfires (an additional 12 wildfires were 

human-caused).

• Twenty severe fire weather warnings (“Red Flag Warnings”) were issued by the 

National Weather Service between July 29 and August 18, 2014, due to lightning 

and abundant dry fuels, strong winds, and low relative humidity.

• A total of 14 Mandatory Evacuations and 15 Evacuation Advisories were ordered 

by the Siskiyou County Sheriff’s Department as a result of threatening wildfire 

activity. These evacuations affected an estimated 800 residents. Extensive Forest 

road and area closures were also in effect for most of the fire season.

• Simultaneous wildfires burning in Oregon, Washington, and other parts of 

California resulted in limited resources (firefighting crews and aircraft) being 

readily available to the Forest during initial suppression efforts. 

• Rugged mountainous topography, heavy fuel loadings (jackstraw fallen snags 

and trees), and limited access made fire suppression efforts extremely 

challenging. 

2 
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Klamath-wide, the 2014 fire season ultimately burned about 210,000 acres. Restoration 

needs for all affected acres were identified. Some fires, or portions of fires, burned within 

wilderness areas, where natural processes drive restoration. Restoration needs of the 

5,500-acre Little Deer fire (located on the east side of the Forest), have been identified 

and analyzed through a stand-alone Environmental Analysis. The Westside Fire 

Recovery project is composed of the other large fires (or portions of fires) that burned 

during 2014 - the Beaver Fire, Happy Camp Complex, and the Whites Fire of the July 

Complex. 

The Beaver Fire, Happy Camp Fire, and Whites Fire burned a total of 183,200 acres, 

including 162,300 acres of National Forest System lands and 20,800 acres of private land. 

See Table 1-1below.

Table 1-1: General fire information

Project 

Area

Fire Fire Start 

Date

Containment 

Date

Acres Burned: 

Forest Service

Acres Burned: 

Private 

Total Acres 

Burned

A Beaver Fire July 30, 

2014

August 30, 

2014

14,600 17,800 32,400

B Happy 

Camp 

Complex 

Fire

August 12, 

2014

October 29, 

2014

114,800 2,100 116,900

C Whites Fire July 31, 

2014

September 

25, 2014

32,900 900 33,800

Total of All Fires

(acres)

162,300 20,800 183,100

Fires within the Happy Camp Complex were ignited by lightning near the town of Happy 

Camp, which is located on the middle portion of the Klamath River. Nineteen fires were 

ignited in this storm and comprised the complex. Due to hot, dry and windy conditions, 

three of the original 19 fires could not be readily contained, eventually grew together and 

spread east to the Scott River and south into the Marble Mountain Wilderness over the 

course of several weeks. This fire burned approximately 133,000 acres. The Beaver Fire 

occurred on the north side of the Klamath River about 30 miles east of Happy Camp, and 

eventually consumed approximately 32,000 acres. The July Complex was comprised of 

the Log and Whites Fires, which burned approximately 37,000 acres southeast of Fort 

Jones. The July Complex burned both private and National Forest land, ultimately 

spreading into the Marble Mountain Wilderness and into the North Fork drainage of the 

Salmon River. 

Resources Affected

The fires burned extensive portions of the Klamath River, Scott River, and Salmon River 

watersheds on the western half of the Klamath National Forest. Dozens of tributary 

drainages in these watersheds were affected. Large portions of late successional reserves 

and habitat burned with high severity fire. A substantial amount of long-term wildlife 

habitat was lost as a result of the 2014 fire season, including an estimated 31,000 acres of 

3 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

northern spotted owl (a federally listed species under ESA) habitat and an estimated 

47,000 acres of Pacific fisher (a candidate for listing under ESA) habitat 5. 

All the large fires of the 2014 season burned with mixed severity, meaning there was a 

mosaic of light, moderate, and severely burned forests within each fire area. 

Table 1-2 below describes the percentage of vegetative canopy killed (basal area). See the 

Rapid Assessment of Vegetation Condition maps by fire in appendix A. 

Table 1-2: Percentage of vegetative canopy killed (basal area)

Fire Severity Percentage (%) Vegetative 

Canopy Killed (basal area)

Beaver 

%

Happy Camp 

%

Whites 

%

Total

Very Low 0-25 43 62 63 59

Low 25-50 10 8 6 8

Moderate 50-75 7 6 5 6

High 75-100 40 23 26 27

Of the approximately 185,000 acres that burned on the western Klamath National Forest, 

approximately 27 percent exhibit very high vegetation burn severity effects. Within high 

severity areas, fuel consumption of duff, conifer and hardwood litter, saplings, and small 

and large dead material occurred within the ground and surface profile. Full consumption 

of canopy foliage and small branches within the crown stratum has left standing dead 

trees that are storing a tremendous amount of biomass available for future surface fuel 

accumulation. Areas of high severity burns experienced 75 percent or greater vegetation 

mortality, loss of canopy and understory cover, and loss of duff layers and large woody 

debris. The stands that burned at high severity ranged in species composition and 

structure, including shrub/oak stands, single layered conifer plantations, multi-layered 

mixed conifer stands, and higher elevation stands dominated by true fir. Most trees within 

high severity burn areas are expected to die in the short term. 

Approximately six percent of the fire areas burned with moderate severity. Areas 

characterized by moderate severity burns experienced 50-75 percent vegetation mortality, 

substantial reduction in canopy and understory cover, as well as duff layers and large 

woody debris. Moderate severity fire areas generally experienced consumption of surface 

fuels leaving the canopy structure primarily intact; however, the conifer and hardwood 

canopies are generally brown needle foliage. Dead fuels contribute to surface fuel loading 

and will decay slowly. Small shade-tolerant trees fill in the mid-story canopy connecting 

the upper canopy fuel profile (ladder-effect) of the larger fire resilient trees on the 

landscape resulting in high severity effect in many forested lands. A substantial portion of 

the trees within moderate severity areas have either been killed by fire or are expected to 

experience high mortality due to fire injury, insects, and the effects of prolonged drought. 

Continued overall low levels of rainfall and particularly low snowfall amounts this winter 

are not alleviating drought conditions in northern California. These continuing relatively 

5 Numbers are based upon habitat acres lost within the proposed Westside Fire Recovery project; it is likely 

that a larger amount of habitat was lost outside of the Beaver Fire, Whites Fire, and Happy Camp Complex 

perimeters which make up this project’s boundary.

4 

 
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

dry conditions will further decrease the survivability of fire damaged trees, even in areas 

that burned in lower severity. 

Areas characterized by no or low severity burns experienced 0-50 percent vegetation 

mortality and a reduction in fuel loading. In low severity burn areas, most of the stand 

mortality occurred in smaller understory trees. Over time, these smaller trees will fall to 

the forest floor and contribute to future fuel loading, but in much smaller quantities than 

in the moderate to high severity burn areas. 

Burned Area Emergency Response

Burned Area Emergency Response (BAER) actions completed or currently underway aim 

to identify and manage imminent, unacceptable threats to human life, safety, property, 

and critical natural and cultural resources on National Forest lands. BAER actions 

include repairing road drainages (grading, culvert cleaning, installation of rolling 

drainage dips, etc.), felling only imminent hazard trees along roads, and posting closure 

signs along roads and trails. Hazard trees felled during fire suppression and BAER 

activities were very limited in scope and consisted of only older dead, decomposed, and 

structurally unsound trees along only the most frequented of roadways. Due to the 

objectives of BAER activities and the scale of the fire impacted area, most of recently 

fire-killed trees (snags) were considered to be structurally sound at the time of BAER and 

were left standing. As snags along the roadways in burned areas are exposed to winter 

rains, snow, and winds and subsequently deteriorate and decay, threats to human health 

and safety substantially increase. While BAER activities mitigate many of the immediate 

hazards, additional emergency actions are needed to address the remaining safety 

concerns and to move the affected areas towards recovery. 

Westside Fire Recovery Project

The Westside Fire Recovery project was developed in response to landscape-level 

changes to forested habitat resulting from the 2014 wildfires on the Klamath National 

Forest. Forest Service resource specialists began evaluating conditions in the project area 

immediately following the fires. The BAER analyses provided resource assessments on 

the fires’ effects on soils, watersheds, vegetation, and wildlife. Post-fire inventories of the 

transportation system were conducted to obtain condition status. Field crews conducted 

surveys on forested stands to collect data on stand mortality and timber salvage viability. 

Soil burn severities and vegetation burn severities were mapped to determine the changed 

post-fire conditions. The initial post-fire assessments were completed by the fall of 2014. 

Resource specialists used this information to make recommendations to the responsible 

official, Forest Supervisor Patricia Grantham, for developing the proposed action. 

The Forest has prepared this draft EIS to analyze and disclose the effects of proposed 

treatments included in the Westside Fire Recovery project. An EIS is required due to the 

scope of the proposed treatments and the potential for significant impacts, especially to 

the ESA-listed northern spotted owl and its critical habitat. The project’s purpose and 

need is to address the following: 

• There is a need for worker and public safety and access. 

• There is a need for safe conditions for firefighters performing fire suppression 

for community protection. 

5 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

• There is a need for a project that is economically viable6, meeting project 

objectives and benefitting our local communities.

• There is a need for restored and fire-resilient forested ecosystems. 

See the purpose and need section of this chapter for a detailed description of the purpose 

and need. 

The project area comprises 218,600 total acres, including 187,100 acres of National 

Forest System land and 31,500 acres of private land. It is divided into three subparts: 

project area A (Beaver Fire), project area B (Happy Camp Complex), and project area C 

(Whites Fire of the July Complex). See the vicinity map (appendix A). The boundary was 

extended beyond the fire perimeters in order to incorporate hazardous fuel reduction 

treatments and fire breaks within one-quarter mile of private property structures. See 

chapter 2 for a description of the proposed action and its alternatives.

Table 1-3: Acres burned within the project area on private and National Forest System lands by fire 

area.

Project 

Area

Fire Forest Service 

Project Area (acres)

Private Lands within 

Project Area (acres)

Total Acres within 

Project Area

A Beaver Fire 19,000 24,800 43,800

B Happy Camp 

Complex

127,000 5,400 132,400

C Whites Fire 41,100 1,300 42,400

Total Project Area (acres) 187,100 31,500 218,600

Table 1-4: General location by project area

Project 

Area

Fire Legal Location

Township (T), Range (R), and 

Section (S)

Elevation 

Range

(Feet)

Watershed (5th Field)

A Beaver 

Fire 

Mt.Diablo: T46N R8W S 2-7, 9-11; 

T46N R9W S1-13,18; T46N R10W 

S1-3,10-15;T47N R8W S4-10,15-22,

27-35; T47N R9W S1, 9-17, 20-36; 

T47N R10W S 25, 34-36

1,700-

6,300

Beaver Creek, Horse CreekKlamath River, Humbug 

Creek-Klamath River

6 The Forest Service needs to obtain the maximum commodity value from burned timber by offering a sale 

while the wood is still marketable. Maximizing the commodity value of the timber provides the agency a 

means for meeting project needs, such as implementation of restoration.

6 

 
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Project 

Area

Fire Legal Location

Township (T), Range (R), and 

Section (S)

Elevation 

Range

(Feet)

Watershed (5th Field)

B Happy 

Camp 

Complex

Humboldt: T14N R8E S 5, 8,17, 20; 

T15N R7E S 1, 2,12,13, 24;T15N R8E 

S3-10,15-22, 27-28, 34; T16N R7E 

S1, 2,10-15, 23-25, 35, 36; T16N R8E 

S6-10,15-22, 27-34

Mt. Diablo: T43N R12W S2-11,14-20; 

T44N R10W S6; T44N R11W S1-11,

15-22, 28-30;T44N R12W S1-35; 

T45N R10W S5-9,16-21, 28-32; T45N

R11W S1-36; T45N R12W S1-36; 

T46N R10W S31-32; T46N R11W S 

16-22, 26-36; T46N R12W S 10-

11,13-16, 20-36

1,100-

7,400

Elk Creek7, Horse CreekKlamath River, Indian 

Creek,Lower Scott River, 

Seiad Creek-Klamath River8

, 

Thompson Creek-Klamath 

River, Ukonom CreekKlamath River

C Whites 

Fire 

Mt.Diablo: T39N R10W S 1-11,17-18; 

T39N R11W S 1-3,10-15; T40N R8W 

S 6-7,18-19,30; T40N R10W S 2-36; 

T40N R11W S 1-4, 9-16, 21-28, 33-

36; T41N R10W S 8-22, 27-35; T41N

R11W S 24-25,33-36

2,200-

8,000

French Creek-Scott River, 

North Fork Salmon River9

, 

South Fork Salmon River10

Management Direction ___________________________________ 

Direction for this project comes from the Klamath National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan (Forest Plan) of 1995, as amended; the Forest Plan incorporates 

direction from the Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of 

Land Management Planning Documents within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl

(Northwest Forest Plan). Other statutes, regulations, plans and policies that provide 

management direction for this project include, but are not limited to, the Endangered 

Species Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air 

Act, Recovery Plans for northern spotted owls and Coho Salmon, as well as Forest 

Service directives. The project is designed to be consistent with all applicable laws, 

policies and plans, and to consider information in guidance documents such as Watershed 

Analysis, the National Fire Plan, and Forest Fire Management Plan. 

Key direction for this project comes from the Forest Plan’s forest-wide standards and 

guidelines, and those specific to management areas that are found within the project area, 

as described in Table 1-5. This project includes design features listed in chapter 2 that 

were developed to reduce impacts to resources and to meet the standards and guidelines 

of the Forest Plan. For further information pertaining to meeting the requirements of the 

Forest Plan, please see the Forest Plan Consistency Checklist, available in the project 

record. 

7 Key Watershed from the Forest Plan 

8 The Grider Creek 6th field portion of this 5th field watershed is identified as a Key Watershed in the 

Forest Plan

9 Key Watershed from the Forest Plan

10 Key Watershed from the Forest Plan

7 

 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Much of the project lies within the wildland urban interface (WUI) Community Threat 

Zone as described in the Forest Fire Management Plan. There are two federally-listed 

threatened species in the project area: northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) 

and Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) and one species proposed for listing, the 

Pacific fisher (Martes pennanti pacifica). Within the project area, there is U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service-designated critical habitat for northern spotted owl (USDI Fish and 

Wildlife Service, 2012), and National Marine Fisheries Service-designated critical habitat 

for Coho Salmon (May 5, 1999, 64 FR 24049). The project is designed to be consistent 

with the Recovery Plans for both species. The project is located within the North and 

South Fork Salmon River, Elk Creek, and the Grider section of the Seiad Creek-Klamath 

River key watersheds; management direction for key watersheds in the Forest Plan (pages 

4-25 through 4-26) applies to activities in the project.

The 1995 Forest Plan includes standards and guidelines from the Northwest Forest Plan. 

The Forest Plan provides forest-wide and management area direction for project-level 

projects. The project is designed to be consistent with all applicable law, regulation, 

policy, and direction. Management areas within the project area are described in Table 

1-5.

8 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Table 1-5: Notable Forest Plan management area goals for management areas found within the project boundary11

Management Areas (MA) Pages in 

Forest Plan

Notable Forest Plan Goals 

MA1- Research Natural Area12 4-67 to 4-69 Not applicable

MA2- Wilderness 4-70 to 4-75 Not applicable

MA3- Recommend and 

Designated Wild River13

4-78 to 4-79 Ecological processes shall shape the vegetative patterns within the management area. The salvage of dead 

trees, or the reforestation of these areas following catastrophes, should not be permitted. Schedule no timber 

harvest from this management area (pp. 4-78 to 4-79).

MA12- Recommended and 

Designated Scenic River

4-117 to 4-119 A wide range of silvicultural treatments may be used to meet Scenic River objectives. Salvage of trees killed 

by wildland fire, pest infestations or other natural processes is permitted consistent with area resource 

management goals. Salvage and reforestation efforts are a moderate priority. Minimize the loss of timber 

value where possible (pg. 4-119).

MA13- Recommended and 

Designated Recreational River

4-120 to 4-122 Lands may be managed for a full range of silvicultural uses, to the extent currently practiced. Timber 

harvesting would be allowed under standard restrictions to protect the immediate river environment, water 

quality, scenic, fish and wildlife and other values. Schedule moderate timber yields, compatible with area 

goals (pg. 4-122)

MA 5- Special Habitat: 

Late Successional Reserves 

(LSRs)

4-82 to 4-89; 

4-92 to 4-93; 

4-90 to 4-92

Conditions of late-successional forest ecosystems are enhanced to serve as habitat for late-successional 

species. Continuous areas of multi-layered forests with high quality habitat characteristics and attributes are 

common (pg. 4-83). Vegetation removal to eliminate public hazards and salvage are permitted if it benefits 

habitat (pp. 41 and 4-93). Falcon and Eagle

MA7-Special Interest Area 4-97 to 4-100 Salvage of burned or pest-killed trees may be allowed to promote the management goals and objectives of 

the SIA. Reforestation of these areas to meet SIA objectives shall be a high priority (pg. 4-99).

MA10-Riparian Reserves14 4-106 to 4-114 Fall roadside safety hazard trees. Allow the removal of these trees where woody debris requirements are met 

(pg. 4-113).

MA 11- Retention Visual Quality 

Objective (VQO)

4-115 to 4-116 Salvage of trees killed by wildland fire, pest infestation or other natural processes is permitted consistent with 

area goals (pg. 4-116)

MA 15- Partial Retention VQO 4-126 to 4-127 An attractive, forested landscape is provided and is maintained for a sustained yield of wood products in 

areas capable, available, and suitable for timber production. Forested stands are resilient to wildland fire, 

insect, disease, and other damage (pg. 4-126).

MA 17- General Forest 4-131 to 4-132 A programmed flow of timber is provided, which is sustainable through time. Conifer stocking levels and high 

growth rates are maintained commensurate with the capability of the site to produce wood fiber. Forested 

stands are resilient to wildland fire, insect, disease, and other damage (pg. 4-131).

11 See the Forest Plan consistency checklist in the project record for detailed information about project consistency by applicable standard and guideline. 12 All of MA1 overlaps MA2.

13 All of MA3 overlaps with MA2 with exception of about 40 acres. 14 Riparian reserves overlap with most other management areas. No treatment is proposed within riparian reserves, except roadside hazard treatment and 

within one-quarter mile of private property structures.

9 

 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Purpose and Need for Action______________________________ 

There is a need to close the gap between the existing and desired condition (Table 1-6), 

while protecting forest resources within the project area.

There is a need for worker and public safety and access.

Fire-killed trees (i.e. snags) are often unstable and at risk for falling or snapping off. As 

snags in burned areas are exposed to winter rains, snow, and winds and subsequently 

deteriorate and decay, risk to human health and safety substantially increase. Snags need 

to be addressed in order to minimize unnecessary safety hazards for the public who 

recreate in the area. Safety for forest workers also needs to be provided. Forest workers 

will work within the burned areas in the years to come accomplishing reforestation, fuels 

reduction, and other resource management activities. Hazard trees also threaten public 

and worker access along miles of roads. It is also imperative that infrastructure, 

especially utility lines, roads, trailheads, campgrounds, fire lookouts, and bridges are 

maintained for use by the public and workers. 

Proposed activities to address this component of the purpose and need include: 

• Salvage harvest of fire-killed trees in selected areas.

• Salvage of fire-killed and other hazard trees along roadways and near infrastructure. 

• Removal of roadside hazard trees to maintain current and future safe ingress and egress 

from the forest. 

There is a need for safe conditions for firefighters performing fire suppression for 

community protection. 

As snags continue to decay, break, and fall, surface fuel loading and the severity and 

intensity of future fires will increase. Increased fire intensities and fallen snags will 

inhibit the effective control of future fires and/or put fire suppression crews at increased 

risk. Fallen hazard trees will also impact road access along miles of roadways, impairing 

fire suppression efforts. Local communities and residential enclaves are nestled within 

and adjacent to forests in a fire-adapted ecosystem. Hazardous trees and fuels conditions 

need to be abated, where they exist within the wildland urban interface, especially within 

one-quarter mile of private property in burned areas and other strategic areas in order to 

have better conditions for suppressing future fires and protecting lives and property of 

our local communities.

Proposed activities to address this component of the purpose and need include: 

• Salvage harvest of fire-killed trees in selected areas.

• Salvage of fire-killed and other hazard trees along roadways and near infrastructure.

• Removal of roadside hazard trees to maintain current and future safe ingress and egress 

from the forest. 

• Creation of shaded fuel breaks on selected strategic ridgetops to facilitate future fire 

suppression efforts. 

• Fuels reduction by piling and burning fuels, mastication of fuels, and underburning 

within the wildland urban interface and other strategic areas.

• Planting in certain areas also improves fuel conditions by promoting forested conditions 

over brush field conditions, which improves future fuels conditions and fire control. 

There is a need for a project that is economically viable, meeting project objectives 

and benefiting our local communities.

10
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

The Forest Plan directs the Forest to harvest dead or dying trees for the production of 

wood products, as consistent with Forest goals. Because of decay, dead timber loses 

significant commodity value if left standing too long and is most profitable if harvested 

as soon as possible. For this reason, it is important to offer timber sales while the wood is 

still marketable. Capturing the marketability of the fire-killed trees and hazard trees 

provides the agency a viable means of fully implementing the project and funding 

restoration, including reforestation for future wildlife habitat and the improvement of 

watershed conditions for fish habitat. Otherwise, the Forest Service will need to use 

appropriated dollars to remove only the snags and hazard trees most critical for public 

and worker safety and access. Much of the proposed project will not happen if 

appropriated dollars are the only funding mechanism. Capturing the maximum economic 

value of the salvaged timber also benefits Siskiyou County and the surrounding 

communities by maintaining and/or creating jobs in forest management and providing 

timber to the local mills which are major employers of these rural communities. 

Proposed activities to address this component of the purpose and need include: 

• Salvage harvest of fire-killed trees in selected areas.

• Salvage of fire-killed and other hazard trees along roadways and near infrastructure.

There is a need for restored and fire-resilient forested ecosystems. 

Wildfires provide some benefits to forest ecosystems such as snag and downed wood 

creation and short-term fuels reduction in areas of low intensity burns. However, 

intensely burned forested areas may be slow to recover and heavy fuel loading will result 

from fallen snags. Following a high severity wildfire, heavy fuel loading predisposes an 

area to higher intensity and higher severity wildfires in the future. Such fires inhibit forest 

stand regeneration and result in stand type changes to brush or other non-forested 

vegetation types, delaying these lands from reaching the desired conditions of the Forest 

Plan or providing for future forested wildlife habitat per Forest Plan goals and direction.

High intensity fires also put remaining wildlife habitat at risk of future loss. By reducing 

fuels created by the 2014 fires and replanting selected areas, the likelihood and speed by 

which burned, forested areas are restored is increased. This results in a more fire-resilient 

forested ecosystem for the benefit of wildlife habitat and watershed conditions. 

Activities to address this need include: 

• Salvage harvest of fire-killed trees in selected areas to prevent high fuel loads from firekilled trees in the future.

• Fuels reduction by piling and burning fuels, mastication of fuels, and underburning 

within the wildland urban interface and other strategic areas.

• Replanting of burned areas with an appropriate species mix and spacing for the site. 

• Retention of clumps of snags within treatment areas to ensure that habitat for snagdependent species is retained.

11
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Table 1-6: Existing and Desired Conditions

Statement of Need Existing Condition Desired condition

Worker and public 

safety and access 

Infrastructure, including utility lines, roads, bridges, trailheads, 

campgrounds, and fire lookouts within the project area, are 

surrounded by fire-killed and damaged trees and preexisting 

danger trees that pose a hazard to the public and Forest workers 

and restrict access. 

As snags in burned areas are exposed to winter rains, snow, and 

winds and subsequently deteriorate and decay, risk to human 

health and safety substantially increase. 

Public and forest worker access to public lands along all 

roadways and trailheads are unimpeded to the extent possible. 

Hazards from falling danger trees are mitigated to the extent 

possible, especially nearby roadways and other infrastructure.

Salvage harvest areas have reduced amounts of snags, 

providing for improved safety conditions for forest workers.

Safe conditions for 

firefighters 

performing fire 

suppression for 

community 

protection

Within the wildland urban interface, local communities and 

residential enclaves are nestled within and adjacent to forests in 

a fire-adapted ecosystem.

As snags continue to decay, break, and fall, surface fuel loading 

and the severity and intensity of future fires will increase. 

Increased fire intensities and fallen snags inhibit the effective 

control of future fires and/or put fire suppression crews at 

increased risk. 

Progressively increasing fuel loadings where potential flame 

lengths are projected to exceed four feet. Flame lengths over 

four feet are resistant to fire suppression tactics.

Fallen hazard trees impact road access along miles of roadways, 

impairing fire suppression efforts. 

Hazardous trees and fuels conditions are abated within the 

wildland urban interface, especially within one-quarter mile of 

private property structures. Fuel loading is reduced within 

strategic areas. Fuel breaks are created and maintained for 

community protection.

Probability of future high-intensity wildfires is reduced. Fuel 

loadings commensurate with surface flame lengths of less than 

four feet (should the area burn again).

Hazards from falling snags are mitigated to the extent possible, 

improving access for fire suppression and community protection.

Risk and effectiveness of fire suppression is improved due to fire 

breaks, reduced fuel loading, reduced snags, and unimpeded 

access.

A project that is 

economically viable

The estimated volume and economic value of the timber is not 

yet captured. 

The project is not yet implemented and the benefits of improved 

safety, access, fuels conditions for fire suppression and 

community protect, and restored and fire-resilient forested 

ecosystems have not been achieved.

Jobs for the local community have yet to be created.

Dead or dying trees are harvested to produce wood products as 

consistent with Forest goals. (Forest Plan, pages 4-131-132 and 

4-49)

The timber sale and receipts are used to fund project 

implementation and restoration work, including fuels reduction, 

reforestation for future wildlife habitat, and the improvement of 

watershed conditions for fish habitat.

Private industry jobs in the forest management sector of the 

county will be created and/or maintained.

12
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Statement of Need Existing Condition Desired condition

Restored and fireresilient forested 

ecosystems

Within the wildland urban interface, local communities and 

residential enclaves are nestled within and adjacent to forests in 

a fire-adapted ecosystem.

Approximately 27% of the fire areas exhibit high vegetation burn 

severity (75-100% vegetative canopy killed) effects. Most trees 

within high severity burn areas are expected to die.

Approximately 6% of the fire areas burned with moderate 

severity (50-75% vegetative canopy killed), and a substantial 

portion of those trees have been killed by fire, and surviving 

trees are expected to experience high mortality due to fire injury, 

insects, and the effects of prolonged drought.

Progressively increasing fuel loadings where potential flame 

lengths are projected to exceed four feet. Flame lengths over 

four feet are resistant to fire suppression tactics.

A substantial amount of long-term wildlife habitat was lost as a 

result of the 2014 fire season, including an estimated 31,000 

acres of northern spotted owl (a federally listed species under 

ESA) habitat and an estimated 47,000 acres of Pacific fisher (a 

candidate for listing under ESA) habitat.

Progressively increasing fuel loadings where potential flame 

lengths are projected to exceed four feet. Flame lengths over 

four feet are resistant to fire suppression tactics.

Large portions of late successional reserves and habitat burned 

with high severity fire.

Extensive portions of the Klamath River, Scott River and Salmon 

River watersheds burned. Tributary drainages in these 

watersheds were affected. 

The long-term desired future condition for the project area is a 

healthy forested landscape with diverse ecosystem conditions 

reflective of historic vegetation and the ecological capability of 

the landscape. This includes some natural openings and native 

browse species vegetation within a largely continuous coniferdominated landscape. To the extent possible, fire will play a 

natural role in the ecosystem. However, the desired condition will 

also include reduced risk of high intensity fire within the wildland 

urban interface. 

Fuel loadings commensurate with project surface flame lengths 

of less than four feet. 

Within late successional reserves, in the short term, clumps of 

leave snags will provide post-fire habitat components for a 

variety of wildlife species. In the long term, a conifer overstory 

with some understory vegetation components will provide forage 

and cover for wildlife species. The probability of the loss of 

remaining or future wildlife habitat from high severity wildfire is 

reduced.

In the long term, fire-resilient forested ecosystems experience 

less high severity fires, lessening impacts to watershed 

conditions from future fires.

13
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Proposed Action ________________________________________ 

After scoping, the project area was adjusted based on more accurate information 

following field review of the three project areas. After refining the project area boundary 

since scoping about 62,400 acres will now be considered for treatment with some overlap 

of treatments limiting the footprint of the project to about 50,900 acres. After scoping, the 

proposed action was refined to respond to scoping comments and internal issues. 

The Westside Fire Recovery project, as described in the scoping notice for the project 

issued in September 2014, included four overlapping types of treatment: (1) salvage; (2) 

roadside hazard treatments; (3) hazardous fuel treatments; and (4) site preparation, 

planting, and release. In addition to the above treatments, the proposed action, as scoped, 

included access for treatment along 506 miles of National Forest System roads and 172 

miles of state and county roads. 

See project website http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/nepa_project_exp.php?project=45579 for a 

description of the proposed action as scoped. 

The following modifications or clarifications were made following scoping: 

• Acres were adjusted after further field review. Alternative 2 includes four overlapping 

treatments: (1) 11,700 acres of salvage units15; (2) 650 miles of roadside hazard 

reduction; (3) 22,900 acres of hazardous fuel treatments; and (4) 7,900 acres of site 

preparation, planting, and release in existing plantations and seedling/sapling natural

stands that burned. All salvage harvest units (11,700 acres) will also be site prepped 

and replanted with appropriate species. In addition to the above treatments, 

Alternative 2 would use 562 miles of National Forest System, state, and county roads, 

reopen 9.0 miles of previously decommissioned roads, use 9.9 miles of existing 

temporary roadbeds and construct 3.6 miles of new temporary roads within the 

project area. 

• Consideration for treatment for the salvage harvest treatment units used the following 

criteria: 

1. Areas of moderate to high severity vegetation mortality with more than ten

contiguous acres of medium to high severity vegetation mortality and less than 40 

percent crown closure;

2. Areas determined to be feasible in terms of logging systems, accessibility, and 

economics; and

3. Units outside of northern spotted owl activity center core areas where the home 

range contained a minimum threshold of 700 acres of nesting/roosting and 

foraging habitat and more than 50% nesting, roosting and foraging habitat in the 

core area was intact. 

• Salvage harvest treatment will identify trees for harvest using the Report #RO-11-01 

“Marking Guidelines for Fire-Injured Trees in California” (Smith & Cluck, 2011). 

15 Treatment in salvage harvest units is limited to moderate to high severity areas (>50% mortality) outside 

of riparian reserves. An estimated 6,800 acres of fire-killed trees would actually be removed. See chapter 2 

for a complete description of harvest units.

14

 
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

These guidelines are peer-reviewed scientific literature used to evaluate tree species 

in northern California for mortality. Trees considered for salvage harvest removal 

include merchantable timber defined as trees greater than 14 inches in diameter. Firedamaged green trees with a 70 percent or higher probability of mortality in the next 

three to five years were included in the salvage harvest proposal. These treatments 

will be accomplished by a combination of ground-based, skyline, and helicopter 

logging systems.

• Roadside hazard reduction (removal of fire-killed trees) is proposed within 250 feet 

on either side of selected roads to address hazards. A hazard, or danger, tree is 

defined as a standing tree that presents a hazard to people due to conditions such as 

deterioration of or damage to the root system, trunk, stem, or limbs or the direction or 

lean of the tree (29 CFR 1910.266(c); FSH 6709.11, glossary). Because of slope, a 

few fire-killed trees farther than 250 feet from a road may still present a hazard to the 

road and thus need to be treated, but the majority of hazard trees will be within the 

250-foot buffer. Roadside hazard treatments will include the use of ground-based, 

skyline, and helicopter logging systems. Acres used for analysis were calculated 

using all fire severity classes within a 200 foot buffer on either side of affected 

roads16. GIS was used to narrow down the amount of acres of roadside hazard 

considered for hazard tree removal. Approximately 20,500 acres would be considered 

for roadside hazard reduction on 650 miles of roads. Of those 20,500 acres, 

approximately 16,600 acres are coniferous forest; 660 acres are hardwood forest and 

about 3,250 are shrubs and brush or are not vegetated. For conifer and mixed conifer 

forests, diameter ranges were broken into three categories: (1) up to ten inches (6,200 

acres), (2) ten to 20 inches (4,700 acres), and (3) greater than 20 inches in diameter at 

breast height (5,700 acres). Of the hardwood stands (660 acres) 630 acres were with 

tree diameters less than 20 inches; approximately 30 acres were with tree diameters 

greater than 20 inches. 

• For roadside hazard removal, fire-damaged green trees with a 60 percent or higher 

probability of mortality within the next three to five years were included in the 

salvage harvest proposal. Actual distance of roadside hazard treatments may vary 

based on the Regional Hazard Tree Guidelines for Forest Service Facilities and Roads 

in the Pacific Southwest Region (Angwin et al. 2012). 

• Hazardous fuel treatment areas were considered based on the following criteria:

1. 200 feet on either side of selected Forest roads (including maintenance level 1 

roads), prioritized based on volume of road use, evacuation routes, and ridge-top 

roads used for suppression efforts. 

2. 250 feet on either side of historically-significant ridgelines for fire suppression 

efforts.

3. Areas determined feasible in terms of slope, accessibility, existing fuels 

conditions, and logical holding features (i.e. roads, streams, and ridges). 

16 Hazard tree removal is proposed within 250 feet on either side of selected roads. Topographic breaks and 

unstocked areas without hazard trees will reduce the actual treated acres. For the purposes of analysis, a 

200 foot buffer was used to estimate the acres where treatment may occur. 

15

 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

• Hazardous fuels treatments include wildland urban interface, fuels management 

zones, roadside fuels, prescribed burn, and site-preparation. The following are 

summarized descriptions of each treatment type. 

1. Wildland Urban Interface: combination of mechanical and hand work. Removing 

standing dead trees 12 inches or less in diameter at breast height and other 

understory vegetation in order to reduce fire behavior activity, specifically 

reduced flame length and intensity and reduced potential for crown fire activity. 

2. Fuels Management Zones: maintain existing strategic ridge systems used to 

contain the 2014 fires as well as historic fire lines from previous large fires within 

the project area. Treatments will include removing all dead vegetation and live 

understory vegetation along with live conifer trees less than 12 inches in diameter 

at breast height. Pruning retained conifers up to seven feet high within these zones 

will increase canopy base height and reduce the potential for crown fire initiation. 

Activity-generated fuels will be disposed of by a variety of methods to meet 

desired conditions. 

3. Roadside Fuels Treatments: same as above, but along roadsides identified as 

strategic for fuels reduction and in hazard tree removal areas to decrease the 

amount of activity-generated fuels.

4. Prescribed Burn: use existing control lines established in recent large fires within 

the project area. Line construction activities will occur around the perimeter of the 

fire and will include using dozers to re-scrape control lines to mineral soil; where 

control lines are inaccessible for equipment, handline construction to mineral soil 

will occur. Removal of understory vegetation along control lines will include 

cutting brush and conifer trees less than 12 inches in diameter to facilitate holding 

operations during prescribed fire implementation. 

5. Site-Preparation: this treatment will work in coordination with the sitepreparation, planting, and release treatment proposed below and will reduce 

existing fuels while increasing the likelihood that newly planted vegetation will 

successfully regenerate. This treatment includes maintenance which will include 

thinning of understory vegetation and piling of surface fuels to maintain desired 

fuel conditions. 

• The description of criteria considered to determine priority site preparation and

planting was modified for clarification. 

• Site preparation, planting, and release treatments include treatment in plantations, 

natural stands (non-salvage harvested), and salvage harvest stands. The following is a 

summary of each treatments: 

1. Site preparation will include yarding, mastication, windrowing, and piling of dead 

material generally up to 16 inches in diameter. In some areas trees larger than 16 

inches will be treated in order to reduce hazards to workers, the public, and reduce 

fuel loading to achieve flame lengths of less than four feet over the next 20 years. 

Hand treatments will include the cutting and piling of dead fuels up to ten inches 

in diameter. 

2. Reforestation will be by hand methods, using either bare root or container stock. 

Hand planting will increase the likelihood for survival and provide for the desired 

spatial variability within treatment units and across the project area. Tree species 

used for planting will include Douglas-fir, sugar pine, ponderosa pine, incense 

cedar, white fir, and red fir. A mosaic distribution will be achieved over time due 

to the spatial variability achieved by the planters’ micro-site selection. An average 

16
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

of 130 to 300 trees per acre will be planted to achieve acceptable levels of 

stocking, depending on the site conditions. 

3. Release includes manually removing all vegetation within a minimum of a fivefoot radius from a planted or naturally regenerated conifer seedling. 

• Riparian reserves within the plantation site-preparation and planting units in the 

Whites Fire and Happy Camp Complex will be treated to achieve ground cover and 

allow for natural regeneration of vegetation. Treatment will be focused in areas of 

high and moderate vegetation mortality and where the overhead hazards can be 

mitigated without equipment entry into the riparian reserves. Treatment will include 

hand-work only (no ground-based equipment) and lop-and-scatter or other fuels 

reduction will be implemented if fuel loading is above seven tons per acre; fuels may 

be hand-piled or windrowed and burned. 

• Landing size will be commensurate with operational safety, using existing landings 

where possible. Helicopter landings will be up to two acres in size. Skyline landings 

will utilize roads wherever possible; new skyline landings off the road system, and 

ground-based landings, will average one acre in size but will not be larger than 1.5 

acres in size. 

• Legacy sediment sites were identified since scoping and will be scheduled for 

treatment in compliance with the Clean Water Act as a condition of the North Coast 

Regional Water Quality Control Board waiver of waste discharge requirements 

(Order No. R1-2010-0029). 

Decision Framework_____________________________________ 

The responsible official for this project is Patricia A. Grantham, Forest Supervisor. This 

environmental impact statement is not a decision document; it discloses the 

environmental consequences of implementing the no action alternative or an action 

alternative. The environmental impact statement also aids the responsible official in 

determining whether the effects disclosed will have a significant effect on the 

environment. After analyzing and responding to public comment, the responsible official 

will make a decision and issue a Record of Decision. 

Within the Record of Decision, the responsible official will determine whether to 

implement the proposed action, an alternative to the proposed action, or choose no action 

at this time. The final decision will be based on the information in this document and the 

supporting information contained in the project record, consideration of public 

comments, how well the selected alternative meets the purpose and need for the project, 

and whether the selected alternative complies with agency policy, applicable state and 

federal laws, and Forest Plan direction.

Emergency Situation Determination

In order to facilitate implementation of the project, the Forest is seeking an Emergency 

Situation Determination pursuant to 36 CFR 218.21. Under 36 CFR 218.21(d), a 

proposed action is not subject to the pre-decisional objection process if the Chief or 

Associate Chief of the Forest Service determines that an emergency situation exists with 

respect to all or part of the proposed action or activity. 36 CFR 218.21(b) defines an 

emergency situation as: 

17
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

a situation on National Forest System (NFS) lands for which immediate 

implementation of a decision is necessary to achieve one or more of the 

following: relief from hazards threatening human health and safety; 

mitigation of threats to natural resources on NFS or adjacent lands; 

avoiding a loss of commodity value sufficient to jeopardize the agency’s 

ability to accomplish project objectives directly related to resource 

protection or restoration. 

Alternative Arrangements

In order to facilitate implementation of this project, the Forest Service requested and 

received alternative arrangements with the Council on Environmental Quality pursuant to 

40 CFR 1506.11, which states: 

Where emergency circumstances make it necessary to take an action with 

significant environmental impact without observing the provisions of these 

regulations, the Federal agency taking the action should consult with the 

Council about alternative arrangements. 

The Forest Service received alternative arrangements that shortened the 45-day comment 

period requirement for the draft EIS by 15 days, resulting in a 30 day comment period 

(40 CFR 1506.10(c)). 

The Forest Service is also requesting alternative arrangements with the Council on 

Environmental Quality to: 

• Eliminate the 90-day requirement between the notice of availability of the draft 

EIS and the Record of Decision (1506.10(b)(1)) and 

• Eliminate the 30-day wait period between the final EIS and the Record of 

Decision (40 CFR 1506.10(b)(2)). 

Public Involvement ______________________________________ 

Pre-Scoping

The Forest Service conducted robust public engagement throughout the summer while 

the fires were active and during suppression repair, and burned area emergency response 

(BAER) activities. During the summer, members of the community expressed interest in 

suppression and related repair activity and in the next steps of fire recovery proposed in 

the Westside Fire Recovery project. The agency’s public engagement efforts that began 

this summer during the fires are being used as a platform on which to continue public 

engagement efforts and interest related to Westside Fire Recovery project. Prior to 

scoping the Forest Service: 

• conducted 34 public meetings during fire operations to explain operations, 

extent, and impacts of wildland fires on the forest; 

• delivered 200 press releases in local and internet media to give updates and 

conditions on fire and suppression activity, also conducting multiple radio and 

television interviews during fire suppression activities; and, 

• posted to social media (i.e. Facebook) throughout suppression activities, reaching 

about 50,000 unique users at the height of activity. 

18
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Following the fires, the Forest conducted eight BAER meetings in the affected 

communities. In mid-November, the Forest is conducted eight community-based after 

action reviews and after action reviews with other agency and community cooperatives to 

gather public feedback on the fire suppression efforts and encourage participation in the 

Westside Fire Recovery project.

Scoping

The project was first published to the Schedule of Proposed Actions and the Forest 

website on October 1, 2014. On October 8, 2014 scoping letters were sent to interested 

and affected parties, including other public agencies, tribes, adjacent property owners, 

and interested groups and individuals. 

A Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Westside Fire 

Recovery project was published in the Federal Register on October 15, 2015. The notice 

asked that comments on the proposed action be received within 30 days following 

publication in the Federal Register. On October 14, 2014 a legal notice of scoping was 

published in the Siskiyou Daily News, beginning the formal scoping process that guides 

the development of the draft EIS. Comments received by November 14, 2014 were 

considered in identifying issues and project development. 

The Forest is using news releases and social media to inform broader audiences. The 

Forest has created a project website17 to provide an independent electronic news outlet, as 

well as the standard legal notices and public notifications to meet the requirements of the 

NEPA. Field trips and public open house meetings in the local communities of Yreka, 

Fort Jones, Scott Bar, Sawyers Bar, Happy Camp, Klamath River, and Seiad have 

occurred and will continue to be used to inform, consult, and involve interested parties in 

an interactive, in-person manner. These efforts will also help us gauge public 

understanding and perception of the project. The Forest Service has also met with 

representatives of the timber industry regarding this project in order to gauge industry 

interest and capacity for salvage harvest using commercial timber sales.

The Forest Service first briefed the Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors October 21, 

2014 to present Westside Fire Recovery proposal and take comments. The comments 

received as a result of public scoping are summarized in appendix C. The 

interdisciplinary team met and reviewed the scoping responses the week of December 15, 

2014 to formulate issues concerning the proposed action. 

Beyond the Forest’s typical means of outreach, the Westside Fire Recovery project has 

also inspired the creation of two local collaborative groups: 

 On January 6, 2015, the Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors unanimously 

approved the formation of a Citizens’ Advisory Committee, charged with 

developing consensus recommendations for the Board to consider in responding 

to federal and state agencies on a variety of topics, including the Westside Fire 

17 http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/nepa_project_exp.php?project=45579

19

 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Recovery project. An objective of the Board is to have the committee represent a 

broad spectrum of interests within Siskiyou County. 

 The locally-based National Institute for the Elimination of Catastrophic Wildfire 

is forming a diverse citizens’ collaborative group to address the Westside Fire 

Recovery project. The group (“The Westside Klamath Steering Committee”) will 

be composed of Siskiyou County residents representing a wide range of interests 

who reflect the social and economic diversity within the affected area. The 

purpose of the group is to generate, through a collaborative process, consensus 

recommendations to the Forest Service, Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors, 

the California State Legislature, the Governor’s Office, and the California 

Congressional Delegation regarding treatments for the Westside Fire Recovery 

project. 

The two groups are not expected to compete with one another, but, rather, to complement 

each other in representing the views of Siskiyou County residents. It is anticipated that 

both collaborative groups will: 

 serve as advocates for actions regarding the recovery and restoration of the 

Westside Fire Recovery project area that are reflective of, and responsive to, 

the needs of the residents of Siskiyou County; 

 help evaluate the draft EIS; and

 suggest guidance for finding balance between protecting resources (such as 

wildlife, fisheries, and water quality) and protecting human life and safety, 

public infrastructure, private property, and communities. 

Public Engagement in Support of Alterative Arrangements

The Forest Service and the Council on Environmental Quality considers the Westside 

Fire Recovery project to be an emergency action subject to the provisions of National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulation 40 CFR 1506.11 Emergencies, which 

states: 

Where emergency circumstances make it necessary to take an action with 

significant environmental impact without observing the provisions of these 

regulations, the Federal agency taking the action should consult with the 

Council about alternative arrangements. Agencies and the Council will 

limit such arrangements to actions necessary to control the immediate 

impacts of the emergency. Other actions remain subject to NEPA review. 

In order to facilitate implementation of this project, the Forest Service requested and 

received alternative arrangements with the Council on Environmental Quality pursuant to 

40 CFR 1506.11, which states: 

Where emergency circumstances make it necessary to take an action with 

significant environmental impact without observing the provisions of these 

regulations, the Federal agency taking the action should consult with the 

Council about alternative arrangements.

20
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

The Forest Service received alternative arrangements that shortened the 45-day comment 

period requirement for the draft EIS by 15 days, resulting in a 30 day comment period 

(40 CFR 1506.10(c)). 

The Forest Service is also requesting alternative arrangements with the Council on 

Environmental Quality to: 

• Eliminate the 90-day requirement between the notice of availability of the draft 

EIS and the Record of Decision (1506.10(b)(1)) and 

• Eliminate the 30-day wait period between the final EIS and the Record of 

Decision (40 CFR 1506.10(b)(2)). 

The purpose for requesting alternative arrangements is to shorten the time required to 

publish a Record of Decision for the project so that salvage of fire-killed trees can begin 

as early in the summer of 2015 as possible. Fire-killed trees lose value rapidly. Delays in 

offering fire-killed trees for sale will reduce the marketability of the trees, and reduce the 

receipts received by the federal government from their sale. This will in turn reduce the 

ability of the Forest Service to accomplish other fire recovery actions which are 

dependent on receipts from the sale of the fire-killed trees. Leveraging the timber sales 

would provide for the removal of roadside hazard trees and snags within areas planned 

for reforestation or hazardous fuels reduction. Timber sale receipts would also allow for 

the quick and efficient reduction of hazardous fuels and protection of infrastructure, 

which would in turn reduce the intensity of future fires and provide for the safety of the 

public and forest workers. Timber sale receipts will fund reforestation work that is critical 

for restoration of watershed conditions for fish habitat and the creation of future wildlife 

habitat for the federally-listed northern spotted owl and other important wildlife species. 

In addition, capturing the maximum economic value of the salvaged timber would benefit 

the local counties and communities’ economies.

Since the Forest Service is pursuing alternative arrangements to allow compressed time 

schedules for public review and comment, the Klamath National Forest has elected to 

conduct preliminary open houses and presentations to interest groups and governmental 

entities to share information with the public in advance of publication of the draft EIS. 

It is the intent of the Forest Service that these preliminary open houses and presentations 

provide information for the public so that when the draft EIS is published, interested 

parties will be prepared to make informed comments on the proposed action and 

alternatives within the compressed time frame provided by alternative arrangements.

The Forest Service offered open houses prior to the release of the draft EIS as follows: 

• Friday, January 30, 2015, 1800-2000 hours, Klamath National Forest 

Headquarters, Yreka, CA 

• Saturday. January 31, 2015 1200 to 1400 hours, Fort Jones Community Center, 

Ft. Jones, CA 

• Tuesday, February 3, 2015, 1800-2000 hours, Klamath River Community 

Center, Klamath River, CA 

• Wednesday, February 4, 2015 1800 to 2000 hours, Karuk Senior Nutrition 

Center, Happy Camp, CA 

• Friday. February 6, 2015, 1530 to 1730 hours, Salmon River Restoration 

Building, Sawyers Bar, CA 

21
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

• Friday, February 13, 2015, 1800 to 2000 hours, Seiad Valley Volunteer Fire 

Department, Seiad, CA 

Presentations of preliminary information to interested parties or local governmental 

entities prior to the release of the draft EIS were as follows:

• Monday, January 26, 2015, Timber Industry Field Trip, Happy Camp Complex 

area;

• Tuesday, January 13, Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors, Yreka, CA; 

• Thursday February 5, 0645 to 0800 hours, Rotary Club of Etna, Etna, CA; 

• Monday, February 23, The Westside Klamath Steering Group, associated with 

the National Institute for the Elimination of Catastrophic Wildfire, Northern 

California Resource Center, Fort Jones, CA; 

• Wednesday, February 25, Happy Camp Fire Safe Council ; and 

• Saturday, March 7, Siskiyou County Fire Chiefs Association, March 7, 1530-

1730 hours, Forest Headquarters, Yreka, CA. 

The Forest Service will provide presentations to other groups, as requested. 

Preliminary maps of the proposed action and alternatives were provided to the Karuk 

Tribe and were also available for review by the public at the Scott River and the Happy 

Camp – Oak Knoll Ranger Districts and on the Klamath National Forest website. 

Preliminary maps of the proposed action were also provided to interested publics who 

wished to review the project area in the field in advance of publication of the draft EIS.

Notification of the open houses was shared through the Forest’s Facebook page, public 

website page notifications, and emailing more than 700 contacts including more than 30 

media outlets (newspapers, broadcast and internet news sites) with the listing of venues 

and their respective dates and times. Meetings with local interest groups such as the 

Siskiyou County Fire Chiefs Association were scheduled with those groups at their 

request. 

While less formal than public meetings, the open houses allowed for small group 

discussions, which provided the Forest with perspectives and insights into the opinions, 

local knowledge and values of the communities. At each open house, line officers, 

principle forest staff and members of the interdisciplinary team were available to answer 

questions and provide information. Maps and descriptions of the preliminary proposed 

action and alternatives were also provided. Members of the public were encouraged to 

provide comments for the record on provided flip charts. These comments were 

transcribed as closely to verbatim as possible and appear in appendix B. Attendance 

ranged from four to five people at Klamath River to over twenty people at Sawyers Bar. 

Attendance was largely from members of the local communities where the open houses 

or presentations were held. At the Happy Camp open house, members of the Karuk Tribe 

natural resources staff were present and participated in discussions with the Forest 

Service in their personal capacities. At least one representative of an area environmental 

interest group provided comments at the Happy Camp meeting. 

Comments and Discussions:

The open houses provided the opportunity for members of the public to interact with 

team members and decision makers as they craft this project. Interested participants took 

22
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

the opportunity to ask more in-depth questions regarding policy, procedure, timelines, 

and opportunities to remark on the draft EIS. Many members of the public were 

extremely knowledgeable and well informed on fire recovery and the potential effects of 

various parts of the preliminary proposed action and alternatives. At each open house, 

most notably at Sawyers Bar, there were a number of thoughtful and well-rounded 

discussions of strategic fuel breaks, fuels reduction strategies, restoration actions and 

other important questions. 

There is broad consensus on post fire work on: 

• roadside safety along main and important travel ways; 

• defensible space around private property; 

• strategic ridgetop fuel breaks; and

• fuels reduction (so that fire can be reintroduced on the Forest, and that future 

fires are less intense and less impacting on local communities and national forest 

resources). 

The question of salvage of fire-killed trees generated widely diverse views including: 

• Salvage as a means of fuels reduction had strong support from some parties, but 

less so from others. 

• A common theme from supporters of salvage as a means to reduce fuels and 

recover economic value was to maximize the amount salvaged. Several residents 

of affected communities felt that an even more aggressive approach needed to be 

taken with the removal of the burned timber to reduce future fuel loads. The need 

to address the fuel loading that will increase over the next five to seven years in 

the post-fire area was a major topic of concern especially in and around the 

wildland urban interface communities. This particular subject area was an urgent 

theme in areas that had been evacuated in the past or during the 2014 fire season. 

• Many local attendees stressed that recovery of economic value was important, 

particularly if it paid for future restoration, and that economic recovery should be 

maximized. 

• Some parties felt that fire-killed trees should only be salvaged if they presented a 

safety hazard along main roads or posed a fuels risk to local communities, and 

that burned areas should otherwise not be salvaged. 

• Reforestation of fire damaged sites also raised many opinions and concerns: 

• Nearly all commenters on this topic wanted to make sure that species selection 

for reforestation was appropriate for the site in question, and that a mix of 

species should be planted. Several commenters noted that hot, dry south slopes 

and rocky sites that would not support coniferous forests should not be replanted 

with conifers. 

• Several commenters noted that any replanting needed to be widely spaced rather 

than densely stocked plantations. 

• Some commenters felt that planting trees was a poor investment in many cases, 

and that most sites should be allowed to re-vegetate naturally. 

Ongoing Collaborative Efforts

The Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors and the Westside Klamath Steering Group, 

associated with the National Institute for the Elimination of Catastrophic Wildfire, have 

23
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

formed collaborative groups comprising residents of Siskiyou County and stakeholders 

for the purpose of providing information and comment to the Forest Service in support of 

the Westside Fire Recovery project EIS. The Westside Klamath Steering Group is a 

collective within Siskiyou County with a vested interest in the Westside Fire Recovery 

project’s positive balance between healthy forests, wildlife, fisheries, and community 

protection. The group has expressed an interest in the restoration project, its impact on 

the socioeconomic issues, its progression and hopes to inform the Forest on the perceived 

priorities of the communities as they relate to the project. A particular interest of the 

Westside Steering Group is the long-term impact of the fire on potential timber receipts 

to Siskiyou County. The collaborative group authorized by Siskiyou County had not yet 

convened as of the publication of the draft EIS.

With publication of the draft EIS and subsequent project open houses, field trips and 

other meetings, the Klamath National Forest will be providing information to these 

collaborative groups as well as any other interested party. Their comments and 

recommendations, as well as those of other interest groups and the public at large, will be 

considered in development of the final EIS and Record of Decision. 

Ongoing Tribal Consultation

The Klamath National Forest has also opened discussions with federally recognized 

tribes. On October 8, 2014, the Forest Service sent letters to federally recognized tribes, 

initiating consultation on the Westside Fire Recovery project with the Confederated 

Tribes of the Grand Ronde, Confederated Tribes of the Siletz, Karuk Tribe, Klamath 

Tribes, and the Quartz Valley Indian Reservation. The Karuk Tribe and the Quartz Valley 

Indian Reservation provided formal responses on November 14 and October 22, 

respectively. Comments from both tribes were incorporated into project alternatives. 

On November 20, 2014, the Forest Supervisor and other forest representatives met with 

Quartz Valley Tribal Chair Harold Bennett and members of his staff. Impacts to fisheries, 

and contemporary traditional uses and subsistence were the focus of project concerns. 

Project information is passing between forest staff and Quartz Valley Indian Reservation 

staff, and an upcoming field trip scheduled in March will provide an opportunity to 

discuss the project in more detail.

Forest line officers presented an overview of the project to the Karuk Resource Advisory 

Board and tribal council members Josh Saxon and Bud Johnson on November 5; and 

briefly discussed the project at the Summit Meeting with the Karuk Tribal Council on 

November 12. The main project concerns raised at these meetings included taking a 

landscape-level look, the economics of salvage logging, getting fire back into the forest, 

and limiting planting. The Forest Supervisor met with the Tribal Council on February 19, 

2015 to discuss concerns the Karuk had regarding consultation on the project and how the 

Karuk would like consultation to proceed. Everyone agreed that weekly project meetings 

would be beneficial. On February 24, the Forest Supervisor and Forest representatives 

presented the project in detail to Department of Natural Resources staff and tribal council 

member Josh Saxon. One of the main concerns voiced at this meeting was that the Forest 

needs to commit to restoration activities post-salvage (e.g., prescribed fire), as this is the 

piece that historically is not implemented. Weekly meetings with Forest line officers and 

staff, and Karuk Department of Natural Resources staff and council members are 

24
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

occurring every Monday. Staff to staff informational sharing is also occurring on a 

regular basis.

Preliminary maps of the proposed action and alternatives were provided to the Karuk 

Tribe prior to release of the draft EIS.

Upcoming Public Engagement

The Forest will be hosting series of public open houses during the comment period in the 

local communities. Announcements will be forthcoming and public engagement is 

encouraged. Presentations will be provided to groups upon request.

Ongoing Regulatory Consultation

The Forest has been actively consulting with regulatory agencies as well as local and 

national elected officials. The Forest is developing a project-specific programmatic 

agreement with the State Historic Preservation Office for compliance with the National 

Historic Preservation Act. Regarding the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Forest is 

consulting and conferencing with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service about the effects of 

the project on the ESA-listed northern spotted owl and ESA listing candidate Pacific 

fisher, respectively. The Forest is also consulting with National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries or NFMS) about the 

effects of the project on the ESA-listed Coho Salmon. The Forest is also working upfront with the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board regarding compliance 

with the Clean Water Act. The Forest will continue consultation efforts with all parties to 

ensure there is a full understanding of the project and that the resource needs of these 

groups are recognized and addressed.

Issues _________________________________________________ 

Scoping comments from the public, other agencies, and tribes were used to formulate 

issues concerning the proposed action. The Forest Service separated the issues into two 

groups: relevant issues and other issues. Relevant issues were defined as those directly or 

indirectly caused by implementing the proposed action. Other issues were identified as 

those: 1) outside the scope of the proposed action; 2) already decided by law, regulation, 

Forest Plan, or other higher level decision; 3) irrelevant to the decision to be made; or 4) 

conjectural and not supported by scientific or factual evidence. The Council on 

Environmental Quality NEPA regulations explain this delineation in Sec. 1501.7: 

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

which have been covered by prior environmental review (Sec. 1506.3)...” 

The Forest Service received 749 unique comments by means of 98 unique letters, and 

1,556 form letters during the scoping period. Scoping comments are summarized in 

appendix B. Four issues were determined to be relevant to alternative development or 

modification and are described in Table 1-7 

25
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Table 1-7: Relevant issues and how they were addressed in project design

Relevant Issue #1. There is a disagreement about effects of salvage logging on wildlife habitat (e.g. 

northern spotted owl, Pacific fisher, and snag-associated species) and general 

wildlife habitat fragmentation and connectivity.

Alternative 2 responds to this issue. Following scoping the proposed action was refined 

to remove treatment in northern spotted owl cores classified as high potential for 

reproduction. Units that intersected these cores were removed from salvage harvest 

treatment. Criteria was clarified to include only areas of moderate to high severity 

vegetation mortality with more than ten contiguous acres of medium to high severity 

vegetation mortality and less than 40 percent crown closure to avoid habitat 

fragmentation and address concerns about connectivity.

Alternative 3 responds to this issue by removing treatment in salvage harvest units 

classified as moderate potential for northern spotted owl reproduction. Moderate 

ranked core areas were identified at an owl home range scale. Salvage harvest units 

were also removed from treatment if they were less than 20 acres in size to avoid 

habitat fragmentation and address concerns about connectivity. This alternative also 

removes salvage treatments in units located in the Beaver project area in order to 

retain fisher connectivity in Beaver Creek. Fisher habitat will be protected by not 

removing large decadent hardwoods with cavities, selecting Douglas-fir and ponderosa 

pine snags over true fir snags where possible, and retaining snags within or adjacent to 

unique landscape features such as rock outcroppings, seeps, and springs. 

The following project design features were developed or modified following scoping to 

address this issue: Wildlife-11, 12, 18, 19, 20, 21 

Relevant Issue #2. There is a disagreement about the effects of salvage logging and required 

infrastructure on watershed health (e.g. beneficial uses, Coho Salmon habitat, 

and soil productivity).

Alternative 4 responds to this issue by identifying key watersheds and proposing to 

treat these watersheds differently to account for the specific conditions, water quality 

and fish habitat impairments, and recovery potential of each. Alternative 4 would 

reduce the ground disturbance-related impacts in these areas by eliminating temporary 

road actions (except for less than 250 feet stretches of temporary road on ridgetops). 

This alternative also includes restorative actions within riparian reserves where they 

occur within salvage harvest units, eliminates hazard tree removal on Maintenance 

Level 1 roads that are not used by the project, and allows for no landing construction 

within riparian reserves.

The following project design feature was developed or modified following scoping to 

address this issue: Watershed-5

Relevant Issue #3. There is a disagreement about the effects of salvage logging and site preparation 

on late successional reserves and riparian reserves.

Alternative 2 responds to this issue following scoping by clarifying that salvage harvest 

treatments are not proposed in any riparian reserves associated with stream channels 

or in hydrologic riparian reserves. Site preparation was modified after scoping to 

include hand treatment only in riparian reserves within plantation site preparation and 

planting units. Treatment will include hand-work only (no ground-based equipment) and 

lop-and-scatter or other fuels reduction will be implemented if fuel loading is above 

seven tons per acre; fuels may be hand-piled or windrowed and burned. 

Alternatives 3 and 4 respond to this issue (see description of how these alternatives 

address relevant issues #1 and #2. 

Alternative 5 responds to this issue because it proposes only treatment in units within 

matrix lands and removes salvage harvest and site preparation from all riparian 

reserves and late successional reserve management areas.

Relevant Issue #4. There is a disagreement about whether or not the proposed action sufficiently 

reduces fuels adjacent to private timber lands in the Beaver Fire area.

Alternative 5 responds to this issue by including treatments on an additional 1,200 

acres adjoining private land to increase fuel breaks along ridge and road systems 

within the Beaver Fire area. Units were identified based on proximity to private 

timberlands and the concept of connecting fuel treatments utilizing an “all-lands” 

approach. These additional hazardous fuels treatments in coordination with salvage 

harvest will reduce high densities of snags and surface fuels adjacent to private 

timberlands. .

26
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Other Issues ____________________________________________ 

Other issues were raised by the public that are being addressed by alternative 1 (no 

action), alternative 2 (the refined proposed action), and/or are being handled through 

responses to public comment. 

Other Issue #1. There is a disagreement about: 

a) where salvage logging should be proposed (in low to moderate fire severity, 

where fires were ignited from below);

b) what trees will be identified for removal;

c) what the effects will be on natural growth of plants and natural fire regimes 

(including risks of high intensity wildfire, and culturally-important plants) and 

roadless area characteristics; and 

d) what the cumulative effects of the project will be added to the effects of other 

projects. 

Other Issue #2. There is a disagreement about the economic effects of the project: 

a) whether enough trees will be salvage logged to provide economic benefits; 

b) how limited operating periods will limit economic opportunities; and 

c) whether the true environmental economic costs will be analyzed.

Other Issue #3. There is a disagreement about the effects on safety and the environment from

the number and criteria for choosing trees to be removed through roadside 

hazard treatments:

a) how many trees need be removed to provide safe travel along roads; and

b) how removing hazard trees, especially below roads, affects safety.

Other Issue #4. There is a disagreement about the species and density of trees proposed for 

planting and the costs and benefits of reforestation through planting.

Other Issue #5 There is a disagreement about the environmental costs and benefits of the 

project to:

a) air quality; 

b) climate change; 

c) cultural resources; 

d) economics; 

e) forest health; 

f) fire and fuels; 

g) invasive species (noxious weeds); and 

h) recreation and scenery; 

i) soils, geology, and watershed protection; 

j) vegetation, especially the timber resource; 

k) wildlife species and habitat (especially snag-associated species).

27

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Chapter 2 Alternatives, Including the Refined 

Proposed Action

Introduction ____________________________________________ 

This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered for the Westside Fire 

Recovery project. It describes both alternatives considered in detail and those eliminated 

from detailed study. The end of this chapter presents the alternatives in tabular format so 

that the alternatives and their environmental impacts can be readily compared. 

Best Available Information and Data Quality

This draft EIS was prepared using a combination of remote sensing analysis tools such as 

the Rapid Assessment of Vegetation Condition after Wildfire (RAVG), soil burn severity 

assessments, standard Geographic Information System (GIS) spatial data, forest 

vegetation and transportation databases, and field verification of on-the-ground 

conditions. Every stand, site preparation unit, fuel break etc. has been visited in the field 

to make this draft EIS as accurate as possible. Mapping for publication of the draft EIS of 

proposed salvage units and site preparation and planting units is based on RAVG 

assessments of fire severity, Forest GIS databases and field verification. Additional data 

collection, field verification and data refinement will occur before publication of the final 

EIS. Model outputs will be adjusted as appropriate. Unit boundaries, treatment acres and 

analysis of effects may change based on updated surveys and additional field 

reconnaissance. Those changes will be incorporated into the final EIS. 

Alternatives Considered in Detail___________________________ 

Based on the issues identified through public comment on the proposed action, the Forest 

Service developed 14 alternatives to the proposed action, four of which were designed to 

achieve the purpose and need and were studied in detail. In addition, the Forest Service is 

required to analyze a no action alternative. The no action alternative, proposed action, 

and other alternatives studied in detail are described below. 

In addition to the 14 alternatives developed, the Forest Service received an alternative 

from the Karuk Tribe on March 5, 2015 at 4:30 pm, the day before printing; it has been 

incorporated into appendix G of the DEIS and is available for public review and 

comment. For the final EIS and for consideration in the decision, the Forest Service may 

likely produce another alternative to be analyzed in detailed study. This alternative would 

be reflective of ideas raised during the public comment period, collaborative efforts, and 

consultation. It would be comprised of actions already proposed among the existing 

action alternatives. Actions would be within the range of alternatives already proposed 

and their effects would be within the scope of analysis already considered in this draft 

EIS.

Alternative 1

This is the no action alternative; there will be no treatment with this alternative. The no 

action alternative provides reviewers a baseline to compare the magnitude of 

29
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

environmental effects of the action alternatives. It also provides a picture of the results of 

allowing natural regeneration to take place across the project area.

Alternative 2

Alternative 2 is the refined proposed action and the preferred alternative. Refinements are 

based on public comments received and acquisition of detailed information regarding the 

project area. Acres by treatment type are described in detail below and do not account for 

the overlap in treatment types. This project includes the following four types of 

treatments: (1) salvage; (2) roadside hazard treatments; (3) hazardous fuel treatments; and 

(4) site preparation, planting, and release. 

Connected actions are also described as part of alternative 2; included in this description 

are existing legacy sediment sites that were identified and will be scheduled for treatment 

in compliance with the Clean Water Act as a condition of the North Coast Regional 

Water Quality Control Board waiver of waste discharge requirements (Order No. R1-

2010-0029). Legacy site work needed on the Salmon/Scott River Ranger District is 

covered under previous NEPA documents and will not be discussed as part of this 

alternative. 

Salvage Harvest (about 6,800 treatment acres within 11,700 acres of units) 

Proposed salvage logging treatments on approximately 6,800 acres within about 11,700 

acres of salvage units on Forest lands will reduce safety hazards, promoting the 

successful protection of the public and forest workers (table 2-1). Snag removal from 

around local communities, key infrastructure, and roads will provide fire managers 

improved options for effectively managing potential future wildfires. Incorporated into 

the proposed action are project design features with the intent of protecting and 

promoting late successional habitat, consistent with the Forest Plan. Salvage logging will 

promote ecosystem sustainability by increasing the likelihood and speed by which burned 

forested areas are reforested following the fires by opening areas up for safe planting and 

by reducing large-log fuel loads. Although fire plays an important role in the ecosystem, 

reducing these fuel loadings minimizes the intensity and severity of future fires; thereby, 

decreasing the potential for losing wildlife habitat from future fires and improving the 

likelihood of firefighting success. 

Criteria used to consider areas for salvage harvest treatments include: 

• No salvage harvest is proposed within wilderness, backcountry, research natural 

areas, designated or recommended wild rivers, inventoried roadless areas, or 

riparian reserves associated with stream channels (hydrologic riparian reserves) 

or high ranked northern spotted owl cores in the project area.18

• Areas proposed for treatment include only: 

18 This refers to hydrologic not geologic riparian reserves. Treatment is proposed in geologic riparian 

reserves. Riparian reserves will likely need to be crossed to access certain harvest stands. 

30

 
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

1. Areas of moderate to high severity vegetation mortality with more than 10

contiguous acres of medium to high severity vegetation mortality and less

than 40 percent crown closure;

2. Areas determined to be feasible in terms of logging systems, accessibility, and

economics; and

3. Units outside of northern spotted owl core areas that have more than 50%

effective nesting, roosting or foraging habitat remaining within the core area.

In determining what individual trees will be harvested, standing dead trees 14 inches in 

diameter at breast height or greater will be considered for salvage using the guidelines in

Report #RO-11-01 “Marking Guidelines for Fire-Injured Trees in California” (Smith & 

Cluck, 2011) to identify trees for removal. These guidelines were developed using peerreviewed scientific literature to evaluate tree species in northern California for mortality. 

The guidelines provide a sliding scale of the probability for tree mortality based on 

percent volume or length of crown scorched by fire. The responsible official has chosen 

to salvage trees with a 70 percent or greater chance of dying within the next three to five

years. It is anticipated a majority of trees within salvage units will be harvested, as most 

burned with high severity and have a high probability of mortality. 

Recommendations identified in the Late Successional Reserve Forest-wide Assessment 

(USDA 1999) follow Forest Plan direction focusing on long-range objectives and direct 

management actions following a stand-replacing event to be designed to accelerate or not 

impede the development of late-successional characteristics. Management direction for 

salvage in late successional reserves (Forest Plan, pages 4-87 through 4-88) will be 

followed. Project design features are incorporated into the project design, as described in 

chapter 2.

Salvage logging treatments will be accomplished by a combination of ground-based, 

skyline, and helicopter logging systems (Table 2-1). All salvage units will be reforested 

(see reforestation section below) with the need for site-preparation evaluated per criteria 

outlined in site-preparation section below. 

Table 2-1: Acres of salvage harvest treatment within units by logging system

Logging System Beaver Fire Happy Camp Complex Whites Fire Grand Total

Acres of Treatmenta within (Unit)b

Ground-based 420 (660) 410 (690) 20 (40) 850 (1,390)

Skyline 80 (200) 3,100 (4,900) 140 (280) 3,320 (5,380)

Helicopter 0 2,360 (4,400) 280 (540) 2,640 (4,940)

Total Treatment

(Unit) 500 (860) 5,870 (9,990) 440 (860) 6,800 (11,700) 

a Treatments are estimated acres within units where more than 50% mortality occurred and where salvage activity is 

proposed. Treatment areas avoid riparian reserves and areas where less than 50% mortality occurred. b Units are larger than treatment areas because they include salvage harvest acres, as well as areas where no harvest 

will occur such as riparian reserves and areas with less than 50% mortality that are within unit boundaries. c Acres are estimates based on GIS and field data. Values are rounded to the nearest ten acres for individual treatment 

methods (skyline etc.) and to the nearest 100 acres for estimates of total treatment acres by alternative.

Maps showing areas considered for treatment are found in appendix A. Acres considered 

for salvage harvest treatments are described in table 2-2. 

31
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Table 2-2: Acres of salvage harvest units by land allocation

Salvage Harvest by Management Area Beaver Fire Happy Camp 

Complex

Whites 

Fire

Total Acres a

General Forest 460 610 0 1070

Partial Retention VQO 130 1090 10 1230

Recreational River 0 120 30 150

Retention VQO 0 190 0 190

Riparian Area 180 560 30 770

Special Habitat, LSR 90 6680 790 7560

Special Habitat, T&E Species 0 740 0 740

Grand Total (acres) 860 9990 860 11710

a Acres are estimates based on GIS and field data. Values are rounded to the nearest ten acres for 

individual treatment methods (skyline etc.) and to the nearest 100 acres for estimates of total treatment 

acres by alternative.

Figure 2-1: Fire Severity by Mortality Class and Estimated Net Harvest Acres

32
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 2-2: Acres of Salvage Harvest and Retention Areas within Alternative 2 Treatment Units

Roadside Hazard Treatments (650 miles)

The Forest Service will identify and remove hazard trees along about 650 miles of 

National Forest Transportation System roads, county roads, and state highways. Roadside 

hazard reduction (removal of fire-killed trees) is proposed within 250 feet on either side 

of selected roads to address hazards. A hazard, or danger, tree is defined as a standing 

tree that presents a hazard to people due to conditions such as deterioration of or damage 

to the root system, trunk, stem, or limbs or the direction or lean of the tree (29 CFR 

1910.266(c); FSH 6709.11, glossary). Because of slope, a few fire-killed trees farther 

than 250 feet from a road may still present a hazard to the road and thus need to be 

removed, but the majority of hazard trees will be within the 250-foot buffer. Roadside 

hazard treatments will include the use of ground-based, skyline, and helicopter logging 

systems. 

To provide for both public and Forest worker safety and future fire suppression efforts, 

roads classified in all maintenance levels will be considered for roadside hazard 

treatments. Only hazard trees identified by the criteria below will be removed. Where no 

hazard trees are present, there will be no hazard tree removal. 

The actual area where harvest will occur will not be known until hazard tree evaluations 

are completed. Mileages of treatment proposed are a maximum; the numbers are merely 

33
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

representative of the entire length and area being evaluated for hazard tree identification 

and removal. Acres used for analysis were calculated using all fire severity classes with a 

200 foot buffer19 on either side of affected roads. GIS was used to narrow down the 

amount of acres of roadside hazard considered for hazard tree removal. As a result, the 

area actually treated by roadside salvage will likely be smaller than the estimated 20,500 

acres. Of those 20,500 acres, approximately 16,600 acres are coniferous forest; 660 acres 

are hardwood forest and about 3,250 are shrubs and brush or are not vegetated. For 

conifer and mixed conifer forests, diameter ranges were broken into three categories: (1) 

up to ten inches (6,200 acres), (2) ten to 20 inches (4,700 acres), and (3) greater than 20 

inches in diameter at breast height (5,700 acres). Of the hardwood stands (660 acres) 630 

acres were with tree diameters less than 20 inches; approximately 30 acres were with tree 

diameters greater than 20 inches. 

All Forest Service system roads within the project boundary will be evaluated for 

roadside hazard tree identification and removal. This includes maintenance level one 

roads used by Forest Service employees and contractors for administrative purposes. 

Current hazard trees (also known as danger trees) will be identified using the Regional 

Hazard Tree Guidelines for Forest Service Facilities and Roads in the Pacific Southwest 

Region (Angwin et al. 2012). In addition, all trees burned in the 2014 fires along Forest 

Service system roads within the project area will be considered for removal if they have a 

60 percent or greater chance of dying within three to five years as defined by Report 

#RO-11-01 “Marking Guidelines for Fire-Injured Trees in California” (Smith & Cluck, 

2011) in order to capture future hazard trees. 

All trees identified as hazard trees regardless of size class will be cut along all system 

roadways. All merchantable trees will be removed when consistent with project design 

features. Non-merchantable trees will be piled and burned where the treatment is along a 

strategic road for hazardous fuels treatments, described below. Non-merchantable trees 

will be cut and left when they are not along a strategic road for fuel treatments. Per 

agency policy already in place, the public may obtain a fuelwood permit to remove felled 

trees for firewood in accordance with permit requirements. The agency anticipates the 

local public will remove firewood along roadways, especially near communities. 

Where there is overlap with salvage treatment units, both hazard trees and those trees 

fitting the salvage harvest prescriptions will be cut and removed in accordance with 

project design features.

The removal of merchantable roadside hazard trees will be accomplished by a 

combination of ground-based, skyline, and helicopter logging systems. 

Miles by maintenance level considered for roadside hazard treatments are described in 

Table 2-3. Acres by management area considered for roadside hazard treatments are 

described in Table 2-4. Maps showing areas considered for roadside hazard treatment are 

found in appendix A.

19 Hazard tree removal is proposed within 250 feet on either side of selected roads. Topographic breaks and 

unstocked areas without hazard trees will reduce the actual treated acres. For the purposes of analysis, a 

200 foot buffer was used to estimate the acres where treatment may occur. 

34

 
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Table 2-3: Miles of Roadside Hazard Treatments by National Forest Transportation System 

maintenance level

Road Type by Maintenance Level Beaver Fire Happy Camp 

Complex

Whites 

Fire

Grand Total

Level 1 (basic custodial care, closed to 

public) 17 49 3 69

Level 2 (high clearance vehicles) 66 183 31 280

Level 3 (suitable for passenger cars) 30 67 15 112

Level 4 (moderate degree of user comfort) 2 7 0 9

Level 5 (high degree of user comfort) 2 0 0 2

County Roads and State Highways 49 96 27 172

Grand Total (miles) 166 402 76 644

Table 2-4: Acres of Roadside Hazard Treatments considered by management area.

Road Type by Management Area Beaver Fire Happy Camp 

Complex

Whites 

Fire

Grand Total

General Forest 1,126 1,129 0 2,255

Partial Retention VQO 795 2,781 2 3,578

Recreational River 0 220 48 268

Retention VQO 26 211 0 237

Riparian Area 1,025 2,062 247 3,334

Scenic River 0 64 0 64

Special Habitat, LSR 135 8,086 2,409 10,630

Special Habitat, T&E Species 0 121 0 121

Grand Total (acres) 3,107 14,674 2,706 20,487

Hazardous Fuels Treatments (22,900 acres)

In addition to the salvage harvest, roadside hazard treatments, and site preparation 

treatments described in this alternative, hazardous fuel treatments will further reduce the 

dangers associated with heavy fuel loading, especially within the wildland urban 

interface. The Forest Service will treat hazardous fuels on about 22,900 acres of Forest 

lands. Fuels treatments were developed using the criteria listed below and include: lop 

and scattering, chipping, broadcast burning, jackpot burning, and pile burning. 

Site preparation in units where planting is proposed will also reduce fuel loadings. In 

order to maintain desired conditions of surface, canopy and ladder fuels, follow up 

maintenance will also occur where strategic ridge- and road-systems intersect units 

proposed for site preparation and planting. Maintenance will involve thinning of 

understory vegetation and piling of surface fuels to maintain desired fuel conditions. 

Conifer trees up to 12 inches in diameter may be cut and the retained trees pruned to 

increase canopy base heights in order to decrease fire behavior at the surface and 

transition to over-story fuels (see description of site-preparation below). 

No fuels treatment will occur within wilderness, research natural area, or wild river land 

allocations. Hazardous fuels treatments may occur in both hydrologic and geologic 

riparian reserves. Table 2-5 describes the acres of hazardous fuels treatments by land 

allocation. 

Table 2-5: Acres of hazardous fuels treatments by management area.

35
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Management Area Beaver Fire Happy Camp Complex Whites Fire Grand Total

General Forest (MA17) 248 319 259 826

Partial Retention VQO (MA15) 993 2,156 1,868 5,017

Recreational River (MA13) 0 343 518 861

Retention VQO (MA11) 288 670 1 959

Riparian Area (MA10) 468 1,748 1,520 3,736

Scenic River (MA12) 0 43 0 43

Special Habitat, LSR (MA5) 31 3,300 6,835 10,166

Special Habitat, Eagle/Falcon 

(MA5) 0 161 0 161

Total Hazardous Fuels 

Treatment (acres) 2028 8,740 11,001 21,769

The following was used to evaluate and identify hazardous fuels treatments areas, and 

strategic roads and ridgelines:

• One-quarter mile of private property structures in burned areas or within areas 

that underwent fire suppression-related activity; 

• 500 feet of infrastructure (e.g. utility lines, communication sites, campgrounds, 

lookouts, bridges, etc.); 

• 250 feet on either side of Forest roads and ridgelines, used historically for fire 

suppression purposes; and 

• Only areas determined to be feasible in terms of slope, accessibility, existing fuels 

conditions, and logical holding features such as roads, streams, and ridges. 

Maps showing hazardous fuels treatments are found in appendix B; detailed tables by 

prescription are in appendix F. Acres of treatment for hazardous fuel treatments are 

summarized Table 2-6. 

Table 2-6: Acres of hazardous fuels treatment by treatment type

Fuels Treatment Type Beaver Fire Happy Camp Complex Whites Fire Grand Total

Wildland Urban Interface 613 1,197 413 2,223

Fuels Management Zones 866 3,024 917 4,807

Roadside Fuels Treatments 612 3,012 807 4,431

Prescribed Burn 0 1,556 9,870 11,426

Grand Total (acres) 2091 8,789 12,007 22,887

Information on fuels treatments in the wildland urban interface, fuel management zones, 

roadsides, as well as in areas proposed for prescribed burning and site preparation, are 

provided below. 

Wildland Urban Interface (about 2,200 acres)

A combination of mechanical, mastication, and hand work is planned. Areas identified 

for treatment with mechanical equipment will include a combination of cutting dead trees 

less than 12 inches in diameter and other understory vegetation. After mechanical or 

mastication treatments, activity generated slash will be piled and burned. Areas treated 

only by hand thinning will remove dead vegetation or trees that will be disposed of by 

chipping, piling with follow-up burning, or lopping and scattering of fuels. Live 

understory vegetation (less than 12 inches in diameter) will be removed to reduce flame 

length, intensity, and the potential for crown fire activity. The objective is to have an area 

36
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

with a reduced fuel load and minimized ladder fuels to create a more defensible wildland 

urban interface during future fire events. 

Fuels Management Zones (about 4,800 acres)

The primary locations of fuels management zones are strategic ridge systems used to 

contain the 2014 fires as well as historic fire lines from previous large fires within the 

project area. The treatments aim to maintain existing control lines by removing all dead 

vegetation, and live understory vegetation, along with live conifer trees less than 12 

inches in diameter at breast height. Retained conifers will be pruned up to seven feet 

above the ground within these zones to increase canopy base height, and reduce ladder 

fuels and the potential for crown fire initiation. Activity-generated fuels will be disposed 

of by a variety of methods. Where hand thinning is proposed, lopping and scattering of 

fuels, piling and burning, and/or chipping will be used to reduce fuels. Mechanical or 

mastication equipment may be used to pile activity slash within these areas in addition to, 

or in lieu of, hand work. 

Roadside Fuels Treatments (about 4,400 acres)

Roadside treatments identified as strategic for fuels reduction will assist with future 

locations to hold a planned or unplanned fire within the project area. Roadside treatments 

outside of identified strategic road systems will include hazard tree removal of activitygenerated fuels to provide for access for fire suppression resources responding to future 

unplanned ignitions. Activities similar to those described above within fuels management 

zones will be used to treat roadside fuels. 

Prescribed Burn (about 11,400 acres)

Prescribed fire implementation will occur under cool weather conditions which promote 

low intensity fires. A mosaic post-burn condition will exist with isolated pockets of tree 

mortality, and burned and unburned understory vegetation. 

Second-entry burns in units identified for prescribed burning will be used to maintain 

surface fuel loading and increase heterogeneity of forest structure and vegetation by 

consuming surface fuels and small understory vegetation. A mosaic burn is anticipated 

where some areas fully consume surface fuels and other areas are partially burned or 

unburned. Many of the prescribed burning locations will use existing control lines 

established in recent large fires within the project area. Line construction activities will 

occur around the perimeter of the fire and will include using dozers to re-scrape control 

lines to mineral soil; where control lines are inaccessible for equipment, hand-line 

construction to mineral soil will occur. Removal of understory vegetation along control 

lines will include cutting brush and conifer trees less than 12 inches in diameter to 

facilitate holding operations during prescribed fire implementation. 

Site Preparation, Planting, and Release 

Site-preparation, planting, and release treatments are designed to increase the likelihood 

and speed by which burned forested areas are reforested following fires. More rapid and 

successful reforestation is accomplished by reducing fuel loading and creating openings 

for safe planting. Careful evaluations were made to prioritize treatment units likely to 

support successful reforestation. Units within the project area are highly variable, so 

37
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

criteria differ slightly for determining site-preparation needs within natural units versus 

existing plantations. 

For the purposes of this project, reforestation needs were stratified into three categories 

for field evaluation: 1) burned conifer plantations; 2) conifer units proposed for salvage 

harvest; and 3) conifer units not proposed for salvage harvest for which there is a need to 

reforest with conifer species. Areas were considered for site preparation, planting and 

release if they:

• Were identified as areas determined to have been historically dominated by 

conifers, as determined by the 1945 Wieslander Vegetation mapping (Kelly, M.B. 

et. al 2005) in addition to visual cues based upon Forest Service professional 

judgment; 

• Had successful vegetation growth before the 2014 fire; 

• Had evidence that, prior to the fire, conifers were successfully re-establishing, and 

competing vegetation (brush and hardwoods) were not dominating the site; 

• Had little availability of natural seed source within seed distribution distances;

• Had favorable site class, aspect, slope position, and elevation for artificial 

regeneration; and, 

• Had favorable regeneration potential by prioritizing areas based on site quality 

and moisture availability and avoiding areas with a history of repetitive high 

severity burns if likely to re-burn before stand reaches level of fire resilience.

Site Preparation (about 12,656acres)

Site-preparation will increase the ability of planting units to become resilient and provide 

forested habitat in a fire-adapted ecosystem. Fuel loading after site preparation treatments 

will mimic that of natural stands and increase the ability of important components of 

units to survive the historic fire frequencies experienced in the project area. In addition to 

the site-preparation activities described under the hazardous fuels section above, 

depending on site location, site preparation will include the following treatments (see 

appendix A for maps of treatment locations):

• Manual site preparation will fall standing dead conifers, hardwoods, and brush 

less than ten inches diameter at breast height with a chainsaw or other cutting 

implement on slopes greater than 35 percent. Felled material will be piled or 

windrowed by hand and burned to complete site preparation activities. Material 

greater than ten inches in diameter will be left or skyline yarded on steep slopes 

because of concerns about safety and effectiveness of treating large, heavy 

material by hand on steep grounds. 

• Skyline yarding will be used on slopes greater than 35 percent with high 

densities of dead trees. Trees generally less than 16 inches in diameter will be 

skyline yarded, decked or piled on roadside landings. Piled material may be 

made available to the public for firewood cutting. Pile burning will complete site 

preparation activities.

• Mastication will be used to shred dead trees, hardwoods and brush less than 12 

inches in diameter into pieces less than three inches diameter distributing them 

across the unit on slopes less than 35 percent. 

• Mechanical yarding and slash piling of dead trees generally less than 16 inches 

will be used on slopes less than 35 percent. These trees will be cut and piled 

38
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

using ground-based equipment or cut and skidded to a landing where the material 

will be burned. Piled material of preferred firewood species may be made 

available to the public for firewood cutting following project activities. 

• Following mechanical site preparation activities, units will be identified 

(Watershed-25 and Watershed-26, Table 2-35 of chapter 2) as areas where subsoiling or deep tillage will be used to help break up the dense soil and improve 

infiltration, aeration, and tree growth. Ripping may also be considered to help 

mechanically break up soils by raking across unit contours. No sub-soiling, deep 

tillage, or ripping is proposed in riparian reserves.

Table 2-7: Site preparation by unit type

Treatment Unit Type Beaver Fire Happy Camp Complex Whites Fire Grand Total

Plantations 1,112 3,170 599 4,881

Within Natural Units (Nonsalvage Harvested)621 325 29 975

Within Salvage Harvest Units 500 5,870 440 6,800

Total Site Preparation Acres 2,233 9,365 1068 12,656

Plantations (about 4,900 acres)

Site-preparation in plantations includes plantations that existed prior to the 2014 fires 

where most of the unit was lost due to wildfire. Based on the criteria listed above, these 

plantations were also identified as unable to recover naturally. Most plantations planned 

for treatment consist of dead trees less than 16 inches in diameter at breast height. In 

some areas trees larger than 16 inches will be treated in order to reduce hazards to 

workers, the public, and reduce fuel loading to achieve flame lengths of less than four 

feet over the next 20 years. 

Riparian reserves within the plantation site-preparation and planting units in the Whites 

Fire and Happy Camp Complex will be treated to achieve ground cover and allow for 

natural regeneration of vegetation. Treatment will be focused in areas of high and 

moderate vegetation mortality and where the overhead hazards can be mitigated without 

equipment entry into the riparian reserves. Trees up to 16 inches diameter at breast height 

in riparian reserves will be cut and felled. Treatment will include hand-work only (no 

ground-based equipment) and lop-and-scatter or other fuels reduction will be 

implemented if fuel loading is above seven tons per acre; fuels may be hand-piled or 

windrowed and burned. 

Natural Units (Non-salvage Harvested, about 980 acres)

Natural units are units not scheduled for salvage harvest that were burned during the 2014 

fires. They generally are units with trees generally less than 20 inches diameter at breast

height. These units were assessed for reforestation using the criteria listed above. These 

units will only be treated where mitigation of the snag hazards can be completed prior to 

planting. 

39
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Table 2-8: Acres of site preparation, planting, and release by management areas for alternative 2 

(does not include acres of site preparation, planting, and release in salvage harvest units)

Management Area Beaver Fire Happy Camp Complex Whites Fire Grand Total

General Forest (MA17) 502 637 0 1139

Partial Retention VQO 

(MA15) 870 1,149 0 2,019

Recreational River (MA13) 0 12 0 12

Retention VQO (MA11) 0 27 0 27

Riparian Area (MA10) 385 398 0 783

Scenic River (MA12) 0 0 0 0

Special Habitat, LSR (MA5) 16 3,222 638 3,876

Special Habitat, 

Eagle/Falcon (MA5) 0 26 0 26

Grand Total 1773 5,471 638 7,882

Salvage Harvest Units (about 6,800 acres)

Site-preparation for reforestation in salvage units will follow harvest activities. Site 

preparation will only be done where fuel loading after harvest is greater than seven tons 

per acre (including standing dead fuels). Otherwise, these units will be planted without 

site preparation.

Reforestation and Release (about 14,184 acres)

Within Plantations, Natural Units, and Salvage Harvest Units

Reforestation prescriptions are designed to reflect projected unit composition based on 

historic information; this condition includes hardwoods as well as conifers. Units 

identified for proposed planting include areas where no suitable green trees exist or the 

number of remaining green trees can’t provide a seed source for natural regeneration. 

Planting is proposed for areas where residual green trees were assessed during site visits 

for immediate seed-cone potential and were found to be inadequate for providing a 

reliable seed source. Remaining green trees will contribute to overall post-fire stocking 

levels but cannot be relied upon solely for overall re-seeding needs. 

Planting prescriptions are based on historic unit conditions, projected unit composition, 

and the likelihood of long-term survivability of project units within a fire ecosystem. 

Overall, species considered for planting in the project area include Douglas-fir, sugar 

pine, ponderosa pine, incense cedar, white fir, and red fir. A mosaic distribution will be 

achieved over time due to the spatial variability achieved by micro-site selection for 

planting. Conifers will not be planted next to green hardwoods; these hardwoods will be 

included in average spacing. Seedlings will be widely spaced on poorer sites including 

southerly aspects and/or rocky soils. Trees will be planted in clusters to achieve groups of 

conifers throughout the landscape to mimic natural units. Seedling survival rates and 

competition from brush species will create a natural mosaic of species and stocking 

densities. In order to effectively reforest these units, an average of 130 to 300 trees per 

acre will be planted to achieve acceptable levels of stocking, depending on the site 

conditions described below. Initial planting spacing recommendations considered Forest 

Plan land management objectives for projected stocking needs, and the likelihood of 

achieving those objectives, for each unit evaluated for reforestation. 

40
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Tree planting (or reforestation) will be by hand methods, using either bare root or 

container stock. Hand planting will increase the likelihood for survival and provide for 

the desired spatial variability within treatment units and across the project area. Tree 

species used for planting will roughly correspond with historical unit composition, 

varying by forest type from unit to unit. In general, mostly pines will be planted on 

droughty south-facing slopes and ridges. South-facing slopes and ridges will be planted at 

lower densities compared to other areas within the project area. Douglas-fir will be 

planted at higher densities as the primary species on lower sheltered slopes and northern 

aspects. True fir will be re-established at the higher elevations at the highest density to 

reflect how these units would have naturally established. Hardwoods will not be planted, 

due to their ability to naturally regenerate following fire either by epimoric sprouting, 

belowground sprouting, or by natural re-establishment as seedlings from seed caches 

found within the stand. Epimoric sprouting refers to the shoots that grow from buds on 

stems or branches of hardwoods, often in response to stress. Growth of existing 

hardwoods will be encouraged; hardwoods will be included in the target stocking for 

units in areas where they exist. 

Additional planting establishment techniques may be used to increase survival of planted 

trees. These techniques include, but are not limited to: animal protection devices for 

browse reduction; shade blocks for improved microsite conditions; and hand grubbing to 

remove competing vegetation around seedlings for survival. 

Release

The release treatment will follow planting or natural regeneration to increase the 

establishment of conifer seedlings. Release treatments include manually removing 

competing plants or water uptake from competing plant roots by “grubbing” around 

conifer seedlings or natural hardwood seedlings. Grubbing consists of removing all 

vegetation within a minimum of a five foot radius from planted or natural regenerated 

seedlings. 

Table 2-9: Acres of reforestation and release by unit type

Treatment Unit Type Beaver Fire Happy Camp Complex Whites Fire Grand Total

Plantations 843 4,988 563 6,394

Within Natural Units (Nonsalvage Harvested)564 397 29 990

Within Salvage Harvest Units 500 5,870 440 6,800

Total Reforestation/Release 1907 11,255 1032 14,184

Connected Actions

Road Access

Project access will require the use of about 562 miles of National Forest Transportation 

System roads and county roads. System roads will be maintained as needed for project 

implementation as displayed in Table 2-10. There will be no roads added to the National 

Forest Transportation System as a result of this project; about five miles of new 

temporary roads will be constructed and about 19 miles of temporary roads on existing 

roadbeds will be used for project access. Ten miles of those 19 miles of temporary roads 

on existing roadbeds are proposed reopening of previously decommissioned roads. All 

41
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

temporary roads will be closed and hydrologically stabilized according to the project 

design features (Watershed-5 and Watershed-24) found later in chapter 2. 

Table 2-10: Miles of road access by Forest Transportation System maintenance level and temporary 

road access

Type of Road Access Beaver Fire Happy Camp Complex Whites Fire Grand Total

Forest System, County, and State 146 353 63 562

New Temporary 0 4 1 5

Existing Temporary

Temporary Road on Existing 3 6 1 10

Re-open Decommissioned 0 9 0 9

Total Existing Temporary 3 15 1 19

Grand Total 149 371 65 585

Landings

Existing landings will be used where possible. Landing size will be commensurate with 

operational safety. Helicopter landings will be up to two acres in size. Skyline landings 

will use roads wherever possible. New skyline landings off the road system and groundbased landings will average one acre in size but will not exceed 1.5 acres in size. Both 

new and existing landings will be hydrologically stabilized after use, according to the 

project design features (Watershed-5 and Watershed-24) found later in chapter 2.

Legacy Sites

The portion of Elk Creek within the project area contains about 148 legacy sites. Most of 

the legacy sites are located on or adjacent to the Forest transportation system. The other 

legacy sites are located on existing landings or roadbeds (historic roads, abandoned 

temporary roads, or decommissioned roads). Legacy site treatments are shown in map A29 in appendix A and will include the treatments shown in Table 2-11. 

Table 2-11: Description of treatment, number of sites, and actions needed for legacy site treatment

Treatment Number of 

Sites

Description of Action Needed:

Culvert Upgrades About 45 Replace culverts to accommodate the 100-year peak flow.

Diversion 

Prevention

About 51 sites

(17 included in 

culvert upgrade)

Construct armored rolling dips to prevent streams from diverting 

down roadways should the culvert plug or fail.

Aquatic Organism 

Passage

3 sites Replace existing stream crossing with bottomless arch culvert to 

improve or restore aquatic organism passage.

Retaining Wall About 7 sites Construct retaining wall, rock buttress, reinforced embankment, or 

equivalent. Where road prism has slumped or failed.

Fill Reduction About 16 sites Remove excess fill materials from the top of stream crossings to 

reduce the amount of fill available for discharge should the culvert 

plug or fail; add riprap to armor fill slopes.

Fill Removal About 27 sites Remove all fill materials from stream channels, swales, road 

shoulders and sliver fills; these treatments would occur on closed 

Forest roads and existing roadbeds.

Repair/Maintain 

Existing 

Infrastructure

About 16 sites Clean culvert inlets, ditches, etc., repair damaged culvert inlets, 

shorten “shotgun” culvert outlets, place riprap below culvert outlets to 

reduce hill slope erosion, remove cut slope slide materials

42
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Road storm-proofing treatments between individual sites will occur on about 33 miles of 

Forest system roads (15N02, 15N75, 16N05, 16N39 and 45N19). Treatments between 

legacy sites may include the following: where possible reconstruct road prism to an out 

sloped configuration, otherwise reduce inboard ditch length by adding additional relief 

culverts or dips; reduce road prism width; remove berms; place rip-rap below outlets of 

ditch relief culverts; recondition road subgrade and travel surface - apply crushed 

aggregate; add rolling dips where needed to control road surface runoff; stabilize road 

prism slumps with retaining walls or rock buttresses.

Alternative 3

Alternative 3 was developed in response to relevant issues one and three and public 

comments raised about the effects of the proposed action on spotted owl and fisher 

habitat, habitat connectivity, and legacy components. Legacy components are those 

habitat features that take a long time to develop (e.g. large old-growth trees, legacy trees, 

and large downed logs). Alternative 3 emphasizes the development of future late 

successional habitat, habitat connectivity, northern spotted owl habitat and retention of 

legacy components within the post-fire landscape. 

Spotted owl activity centers within the project area were evaluated and prioritized in 

order to identify sites with the highest likelihood of occupancy post-fire. In order to more 

fully respond to recommendations described in Recovery Action 10 of the 2012 Revised 

Recovery Plan, known spotted owl activity centers in the project area were evaluated 

based on the amount of suitable habitat remaining post-fire within the 0.5 mile core areas 

(500 acre areas centered on clusters of best available locations such as known nest and 

roost sites). Activity centers containing at least 50 percent (250 acres) suitable 

nesting/roosting and/or foraging habitat within the core area and an additional 1,086 acres 

nesting/roosting and/or foraging habitat in the outer home range (0.5 to 1.3 miles) were 

classified as having “high potential” for the owls associated with that site to remain on 

site, continue to reproduce, and therefore contribute to the demographics of the spotted 

owl population in the area. 

Activity centers containing less than 50 percent suitable nesting/roosting and/or foraging 

habitat within the core area were evaluated at the 1.3 mile home range scale. Home 

ranges containing more than 20 percent suitable nesting/roosting and/or foraging habitat 

were classified as having “moderate potential” for the owls associated with that site to 

remain on site, reproduce, and contribute to the demographics of the population in the 

area. The Level One consultation team acknowledged uncertainty in site location but 

assumed that shifts in locations could occur in response to the modifications and/or loss 

of habitat caused by high and moderate severity fire. Those with “moderate potential” 

may shift away from their original core use area, but remain within their home range in 

areas where adequate suitable habitat exists post-fire. 

Low potential sites were defined as having less than 20 percent suitable habitat remaining 

within the 1.3 mile home range. These sites were assumed highly unlikely to persist or 

contribute to the demographics of the northern spotted owl population. 

Occupied sites, where owls are thought to have not been displaced by fire, would 

potentially be at a higher risk of impacts from post fire activities; versus sites where owls 

43
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

were likely displaced due to habitat loss from the highest severity fire and are no longer 

present in the immediate area. 

Changes from the Alternative 2:

• No salvage harvest in units (see list of units in project design features) within 

“moderate potential” northern spotted owl core areas except for specifically 

designated core areas, as described above. 

• No salvage harvest in units less than 20 acres in size (see list of units in project 

design features).

• No salvage harvest in the Beaver Fire area.

Alternative 3 is also designed to retain legacy components for future habitat 

development, reduce effects to northern spotted owl habitat, and lessen the effects to 

connectivity while still meeting the purpose and need for action. Table 2-12 describes in 

detail how each concern was addressed.

Table 2-12: Concerns addressed by the development of alternative 3

Concern About: Addressed by:

The effects of salvage 

logging on the long 

term development of 

the affected stand for 

future late 

successional habitat, 

as described by the 

Regional Ecosystem 

Office/LSR working 

group, interdisciplinary 

team internal review, 

and as raised by the 

public.

Retaining important habitat elements such as large trees, snags, and coarse 

woody debris while avoiding treatment in mixed-severity fire-affected forested 

areas. Many northern spotted owl activity centers were affected by the fire and 

this alternative is designed to reduce the effects of treatments on sites likely to 

persist in the future while balancing the need to reduce the potential of future 

high severity fire affecting additional habitat. Large trees and snags provide 

valuable wildlife habitat for many species and this alternative will retain more of 

these legacy features to provide structure for the development of late 

successional habitat. This alternative will benefit the ESA-listed northern 

spotted owl, ESA proposed listed fisher, survey and manage species, 

management indicator species and Forest Service Sensitive species by 

minimizing the impacts from fuels treatments.

Habitat Connectivity Habitat connectivity was affected by fire and this alternative modifies proposed 

treatments in order to address connectivity in areas that may provide wildlife 

with the opportunity to move from one patch of habitat to another. 

Post fire natural stand 

development20 and 

habitat requirements of 

post fire or snag 

associated species

Integrating recent science on post-fire natural stand development. This will be 

addressed with the MIS and Forest Service sensitive species analysis, as well 

as the snag and legacy tree pdfs. In addition, areas outside of units and mixed 

severity patches within the project area will provide habitat for a variety of 

wildlife species. Retaining snags and legacy features on the landscape will 

provide future structure for wildlife species. Salvage units and burned 

plantations will be replanted. As these stands develop, retained snag and 

legacy features will provide structure found in a more mature forest. In the short 

term species will also benefit from the pulse of dead and dying trees, grasses 

and forbs found within the project area.

20 e.g. Fire Science Brief 2009, Wagenbrenner 2015, Hanson et al 2013, PSW GTR-247, Bond et al 2013, 

Hutto 2006

44

 
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Concern About: Addressed by:

The short term impacts 

to northern spotted owl 

that may occupy fire 

affected forested areas, 

as well as long term 

use of small pockets of 

mixed burn severity 

within active northern 

spotted owl activity 

centers.

Nesting, roosting and foraging habitat and mixed burn severity inclusions 

(RAVG grid code 1 or 2) within treatment units will not be salvage harvested. 

Removing fuels within treatment units has the potential to create short term 

impacts to spotted owl foraging and prey habitat. This will be balanced with 

fuels treatments and replanting the salvaged treatment units. The long-term 

goals are to reduce fire risk, protect remaining northern spotted owl nesting, 

roosting and foraging habitat, and replant treatment units. Replanting treatment 

units will move the project area toward late seral conditions more quickly than 

without treatment. 

Large woody debris 

retention 

Conserve an irreplaceable resource (Forest Plan 4-4). Retention of large woody 

debris would slowly improve soil organic matter, and would be especially 

beneficial where it has been lost to high soil burn severity. Retention of large 

woody debris is valuable to many wildlife species. Down wood provides sites for 

denning, resting and escape cover. This will improve tree growth over the long 

term that would aid in habitat development.

Treatments proposed in alternative 3 are the same as alternative 2 with the following 

exceptions: 

Salvage Harvest (about 5,800 treatment acres within 9,600 acres of units) 

Alternative 3 proposes salvage logging treatments on approximately 5,800 acres within 

about 9,600 acres of salvage units on Forest lands. Alternative 3 proposes no salvage 

treatment within core areas classified as having either “high potential” or “moderate 

potential,” with the exception of four “moderate potential” core areas (KL1265, KL4133, 

KLNew3A,and KL1202). These four sites experienced significant amounts of high 

severity fire that removed virtually all suitable habitat within the 0.5 mile core area, but 

had sufficient habitat remaining in the home range. The Level One consultation team 

assumed this adjacent habitat would allow for the northern spotted owls to potentially 

shift their core area to utilize existing suitable habitat adjacent to the severely burned, 

previously occupied core areas. 

Fisher Habitat

No salvage treatments are proposed in units located in the Beaver project area in order to 

retain connectivity in the Beaver Fire area. Wildlife-11, 12, and 13 project design features 

were developed for alternative 3 responding to the need for protecting fisher habitat 

characteristics including large decadent trees with cavities, select for retention Douglasfir and ponderosa pine snags over true fir snags where possible, and retaining snags 

within or adjacent to unique landscape features such as rock outcroppings, seeps, and 

springs.

45
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Table 2-13: Acres of salvage harvest proposed in alternative 3 by logging system

Logging System Beaver Fire Happy Camp Complex Whites Fire Grand Total

Acres of Treatment (Unit)b

Ground-based 0 (0) 350 (570) 20 (40) 370 (610)

Skyline 0 (0) 2,890 (4,410) 120(230) 3,010 (4,640)

Helicopter 0 (0) 2,130 (3,910) 260 (430) 2,390 (4,340)

Total Treatment / 

(Unit) Acres 0 (0) 5,370 (8,890) 400 (700) 5,800 (9,600)

a Treatments are estimated acres within units where more than 50% mortality occurred and where salvage activity is 

proposed. Treatment areas avoid riparian reserves and areas where less than 50% mortality occurred. 

b Units are larger than treatment areas because they include salvage harvest acres, as well as areas where no harvest will 

occur such as riparian reserves and areas with less than 50% mortality that are within unit boundaries.

c Acres are estimates based on GIS and field data. Values are rounded to the nearest ten acres for individual treatment 

methods (skyline etc.) and to the nearest 100 acres for estimates of total treatment acres by alternative.

Table 2-14: Acres of salvage harvest units proposed in alternative 3 by land allocation

Salvage Harvest by Management Area Beaver Fire Happy Camp 

Complex

Whites 

Fire

Total Acres a

General Forest 540 0 540

Partial Retention VQO 980 10 990

Recreational River 110 30 140

Retention VQO 190 0 190

Riparian Area 500 40 540

Special Habitat, LSR 5,870 620 6,490

Special Habitat, T&E Species 700 0 710

Grand Total (acres) 0 8,890 700 9,600

a Acres are estimates based on GIS and field data. Values are rounded to the nearest ten acres for 

individual treatment methods (skyline etc.) and to the nearest 100 acres for estimates of total treatment 

acres by alternative.

46
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 2-3: Fire Severity by Mortality Class and Estimated Net Harvest Acres for Alternative 3

Figure 2-4:Acres of Salvage Harvest and Retention Areas within Treatment Units in Alternative 3

47
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Roadside Hazard Treatment (650 miles) 

Roadside hazard treatments are described in alternative 2. Acres associated with these 

treatments are listed in Table 2-3and Table 2-4 and in appendix F.

Hazardous Fuel Treatment (about 22,900 acres)

Hazardous fuels treatments and proposed units are described in alternative 2. Acres 

associated with these treatments are listed in Table 2-5 and Table 2-6 and in appendix F. 

Site Preparation, Planting, and Release (about 12,900 acres)

Site preparation, planting, and release as described in alternative 2 will be implemented 

in about 7,400 acres of plantations and natural units (non-salvage harvest units), and in 

9,500 acres of salvage harvest units. Acres were adjusted based on the amount of salvage 

harvest units removed from treatment for this alternative. Based on the removal of units 

within core areas classified as having either ‘high potential’ or ‘moderate potential’ and 

the removal of salvage treatment in units located in the Beaver project, salvage harvest 

acres decreased. 

Table 2-15: Acres of site preparation, planting, and release in alternative 3 by unit treatment type.

Unit Treatment Type Beaver Fire Happy Camp Complex Whites Fire Grand Total

Total Site Preparation 4,547 30,315 3012 11,656

Plantations 1,112 3,170 599 4,881

Natural Units (Nonsalvage Harvested)621 325 29 975

Salvage Harvest Units 0 5,370 400 5,800

Total 

Reforestation/Release

1407 10,725 992 13,154

Plantations 843 4,988 563 6,394

Natural Units (Nonsalvage Harvested)564 367 29 960

Salvage Harvest Units 0 5,370 400 5,800

Table 2-16: Acres of only site preparation, planting, and release for alternative 3 by management 

area (does not include acres of site preparation, planting, and release in salvage harvest units)

Site Preparation and Planting/Release by 

Management Area

Beaver 

Fire

Happy Camp 

Complex

Whites 

Fire

Grand 

Total

General Forest (MA17) 502 637 0 1139

Partial Retention VQO (MA15) 870 1,149 0 2,019

Recreational River (MA13) 0 12 0 12

Retention VQO (MA11) 0 27 0 27

Riparian Area (MA10) 385 398 0 783

Scenic River (MA12) 0 0 0 0

Special Habitat, LSR (MA5) 16 3,222 638 3,876

Special Habitat, Eagle/Falcon (MA5) 0 26 0 26

Grand Total 1773 5,471 638 7,882

48
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Connected Actions

Road Access

Project access for this alternative is the same as alternative 2. Implementation of this 

alternative will require the use of National Forest Transportation System roads and 

County Roads as displayed in alternative 2, Table 2-10. System roads will be maintained 

as needed for alternative 3 implementation. All temporary roads will be closed and 

hydrologically stabilized according the project design features.

Landings and Legacy Sites

Both landings and legacy site actions are described in alternative 2. Alternative 3 is the 

same as alternative 2 with the exception that fewer landing will be needed to implement 

this alternative.

Alternative 4

Alternative 4 was developed to reduced impact to watershed, including federally-listed 

Coho Salmon and was developed through consultation discussions between the Forest 

Service and National Marine Fisheries Service and in response to relevant public issue

numbers two and three (comment letter numbers 1147 and 1148) raised about the effects 

of the proposed action on watershed conditions and recovery. Soils and riparian areas 

were impacted to varying degrees across the project area due to the 2014 wildfires and in 

some areas the effects were severe and likely to result in downstream impacts to water 

quality and fisheries habitat. Riparian and aquatic resources in general across the project 

area are negatively affected by the current post-fire condition due to changes in natural 

processes such as hillslope erosion and stream sedimentation, and changed conditions 

such as effective stream shade and flow regime. Considering the impacted current 

condition, the concern is that further ground disturbance especially in the most impacted 

and/or sensitive watershed areas may result in additive negative effects to aquatic 

resources including habitat for Endangered Species Act-listed Coho Salmon. 

Alternative 4 is designed to reduce watershed disturbance and impacts to water quality 

and fisheries, relative to the proposed action, while still meeting the purpose and need for 

action. This alternative takes a more conservative approach to implementing the Forest 

Plan’s Aquatic Conservation Strategy by reducing or eliminating temporary road actions, 

especially within key watershed. The interdisciplinary team has identified the most 

sensitive areas (7th field watersheds) to further ground disturbance, based on existing 

watershed condition and distribution of listed fish. The criteria used to identify the most 

sensitive 7th field watersheds included the following: 

1. Existing watershed disturbance—measured by analysis of fire impacts (vegetation 

and soil burn severity) and Cumulative Watershed Effects model values for existing 

condition (which include BAER work); 

2. Unstable slopes and landslide potential—quantitatively reflected in Cumulative 

Watershed Effects values, and further evaluated based on field review and 

information on past site-specific disturbance and recovery; 

3. Stream monitoring data—Forest level water quality monitoring (sediment and 

temperature) of reference and managed streams mostly pre 2014 fires;

4. Endangered Species Act-listed Coho Salmon—proximity/probability and 

magnitude/duration of likely impacts to Coho Salmon and their habitat; 

49
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

5. Key Watersheds—doing the most, within the scope of this project, to achieve Aquatic 

Conservation Strategy objectives in Salmon River, and Elk and Grider creeks; and 

6. Professional judgment—informed by field visits, literature review, and site-specific 

knowledge. 

The following viewsheds were identified as the most sensitive 7th field watersheds 

(drainages):

• Three drainages along Beaver Creek including: Buckhorn Gul-Beaver, Dutch, 

and Lower West Fork Beaver; 

• Walker Creek; 

• Doggett Creek; 

• Caroline Creek along the Klamath River;

• Kohl Creek; 

• Music Creek; 

• O’Neil Creek;

• Three drainages along Elk Creek including: Lower East Fork Elk, Upper East 

Fork Elk, and Upper Elk; 

• China Creek; 

• Four drainages along Grider Creek including: Cliff Valley, Lower Grider, Upper 

Grider, and Rancheria Creek;

• Tompkins Creek; and

• Whites Gulch

Alternative 4 proposes to treat these watersheds differently to account for the specific 

conditions, water quality and fish habitat impairments, and recovery potential of each. 

Alternative 4 would reduce the ground disturbance-related impacts in these areas by 

eliminating temporary road actions (except for less than 250 feet stretches of temporary 

road on ridgetops). This alternative also includes restorative actions within riparian 

reserves where they occur within salvage harvest units, eliminates hazard tree removal on 

Maintenance Level 1 roads that are not used by the project, and allows for no landing 

construction within riparian reserves (several exceptions apply with alternative 2 and 

exceptions do not apply with alternative 4).

Changes from the Alternative 2 

Within the identified 7th field watersheds, along with all project design features described 

for the proposed action, the following additional restrictions/mitigations are proposed: 

• No use of non-system existing road beds for temporary access (includes 

previously decommissioned roads) with the following exception: 

1. Use of non-system temporary roads will be limited to segments along ridgetops 

and not hydrologically connected to the drainage network (no crossings or 

adjacent to streams). 

2. In Key Watersheds, any use of all temporary roads will be less than 250 feet in 

length, on ridgetops and not hydrologically connected to the drainage network 

(no crossings or adjacent to streams); 

• No use of maintenance level 1 roads if stream crossings reconstruction is needed; 

50
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

• Maintenance Level 1 roads that are not needed to implement actions in this 

project will not be included in hazard tree removal;

Treatments proposed in alternative 4 are the same as alternative 2 with the following 

exceptions:

Salvage Harvest (about 5,900 treatment acres within 10,200 acres of units) 

Alternative 4 proposes salvage logging treatments on approximately 5,900 acres within

about 10,200 acres of salvage units on Forest lands. Acres for harvest were adjusted 

based on accessibility following the removal of temporary use along non-system existing 

road beds, including previously decommissioned roads and maintenance level one roads 

where stream crossing reconstruction is needed. Acres were adjusted to account for these 

changes. 

This alternative also proposes only manual treatment for all salvage harvest treatments 

within riparian reserves. Manual or hand treatment will fall standing dead conifers up to 

16 inches in diameter at breast height with a chainsaw or other cutting implement, then 

cut and scattered throughout the riparian area to achieve 70 percent soil cover in riparian 

reserves within salvage harvest units. On slopes greater than 35 percent, manual felling of 

standing dead conifers, hardwoods, and brush will be limited to material less than ten

inches diameter at breast height because of concerns about safety and effectiveness of 

treating large, heavy material by hand on steep grounds. The goal is to promote more 

rapid soil recovery and natural regeneration without additional planting in these units. If 

fuel loading exceeds ten tons per acre (and/or greater than 70 percent soil cover), excess 

fuels can be piled and burned or broadcast burned. 

Table 2-17: Acres of salvage harvest in alternative 4 by logging system

Logging System Beaver Fire

Treatmenta

 (Unit) 

b/ Acres

Happy Camp 

Complex

Treatmenta

(Unit)b Acres

Whites Fire

Treatmenta

(Unit)b Acres

Grand Totalc

Treatmenta

(Unit)b Acres

Ground-based 380 / (600) 380 / (650) 20 / (40) 780 / (1,290)

Skyline 60 / (160) 2,560 / (4,130) 140 /(270) 2,760 / (4,560)

Helicopter 0 / (0) 2,070 / (3,830) 280 / (540) 2,350 (4,370)

Total Treatment / 

(Unit) Acres

440 / (760) 5,010 / (8,610) 440 / (850) 5,900 / (10,200)

a Treatments are estimated acres within units where more than 50% mortality occurred and where salvage activity is 

proposed. Treatment areas avoid riparian reserves and areas where less than 50% mortality occurred. 

b Units are larger than treatment areas because they include salvage harvest acres, as well as areas where no harvest 

will occur such as riparian reserves and areas with less than 50% mortality that are within unit boundaries.

c Acres are estimates based on GIS and field data. Values are rounded to the nearest 10 acres for individual treatment 

methods (skyline etc.) and to the nearest 100 acres for estimates of total treatment acres by alternative.

51
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Table 2-18: Acres of salvage harvest units in alternative 4 by land allocation

Salvage Harvest by Management Area Beaver Fire Happy Camp 

Complex

Whites 

Fire

Total Acres a

General Forest 420 600 0 1020

Partial Retention VQO 130 980 10 1,120

Recreational River 0 120 30 150

Retention VQO 0 180 0 180

Riparian Area 150 530 30 710

Special Habitat, LSR 60 5,660 780 6,500

Special Habitat, T&E Species 0 540 0 540

Grand Total (acres) 760 8,610 850 10,220

a Acres are estimates based on GIS and field data. Values are rounded to the nearest ten acres for 

individual treatment methods (skyline etc.) and to the nearest 100 acres for estimates of total treatment 

acres by alternative.

Figure 2-5: Fire Severity by Mortality Class and Estimated Net Harvest Acres in Alternative 4

52
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 2-6: Acres of Salvage Harvest and Retention within Treatment Units for alternative 4

Roadside Hazard Treatments (621 miles) 

Alternative 4 proposes treatment along 621 miles of road or about 19,600 acres of 

roadside hazard. Roadside hazard treatment and criteria used to identify hazard or danger 

trees are described in alternative 2. Miles of roads and acres for roadside hazard were 

adjusted based on the removal of treatment along maintenance level one roads not used to 

implement this alternative. Maintenance level one roads were removed from this 

alternative because they were not needed to implement actions for alternative 4. 

Table 2-19: Miles of roadside hazard treatments by maintenance level

Type of Road Access

(Maintenance Level)

Beaver Fire Happy Camp Complex Whites Fire Grand Total

Level 1 (basic custodial care, 

closed to public)

15 30 1 46

Level 2 (high clearance 

vehicles)

71 186 29 287

Level 3 (suitable for passenger 

cars)

23 68 17 108

Level 4 (moderate degree of 

user comfort)

0 7 0 7

Level 5 (high degree of user 

comfort)

2 0 0 2 

County Roads/State Highways 49 95 27 171

Grand Total 160 387 75 621

53
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Table 2-20: Acres of roadside hazard treatment by management area

Roadside Hazard Treatment 

by Management Area

Beaver Fire Happy Camp Complex Whites Fire Grand Total

General Forest 1,073 1,081 0 2,154

Partial Retention VQO 673 2,531 2 3,206

Recreational River 0 220 48 268

Retention VQO 26 203 0 229

Riparian Area 935 2,005 247 3,187

Scenic River 0 55 0 55

Special Habitat, LSR 127 7,887 2,338 10,352

Special Habitat, T&E Species 0 121 0 121

Grand Total 2,834 14,103 2,635 19,572

Hazardous Fuel Treatments (about 22,900 acres)

Hazardous fuels treatments and proposed units are described in alternative 2. Acres 

associated with these treatments are listed in Table 2-5 and Table 2-6 and in appendix F. 

Site Preparation, Planting, and Release (about 17,500 acres)

Site preparation, planting, and release as described in alternative 2 will be implemented 

in 7,400 acres of plantations and natural units (non-salvage harvest units), and in 5,900 

acres of salvage harvest units. No planting is proposed in salvage harvest units that 

overlap riparian reserves. Acres were adjusted based on the amount of salvage harvest 

units removed from treatment based on changes road use and access. 

Table 2-21: Acres of site preparation, planting, and release in alternative 4 by treatment type

Treatment Type Beaver Fire Happy Camp 

Complex

Whites Fire Grand Total

Total Site Preparation 5,867 29,295 3132 38,324

Plantations 1,112 3,170 599 4,881

Within Natural Units (Nonsalvage Harvested)621 325 29 975

Within Salvage Harvest 

Units

440 5010 440 5900

Total Reforestation/Release 1847 10,395 1032 13,284

Within Plantations 843 4,988 563 6,394

Natural Units 564 397 29 990

Salvage Harvest Units 440 5010 440 5900

Table 2-22: Acres of site preparation, planting and release in alternative 4 by land allocation

Site Preparation and 

Planting/ Release by 

Management Area

Beaver Fire Happy Camp 

Complex

Whites Fire Grand Total

General Forest (MA17) 502 637 0 1139

Partial Retention VQO 

(MA15)

870 1,149 0 2,019

Recreational River (MA13) 0 12 0 12

Retention VQO (MA11) 0 27 0 27

Riparian Area (MA10) 385 398 0 783

54
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Site Preparation and 

Planting/ Release by 

Management Area

Beaver Fire Happy Camp 

Complex

Whites Fire Grand Total

Scenic River (MA12) 0 0 0 0

Special Habitat, LSR (MA5) 16 3,222 638 3,876

Special Habitat, Eagle/Falcon 

(MA5)

0 26 0 26

Grand Total 1773 5,471 638 7,882

Connected Actions

Road Access

Project access will require the use of National Forest Transportation System roads and 

County Roads. System roads will be maintained as needed for alternative 4 

implementation as displayed in Table 2-23. There will be no roads added to the National 

Forest Transportation System as a result of this project; about two miles of new 

temporary roads will be constructed. This alternative limits the amount of non-system 

existing road beds for temporary access including previously decommissioned roads with 

the following exceptions: (1) new temporary roads in key watersheds will be less than 

250 feet in length; and, (2) all new temporary and non-system temporary roads will be 

limited to segments on ridgetops and not hydrologically connected to the drainage 

network (no crossings or adjacent to streams). These two exceptions account for about 

five miles of temporary roads on existing roadbeds used for project access. One mile, of 

these five miles of temporary roads on existing roadbeds is proposed reopening of 

previously decommissioned roads. All temporary roads will be closed and hydrologically 

stabilized according the project design features.

Table 2-23: Miles of road access for alternative 4

Type of Road Access Beaver Fire Happy Camp Complex Whites Fire Grand Total

Forest System, County, and State 146 353 63 562

New Temporary 0 1 1 2

Existing Temporary

Temporary Road on Existing 1 2 1 4

Re-open Decommissioned 0 1 0 1

Total Existing Temporary 1 3 1 5

Grand Total 147 357 65 569

Landings and Legacy Sites

Both landings and legacy site actions are described in alternative 2. Alternative 4 is the 

same as alternative 2 with the exception that fewer landing will be needed to implement 

this alternative.

Alternative 5

Alternative 5 is responsive to relevant issue three in order to address disagreements about 

the effects of salvage logging and site preparation on late successional reserves, riparian 

reserves, and inventoried roadless areas by removing all units that overlap these 

management areas. Alternative 5 is also responsive to relevant issue four in order to 

55
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

address disagreements about whether or not the proposed action sufficiently addresses the 

needs for fuels reduction adjacent to private timber lands in the Beaver Fire area by 

proposing an additional 1,200 acres of hazardous fuels treatments with adjoining private 

land treatments to increase fuel breaks along ridge and road systems within the Beaver 

Fire area.

Treatments in Alternative 5 are identical to the proposed action with the following 

exceptions:

Salvage Harvest (about 1,900 treatment acres within 3,400 acres of units)

Alternative 5 proposes salvage logging treatments on approximately 1,900 acres within 

about 3,400 acres of salvage units on Forest lands. Salvage harvest (as described in 

alternative 2) is only proposed within management areas (MA) considered as matrix 

lands that exist within the project area, including retention (MA 11), scenic rivers (MA 

12), recreation rivers (MA 13), partial retention (MA 15), and general forest (MA 17) 

management areas (matrix lands are defined on the1994 Forest Plan EIS, Preferred 

Alternative Land Allocations Map). Compared to alternative 2, alternative 5 removes 

salvage harvest from within special habitat (MA 5), special interest areas (MA 7), and 

riparian reserves (MA-10).

Table 2-24: Acres of treatment proposed in alternative 5 by logging systems.

Logging System Beaver Fire

Treatmenta

(Unit) b/ Acres

Happy Camp

Complex

Treatmenta

(Unit)b /Acres

Whites Fire

Treatmenta

(Unit)b /Acres

Grand Totalc

Treatmenta

(Unit)b /Acres

Ground-based 420 / (660) 140 / (230) 1 / (15) 560 / (910)

Skyline 70 / (170) 470 / (820) 0 /(0) 540 / (990)

Helicopter 0 / (0) 770 / (1,460) 30 / (60) 800 (1,520)

Total Treatment/(Unit) 

Acres

490 / (830) 1,380 / (2,510) 30 / (80) 1,900 / (3,400) 

a Treatments are estimated acres within units where more than 50% mortality occurred and where salvage activity is 

proposed. Treatment areas avoid riparian reserves and areas where less than 50% mortality occurred. b Units are larger than treatment areas because they include salvage harvest acres, as well as areas where no harvest 

will occur such as riparian reserves and areas with less than 50% mortality that are within unit boundaries.

c Acres are estimates based on GIS and field data. Values are rounded to the nearest 10 acres for individual treatment 

methods (skyline etc.) and to the nearest 100 acres for estimates of total treatment acres by alternative.

Table 2-25: Acres of proposed salvage harvest units in alternative 5 by management area

Salvage Harvest by Management Area Beaver Fire Happy Camp 

Complex

Whites 

Fire

Total Acres a

General Forest 460 590 0 1050

Partial Retention VQO 130 1,070 10 1,210

Recreational River 0 120 30 150

Retention VQO 0 170 0 170

Riparian Area 180 530 40 750

Special Habitat, LSR 60 2 0 62

Special Habitat, T&E Species 0 30 0 30

Grand Total (acres) 830 2,5120 80 3,422

a Acres are estimates based on GIS and field data. Values are rounded to the nearest ten acres for 

individual treatment methods (skyline etc.) and to the nearest 100 acres for estimates of total treatment 

acres by alternative.

56
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 2-7: Fire Severity by Mortality Class and Estimated Net Harvest Acres in Alternative 5

Figure 2-8: Acres of Salvage Harvest and Retention within Treatment Units in Alternative 5

57
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Roadside Hazard Treatments (about 643 miles) 

Roadside hazard treatments are described in alternative 2. Acres associated with these 

treatments are listed in Table 2-3 and Table 2-4 and in appendix G. 

Hazardous Fuels Treatments (about 23,000 acres) 

Hazardous fuels treatments is proposed on an additional 1,200 acres adjoining private 

land treatments to increase fuel breaks along ridge and road systems within the Beaver 

Fire area. Units were identified based on proximity to private timberlands and the concept 

of connecting fuel treatments utilizing an “all-lands” approach. These additional 

hazardous fuels treatments in coordination with salvage harvest will reduce high densities 

of snags and surface fuels adjacent to private timberlands. 

Table 2-26: Alternative 5 treatment acres by treatment type

Fuels Treatments

Treatment Type Beaver Fire Happy 

Camp 

Complex

Whites Fire Grand Total

Wildland Urban Interface 613 1,197 413 2,223

Fuels Management Zones 866 3,024 917 4,807

Roadside Fuels Treatments 612 3,012 807 4,431

Prescribed Burn 0 1,556 9,870 11,426

Grand Total 2091 8,789 12,007 22,887

Table 2-27: Alternative 5 fuels treatment by land allocations

Fuels Treatments by 

Management Area

Beaver Fire Happy Camp 

Complex

Whites Fire Grand Total

General Forest (MA17) 892 319 259 1470

Partial Retention VQO (MA15) 1,368 2,156 1,868 5,392

Recreational River (MA13) 0 343 518 861

Retention VQO (MA11) 293 670 1 964

Riparian Area (MA10) 630 1,748 1,520 3,898

Scenic River (MA12) 0 43 0 43

Special Habitat, LSR (MA5) 39 3,300 6,835 10,174

Special Habitat, Eagle/Falcon 

(MA5)

0 164 0 164

Grand Total 3,222 8,743 11,001 22,966

Site Preparation, Planting, and Release (about 7,300 acres)

Site preparation, planting, and release are proposed only within management areas 

considered as matrix lands, as identified in the description of salvage harvest in this 

alternative. Compared to alternative 2, alternative 5 removes site preparation, planting, 

and release in salvage harvest units that were within special habitat (MA 5), special 

interest areas (MA 7), riparian reserves (MA 10), and inventoried roadless areas (not 

defined as a management area in the Forest Plan). 

58
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Table 2-28: Acres of proposed site preparation, planting, and release for alternative 5 by treatment 

type

Treatment Type Beaver Fire Happy 

Camp 

Complex

Whites Fire Grand Total

Site Preparation 6,006 8,964 90 15,060

Plantations 1,101 684 0 1,785

Natural Units (Non-salvage 

Harvested)

621 114 0 735

Salvage Harvest Units 490 1,380 30 1,900

Reforestation/Release 1897 3,393 30 5,320

Plantations 843 1,979 0 2,822

Natural Units 564 34 0 598

Salvage Harvest Units 490 1,380 30 1,900

Table 2-29: Acres of only site preparation, planting, and release for alternative 5 by management 

area (does not include acres of site preparation, planting, and release in salvage harvest units)

Site Preparation and Planting/Release by 

Management Area

Beaver 

Fire

Happy Camp 

Complex

Whites 

Fire

Grand 

Total

General Forest (MA17) 502 601 0 1103

Partial Retention VQO (MA15) 870 1,055 0 1,925

Recreational River (MA13) 0 12 0 12

Retention VQO (MA11) 0 27 0 27

Riparian Area (MA10) 385 371 0 756

Scenic River (MA12) 0 0 0 0

Special Habitat, LSR (MA5) 5 2 0 7

Special Habitat, Eagle/Falcon (MA5) 0 26 0 26

Grand Total (acres) 1762 2,094 0 3,856

Connected Actions

Road Access

Project access will require the use of National Forest Transportation System roads and 

county roads. There will be no roads added to the National Forest Transportation System 

as a result of this project; about one mile of new temporary road will be constructed, and 

about seven miles of temporary roads on existing roadbeds will be used for project 

access. Three miles of those seven miles of temporary roads on existing roadbeds are 

proposed reopening of previously decommissioned roads. All temporary roads will be 

closed and hydrologically stabilized according the project design features.

Table 2-30: Miles of road access for alternative 5

Type of Road Access in Miles Beaver Fire Happy Camp Complex Whites Fire Grand Total

Forest System, County, and State 146 353 63 562

New Temporary 0 1 0 1

Existing Temporary

Temporary Road on Existing 3 1 0 4

Re-open Decommissioned 0 3 0 3

Total Existing Temporary 3 4 0 7

Grand Total 149 358 63 570

59
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Landings and Legacy Sites

Both landings and legacy site actions are described in alternative 2. Alternative 5 is the 

same as alternative 2 with the exception that fewer landing will be needed to implement 

this alternative.

Comparison of Alternatives _______________________________ 

Table 2-31provides a brief summary of activities and treatment acres proposed for each 

alternative analyzed in detail. See treatment maps in appendix A and treatment by 

prescription and unit tables in appendix F and G for more detail. 

60
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Table 2-32 compares alternatives in response to the purpose and need of the project. 

61
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Table 2-33 compares them in response to relevant issues, and Table 2-34 displays a 

comparison of the environmental effects of alternatives by resource. 

62
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Table 2-31: Comparison of miles of roads and acres of treatment

Treatments Alternative 1

(acres/miles)

Alternative 2

(acres/miles)

Alternative 3 

(acres/miles)

Alternative 4 

(acres/miles)

Alternative 5

(acres/miles)

Salvage Harvest (acres) 0 6,800 5,800 5,900 1,900

Ground-based 0 850 370 780 560

Skyline 0 3,320 3,010 2,760 540

Helicopter 0 2,640 2,390 2,350 800

Roadside Hazard 

Treatments 

(miles/acres)

0 650 miles / 

20,500 acres

650 miles / 

20,500 acres

650 miles / 

19,580 acres

643 miles/ 

20,500 acres

Hazardous Fuel 

Treatments (acres) 0 22,900 22,900 22,900 24,099

Wildland Urban 

Interface 0 2,223 2,223 2,233 2,233

Fuels Management 

Zones 0 4,807 4,807 4,807 6,019

Roadside Fuels 

Treatments 0 4,431 4,431 4,431 4,431

Prescribed Burn 0 11,426 11,426 11,426 11,426

Site Preparation, 

Reforestation, and 

Release Treatments 

(acres)

0 36,641 32,441 33,641 12,820

Site Preparation 0 41,026 38,026 38,326 15,220

Plantations 0 4,881 4,881 4,881 1,785

Natural Units (Nonsalvage harvest) 0 975 975 975 735

Salvage Harvest

Units 0 6,800 5,800 5,900 1,900

Reforestation and 

Release 0 14,185 13,185 13,285 5,400

Plantations 0 6,394 6,394 6,394 2,822

Natural Units (Nonsalvage harvest) 0 991 991 991 678

Salvage Harvest 0 6,800 5,800 5,900 1,900

Road Access (miles)

Forest System 

Roads, County Roads 

and State Highway.

0 562 562 562 562

New Temporary

Roads 0 4 4 1 <1

Temporary Roads on 

Existing Roadbeds 0 10 8 3 4 

Reopen 

Decommissioned 

Roads

0 9 9 <1 2 

Legacy Sites (count) 0 150 150 150 150

63
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Table 2-32: Comparison of alternative effects related to the purpose and need of the project

Meeting 

Purpose and 

Need

Measurement 

Indicator

Alternative

1 

Alternativ

e 2

Alternative 

3 

Alternative 

4 

Alternative 

5 

Provide for 

worker and 

public safety 

and access

Miles and acres 

of roadside 

hazard 

treatment 

0 

0 

650

20,500

650

20,500

620 

19,580

650

20,500

Acres of fuels 

reduction 

treatment within 

WUI

0 2,220 2,220 2,220 2,220

Acres where 

snags are 

removed by 

salvage and 

site prep.

0 6,800 

acres

salvage 

7,900 

acres site 

prep

5,800 

acres 

salvage

7,900 

acres site 

prep

5,900 acres 

salvage

7,900 acres 

prep

1,900 acres 

salvage

3,400 acres 

site prep

Improve fire 

suppression 

conditions for 

firefighters 

and 

community 

protection

Acres of 

resistance to 

control 

improved

(large fuels 

removed) 

0 6,800 5,800 5,900 1,900

Acres of fuel 

breaks, 

prescribed 

burning and 

other fuels 

treatments

0 22,900 22,900 22,900 24,100

Capture the

economic 

value of 

snags and 

hazard trees 

for a viable 

project and 

benefit to 

local 

communities

Timber sale 

income (in 

millions of 

dollars)

$0 $11.9 $9.8 $9.6 $6.3

Labor income 

(in millions of 

dollars)

$0 $53.1 $46.5 $47.4 $21.9

Employment 

(jobs)

0 1,236 1,067 1,074 549

Provide for 

restored and 

fire-resilient 

forested 

ecosystems

Acres treated to 

promote 

regeneration 

through 

salvage harvest

0 acres 6,800 5,800 5,900 1,900

64
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Meeting 

Purpose and 

Need

Measurement 

Indicator

Alternative

1 

Alternativ

e 2

Alternative 

3 

Alternative 

4 

Alternative 

5 

Years to reach 

a mature stand 

in areas of 

salvage harvest 

100+ years 40-60 

years

40-60 

years

40-60 years 40-60 years 

in matrix 

land; 100+ 

in nonmatrix 

Type of 

vegetation 

regenerated in 

salvage harvest 

areas

Short-term/

Long-term

Grass, 

forbs,brush/

 Brush, 

hardwoods,

isolated 

parches of 

conifers

Brush, 

hardwoods

, young 

conifers/

Mature 

mixed 

conifer 

stands

Same as 

alternative 

2 

Same as 

alternative 2

Same as 

alternative 2 

within matrix 

lands; 

isolated 

conifers 

elsewhere

Total acres 

where fuels are 

reduced by 

salvage, and 

fuels 

treatments

0 6,800 

acres 

salvage, 

22,900 

acres fuels 

treatments

5,800 

acres 

salvage

22,900 

acres fuels 

treatments

6,900 acres 

salvage, 

22,900 

acres fuels 

treatments

1,600 acres 

salvage

24,100

acres fuels 

treatments

65
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Table 2-33: Comparison of alternative indicators by relevant issue

Issue Measurement 

Indicator 

Alternative 1 Alternative 

2 

Alternative 

3 

Alternative 

4 

Alternative 

5 

Relevant Issue 1:

Effects of salvage 

logging on wildlife 

habitat

Acres of salvage 

logging on terrestrial 

indicators in Chpt. 3, 

Wildlife

0 See Table 

2-34

See Table 

2-34

See Table 

2-34

See Table 

2-34

Relevant Issue 2:

Effects of salvage 

logging and 

required 

infrastructure on 

watershed health

Analysis indicators 

for watersheds in 

Chpt. 3, Hydrology

0 See Table 

2-34

See Table 

2-34

See Table 

2-34 

See Table 

2-34

Relevant Issue 3:

Effects of salvage 

logging and site 

preparation on late 

successional

reserves (LSRs), 

riparian reserves 

(RRs) and 

inventoried 

roadless areas 

(IRAs) 

Acres of salvage 

logging in LSRs

0 7,560 7,073 6,818 60

Acres of site 

preparation in LSRs

0 3,876 3,876 638 7 

Acres of salvage 

logging in RRs

0 0 0 0 0 

Acres of site 

preparation in RRs

0 783 783 783 756

Acres of salvage 

logging in IRAs

0 0 0 0 0 

Acres of site 

preparation in IRAs

0 0 0 0 0 

Relevant Issue 4: 

Adequate fuels 

treatments 

adjacent to private 

timberlands in the 

Beaver Fire area 

Acres of fuels 

treatments adjacent 

to private 

timberlands in the 

Beaver Fire area

0 870 acres 870 acres 870 acres 2,080 

acres

66
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Table 2-34: Comparison of effects of all alternatives by resource

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

Vegetation Natural regeneration on 

100% of project area. 

Regenerates as brush, 

hardwoods and isolated 

patches of conifers; 

meets the National 

Forest Management Act 

(NFMA) requirements by 

meeting Forest Plan 

standards.

Natural regeneration on 

about 85% of project 

area. Planted area 

regenerates as mature 

mixed conifer stands in 

the long term; meets 

NFMA by meeting Forest 

Plan standards.

Same as alternative 2 

except that about 86% of 

the project area naturally 

regenerates.

Same as alternative 3. Same as alternative 2 

except that about 90% of 

the project area naturally 

regenerates.

Fuels Fire hazards increase 

over time with 14,000 

acres with a low hazard 

level and high fuel 

loading of large material 

(leading to resistance to 

control) after 10 years. 

About 44,800 acres have 

a low hazard level after 

10 years but no acres 

have a high fuel loading 

of large material (leading 

to resistance to control) 

after 10 years.

About 40,800 acres have 

a low hazard level after 

10 years but no acres 

have a high fuel loading 

of large material (leading 

to resistance to control) 

after 10 years.

About 41,100 acres have 

a low hazard level after 

10 years but no acres 

have a high fuel loading 

of large material (leading 

to resistance to control) 

after 10 years.

About 35,200 acres have 

a low hazard level after 

10 years but no acres 

have a high fuel loading 

of large material (leading 

to resistance to control) 

after 10 years.

Wildlife:

T&E

Risk to reproduction of 

northern spotted owl is 

very low or low for 17 

activity centers, 

moderate for 51 and high 

for 12.

Risk to reproduction of 

northern spotted owl is 

very low or low for 17 

activity centers, 

moderate for 51 and high 

for 12.

Same as alternative 2. Same as alternative 2. Same as alternative 2.

Wildlife:

Critical Habitat

No acres of critical 

habitat are directly or 

indirectly affected; 552 

acres are cumulatively 

affected by adding the 

effects of other projects 

on private land to the 

zero acres of effect of 

this alternative.

1,205 acres of critical 

habitat are directly or 

indirectly affected; 1,758

are cumulatively affected 

by adding the effects of 

other projects on private 

land to the acres affected 

by the alternative.

Same as alternative 2. 1,179 acres of critical 

habitat are directly or 

indirectly affected; 1,732

are cumulatively affected 

by adding the effects of 

other projects on private 

land to the acres affected 

by the alternative.

Same as alternative 2.

67
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

Wildlife:

Forest Service

Sensitive 

Species

No effect on roost sites 

for bats;

High risk of direct or 

indirect disturbance to 13 

bat hibernaculum or 

maternities, moderate 

risk to 15 and low risk to 

30 with cumulative 

effects changing these to 

24 at high risk of 

disturbance, 12 at 

moderate risk and 22 at 

low risk. Treatments 

may affect individuals but 

are not expected to result 

in a trend toward federal 

listing or loss of viability. 

Forest Plan standards 

are met.

Same as alternative 2. Same as alternative 2. Same as alternative 2.

Wildlife:

Management 

Indicator 

Species

No change in hardwood 

abundance from the 

current condition. No 

direct or indirect effects 

from this alternative on 

snag habitat but 

cumulative effects due to 

adding the effects of 

projects on private land 

will be about 1,692 acres 

will cumulatively be 

affected.

Hardwood habitat 

abundance is directly or 

indirectly changed on 

728 acres; cumulatively 

habitat is affected on 

1,322 acres. Snag 

habitat abundance is 

changed on from 1,123 

acres to 11,001 acres, 

depending on the specific 

snag-associated species 

within the association. 

Cumulatively, this 

change is from 1,203 

acres to 12,735 acres. 

Forest Plan standards 

are met.

The acreage of 

hardwood habitat 

affected is 717 acres 

directly or indirectly and 

1,312 acres cumulatively. 

Snag habitat is affected 

on from 1,108 acres to 

10,544 acres directly or 

indirectly and from 1,188 

to 12,278 acres 

cumulatively. Forest Plan 

standards are met.

The acreage of 

hardwood habitat 

affected is 679 acres 

directly or indirectly and 

1,273 acres cumulatively. 

Snag habitat is affected 

on from 1,096 acres to 

10,264 acres directly or 

indirectly and from 1,176 

to 11,999 acres 

cumulatively. Forest Plan 

standards are met.

The acreage of 

hardwood habitat 

affected is 713 acres 

directly or indirectly and 

1,307 acres cumulatively. 

Snag habitat is affected 

on from 916 acres to 

9,066 acres directly or 

indirectly and from 996 to 

10,801 acres 

cumulatively. Forest Plan 

standards are met.

68
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

Wildlife:

Survey and 

Manage 

Species

There are no direct, 

indirect or cumulative 

effects on known sites of 

survey and manage 

species.

76 known sites are 

protected from habitat 

disturbance by project 

design features. 

Treatments may affect 

individuals but there will 

be no significant negative 

impact to species or 

habitat.

Same as alternative 2. Same as alternative 2. Same as alternative 2.

Wildlife:

Migratory

Birds

Effects on migratory birds 

are disclosed for the 

threatened, endangered, 

Forest Service sensitive 

and management 

indicator species of birds.

Same as alternative 1. Same as alternative 1. Same as alternative 1. Same as alternative 1.

Range There would be no effect 

on the availability of 

forage and a neutral 

effect on rangeland 

condition.

The availability of forage 

would increase; there will 

be a neutral effect on 

rangeland condition.

Same as alternative 2. Same as alternative 2. The availability of forage 

would increase less than 

with other action 

alternatives; there will be 

a neutral effect on 

rangeland condition.

Botany 

(Threatened, 

Endangered, 

and Forest 

Service 

Sensitive 

Plants) 

No effects on threatened, 

endangered, proposed or 

candidate plant species. 

No direct effects on 

Forest Service sensitive 

plant species. Indirect 

effects on these species 

from competition, lack of 

disturbance, delayed 

reforestation, 

sedimentation of aquatic 

habitat and increased 

risk of wildfire.

No effects on threatened, 

endangered, proposed or 

candidate plant species. 

Direct effects to 

individual Forest Service 

sensitive plant species 

may occur but are not 

likely to result in a trend 

toward federal listing or 

loss in population 

viability.

Same as alternative 2. In 

addition, the added 

retention of snag clumps 

and coarse woody debris 

would mitigate 

microclimate and provide 

substrates for sensitive 

species.

Same as alternative 2. 

Limiting treatments in 

Riparian Reserves would 

protect the majority of 

habitat for sensitive 

bryophytes and fungi; 

reduced road 

construction would limit 

risk of stream 

sedimentation.

Same as alternative 2.

69
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

Botany 

(Survey and 

Manage 

Species)

No direct effects; indirect 

long-term effects from 

competition, lack of 

disturbance, delayed 

reforestation and 

increased risk of wildfire.

No direct effects to 

category A, B and E 

species because all 

known sites will be 

protected. Minimal direct 

effects to category C and 

D species because high 

priority sites will be 

protected with the 

implementation of project 

design features.

Same as alternative 2. In 

addition, the added 

retention of snag clumps 

and coarse woody debris 

would mitigate 

microclimate and provide 

substrates for survey and 

manage species.

Same as alternative 2. 

Limiting treatments in 

Riparian Reserves would 

protect the majority of 

habitat for survey and 

manage bryophytes and 

fungi.

Same as alternative 2.

Botany (Nonnative Invasive 

Species)

No direct effects; indirect 

long-term effects from 

habitat disturbance and 

non-project dependent 

vectors.

High risk of spread due 

to numerous existing 

NNIS populations, habitat 

vulnerability, non-project 

and project dependent 

vectors, and grounddisturbing activities. 

Project design features 

will mitigate but not 

eliminate high risk.

Same as alternative 2. Same as alternative 2. Risk of NNIS spread 

would be slightly less 

than for alternative 2 but 

the decrease in risk is not 

enough to lower the risk 

rating from high.

Fish and other 

Aquatic 

Species

No effects on stream 

temperature, sediment, 

or large wood.

Non-measurable effects 

on temperature, large 

wood, and sediment at 

the watershed scale. 

Potentially sizeable 

effects on sediment at 

the site scale.

Same as alternative 2. Non-measurable effects 

on temperature, large 

wood, and sediment at 

the watershed scale or 

site scale. 

Non-measurable effects 

on temperature, large 

wood, and sediment at 

the watershed scale. 

Minor negative effects on 

sediment at the site 

scale.

Water 

(Channel 

Morphology)

63 7th field watersheds 

with low risk rankings, 9 

with moderate and 2 with 

high.

Same as alternative 1

except for site-scale 

effects of activities in 

Riparian Reserves. 

Same as alternative 2. Same as alternative 2 

except site-scale 

alterations will be less 

due to less activity in 

Riparian Reserves.

Same as alternative 4.

Water

(Risk to 

Sediment 

Regimes)

51 7th field watersheds 

with low risk rankings, 18 

with moderate and 5 with 

high.

Same as alternative 1

except site-scale 

alteration of the sediment 

regime due to 

infrastructure activities 

may be evident in some 

watersheds.

Same as alternative 2. Same as alternative 2 

except site-scale 

alterations will be less 

due to fewer temporary 

roads and no stream 

crossings. 

Same as alternative 4..

70
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

Water

(Risk to 

Temperature 

Regimes)

45 7th field watersheds 

with low risk rankings, 21 

with moderate and 8 with 

high.

35 7th field watersheds 

with low risk rankings, 30 

with moderate and 9 with 

high.

Same as alternative 2. Same as alternative 2. Same as alternative 2.

Soils High Erosion Hazard 

Rating (EHR) on 57% of 

the project area; in the 

long-term, high EHRs 

would decrease to 

moderate except for 490 

acres. Soil organic matter 

will remain unless severe 

storm events result in the 

loss of large amounts of 

topsoil. Soil structure 

conditions will remain the 

same in the short term 

with very slow long-term 

natural recovery of old 

skid trails and landings.

Soil stability would be 

affected on about 2,800 

acres, surface organic 

matter on 825 acres, soil 

organic matter on 2,214 

acres and soil structure 

on 1,255 acres. Since 

this is less than 10% of 

the project area, Forest 

Plan standards will be 

met on the project area 

as a whole. Legacy site 

treatment will improve 

soil stability over the long 

term. 

Soil stability would be 

affected on about 2,380 

acres, surface organic 

matter on 560 acres, soil 

organic matter on 1,980 

acres and soil structure 

on 1,085 acres. Since 

this is less than 10% of 

the project area, Forest 

Plan standards will be 

met on the project area 

as a whole. Legacy site 

treatment will improve 

soil stability over the long 

term. 

Soil stability would be 

affected on about 2,415

acres, surface organic 

matter on 440 acres, soil 

organic matter on 1,690

acres and soil structure 

on 1,090 acres. Since 

this is less than 10% of 

the project area, Forest 

Plan standards will be 

met on the project area 

as a whole. Legacy site 

treatment will improve 

soil stability over the long 

term. 

Soil stability would be 

affected on about 2,560

acres, surface organic 

matter on 585 acres, soil 

organic matter on 1,974

acres and soil structure 

on 1,015 acres. Since 

this is less than 10% of 

the project area, Forest 

Plan standards will be 

met on the project area 

as a whole. Legacy site 

treatment will improve 

soil stability over the long

term. 

Geology Of the 67 7th field 

watersheds analyzed, 3 

have a very high risk, 20 

have a high risk, 30 have 

a moderate risk and 12 

have a low risk of 

landslides. Forty 

watersheds have a high 

to moderate vegetation 

burn severity with a 

landslide-risk duration of 

more than 80 years; for 

27 watersheds, acute 

likelihood of landslides 

will last for two to five 

years.

Risk of landslides is the 

same as for alternative 1. 

There is a reduction in 

the duration of elevated 

risk (from 80 to 30 years) 

due to planting for nine 

watersheds that have a 

high landslide risk, and a 

reduction in duration for 

three watersheds that 

have a moderate risk. 

For two watersheds that 

have a very high 

landslide risk, duration of 

risk is reduced from 80 to 

30 years.

Risk of landslides is the 

same as for alternative 2. 

Duration of elevated risk 

will also be reduced as in 

alternative 2 except that 

one of the moderate risk 

watersheds will not see a 

reduction in duration of 

risk in this alternative 

because the percentage 

of the watershed being 

planted is less than 25 

percent.

Risk of landslides is the 

same as for alternative 2. 

Duration of risk differs in 

that only five watersheds 

will have a reduction in 

duration of risk (one of 

the high risk watersheds 

and four of the moderate 

risk watersheds will not 

see a reduction in 

duration of risk.

Risk of landslides is the 

same as for alternative 2. 

Duration of elevated risk 

will be the same as for 

alternative 4.

71
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

Air No management action 

will emit nitrogen oxides, 

greenhouse gasses, or 

impact the visibility of the 

Marble Mountain 

Wilderness.

Emissions from mobile 

equipment will be about 

26 tons. Emissions from 

prescribed burning will be 

about 34 tons per year, 

below the de minimus of 

100 tons per year 

allowed. There is a very 

low likelihood of 

preventing progress of 

the Regional Haze Plan.

The total greenhouse gas 

emission will be about 

46,525 metric tons per 

year.

Same as alternative 2. Same as alternative 2. Same as alternative 2 

except that additional 

acres of prescribed 

burning will increase, 

logging-related emissions 

will decrease, and the 

total effects to 

greenhouse emissions 

will be about 49,180 per 

year.

Recreation A short-term effect on, or 

displacement of, 

recreation use if areas 

have to be closed for 

safety reasons. 

Increased short-term of 

use of burned areas for 

firewood cutting and deer 

hunting if areas are not 

closed. 

Long-term negative 

effects to dispersed 

camping and hiking in 

burned areas from loss of 

shade, and safety 

concerns from falling 

snags.

No effect on recreation 

use is expected. Shortterm negative effect from 

smoke and road closures 

or increased traffic during 

implementation. Shortterm increase in use from 

firewood cutting along 

roads from roadside 

hazard treatments. 

Indirect short- and longterm benefits to big game 

hunting from prescribed 

fire and planting. Longterm benefits to 

recreation facilities from 

fuels treatments that 

protect Forest Service 

infrastructure and 

increase safety.

Same as alternative 2. Same as alternative 2. Same as alternative 2.

72
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

Scenery No effect to meeting 

visual quality objectives. 

Long-term negative effect 

with vegetation change 

toward a shrubdominated ecosystem. 

Achievement of desired 

scenic character would 

require more than 50 

years.

Minor localized shortterm direct negative 

effects to visual quality 

objectives during 

implement. “Greening up” 

for three years after 

project completion would 

reduce visual evidence of 

implementation activities. 

Forest Plan consistency 

will be met even though it 

will take longer than 

three years for visual 

quality objectives to be 

met (see Forest Plan 

standard 11-7 which 

allows a longer time in 

these circumstances). 

Indirect long-term 

benefits to scenic 

character include 

accelerating the recovery 

of burned areas through 

regeneration of conifers 

by planting.

Same as alternative 2. Same as alternative 2. Same as alternative 2.

Wild and 

Scenic Rivers

No effect to Wild and 

Scenic Rivers or their 

corridors because no 

action is taken.

No effect or a low risk to 

Wild and Scenic Rivers 

because none of the 

activities would 

negatively affect the 

outstandingly remarkable 

values of these rivers or 

their corridors.

Same as alternative 2. Same as alternative 2. Same as alternative 2.

73
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

Cultural 

Resources

No direct effects to 

archaeological sites. 

Short-term indirect 

effects from lack of action 

would be negligible but 

long-term would be 

moderate to major. No 

direct effects to 

traditional use areas will 

occur but fire-adapted 

plants that are important 

to tribal interests will not 

be enhanced in the long 

term without prescribed 

burning. Lon g-term 

indirect effects would be 

moderate to major.

There would be no direct 

effects to historic 

properties due to the 

implementation of project 

design features and 

standard resource 

protection measures 

under the programmatic 

agreement with the State 

Historic Preservation 

Office. Removal of dead 

and dying trees from 

within or adjacent to 

cultural resources and 

historic properties results 

in direct and indirect 

beneficial effects that are 

moderate to major in 

both the short and long 

term. The protection 

measures that minimize 

the effects of fuels 

reduction treatments on 

heritage resources may 

lead to indirect effects 

that increase likelihood of 

damage from future fires 

and direct public 

attention to heritage 

sites. These effects are 

minor in the short term 

but moderate to major in 

the long term.

Same as alternative 2. Same as alternative 2. Same as alternative 2.

74
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

SocioEconomics

An unsafe condition for 

the public, forest workers 

and firefighters and for 

the communities adjacent 

to the Forest exists in the 

short term that would 

increase in risk in the 

long term. This 

alternative is not 

consistent with the 

Siskiyou County Land 

and Resource 

Management Plan that 

encourages resource use 

of the Forest. No 

economic benefits come 

from this alternative.

Safer conditions would 

prevail in the short term 

through removal of 

roadside hazards along 

640 miles of road. Longer 

term, this alternative will 

provide safer conditions 

through strategic fuel 

breaks on ridges and 

fuels treatments around 

communities and 

infrastructure. Economic 

returns would include an 

output of $210 million, 

labor income of $53 

million, and creation of 

1,236 jobs. This 

alternative is consistent 

with local county 

objectives for resource 

use of the Forest.

Similar to alternative 2 

except economic returns 

would include an output 

of $185 million, labor 

income of $46 million, 

and creation of 1,067

jobs. This alternative is 

consistent with local 

county objectives for 

resource use of the 

Forest.

Similar to alternative 2 

except economic returns 

would include an output 

of $190 million, labor 

income of $47 million, 

and creation of 1,074

jobs. This alternative is 

consistent with local 

county objectives for 

resource use of the 

Forest.

Similar to alternative 2 

except economic returns 

would include an output 

of $84 million, labor 

income of $22 million, 

and creation of 549 jobs. 

This alternative is 

consistent with local 

county objectives for 

resource use of the 

Forest but not as 

favorable as alternative 

2. 

75
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

Inventoried 

Roadless 

Areas

No action in IRAs would 

mean no direct or indirect 

effects of this alternative.

No road construction or 

salvage harvest will 

occur in IRAs. About 490 

acres of site preparation 

and planting using hand 

treatment (no grounddisturbing equipment), 

creation and 

maintenance of strategic 

fuel breaks, and 

prescribed underburning 

are the activities that may 

affect the roadless 

character of the areas 

but are not likely to do 

so. About 4% of the 

roadless area that still 

retains a roadless 

character is affected by 

these activities and about 

13% of the area that no 

longer retained roadless 

character prior to the 

project is affected by 

these activities.

Same as alternative 2. Same as alternative 2 Same as alternative 2.

76
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Project Design Features __________________________________ 

The Forest developed the following project design features to address project objectives, 

to minimize resource impacts, and to ensure compliance with the Forest Plan and 

applicable laws and regulations. Table 2-35 displays the design features developed for 

this project, along with the applicable units. Project design features will be implemented 

in all action alternatives unless otherwise designated.

Table 2-35: Westside Fire Recovery Project Design Features and applicable stands and/or 

alternatives

Project 

Design 

Feature

Description Applicable Alternatives and

Units

Botany - 1 Forest Service botanist will flag for avoidance 

appropriate populations of federally Threatened

and Endangered and Forest Service Sensitive 

species. Yellow and black striped flagging will 

be used to delineate population boundaries. 

Some specific areas may also require a limited 

operating period (LOP) to minimize impacts to 

plants.

508-1, F071, F025, F025-1, F026, 

F106, F106-1, F106-3, P065

LOP: F025, F025-1, F026, F106, F106-

1, F106-3 

Botany - 2 Populations protected under Survey and 

Manage guidelines will be flagged for 

avoidance. Yellow and black striped flagging will 

be used to delineate population boundaries.

F078, F162, F032, F068-1, F030, F030-

2, F043-5, F146, F027-1, F146-1, F034, 

F034-1, F035, F035-1, F035-2, F035-3, 

F077, F077-1, F160-2, F019, F157, 

F157-2, F020, F091, F044-1, F044-2, 

F160, F160-2, F109, F151, F078-7 

Botany - 3 Hazard trees adjacent to flagged populations of 

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive (TES)

and Survey and Manage species will be 

directionally felled away from the flagged area to 

avoid disturbing the population. Directionally 

felled trees may only be removed if it causes no 

ground disturbance within the flagged area. 

Yellow and black striped flagging will be used to 

delineate population boundaries.

R136, R045, R101, R131, R127-11, 

R140, R140-1, R042, R115, R151, 

R127-4, R119, R128, R040, R093

Botany - 4 Hazard trees located within the flagged 

population boundary for TES or Survey and 

Manage species may be felled, but must be left 

on-site to avoid ground disturbance. Yellow and 

black striped flagging will be used to delineate 

population boundaries.

R136, R045, R101, R131, R127-11, 

R140, R140-1, R042, R115, R151, 

R127-4, R119, R128, R040, R093

Botany - 5 A Forest Botanist will be consulted prior to 

conducting Fuels treatments within the Lake 

Mountain Special Interest Area

F070, F071, F072

Botany - 6 Cultural botanical resources (fern beds in 

riparian zones) will be flagged for avoidance. 

Yellow and black striped flagging will be used to 

delineate population boundaries.

228, 228-1, 226-1, 226-2, P322, P319

*Units subject to field verification

Botany - 7 Equipment and vehicle travel and/or staging 

shall be restricted to established road surfaces. 

F084-1

77
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Project 

Design 

Feature

Description Applicable Alternatives and

Units

NNIS – 1 Equipment and vehicles that leave established 

road surfaces will be cleaned of soil, seeds, 

vegetative matter, and other debris that could 

contain noxious weed seeds prior to entering 

and before leaving the project area. Areas 

appropriate for cleaning equipment prior to 

leaving the project area will be designated as 

appropriate.

*See mandatory C-Provision 6.25

All equipment where applicable

NNIS - 2 Equipment, vehicles, and personnel will avoid 

working within flagged noxious weed sites. 

Orange/black flagging labeled with INVASIVE 

SPECIES will be used to delineate population 

boundaries.

1151, 1155, 508-5, 508-4, 506, 501, 

500, 411, 410407, 62, 23, 005-3, F008, 

F075, F076, F159, F022, F013, F155, 

F077, F160, F015, F016, F087, F088, 

F084, F090, F050, F051, F053, F080, 

F038, F036, F044, F045, F113, F028, 

F152, F109, F029, F026, F037, F034, 

F035, F043, F078, F157, F002, F086, 

F081, F162, F151, F184, F030, F127, 

F129, F146, F121, F033, F133, F068, 

F069, F116, F008, F072, F071, F013, 

F016, F018, F022, F075, F076, F156, 

F159, F074, F078, F021, F017, F019, 

P026, P089, P099, P102, P105, P106, 

P107, P072, P073, P075, P113, P160, 

P139, P057, P058, P059, P061, P063, 

P065, P028, R128, R082, R127-11, 

R100, R136, R140, R131, R020, R024, 

R015, R041, R017, R132, R130, R118, 

R109, R102, R111, R132, R106, R082, 

R096, R094, R032, R017, R103, R116, 

R079, R137, R132

NNIS - 3 If potential landings sites are infested with 

noxious weeds, consult a Botanist about 

appropriate methods for containing and/or 

managing the infestation. Methods may include 

blading infested soil away from activity zone and 

covering this soil; or adding a barrier to the 

landing so seed banks cannot be transported.

All landings where applicable: info to 

date indicates the following locations: 

L174, L176, L177, L203, L219, L220, 

L223, L224, L225, L002, L005, L013, 

L0134, DZ03, DZ04, DZ17, L006, L007, 

L044, L261, L269, L048, L064, L066

NNIS - 4 Any straw or seed placed within the project area 

must be documented as California certified 

weed free. Other materials where State 

inspection protocol does not exist (gravel, wood 

chips) used as mulch in the project area, should 

be inspected by a Forest Service representative 

to determine the potential for spread of noxious 

weeds.

All materials where applicable

NNIS - 5 Any facility that provides material such as rock, 

gravel, or boulders to be used in the project 

area should be inspected and determined to 

have limited potential for the spread of noxious 

weeds from stored material. Material stockpiles 

must be noxious weed free.

All facilities where applicable

78
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Project 

Design 

Feature

Description Applicable Alternatives and

Units

Fuels - 1 Site specific burn plan prior to implementation 

would be completed to identify desired fire

behavior and weather conditions to meet 

prescribed fire and resource objectives along 

with protection measures to reduce impacts to 

both cultural and natural resources within the 

burn area.

All salvage harvest units

Fuels - 2 All burning activities would adhere to pertinent 

air quality regulations. Smoke emissions would 

be minimized by following Best Available 

Control Measures (BACM). A smoke permit 

administered by the local County Air Resource 

Agency would accompany burn plans.

All units where applicable 

Fuels - 3 In preparation of prescribed fire activities, 

perimeter control lines will be constructed to 

mineral soil. As needed, brush and conifer trees 

< 12” dbh may be cut along control lines to 

facilitate holding activities.

All units where applicable

Fuels - 4 All fire lines would follow the established 

guidelines for water bar construction as outlined 

in the Best Management Practices. Upon 

completion of burning, the visible character of 

the firelines would be disguised by spreading 

pine needles, brush, etc where they intersect 

roads or trails in order to reduce the likelihood of 

the firelines becoming unwanted trails.

All units where applicable

Fuels - 5 Piles will be covered to keep piles dry for 

ignition and consumption during wet periods. 

All units where applicable

Fuels - 6 Prior to planting, the project silviculturist will 

coordinate with the fuels specialist to review 

planting activities within identified hazardous 

fuels treatments. Planting utilizing a clumping 

pattern with variable spacing to minimize 

surface fuel loadings and break the continuity of 

the fuel beds to maintain desired low fire hazard 

conditions.

All units where applicable 

Fuels - 7 Areas proposed for a combination of planting 

and follow up prescribed fire would be assessed 

prior to implementation by the silviculturist and 

fuels specialist to assess fuel conditions and 

potential mortality of planted trees as a result of 

planned prescribed fire. Should high mortality 

rates of planted trees be predicted, handline or 

other control methods would be employed to 

exclude fire from these areas. 

Units with ground-based logging system 

only

Heritage - 1 Conduct heritage resource surveys to determine 

presence of resources within the area of 

potential effects following the provisions outlined 

in the Regional and Westside Recovery 

Programmatic Agreements (PAs).

All units where applicable

79
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Project 

Design 

Feature

Description Applicable Alternatives and

Units

Heritage - 2 Complete the Section 106 process, consulting 

with the State Historic Preservation Officer on 

potential adverse effects to sites from project 

activities that cannot be mitigated using 

Standard Resource Protection Measures 

(SRPM). If adverse effects cannot be avoided, a 

Historic Properties Treatment Plan will be 

developed.

All units where applicable

Heritage - 3 All sites within the area of potential effects will 

be clearly delineated prior to implementation. 

This includes but is not limited to flagging site 

boundaries.

All units where applicable

Heritage - 4 Any project activities within site boundaries will 

follow approved SRPMs established by PAs and 

will be approved by the heritage program 

manager.

All units where applicable

Heritage - 5 No skid roads, road improvements, landings or 

burn pile areas will occur within archeological 

sites without approval from the district 

archaeologist and/or heritage program manager.

All units where applicable

Heritage - 6 In the event that new heritage resources are 

discovered during project implementation, the 

district archaeologist and/or heritage program 

manager must be notified and all activities in the 

vicinity (150 feet) of the resource shall cease 

until consultations are completed. 

All units where applicable

Heritage - 7 Heritage personnel will conduct implementation 

and post-implementation monitoring of project 

activities within site boundaries.

All units where applicable

Inventoried 

Roadless 

Area - 1 

Site preparation and planting within Inventoried 

Roadless Areas will be by hand and not include 

ground-based mechanical equipment.

All site preparation and planting units in 

IRAs

Range-1 All structural rangeland improvements, such as 

corrals, cattle guards, and spring developments, 

will be mapped and protected from disturbance. 

If damage occurs, improvements will be 

repaired or replaced in a timely manner.

All units within allotments

Range-2 Timing of logging operations will be made 

known to the Rangeland Management Specialist 

in order to decrease conflicts between cattle and 

heavy equipment.

All Units within allotments

Range - 3 Meadows (dry or wet) shall not be used for 

landings, staging areas, or contractor camping.

Meadows are defined as a non-forested, 

herbaceous opening, 1⁄4 acre or larger with at 

least 50 percent herbaceous groundcover 

and/or riparian shrubs of alder and willow. 

Openings covered in ferns (Pteridium spp.), 

corn lily (Veratrum spp.), marlahan mustard 

(Isatis tinctoria) or other weedy species are 

exempt. Openings characterized by greater than 

50 percent barren ground are also exempt.

1108, 1128, 1128-1, 1137, 1142, F046, 

F046-2, F047, F047-1, F047-2, F047-3, 

F048, F048-1, F048-2, F049-1, F050-1, 

F053, F054, F055, F056, F057, F060, 

F062, F082, F083, F084, F084-1, F084-

3 F085, F085-1, F085-2, F085-3, F086, 

F087, F087-1, F089, F089-1, F089-2, 

F090, F095, F095-1, F095-2, F095-3, 

F096, F096-1, F096-2, F161, F163-1, 

F169, F175, F176, F178, F180, F182, 

P073, P083, P084, P085, P087, P088, 

P090, P092, P093, P094, P098, P100, 

P103, P110, P111, P113, P115, R001, 

R002, R005, R006, R007, R010, R011, 

R013, R015, R017, R019, R023, R025, 

80
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Project 

Design 

Feature

Description Applicable Alternatives and

Units

R026, R027, R028, R030, R033, R034, 

R039, R040, R041, R045, R049, R050, 

R051, R054-1, R057, R058, R072, 022, 

031, 032, 034, 508_1_1, 508-1, 508-2, 

508-4, 508-4-1, 508-5, 508-6, 508-9, 

515-1, 518, 528, 528-1-1, 530, 545, 

546, F008, F010, F026, F063-4, F063-

5, F070, F071, F072, F109, F118, F120, 

P036, P038, P039, P041, P042, P044, 

P049, P050 P052, P056, P058, P059, 

P060, P062, P064, P065, P066, P067, 

P068, P069, P070, P071, R079, R082, 

R111, R118, R119, R127-11, R127-9, 

R128, 426, F073-1, F076-6, F077-1, 

L019, L024, L001, L003, L013, L266, 

DZ21

Recreation 

and 

Scenery-1 

Protect and maintain recreational access and 

recreational settings along roads, trails, and 

trailheads identified as visually sensitive.

All units where applicable

Recreation 

and 

Scenery-2 

Repair or replace recreational signing or other 

facilities and trail settings if damaged during 

project implementation.

All units where applicable

Recreation 

and 

Scenery-3 

Provide visitor information about area/road/trail 

closures, or other recreation setting changes, in 

news releases, on-site, and on the Forest 

website.

All units where applicable

Recreation 

and 

Scenery-4 

Minimize scenery contrasts such as stumps, 

landings, skid patterns, temporary roads, and 

burn piles in sensitive trailside and roadside 

foreground distances to meet assigned VQOs.

All units where applicable

Recreation 

and 

Scenery-5 

No visible tree mark paint on trees after 

implementation in Retention VQO areas as seen 

from high sensitivity viewpoints.

All units where applicable

Roads - 1 Forest Road 12 will be signed from the 

intersection with Highway 96 to 3/8 mile past 

Walker Bridge; the sign will request log truck 

drivers to not use their “Jake Brakes” along this 

section of road.

Forest Road 12

Watershed -

1 

The project is proposed to take place during the 

normal operating season (NOS) that is defined 

as May 1 to October 31. All ground disturbing 

activities, whether inside or outside of the NOS, 

will be implemented according to the Forest’s 

Wet Weather Operation Standards (Klamath 

National Forest, 2002). 

All units where applicable

81
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Project 

Design 

Feature

Description Applicable Alternatives and

Units

Watershed - 

2 

Areas where soil has been disturbed by project 

activities within Riparian Reserves must be 

stabilized prior to the end of the normal 

operating season, prior to sunset if the National 

Weather Service forecast is a “chance” (30%) of

rain within the next 24 hours, or at the 

conclusion of the operations, whichever is 

sooner. This includes skid trails that cross 

swales (i.e. linear depressions perpendicular to 

the slope contour that do not meet definition for 

designation as a Riparian Reserve). Restoration 

generally consists of removing excess sediment, 

reshaping and waterbarring former approaches, 

and spreading slash on the former crossing.

All units where applicable

Watershed -

3 

Project Riparian Reserves are established in the

following manner per the Forest Plan (site tree

for Salmon and Happy Camp districts is 170

feet, site tree for Scott and Oak Knoll districts is

150 feet): 

For fish-bearing streams, it is the area on each

side of the stream extending from the edges of

the active stream channel to the top of the inner

gorge, or to the outer edges of the 100-year

floodplain, or to a distance equal to the height of

two site-potential trees, or 300 feet slope

distance (600 feet total, including both sides of

the stream), whichever is greatest. For Salmon

and Happy Camp ranger districts, this will be

340 feet (680 feet total).

For permanently flowing non-fish-bearing

streams, it is the area on each side of the

stream extending from the edges of the active

stream channel to the top of the inner gorge, or

to the outer edges of the 100-year floodplain, or

to a distance equal to the height of one sitepotential tree, or 150 feet slope distance (300

feet total, including both sides of the stream), 

whichever is greatest. For Salmon and Happy

Camp ranger districts, this will be 170 feet (340

feet total) and 150 feet for the Oak Knoll and

Scott River Ranger District.

For intermittent streams, the stream channel

and extending to the top of the inner gorge, or

extension from the edges of the stream channel

to a distance equal to the height of one site

potential tree, or 100 feet slope distance,

whichever is greatest. For unstable lands, it is

the extent of unstable and potentially unstable

areas. 

Consistent with Forest Plan direction, riparian 

reserves for wetlands and springs will be 

defined by the edge of the feature out to a 

distance equal to 1 site potential tree. These 

riparian reservess will be flagged and avoided 

during salvage harvest.

All units where applicable

82
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Project 

Design 

Feature

Description Applicable Alternatives and

Units

Watershed - 

4 

Tractors and mechanical harvesters will be 

excluded from all riparian reserves associated 

with stream channels, active landslides, inner 

gorges, and toe zones of dormant landslide 

deposits. Hazard tree removal units are the 

exception. In Hazard tree units the equipment 

will be excluded from the inner 50 feet of the 

non-fish bearing riparian reserve, one site tree 

for fish bearing streams and in the perimeter of 

all active landslides and toe zones of dormant 

landslides.

Equipment will be excluded from wetlands or 

wet meadows (excluding small springs and 

seeps).

To limit slope disturbance, inner gorge terrain (> 

65% slope) that extends beyond riparian 

reserves will be buffered by 20-foot slope 

distance and excluded from mechanical 

equipment activities. In areas where treatments 

may conflict, a hydrologist will be consulted.

All units where applicable

Watershed -

5 

New temporary roads or landings will not be 

constructed in any riparian reserve associated 

with stream channels, on toe zones of 

landslides, active landslides or inner gorges. 

Exceptions for this project design feature for 

Alternative 2: Landings # DZ03, DZ10, DZ23, 

L043, L044, and L090. 

All units where applicable

Watershed -

6 

There will be no salvage logging on active 

landslides.

All units where applicable

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, except at designated crossings. 

All units where applicable

Watershed -

8 

In salvage units and subsequent site 

preparation, 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. 

In site preparation units (where no salvage will 

occur) felling and skidding equipment will be 

restricted to slopes less than 45% in nongranitic and non-schist soil types (see soils 

report for locations). 

All salvage and site preparation units

Watershed -

9 

Ground-based harvest equipment will be limited 

to 35% slopes, except when moving from one 

bench to another on dormant landslide 

terrain. In addition, ground-based equipment 

can travel up to 100 feet on slopes 35 to 45 

percent. 

All units where applicable

Watershed -

10

During site preparation, material greater than 8’’ 

inches in diameter would not be removed unless 

needed to reduce 1,000 hour fuel loading to 

seven tons per acre, retain as close to seven

tons per acre as possible.

All units where applicable

83
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Project 

Design 

Feature

Description Applicable Alternatives and

Units

Watershed - 

11

Site preparation treatments would be designed 

to meet soils management direction in the 

Forest Plan. This may include use of low ground 

pressure equipment, retaining slash and large 

woody material and implementing hand 

treatments instead of mechanical. 

All units where applicable

Watershed -

12

All hazard trees cut within 25 feet of a stream 

channel will be left on site unless it continues to 

pose a threat to safety or accessibility (see 

watershed-4 for equipment exclusion 

restrictions). 

Along fish-bearing stream reaches, all hazard 

trees greater than 26 inches in diameter at 

breast height within the first site tree (150-170 

feet) will be left on site unless after felling, it 

continues to pose a threat to safety, 

infrastructure, forest road drainage system 

integrity or accessibility.

All units where applicable

Watershed -

13

Live trees directly rooted into the banks or 

otherwise integral to the stability of the channel 

bank will not be felled unless they pose an 

overhead hazard and, if felled, will be left on site 

unless this poses a hazard on the ground per 

Forest Service safety requirements.

All units where applicable

Watershed - 

14

Directional felling will be used to protect 

streambanks where hazard trees need to be 

mitigated for public or employee safety.

All units where applicable

Watershed -

15

Improvements to existing system roads in the 

project area will avoid over-steepened road cuts 

where possible, minimize sidecasting, and 

maintain ditches, cross drains, and any 

outsloped road segments.

All units where applicable

Watershed -

16

Roads will be watered as appropriate to 

maintain road fines on site. Other materials may 

be used for dust abatement as approved by the 

Forest Service.

All units where applicable

Watershed -

17

Upgrades or improvements to stream crossings 

will be built to Forest Plan standards. 

All units where applicable

Watershed -

18

Activities which require culvert replacement or 

removal will occur during the least critical 

periods for water and aquatic resources: when 

streams are dry or during low-water conditions; 

and in compliance with spawning and breeding 

season restrictions.

All units where applicable

Watershed -

19

Legacy sediment site treatments within or 

adjacent to streams will have erosion-prevention 

techniques applied such as silt fences, straw 

waddles, or mulch to minimize the risk of 

discharge.

All units where applicable

Watershed -

20

All project-related temporary structures, 

materials and project-related debris will not be 

stored for any length of time on active landslides 

and will be removed from riparian areas and 

stream channels prior to winter shutdown. 

All units where applicable

84
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Project 

Design 

Feature

Description Applicable Alternatives and

Units

Watershed - 

21

For legacy sediment site repairs, fill materials 

generated will be reincorporated back into 

subgrade to the extent possible; all excess fill 

materials will be spoiled at a site reviewed and 

approved by Forest Service botanist, watershed, 

and heritage specialists.

All legacy site repair where applicable

Watershed -

22

Following harvest activities achieve at least 50 

percent effective soil cover on new temporary 

roads and block them after the harvest season 

(prior to the first winter after use). New 

temporary roads will also be sub-soiled (or tilled) 

after use. 

All temporary roads (new, existing or re-opened 

decommissioned roads) will have the takeoffs 

from system road obliterated or blocked to avoid 

unauthorized use. All temporary roads will be 

hydrologically stabilized including removal of 

culverts and fills at stream crossings, outsloping of road surfaces, and proper 

construction of water bars. Erosion and 

sedimentation control structures (water bars) will 

be maintained and repaired per the guidance in 

the Forest Service Handbook 2409.15 R5 

Supplement.

New temp roads: 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 20, 

27

Watershed -

23

Existing landings will be used to the extent 

possible. Existing landings in stream-course 

riparian reserves will not be expanded towards 

stream channels, or on to active landslides, or 

where vegetation that provides shade to a 

stream would need to be cut. Existing landings 

in riparian reserves will be shaped and treated 

for erosion control at the end of each season of 

use, and hydrologically restored at project 

completion (including subsoiling and covering 

with slash/mulch as needed). Reused landings 

in riparian reserves will have site specific 

erosion control measures to reduce risk of 

sediment delivery into streams.

During opening or construction of any landings, 

material will not be sidecast into intermittent or 

perennial stream channels.

At project conclusion, landings will be 

configured for long-term drainage and stability 

by reestablishing natural runoff patterns. All 

landings will be covered with at least 50 percent 

effective soil cover. Use of certified weed free 

materials including straw, wood chips, or mulch 

may be used where on-site material is 

insufficient. 

All units where applicable

Watershed -

24

Refueling will not take place within riparian 

reserves except at designated landings in 

locations where most disconnected from water 

resources. A spill containment kit will be in place 

where refueling and servicing take place. 

All units where applicable

85
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Project 

Design 

Feature

Description Applicable Alternatives and

Units

Watershed - 

25

Skid trail erosion control work will be kept 

current during implementation. Erosion control 

and drainage of skid trails will be complete prior 

to shutting down operations due to wet weather 

or at project completion.

All units where applicable

Watershed -

26

Use existing skid trails instead of building new 

skid trails unless using existing skid trails will 

have greater negative effects. Space skid trails 

at least 75 feet apart, except near landings and 

where trails converge. Use no skid trails in 

areas in which ground-based mechanical 

equipment is excluded. Designation of new skid 

trails will be approved by a Timber Sale 

Administrator. Erosion and sedimentation 

control structure will be maintained and repaired 

per the guidance in the Forest Service 

Handbook 2409.15 R5 Supplement.

All units where applicable

Watershed -

27

No full bench skid trails will be constructed. Full 

bench skid trails have the entire skid trail cut 

into the hillslope.

All units where applicable

Watershed -

28

Locations where skid trails intersect roads will 

be obliterated or effectively blocked to vehicle 

access.

All units where applicable

Watershed - 

29

Skyline corridors will be placed on the 

landscape as to minimize disturbance to active 

landslides, inner gorges and toe zones of 

dormant landslide deposits. All skyline and 

ground-based yarding will require one-end 

suspension in corridors and on skid trails.

Corridors for skyline yarding that are parallel to 

the stream channel will be placed outside of the 

riparian reserve. The corridor may cross the 

stream channel with full suspension of logs 

within ten feet from the stream bank.

Apply erosion control measures as necessary in 

cable corridors to control erosion and runoff. 

This could include hand construction of water 

bars and /or spreading slash from adjacent 

areas.

All units where applicable

Watershed - 

30

Where skidding occurs through units with less 

than 50 percent soil cover, mulch skid trails of 

greater than 15 percent slope, to achieve at 

least 50 percent effective soil cover on skid trails 

(approximately 40 acres across the project area 

may require this). Effective soil cover could 

include plant litter, woody material in contact 

with the soil, living vegetation, and rock 

fragments with a diameter of 1⁄2 to 3 inches. Use 

of certified weed free materials including straw, 

wood chips, or mulch may be used where onsite material is insufficient. 

Based on soil burn severity data, these 

units are most likely to require this: 225, 

264, 402, 525, 528, 540, 1109, 1129, 

1136, 1140, 1142, 1151, and 1155.

86
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Project 

Design 

Feature

Description Applicable Alternatives and

Units

Watershed - 

31

Prescribed fire effects in riparian reserves will 

mimic a low intensity backing fire, except for 

handpiles where higher intensity may occur to 

consume pile material. Ignition of underburns 

will generally not occur in riparian reserves. 

Approval by the District Fish Biologist is needed 

for underburn riparian reserve ignitions.

All units where applicable

Watershed - 

32

Handpiles and windrows in riparian reserves will 

be placed in a checkerboard pattern whenever 

possible (not piled directly above another). 

Handpiles will be less than six feet in diameter 

and will be more than 15 feet away from 

intermittent streams and 30 feet away from 

perennial streams. 

All units where applicable

Watershed - 

33

For underburning, hand-line construction in 

riparian vegetation shall be avoided and in 

general should be farther than 25 feet from 

stream channels. Handlines will be mitigated 

(waterbarred and covered with organic material) 

immediately following prescribed burning, when 

safe to do so.

All units where applicable

Watershed -

35

Draft water only at sites designated by the 

Forest Service. Decisions related to where 

water drafting occurs will be coordinated with a 

Forest Service fisheries biologist so that 

potential impacts to anadromous fish, and the 

thermal refugia they rely upon, are sufficiently 

minimized.

When drafting from waters designated as coho 

salmon Critical Habitat:

NOAA Fisheries Water Drafting Specifications 

(2001) apply

1. 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.

 a. Use of a NOAA approved fish screen will 

ensure the above specifications are met. 

2. Fish screen will be placed parallel to flow.

3. Pumping rate will not exceed 350 gallons-perminute or 10% of the flow of the anadromous 

stream drafted from.

4. Pumping will be terminated when tank is full.

Additional applicable specifications:

• There will be no modification/improvement of 

drafting sites in Coho Critical Habitat.

Water drafting by more than one truck shall not 

occur simultaneously.

When drafting from waters that are not Coho 

Salmon critical habitat, but do contain fish:

Forest Service Best Management Practices 

(BMP) Handbook direction applies (BMP 2.5)

All units where applicable

87
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Project 

Design 

Feature

Description Applicable Alternatives and

Units

1. For fish-bearing streams, the water drafting 

rate should not exceed 350 gallons per minute 

for streamflow greater than or equal to 4.0 cubic 

feet per second (cfs).

2. Below 4.0 cfs, drafting rates should not 

exceed 20 percent of surface flows.

3. Water drafting should cease when bypass 

surface flows drop below 1.5 cfs.

4. Intakes, for trucks and tanks, shall be placed 

parallel to the flow of water and screened, with 

opening size consistent with the protection of 

aquatic species of interest.

5.Fish-bearing streams that are temporarily 

dammed to create a drafting pool shall provide 

fish passage for all life stages of fish.

When drafting from non-fish-bearing waters:

Forest Service BMP Handbook direction applies 

(BMP 2.5)

• Drafting rate should not exceed 350 gallons 

per minute for stream flow greater than or equal 

to 2.0 cubic feet/second.

• Drafting rate should not exceed 50 percent of 

surface flow.

• Drafting should cease when bypass surface 

flow drops below ten gallons per minute.

• Drafting by more than one truck shall not occur 

simultaneously.

Watershed 

– 36

Rock and gravel will be applied to drafting sites 

if it is needed to prevent stream sedimentation.

Water drafting sites located in non-fish-bearing 

waters only may include minor instream 

modification, such as fine sediment removal and 

building of board/plastic dams. All boards and 

plastic will be removed after use.

Water drafting sites located within fish-bearing 

stream segments may not be modified, except 

rocking the approach to prevent sedimentation.

All units where applicable

Wildlife – 1 A survey strategy will be developed in 

coordination with Fish and Wildlife Service for 

NSO surveys prior to project implementation. If 

surveys result in a positive detection of northern 

spotted owl (NSO), then: 

• No activities that generate noise above 

ambient levels, such as chainsaws and 

heavy equipment, will occur within 0.25 mile 

of nest from Feb. 1 to July 9.

• No underburning or treatment within 

nesting/roosting and foraging habitat within 

0.25 mile of a nest (except roadside 

hazard) from Feb. 1 to Sept. 15.

ALL ALTERNATIVES 

All units where applicable

88
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Project 

Design 

Feature

Description Applicable Alternatives and

Units

Wildlife – 2 No more than 50 percent of the suitable 

nesting/roosting, and foraging habitat within an 

occupied NSO core area and no more than 50 

percent of the nesting/roosting, and foraging 

suitable habitat within an occupied NSO home 

range will be underburned annually.

ALL ALTERNATIVES 

All units where applicable

Wildlife – 3 No prescribed fire (e.g. underburning and pile 

burning) within 0.5 mile of an eagle nest from 

January 1 to August 31. 

No prescribed fire (e.g. underburning and pile 

burning) will be implemented within bald eagle 

winter roost areas from November 1 to March 

31. If a survey determines that a winter roost or 

nest site is not active, no seasonal restrictions 

are required for the year. 

ALL ALTERNATIVES 

All units where applicable

Wildlife – 4 No helicopter activity within 0.5 mile of a bald 

eagle roost or nest or within all of Caroline 

Creek (7th field watershed) from January 1 to 

August 31. If surveys determine that a roost or 

nest is not active, no seasonal restrictions are 

required for the year. Landings L259 and L270 

(in Caroline Creek) are not subject to this LOP.

ALL ALTERNATIVES 

All units where applicable

Landings DZ03, DZ04, DZ05, DZ10, 

L040

Units 037, 038, and 039

Wildlife – 5 No project activities creating noise above 

ambient levels (including mechanical thinning, 

yarding, chainsaw use, and hauling) or habitat 

modification within 0.25 mile of a bald eagle 

roost or nest from January 1 to August 31. If 

surveys determine that a roost or nest is not 

active, no seasonal restrictions are required for 

the year. 

ALL ALTERNATIVES 

Units:

F147, F152, F149, F152-1, F147-2, 

F098, F098-1, R126, R129, R132, and 

R102. 

Wildlife – 6 A survey strategy will be developed prior to 

project implementation for goshawk. If survey 

results locate a nesting pair project activities will 

not occur within .25 miles of this site location 

from (March 1- August 31). If preimplementation surveys determine no nesting 

activity, then seasonal restrictions may be lifted 

for the year.

ALL ALTERNATIVES 

All units where applicable

Wildlife – 7 No roadside treatment between March 1 and 

June 15 to avoid disturbance of denning fisher.

ALL ALTERNATIVES 

ML1 roads

Wildlife – 8 No treatment, salvage harvest, or ground 

disturbing activity during any time of the year in 

areas within units that are flagged for 

avoidance; as these areas contain either known 

sites, occupied talus habitat, or potentially 

occupied talus habitat for the Scott Bar 

Salamander and Siskiyou Mountain 

Salamander. Sites will be flagged on the ground 

by the project wildlife biologist. 

ALL ALTERNATIVES 

Applies to all or parts of units 517, 518, 

508-8, 508-4, 508-4-1, 508-9, 508, 508-

3, 508-2, 508-1, 501, 503, 506, 505, 

515-1, 515-1-2, 516, 523-1, 523, and 

528.

Wildlife – 9 Do not place skyline corridors on known sites, 

occupied talus habitat, or potentially occupied 

talus habitat for the Scott Bar Salamander and 

Siskiyou Mt Salamander during anytime of the 

year. This will apply to skyline units within the 

range of the Scott Bar and Siskiyou Mt 

Salamander that have talus habitat. 

All Alternatives 

Applies to units 508, 508-3, 508-2, 508-

1, 501, 503, 506, 505, 515-1, 515-1-2, 

516, 523-1, 523, and 528.

89
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Project 

Design 

Feature

Description Applicable Alternatives and

Units

Wildlife – 10 Avoid ground disturbance to known Survey and 

Manage mollusk and salamander sites during 

roadside hazard tree removal activities.

All Alternatives – All roadside hazard 

units where applicable

Wildlife – 11 Legacy Components Retention for Late 

Successional Habitat

Retain legacy component trees and snags in 

treatment units. These legacy components will 

be identified using physical characteristics.

• Legacy trees or snag size will vary 

depending on site condition, but are usually 

disproportionately large diameter trees that 

are often remnants of the previous stand on 

a given site. They are old standing trees 

that have persisted on the landscape after 

man-made and natural disturbances. For 

example, large trees containing one or more 

of the following characteristics: split or 

broken tops, heavy decadent branching, 

large mistletoe brooms, otherwise damaged 

to the degree that a cavity may form such as 

basal fire or lightning scars, or other 

features that indicate decay or defect. 

• If the legacy component tree or snag must 

be felled for safety reasons, retain the log 

whole in the unit. 

ALL ALTERNATIVES 

All units where applicable

Wildlife – 12 Retain an average of 2 to 8 snags per acre of 

the largest size class in addition to the riparian 

reserves within treatment units >100 acres or 

aggregations of treatment units totaling >100 

acres in size. Ideally these snags will be 

clumped and distributed throughout the 

treatment unit and situated with large, live trees 

where possible. Snags or dying trees that 

contain cat faces, broken or forked tops, hollows 

or cavities, burned out cavities, or those that are 

otherwise damaged to the degree that a cavity 

may form will be favored for retention. Snags left 

by operational constraints will count towards the 

snag retention. The number of retained snags 

will depend on slope and aspect.

• On the lower 2/3 of north and east facing 

slopes, 5-8 snags per acre averaged across 

the unit will be retained.

• On the upper 1/3 of north and east facing 

slopes, an average of 2-5 snags / acre 

averaged across the unit will be retained.

• On all south and west facing slopes, 

regardless of slope position, 2-5 snags / 

acre will be retained

Retain all large hardwood snags or live trees 

where practicable, particularly those with 

cavities, broken or split tops, or large broken 

branches.

ALL ALTERNATIVES

All units where applicable

90
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Project 

Design 

Feature

Description Applicable Alternatives and

Units

Wildlife – 13 Retain pre-existing (existing prior to the wildfire) 

conifer and hardwood snags (greater than 14 

inches in diameter at breast height) and preexisting coarse woody debris in the salvage 

units. If any pre-existing snags must be felled for 

safety reasons, these pre-existing snags will be 

left on landscape whole as coarse wood.

ALL ALTERNATIVES 

All units where applicable

Wildlife – 14 Avoid placing cable corridors through retention 

patches or any actions that would potentially 

damage retention areas whenever possible.

ALL ALTERNATIVES

Wildlife – 15 Leave cull trees (greater than or equal to 

20inches in diameter in roadside units where 

possible in whole as woody debris. Leave as 

whole logs where practicable.

ALL ALTERNATIVES 

All units where applicable

Wildlife – 16 Retain 5-8 snags per acre of the largest snags 

present in each of the units within the bald eagle 

management area in Caroline Creek and lower 

Grider drainage.

Portion of unit 058-2.

Units: 058-1, 058-3, 058, 058-4, 058-5, 

60 in bald eagle management area

Wildlife – 17 No management activities will occur within at 

least 0.25 mile (up to 1.0 mile) of peregrine 

falcon nest location from March 1 to August 31 if 

the nest is active. If a survey determines that a 

nest site is not active, no seasonal restrictions 

are required for the year. 

ALL ALTERNATIVES 

Units:213 and F038, 

Wildlife – 18 No helicopter flight paths within 0.5 mile (up to 1 

mile) from a peregrine falcon nest location from 

March 1 to August 31. If a survey determines 

that a nest site is not active, no seasonal 

restrictions are required.

ALL ALTERNATIVES 

Units:214 and L237

Wildlife – 19 No salvage in units associated with NSO core 

areas that have been identified as having 

“Moderate potential” for contributing to the 

demographic support of the NSO population in 

the analysis area. Some units are exceptions to 

this and are accounted for in the list of affected 

units.

Alternative 3

415-1 and 420 1217, 1129-1, 1129, 

1136, 1140, 1135,1217, 23-3, 23-6, 

005-11, 54, 57-1, 240, 239, 214, 218, 

267-1, 264, 531, 533

Wildlife – 20 Defer treatment in all salvage units less than 20 

acres.

Alternative 3

Units: 1, 4, 6, 10, 35, 202, 204, 207, 

210, 214, 215, 217, 218, 219, 221, 222, 

223, 225, 230, 233, 235, 236, 240, 244, 

268, 402, 403, 416, 418, 420, 516, 518, 

531, 532, 1108, 1138, 1155, 1217, 004-

1, 200-1, 212-1, 216-1, 235-1, 235-2, 

236-1, 508-6, 55-1, and 55-2 

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study____ 

Federal agencies are required to rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all 

reasonable alternatives and to briefly discuss the reasons for eliminating any alternatives 

that were not developed in detail (40 CFR 1502.14). Public comments received in 

response to the proposed action provided suggestions for alternative methods for 

achieving the purpose and need. Some of these alternatives may have been outside the 

scope of the need for the proposal, duplicative of the alternatives considered in detail, or 

determined to be components that would cause unnecessary environmental harm. 

91
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Therefore, a number of alternatives were considered, but eliminated from detailed 

consideration for reasons summarized below. 

Alternative A 

This alternative was developed in response to a report that offers “a scientific framework 

of principles and practices that are provided to guide development of federal policy 

concerning wildfire and salvage logging and other post-fire treatments” (Beschta 1995) 

and includes recommendations on post-fire practices. The recommendations and how 

they are addressed are displayed in table 2-36. 

Table 2-36: Recommendations of the 1995 Beschta report and how each is addressed by alternatives 

in the Westside Fire Recovery project

Recommendations: Addressed by:

1. Prohibiting 

salvage 

logging in 

sensitive 

areas (as 

defined by (a) 

through (f)

(a) severely burned 

areas (soil burn 

severity)

Alternative 1 will not salvage in severely burned areas. 

Action alternatives (2 through 5) minimize negative effects 

of salvage through implementation of watershed project 

design features. See also response to relevant issue #1. 

Alternative 4 responds to this issue.

(b) erosive soils and any 

site where 

accelerated erosion 

is possible (soils with 

very high erosion 

hazard ratings)

Alternative 1 will not salvage on erosive soils or sites 

where accelerated erosion is possible. Action alternatives 

(2 through 5) minimize negative effects of salvage 

through implementation of watershed project design 

features. See also response to relevant issue #1. 

Alternative 4 responds to this issue.

(c) fragile soils (those 

that have physical, 

chemical, or 

biological limitations 

that reduce ability to 

recover after 

disturbance: schist, 

granitic, and 

serpentine)

Alternative 1 will not salvage on fragile soils. Action 

alternatives (2 through 5) minimize negative effects of 

salvage through implementation of watershed project 

design features. See also response to relevant issue #1. 

Alternative 4 responds to this issue.

(d) roadless areas None of the alternatives propose salvage harvest within 

inventoried roadless areas so all alternatives meet the 

Beschta recommendations. See also response to relevant 

issue #3. Alternative 5 responds specifically to this issue. 

(e) riparian areas No salvage harvest is proposed for hydrologic (streamside) riparian areas (reserves) as delineated in watershed 

project design features. No salvage is proposed for 

geologic riparian reserves in alternative 1. Action 

alternatives (2 through 5) minimize negative effects of 

salvage through implementation of watershed project 

design features. See also response to relevant issues #1 

and #3. Alternatives 4 and 5 respond to these issues as 

does the refined alternative 2.

(f) steep slopes Alternative 1 will not salvage on steep slopes. Action 

alternatives (2 through 5) minimize negative effects of 

salvage through implementation of watershed project 

design features that limit the slopes on which salvage will 

occur. See also response to relevant issue #1. Alternative 

4 responds to this issue.

92
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Recommendations: Addressed by:

2. Limitations 

aimed at 

maintaining 

species and 

natural 

recovery 

processes 

should apply 

to areas 

suitable for 

salvage

(a) Leave at least 50% of 

standing dead trees 

in each diameter 

class

(b) leave all trees greater 

than 20 inches 

diameter at breast 

height or older than 

150 years

(c) Generally, leave all 

live trees

Alternative 1 maintains natural recovery process in 100% 

of the project area. Action alternatives (2 through 5) 

maintain natural recovery on from 88% of the project 

areas (alternative 2) and 89% (alternatives 3 and 4) to 

96% (alternative 5). Action alternatives generally retain all 

live trees (with 70% or greater chance of living) in salvage 

units. Removal of snags is governed by project design 

features; all action alternatives minimize negative effects 

of salvage on maintaining species through 

implementation of wildlife project design features. See 

also response to relevant issue #2. Alternative 3 responds 

to this issue.

3. Prohibit new road building in the 

burned landscape.

Alternative 1 does not propose building any new roads. 

Action alternatives (2 through 5) do not build any new 

National Forest Transportation System (permanent) 

roads. New temporary roads are proposed from 23 miles 

(alternative 2) to 4 miles (alternative 4) Alternative 4 limits 

new temporary roads. All action alternatives minimize 

negative effects of new temporary roads through 

implementation of project design features. See also 

response to relevant issue #1. Alternative 4 responds to 

this issue.

4. Limit active reseeding and planting. None of the alternatives include active reseeding of 

grasses or use of pesticides, herbicides or fertilizers. 

Alternative 1 proposes no planting. Action alternatives (2 

through 5) propose planting of native tree seedlings 

where viable seed sources are lacking on from 12% of the 

project areas (alternative 2) to 4% (alternative 5). All 

action alternatives minimize negative effects of planting 

through planting specifics (diversity of species to be 

planted, spacing, trees per acre, etc.) and by 

implementation of project design features. See also 

response to relevant issue #2. Alternative 3 responds 

specifically to this issue. Alternative 5 addresses this 

recommendation by limiting planting to matrix lands.

5. Discourage structural post-fire 

restoration

None of the alternatives include “hard” structures such as 

sediment traps, fish habitat alterations or bank 

stabilization. Alternative 1 proposes only natural post-fire 

restoration. Action alternatives (2 through 5) include 

repair of legacy sites such as too small culverts in areas 

agreed-upon with the State of California Water Board. 

Project design features for action alternatives include 

provision of large woody debris. All action alternatives 

minimize negative effects through implementation of 

project design features.

6. Support research efforts needed to 

address ecological and operational 

issues

This recommendation is beyond the scope of this project. 

The effects of both fine and large fuels on the probability 

of re-burn, and relevant scientific literature concerning this 

topic, are addressed for all action alternatives in chapter 3 

and the related Fire and Fuels resource report.

7. Educate the public regarding natural 

fires and post-burn landscapes

This recommendation is beyond the scope of this project. 

chapter 3 compares the effects of allowing natural 

regeneration of the project area (alternative 1) to the 

effects of active regeneration alternatives (2 through 5) 

and makes this comparison available to the public.

The comment letter on which this alternative is based seeks an alternative that includes 

all of the above recommendations. 

93
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Specifically prohibiting salvage logging in all areas defined by Beschta as sensitive will 

limit the Forest Service’s ability to meet the purpose and need for action. Other 

alternatives respond to the exclusion of salvage in one or more sensitive areas. The 

refined proposed action (alternative 2) and alternatives to the proposed action respond to 

recommendations 2 through 8 that are within the scope of the project. All action 

alternatives include implementation of project design features to minimize negative 

impacts, making it redundant to analyze this alternative in detail so it was eliminated 

from detailed study.

Alternative B 

This alternative was developed to respond to a request for specific treatments, and 

limitation on other treatments, and additional or modified project design features to 

minimize or eliminate negative effects as noted and addressed in table 2-37. 

Table 2-37: Recommendations on specific treatments and how each is addressed by alternatives in 

the Westside Fire Recovery project

Recommendation: Addressed by:

1. No timber harvest from 

Scenic River viewsheds 

unless there is an 

overlap with WUI or 

within 1⁄4 mile of private 

property

Alternative 1 proposes no treatment in Scenic River corridors. Alternatives 

2 through 5 propose no salvage harvest units within a Scenic River 

corridor. All action alternatives minimize negative effects of treatments

through implementation of project design features. Alternatives 1 through 

5 respond to this issue.

2. Re-plant with a mix of 

conifer species suitable 

the area to increase 

vegetative diversity

Alternative 1 does not propose any planting. Action alternatives (2 

through 5) propose replanting with a mix of conifer species suitable to the 

area to increase vegetative diversity, and encourage the natural 

regeneration of hardwoods where they exist, as specified in chapter 2 

(see also the response to item #4 under alternative A). All action 

alternatives minimize negative effects through implementation of project 

design features. See also response to issue D. Alternatives 2 through 5 

respond to this issue.

3. Analyze the entire 

project area for 

prescribed burning 

opportunities

Alternative 1 proposes no prescribed burning. Action alternatives (2 

through 5) analyzed opportunities for prescribed burning on the entire 

project area and proposed such treatments on up to 11,400 acres. All 

action alternatives minimize negative effects by implementation of project 

design features. Alternatives 2 through 5 respond to this issue.

4. Schedule future 

prescribed burns in 

strategic fire-control 

areas every 3-5 years 

Alternative 1 does not include prescribed burns. Scheduling future 

prescribed burns in strategic fire-control areas every three to five years is 

beyond the scope of this project. Action alternatives (2 through 5) 

schedule prescribed burns in strategic fire-control areas five to seven

years after implementation of the project begins. 

5. Establish long-term 

management plans for 

plants important to the 

Karuk tribe

Long-term management plans are beyond the scope of this project. 

Culturally-important plants within the spatial and temporary boundaries of 

the project area are addressed in alternative F. Effects of alternatives on 

these plants are disclosed for all action alternatives in chapter 3 and 

through implementation of heritage project design features.

6. Use contour felling of 

snags to reduce 

sedimentation of 

important anadromous 

fish streams 

Alternative 1 does not propose felling any snags. Action alternatives 2 

through 5 include measures to reduce sedimentation in important 

anadromous fish streams, including contour felling, through the 

implementation of watershed project design features. See also response 

to relevant issue #1. Alternative 4 responds specifically to this issue. 

94
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Recommendation: Addressed by:

7. Incorporate large woody 

debris into stream 

channels

Alternative 1 will provide large woody debris in stream channels as dead 

and dying snags fall. Action alternatives 2 through 5 incorporate large 

woody debris into stream channels through implementation of watershed 

project design features. See also response to relevant issue #1. 

Alternative 4 responds specifically to relevant issue #1.

8. In areas with highly 

erosive soils, plant on 

the bottom 1/3 of the 

slope

Alternative 1 does not propose planting in any areas. Action alternatives 2 

through 5 minimize negative impacts to highly erosive soils through 

implementation of watershed project design features. Specific information 

on planting on erosive soils is provided in chapter 2. 

9. Design sediment 

catchment ponds so 

they do not retain water 

in the summer months

This recommendation is beyond the scope of this project. No catchment 

ponds are included as part of this project.

10. Maintain and/or 

construct shaded fuel 

breaks along strategic 

ridgelines and roads; 

Alternative 1 does not propose constructing or maintaining shaded fuel 

breaks. Action alternatives include constructing or maintaining fuel breaks

along strategic ridgelines and roads as described in chapter 2.

11. Manage ridge lines for 

fire-resilient and less 

flammable botanical 

communities

Alternative 1 does not propose managing ridge lines for fire-resilient 

botanical communities. Action alternatives include planting a variety of 

species in a mosaic to foster less flammable botanical communities on 

areas proposed for planting as described in chapter 2. Strategic ridgelines 

will be managed as open, shaded fuel breaks as described in chapter 2. 

12. Collaborate with 

adjacent private 

landowners prior to 

deciding on recovery 

activities

Collaboration with adjacent landowners is an important part of this project. 

The refined proposed action (alternative 2) and alternatives to the 

proposed action are based on collaboration with adjacent landowners as 

described in chapter 1.

13. Collaborate on sitespecific prescriptions in 

the WUI 

Collaboration on site-specific prescriptions in the WUI is part of this 

project. The refined proposed action (alternative 2) and alternatives to the 

proposed action are based on collaboration with residents in the WUI and 

the Community Wildfire Protection Plans of communities within the project 

area as described in chapter 1.

14. Promote principles of 

Adaptive Ecosystem 

Management and 

collaborate on studies of 

different recovery 

activities

Promoting adaptive ecosystem management and collaborating on studies 

of different recovery activities are beyond the scope of this project but can 

be considered as part of future projects or programs on the Forest. The 

draft EIS includes different recovery actions in different alternatives; the 

effects of these actions are disclosed in chapter 3.

The comment letter on which this alternative is based seeks an alternative that includes 

all or most of the above recommendations. Many of these recommendations are 

consistent with the refined proposed action (alternative 2) and with other action 

alternatives. 

Since recommendations that can be addressed (are not beyond the scope of this project) 

are either consistent with the refined proposed action or an action alternative, developing 

an alternative to meet all of these recommendations would be redundant. For these 

reasons, this alternative is eliminated from detailed study.

Alternative C 

This comprehensive alternative was developed to respond to recommendations for 

specific treatments to reduce environmental impacts, especially in specific locations, that 

are listed and addressed in table 2-38. 

95
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Table 2-38: Recommendations on specific treatments and locations, and how each is addressed by 

alternatives in the Westside Fire Recovery project

Recommendation: Addressed by:

1. Only fell roadside hazard 

trees that are 100% dead 

and less than 45 inches 

DBH

Confirming that trees are 100% dead is only possible if the trees have 

fallen to the ground; waiting for this to happen will not meet the safetyrelated purpose and need for the project. Safety is the major reason on 

which the 60% certainty of mortality for roadside hazard trees is 

chosen, as disclosed in chapter 2. Few of any of the roadside hazard 

trees are greater than 45 inches DBH; if trees of this diameter are 

safety hazards, they will not be left standing in any action alternative. 

Alternative 1 will not cut and fell any trees.

2. No green-tree removal in 

recovery prescriptions 

None of the alternatives in this project propose green-tree removal. 

Green trees are defined as those with a 70% or better chance of 

surviving as discussed earlier in chapter 2. Some of the trees to be 

removed in all action alternatives include some green needles or 

leaves; however, the trees have a 70% or greater chance of dying and 

becoming part of the fuel accumulation on the ground in the short term.

3. Increase funding for fuels 

reduction and prescribed 

fire within the CWPP and 

WUI areas 

This recommendation is beyond the scope of this project.

4. Post fire management in the 

Grider Creek Watershed 

should protect and promote 

critical wildlife and fisheries 

habitat

All alternatives protect and promote critical wildlife and fisheries habitat 

by implementation of wildlife and watershed project design features. 

See also relevant issues #1, #2 and #3, Alternatives 3 and 4 respond 

specifically to these issues.

5. Severely burned plantations 

should be reviewed for best 

management and suitability 

for future planting

Severely burned plantations were reviewed for best management and 

suitability for planting in all action alternatives as described earlier in 

chapter 2. 

6. Jobs associated with these 

efforts should be prioritized 

to regional contractors and 

laborers when feasible 

This recommendation is beyond the scope of this project, and contrary 

to law, policy and regulation.

7. Use strategic fuels 

reduction and prescribed 

fire in order to return to fireadapted and ecologically 

resilient landscapes 

Alternative 1 does not propose any fuels reduction. Action alternatives 

2 through 5 all propose strategic fuel breaks and prescribed fire as well 

as other fuel reduction practices as described earlier in chapter 2. 

Implementation of project design features will minimize potential 

negative effects.

The comment letter on which this alternative is based seeks an alternative that includes 

all of the above recommendations. Many of these recommendations are consistent with 

the refined proposed action (alternative 2) and with other action alternatives. 

Reasons are provided above as to why following the first recommendation is not 

practicable. Since recommendations that can be addressed (are not beyond the scope of 

this project) are either consistent with the refined proposed action or an action alternative, 

developing an alternative to meet all of these recommendations would be redundant. For 

these reasons, this alternative is eliminated from detailed study.

Alternative D

This alternative was developed in response to comment letters which request specific 

project design features be implemented to minimize negative impacts. Recommended 

project design features and the way they are addressed are displayed in table 3-39. 

96
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Table 2-39: Recommendations on additional project design features and how each is addressed by 

alternatives in the Westside Fire Recovery project

Recommendations: Addressed by:

1. No new roads, 

permanent or 

temporary

None of the alternatives in the project propose new permanent (system) 

roads. Alternative 1 proposes no new temporary roads. Action alternatives 

implement project design features to minimize potential negative impacts of 

new temporary roads. Action alternatives differ in the number and location of 

new temporary roads. In response to relevant issue #1, alternative 4 limits 

the number and location of temporary roads to further reduce impacts.

2. No tree planting units, 

allow for natural 

reseeding

Alternative 1 does not propose any tree planting. Action alternatives 2 

through 5 allow for natural reseeding where seed sources are available, and 

propose tree planting in other areas, as described earllier in chapter 2. The 

effects all alternatives are summarized in chapter 2, and disclosed and 

compared in chapter 3 of this document. Implementation of project design 

features minimizes negative impacts of planting. See relevant issue #3 for 

further suggestions on limiting planting; alternative 5 responds specifically to 

this issue.

3. No helicopter units Alternative 1 does not propose any helicopter units. Action alternatives 2 

through 5 include different numbers of helicopter units as discussed earlier 

in chapter 2. The effects of various numbers of helicopter units are disclosed 

in chapter 3.

4. No logging in stands 

that sustained less 

than 70% mortality

The reasons for using the 50% mortality of a stand before it will be 

considered for harvest, and the analysis on which this percentage is 

selected, are provided earlier in chapter 2. Changing the percentage of 

mortality used to determine if logging can take place will have little effect on 

determining which units can be logged. Relevant issue #2 expresses 

disagreement about the effects of the proposed action on wildlife habitat and 

connectivity. Alternative 3 addresses this issue specifically; in doing so, the 

mortality of stands is included in reasons for proposing elimination of stands 

from salvage logging as described earlier in chapter 2.

5. No salvage logging at 

elevations above 

6,000 feet

Alternative 1 proposes no salvage logging. Action alternatives use different 

criteria for determining which units are proposed for salvage logging, but the 

specific criteria of elevation is not included. Implementation of other criteria 

restricts the amount of salvage proposed above 6,000 feet. Implementation 

of project design features minimizes negative impacts of salvage logging at 

all elevations. 

6. No salvage units on 

slopes exceeding 60%

Alternative 1 does not propose any salvage units. Action alternatives 2 

through 5 minimize negative effects of salvage through implementation of 

watershed project design features which include those that limit equipment 

use of slopes over 35 to 45 percent.

7. Burn all activity 

generated slash

Treating activity slash for action alternatives (2 through 5) is discussed 

earlier in chapter 2. Treatments proposed for activity slash include burning 

and other treatments as noted in project design features. 

8. Retain biological 

legacies such as large 

live trees, large snags, 

coarse woody debris 

and intact thickets of 

unburned vegetation 

in falling and yarding 

operations

Alternative 1 will retain all biological legacies. Action alternatives 2 through 5 

will retain large live trees and intact thickets of unburned vegetation. Snags 

and coarse woody debris will be retained to meet Forest Plan standards in 

all action alternatives through implementing project design features. 

Relevant issue #2 is based on public comments on retention of these 

legacies. Alternative 3 responds specifically to this issue.

9. Retain adequate large 

downed wood for 

slope stability and 

regeneration

Alternative 1 retains all downed wood. Action alternatives 2 through 5 retain 

downed wood as specified earlier in chapter 2 and through implementing 

project design features. See also relevant issue #2 and alternative 3.

97
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Recommendations: Addressed by:

10. Leave a minimum of 

70% of coarse woody 

debris parallel to 

topographical lines to 

abate water run-off 

and erosion

Alternative 1 retains all coarse woody debris. Action alternatives 2 through 5 

retain coarse woody debris as specified earlier in chapter 2 and through 

implementing project design features. See also relevant issue #1 and 

alternative 4.

11. Leave up to 25 snags 

per acre, especially 

those with broken or 

forked tops, complex 

branching patterns, 

cat faces or fire 

damage that provide 

cavity nesting habitat. 

Consider the retention 

of snags in 

aggregates

Alternative 1 retains all snags. Action alternatives 2 through 5 retain snags in 

clumps as required by the Forest Plan and specified earlier in chapter 2 and 

through implementing project design features. See also relevant issue #2 

and alternative 3 for additional retention of snags.

12. Retain the largest live 

trees and snags in all 

salvage units

All alternatives retain all live trees in salvage units as discussed earlier in 

chapter 2 and in response to item 2 in alternative C (table 2-38). Alternative 

1 retains all trees and snags. Action alternatives 2 through 5 retain snags as 

required by the Forest Plan and specified earlier in chapter 2; snags are 

retained through implementing project design features. See also relevant 

issue #2 and alternative 3 for additional retention of large snags.

13. Retain all trees with 

green foliage

All alternatives retain all live trees (those with more than a 60% of surviving 

(for roadside hazard) and 70% chance of surviving (for salvage) as 

discussed earlier in chapter 2. Alternative 1 retains all trees with green 

foliage. Action alternatives 2 through 5 retain trees as specified earlier in 

chapter 2 and through implementing project design features. See also 

relevant issue #2 and alternative 3 for additional retention of trees with green 

foliage.

The comment letters on which this alternative is based seek an alternative that includes 

all of the above recommendations. Some of these recommendations are consistent with 

the refined proposed action and alternatives. For those recommendations, this alternative 

is redundant because other alternatives address the recommendations. Some of the 

recommendations do not help achieve the purpose of the project; therefore, this

alternative is not considered in detail as a whole because it will not meet all of the 

purpose and need for the project. 

Alternative E

This alternative was developed in response to comments that request the exclusion of 

specific areas or habitats from mechanical treatment. Recommended exclusions are listed 

and addressed in table 2-40. 

Table 2-40: Recommendations for the exclusion of specific areas and how each is addressed by 

alternatives in the Westside Fire Recovery project

Recommendations: Addressed by:

1. No salvage logging or 

planting in inventoried 

roadless areas (IRAs), 

including the Grider, 

Tom Martin, Russian, 

Snoozer, Kelsey, or 

Johnson Roadless 

Areas

None of the alternatives propose salvage logging in inventoried roadless 

areas. Alternatives 1 and 5 do not include planting in IRAs. Alternatives 2 

through 4 include about 490 acres of site preparation and planting in IRAs; 

both will be accomplished by hand and no ground-disturbing mechanical 

equipment will be used. An IRA project design feature minimizes negative 

impacts of planting on roadless characteristics.

98
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Recommendations: Addressed by:

2. No salvage logging on 

sensitive soils, active 

landslides, earthflows 

and other erosive soil 

types

Alternative 1 does not propose salvage logging in any area. Action 

alternatives 2 through 5 implement watershed project design features to 

minimize or eliminate negative impacts from salvage logging. Relevant issue 

#1 is based on comments concerning effects of salvage logging on watershed 

health; alternative 4 responds specifically to this issue.

3. No salvage units on 

decomposed granite

Alternative 1 does not propose salvage logging in any area. Action 

alternatives 2 through 5 implement watershed project design features to 

minimize or eliminate negative impacts from salvage logging. Relevant issue 

#1 is based on comments concerning effects of salvage logging on watershed 

health (including soils); alternative 4 responds specifically to this issue.

4. No salvage units in 

Riparian Reserves

None of the alternatives propose salvage units in hydrologic riparian reserves 

(reserves defined by proximity to water). Alternative 1 does not proposed any 

salvage. Action alternatives 2 through 5 propose various acreages of salvage 

on geologic riparian reserves (reserves defined by active landslides, inner 

gorges and toe zones of dormant landslides). These action alternatives 

implement watershed project design features to minimize or eliminate 

negative impacts from salvage logging on geologic riparian reserves. 

Relevant issue #1 is based on comments concerning effects of salvage 

logging on watershed health (including riparian reserves); alternative 4 

responds specifically to this issue.

5. No salvage in Special 

Habitat designations 

including: goshawk 

territories; northern 

spotted owl activity 

centers Bald Eagle 

and Peregrine falcon 

management areas; 

and critical habitats

Alternative 1 does not propose salvage logging in any area. Action 

alternatives 2 through 5 implement wildlife project design features to minimize 

or eliminate negative impacts from salvage logging. Relevant issue #2 is 

based on comments concerning effects of salvage logging on wildlife; 

alternative 3 responds specifically to this issue.

6. No salvage in 

designated or 

recommended Wild 

and Scenic River 

corridors

Alternative 1 does not propose salvage logging in any area. None of the 

alternatives propose salvage logging in designated or recommended Wild 

River corridors or Scenic River corridors. Action alternatives 2 through 5 

implement project design features to minimize or eliminate negative impacts 

from salvage logging in Recreational River corridors. 

7. No Salvage in 

endemic conifer 

stands composed of 

foxtail pine, Baker’s 

cypress, or Brewer 

spruce

Alternative 1 does not propose salvage logging in any area. Action 

alternatives 2 through 5 include prescriptions for the choice of salvage units 

as discussed earlier in chapter 2.

The comment letters on which this alternative is based seek an alternative that includes 

all of the above recommendations. Although these recommendations are for “no salvage” 

in many areas, the revised proposed action (alternative 2) and alternatives include more 

project design features to minimize negative effects of salvage than the proposed action 

as scoped included. Proposing “no salvage” will not meet the purpose and need of the 

project. The recommendation for no salvage in inventoried roadless areas and in 

hydrologic riparian reserves is met by other alternatives (and thus is redundant). 

Therefore, this alternative will be eliminated from detailed study.

Alternative F 

This alternative was developed in response to recommendations to meet historic and preEuropean settlement conditions in the project area and respond to tribal concerns. 

Recommendations and the way they are addressed are displayed in table 2-41. 

Table 2-41: Recommendations to meet tribal concerns and how each is addressed by alternatives in 

the Westside Fire Recovery project

99
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Recommended: Addressed by:

1. Consider all 

vegetation cover in 

stocking estimates 

including: grass, 

shrubs, other 

herbaceous plants, 

and hardwood tree 

species

Alternative 1 does not propose any actions that will affect stocking estimates. 

Action alternatives (2 through 5) propose replanting with a mix of conifer species 

suitable to the area to increase vegetative diversity, and encourage the natural 

regeneration of hardwoods where they exist, as specified earlier in chapter 2 

(see also the response to item #4 under alternative A). Stocking estimates will 

include hardwood tree species where they exist. Alternatives 2 through 5 

respond to this issue.

2. Plant conifers only 

where there is a 

historical basis for 

establishing a 

forested landscape

Alternative 1 does not propose any planting. Action alternatives (2 through 5) 

propose replanting with a mix of conifer species suitable to the area to increase 

vegetative diversity; the species mix is based on historic conditions and 

suitability as specified earlier in chapter 2 (see also the response to item #4 in 

alternative A). Alternatives 2 through 5 respond to this issue.

3. Encourage natural 

regeneration and 

succession 

whenever possible

Alternative 1 maintains natural recovery regeneration and succession in all 

areas. Action alternatives (2 through 5) maintain natural regeneration and 

succession on from 88% of the project areas (alternative 2) to 96% (alternative 

5). All action alternatives mimic natural regeneration by planting species suitable 

to specific areas as described earlier in chapter 2 and by encouraging the growth 

of species such as hardwoods where they exist. Planting prescriptions are based 

on historic unit conditions, projected unit composition, and the likelihood of longterm survivability of project units within a fire ecosystem. Overall, species 

considered for planting in the project area include Douglas-fir, sugar pine, 

ponderosa pine, incense cedar, white fir, and red fir. A mosaic distribution will be 

achieved over time due to the spatial variability achieved by micro-site selection 

for planting. Conifers will not be planted next to green hardwoods; these 

hardwoods will be included in average spacing. Seedlings will be widely spaced 

on poorer sites including southerly aspects and/or rocky soils. Trees will be 

planted in clusters to achieve groups of conifers throughout the landscape to 

mimic natural units. Seedling survival rates and competition from brush species 

will create a natural mosaic of species and stocking densities. In order to 

effectively reforest these units, an average of 130 to 300 trees per acre will be 

planted to achieve acceptable levels of stocking, depending on site conditions. 

Initial planting spacing recommendations considered Forest Plan land 

management objectives for projected stocking needs, and the likelihood of 

achieving those objectives, for each unit evaluated for reforestation. Planting 

conifers in historically forested areas does promote faster reforestation (see the 

Vegetation section of this document for information on the scientific evidence 

that supports this conclusion). Areas were considered for site preparation, 

planting and release if they met the conditions listed earlier in chapter 2 for site 

preparation and planting.

4. Count natural 

hardwood 

regeneration in 

stocking 

requirement goals

Action alternatives (2 through 5) include hardwoods in stocking requirement 

goals where they exist as specified earlier in chapter 2 (see also the response to 

recommendation #1 above). Alternatives 2 through 5 respond to this issue.

5. Review 1944 aerial 

photos and 

Wieslander maps 

to ascertain 

historic vegetation 

to shape desired 

condition

The available 1944 aerial photographs and Wieslander maps for portions of the 

project were used to help ascertain historic vegetation as described earlier in 

chapter 2. 

6. Minimize the 

connectivity of 

fuels throughout 

the development of 

the planted stand

Alternative 1 does not include any actions to minimize the connectivity of fuels. 

Action alternatives 2 through 5 propose activities for reduction of fuels 

connectivity as described earlier in chapter 2. 

100
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Recommended: Addressed by:

7. Facilitate the 

application and 

restoration of 

cultural burning 

practices and 

establish areas 

available for 

managing fires for 

resource benefits

Alternative 1 does not include any actions to facilitate the restoration of cultural 

burning practices or establish areas available for managing fires for resource 

benefits. Action alternatives 2 through 5 propose activities, such as fuel break 

construction and maintenance, that will help to make areas available for 

managing fires for resource benefits and prescribed burning to emphasize the 

restoration of culturally important plants as described earlier in chapter 2.

8. Protection of 

infrastructures to a 

500 foot radius

Alternative 1 does not include any actions to protect infrastructure. Action 

alternatives 2 through 5 propose activities to protect infrastructure as described 

earlier in chapter 2. As described, a 200- to 250-foot radius around infrastructure 

is proposed for fuel reduction treatments in all action alternatives.

9. Roadside hazard 

tree treatment with 

a 150-300 foot 

buffer 

Alternative 1 does not include any roadside hazard treatment. Action alternatives 

2 through 5 propose roadside hazard treatment of trees that fit the “hazard tree” 

definition as described earlier in chapter 2. A 200-foot buffer on either side of the 

road is used to estimate acreage being treated but the actual distance from the 

road will vary based on regional hazard tree guidelines (Angwin et al. 2012).

10. Protection of 

private property

Alternative 1 does not include any treatments to protect private property. Action 

alternatives 2 through 5 propose fuel reduction actions within 1/4 mile of private 

property as described earlier in chapter 2. Alternative 5 includes more fuels 

reduction units than other action alternatives to protect private property.

11. Support and foster 

early seral 

conditions

Most of the project area will not be salvaged; none of the action alternatives 

include more than 11,700 acres of salvage units and only 6,800 acres of these 

will be salvage logged because salvage units include areas that will continue to 

be in early seral conditions (such as Riparian Reserves, clumps of snags that will 

be left for wildlife habitat, and areas of trees that have a 70% chance or better of 

surviving). Overall, more than 85% of the project area will be allowed to 

regenerate naturally; much of this will remain in early seral conditions. 

12. No grounddisturbing 

activities should be 

planned in inner 

gorges, previously 

active landslides 

and older landslide 

deposits.

There are about 3,900 acres of salvage units proposed on steep, weathered 

granitic lands (geologic Riparian Reserves) in the proposed action as scoped; in 

refined alternative 2, salvage is proposed on geologic Riparian Reserves on 

about 2,000 of the 3,900 acres of salvage units and other action alternative 

propose the same amount or less. No salvage will occur on inner gorges, active 

landslides or toe zones of dormant landslides through implementing project 

design features displayed in chapter 2 of this DEIS. About 960 acres of site 

preparation and planting, up to 4,400 acres of roadside hazard tree removal, and 

3,900 acres of fuel hazard treatments are proposed on unstable lands 

considered to be geologic Riparian Reserves. The landslide risk does not 

increase in any action alternative from the current situation.

13. Concern about the 

amount of roadside 

hazard, especially 

around 

management level 

1 and 2 roads, and 

impacts to 

fisheries.

Alternative 4 is designed to reduce watershed disturbance and impacts of water 

quality and fisheries relatively to the proposed action as scoped. Alternative 4 will 

reduce or eliminate temporary road actions, especially within key watersheds as 

identified by the Forest Plan. The most sensitive 7th field watersheds to further 

ground disturbance are identified, based on existing watershed condition and the 

distribution of federally-listed (as threatened or endangered) and Forest Service 

sensitive species of fish. Within these most sensitive watersheds, restrictions or 

mitigations to minimize negative impacts are proposed as project design 

features. Due to the implementation of project design features and relevant Best 

Management Practices, negative effects to special status aquatic species, 

including fisheries, will be minimized. More information on the specifics of this 

alternative are displayed earlier in chapter 2.

101
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Recommended: Addressed by:

14. Emphasize fuels 

treatments over 

salvage. 

There is a need for the project to include receipts from treatments to be 

economically viable and help pay for fuels treatments. Strategic fuels treatments 

are proposed in all action alternatives, and salvage logging helps treat fuels on 

the acres on which it is implemented. Treatments specifically to treat hazardous 

fuels are proposed on almost twice as many acres as are in salvage logging 

units and almost four times as many acres as will be salvage logged in any 

action alternative.

15. Find ways to not

exclude future 

prescribed burning 

in the plantations.

Prescribed burning will be included where possible in plantations, preferably 

when trees are a size to survive prescribed fire. 

16. The project should 

include a research 

component. 

The project is based on the results of research but meeting the purpose and 

need of the project does not include research.

17. Enhance 

hydrologic 

function.

Legacy sediment site treatments are included in action alternatives that will 

ensure that temporary access will be hydrologically restored; alternative 4 

proposes additional treatment modifications to address this concern. All 

temporary roads will be closed and hydrologically stabilized according the project 

design features in table 2-35. Both new and existing landings will be 

hydrologically stabilized after use. All landings will be located according the 

project design features. The portion of Elk Creek within the project area contains 

almost 150 legacy sites. Most of the legacy sites are located on or adjacent to 

the Forest transportation system roads. The other legacy sites are located on 

existing landings or roadbeds (historic roads, abandoned temporary roads, or 

decommissioned roads). Temporary road and landing construction, and to a 

lesser degree salvage harvest and associated mechanical yarding resulting from 

the proposed action as scoped, have potential to further increase runoff in the 

project area. However, modelled results of the effects of action alternatives do 

not show any additional disturbance beyond 2014 fire effects for broad-scale 5th

field watersheds and add only minor incremental increases to risk at small scales 

(7th field watersheds). 

Any project action alternative that includes ground-disturbing activities in the 

above-listed watersheds will ensure that project design features and watershed 

restorative actions are adequate to mitigate potential erosion and sedimentation 

and resulting impacts to water quality and beneficial uses. Additionally the 

restorative activities of legacy sediment site repairs, planting and fuels reductions 

will help to balance the activities that may have a negative impact to water.

18. No new roads, 

including 

temporary roads

No new system roads are proposed in any alternative. Action alternatives 

propose different mileage of temporary roads to meet the objectives of each 

alternative.

19. Retain/plant 

drought-resistant 

trees suitable for 

climate change

Trees are selected for planting that are likely to survive if climate change 

predictions are fulfilled.

20. Retain all green 

trees at harvest

Green trees are retained in the action alternatives; green trees will not be 

removed unless their removal is needed for safe implementation of the project 

(for instance, placement of cable lines for skyline harvest).

21. Prescribed burning 

plans with existing 

control lines and 

features

The primary locations of fuels management zones are strategic ridge systems 

used to contain the 2014 fires as well as being historic fire lines from previous 

large fires within the project area. The treatments aim to maintain existing control 

lines by removing all dead vegetation and live understory vegetation along with 

live conifer trees less than 12 inches in diameter at breast height.

22. No planting within 

low or moderate 

burned severity

Planting within salvage units will only be in areas that burned with moderate to 

high severity and vegetation mortality (greater than 50 percent of the trees are 

fire-killed on a unit level, based on Rapid Assessment of Vegetation Condition 

after Wildfire (RAVG) information). Site preparation, planting and release of 

areas outside salvage units will be focused in areas of high and moderate 

vegetation morality where overhead hazards can be mitigated without allowing 

mechanized equipment into Riparian Reserves. 

102
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Recommended: Addressed by:

23. Set aside areas 

that are unsalvaged

Many areas are set aside and not salvaged. More than 85% of the project area is 

not within any salvage or roadside hazard removal unit, and more than 90% will 

not be salvaged. Roadside hazard removal will take place along 640 miles of 

road in most action alternatives (610 miles in alternative 4) but only a small 

fraction of the roadside acreage will have hazard trees removed. Only the trees 

that meet hazard tree guidelines will be cut and felled.

24. Do not salvage 

where rare habitat 

has been burned.

Rare habitats are identified in the Forest Plan as either Research Natural Areas 

of Special Interest Areas. No salvage will occur in these areas in any alternative.

25. Leave sufficient 

coarse woody 

debris (CWD) and 

snags

Project design features provide for sufficient coarse woody debris and snags.

26. Avoid treatment in 

Riparian Reserves; 

promote large 

wood recruitment

No salvage logging will take place in hydrologic Riparian Reserves. Where 

hazard trees are felled in hydrologic Riparian Reserves for safety, they will be left 

for large woody debris recruitment. Watershed project design features that 

address this concern.

27. Delay salving to 

allow post-burn 

ecological values 

to persist

Ecological values of natural recovery of forests will occur on more than 85% of 

the project area. Delaying salvage treatments will reduce the economic value of 

the project, producing less revenue for fuels treatments, and will not meet at 

least one part of the purpose and need for the project.

28. Salvage only areas 

with 90% or greater 

mortality

Areas considered for salvage treatment have 50% of more mortality within 

stands. Trees that will be cut have at least a 70% likelihood of dying. Most of the 

acres in which salvage logging will take place have 80% to 90% mortality.

29. Don’t salvage 

where fires were 

ignited from the 

bottom or 

suppression

Mapping has been completed for areas where fires were ignited by suppression 

forces. These maps will be compared with salvage treatment units.

30. In Riparian 

Reserves, fall trees 

on the contour to 

reduce erosion

Contour felling is addressed in watershed project design features.

31. Retain all tress 30 

inches in diameter 

at breast height – 

living or dead

Project design features address the retention of trees greater than 40 inches in 

diameter at breast height for legacy components.

The comments on which this alternative is based seek an alternative that includes all of 

the above recommendations. Comments were considered in developing alternatives 

considered in detail and, as discussed above, in many areas the revised proposed action 

(alternative 2) and alternatives include project design features to address these 

recommendations. The recommendations that are within the scope of the project are met 

by other alternatives, making an alternative specifically to address these 

recommendations redundant. Therefore, this alternative will be eliminated from detailed 

study. However, consultation to address tribal concerns will continue. 

Alternative G

This alternative was developed in response to public requests to minimize or eliminate 

negative effects to watershed conditions from new or reopened roads and landings. 

Recommendations are listed and addressed in table 2-42. 

103
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Table 2-42: Recommendations for no new infrastructure and how each is addressed by alternatives 

in the Westside Fire Recovery project

Recommendations: Addressed by:

1. No construction of 

new roads, 

permanent or 

temporary

None of the alternatives in the project propose new permanent (system) roads. 

Alternative 1 proposes no new temporary roads. Action alternatives implement 

project design features to minimize potential negative impacts of new 

temporary roads on watershed conditions. Action alternatives differ in the 

number and location of new temporary roads. In response to relevant issue #1, 

alternative 4 limits the number and location of temporary roads to further 

reduce impacts.

2. No opening of NEPA 

decommissioned 

roads

Alternative 1 proposes no opening of NEPA decommissioned roads. Action 

alternatives implement watershed project design features to minimize potential 

negative impacts on watershed conditions of using decommissioned roads as 

temporary roads. Action alternatives differ in the number and location of 

decommissioned roads being proposed as temporary roads. In response to 

relevant issue #1, alternative 4 limits the number and location of temporary 

roads on decommissioned roads in sensitive watersheds to further reduce 

impacts.

3. No opening of selfdecommissioned M1 

and M2 level roads

Alternative 1 proposes no opening of “self-decommissioned” roads (roads 

where trees have grown into the roadway). Action alternatives implement 

watershed project design features to minimize potential negative impacts of 

opening “self-decommissioned” roads on watershed conditions. Action 

alternatives differ in the number and location of self-decommissioned roads 

proposed for opening and use. In response to relevant issue #1, alternative 4 

limits the number and location of self-decommissioned roads that are 

proposed for use to further reduce impacts.

4. No construction of 

new landings

Alternative 1 proposes no new landings. Action alternatives implement 

watershed project design features conditions to minimize potential negative 

impacts of new landings on watershed. Action alternatives differ in the number 

and location of new landings proposed. In response to relevant issue #1, 

alternative 4 limits the number and location of new landings to further reduce 

impacts.

5. Use of existing 

landings only if no 

earthwork is 

required

Alternative 1 proposes no use of existing landings. Action alternatives 

implement watershed project design features conditions to minimize potential 

negative impacts of using existing landings on watershed. Action alternatives 

differ in the number and location of existing landings proposed for use. 

An alternative that addresses all of these recommendations will not meet all of the 

project’s purpose and need. Refinements to the proposed action (alternative 2) and the 

development of alternative 4 to minimize negative effects of new infrastructure to 

watersheds address the intent of this alternative while meeting the purpose and need of 

the project. Therefore, this alternative is eliminated from detailed study. 

Alternative H

This alternative was developed in response to a number of comments recommending

increased treatments within the project area to address the high number of fire-killed trees 

present on the landscape. Recommendations are listed and addressed in table 2-43. 

104
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Table 2-43: Recommendations for increased salvage opportunities and how each is addressed by 

alternatives in the Westside Fire Recovery project

Recommendations: Addressed By:

1. Salvage logging of 

all fire-killed trees in 

the project area

All fire-killed trees were considered for salvage logging before the proposed 

action as scoped was developed. Based on economic and logistic feasibility, 

and the need to meet Forest Plan standards, a smaller number of units were 

proposed for treatment in the proposed action as scoped. Based on scoping 

comments, the interdisciplinary team looked at all opportunities to expand the 

number of acres that can be salvage logged. In order to meet all laws, 

regulations, and policy, as well as meeting standards in the Forest Plan, 

salvage on most of these opportunity areas is not feasible. 

2. Fuels treatments of 

all salvage-created 

slash

For action alternatives (2 through 5), treating activity slash, including slash 

created by salvage, is discussed earlier in chapter 2. Treatments proposed for 

salvage-created slash include those described in project design features. 

3. Extension of 

operating periods

Most operating periods are limited by the need to be consistent with laws, 

regulation, policy, and Forest Plan standards as displayed in project design 

features. In circumstances noted in the project design features, these limits 

can be modified. 

4. No restrictions on 

size limit for 

roadside hazard 

trees

Criteria for roadside hazard trees are discussed earlier in chapter 2. Size 

limitations are based on fuels to be removed.

5. Planting in all 

salvage areas

Alternative 1 will not propose any planting. Action alternatives 2 through 5 

include planting in all salvage areas.

Although this alternative will meet parts of the purpose and need of the project, following 

some of the recommendations will not meet current law, regulation, policy and the 

related Forest Plan standards. The proposed action has been refined as alternative 2 to 

meet this direction. Therefore, developing an alternative around all of these 

recommendations would be redundant and this alternative is eliminated from detailed 

study.

Alternative I

This alternative was developed in response to a concern that the cumulative effects from 

private and Forest Service salvage treatments will affect habitat connectivity if salvage 

logging occurs in the Beaver Fire area. This recommendation is listed and addressed in 

table 2-44. 

Table 2-44: Recommendations to remove the Beaver Fire from the project and how this is addressed 

by alternatives in the Westside Fire Recovery project

Recommendations: Addressed By:

Remove the Beaver 

Fire area from the 

project because 

cumulative effects 

from private and 

Forest Service salvage 

will affect habitat 

connectivity

Chapter 3 discloses the cumulative effects of salvage proposed in action 

alternatives added to the effects of salvage on private lands within the spatial 

and temporal bounds of the analysis area for each resource including habitat 

connectivity. See specifically the Terrestrial Wildlife section of chapter 3.

An alternative that addresses this recommendation will not meet all of the project’s 

purpose and need. Refinements to the proposed action (alternative 2), including 

implementation of wildlife project design features to minimize negative impacts, and the 

development of alternative 3 to further address habitat connectivity in the Beaver Fire 

105
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

area. Alternative 3 addresses the intent of alternative I while meeting the purpose and 

need of the project. Therefore, considering alternative I in detail is redundant and the 

alternative is eliminated from detailed study. 

Alternative J

This alternative was developed in response to concerns about the effects of salvage 

harvest on many resources and the overall efficacy of this treatment. This alternative is 

also reflective of many of the public concerns regarding fire safety and the need for 

reduction of fuels. All salvage harvest units throughout the project area would be 

eliminated and all hazardous fuels and roadside hazard treatments would be included as 

described in the refined proposed action. This recommendation is listed and addressed in 

table 2-45. 

Table 2-45: Recommendations for a no-salvage, safety-focused alternative and how this is 

addressed by alternatives in the Westside Fire Recovery project

Recommendations: Addressed By:

No Salvage—Fire Safetyfocused alternative 

(eliminate salvage but 

include all hazardous 

fuels and roadside 

hazard treatments

Alternative 1 proposes no salvage within the project area. The effects of this 

alternative on achieving the purpose and need for the project are disclosed in 

chapter 3. The effects of implementing hazardous fuels and roadside hazard 

treatments are displayed primarily on one of the three elements of the purpose 

and need (safety). Action alternatives 2 through 5 include different levels of 

salvage and the effects of these treatments on safety are disclosed in chapter 

3. 

This alternative will meet one part of the purpose and need for this project (to reduce 

safety hazards to adjacent landowners, the public and forest workers) by including 

hazardous fuels and roadside hazard treatments. However, it does not meet another part 

of the purpose and need of the project which is to obtain the maximum economic 

commodity and value from burned timber. It also will not meet the need to increase the 

likelihood and speed by which burned forested areas are restored. Refinements to the 

proposed action (alternative 2), including refined project design features, and the 

development of alternative 5 to limit salvage harvest to matrix lands while retaining fuels 

and roadside hazard treatments, address part of the intent of alternative J while meeting 

the purpose and need of the project. Therefore, alternative J is redundant and eliminated 

from detailed study.

106
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Chapter 3 Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences

This section summarizes the biological, physical, and socioeconomic environments that 

may be affected by the project and the potential changes to those environments due to 

implementation of the alternatives. It also presents the scientific and analytical basis for 

comparison of alternatives presented in section 2.6. 

This chapter is organized by resource area. Following each resource description is a 

summary of the potential effects (environmental consequences) to the resource associated 

with the implementation of each alternative. Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects are 

disclosed. Unless otherwise stated, the effects of alternatives are the same. Effects are 

quantified where possible; qualitative discussions are included where quantification is not 

possible. Consequences relative to significance determinations are disclosed. 

This draft EIS incorporates the Forest Plan by reference and tiers to the final EIS on 

which the Forest Plan is based. The discussions of resources and potential effects use 

existing information included in the Forest Plan and other sources as indicated. Where 

applicable, such information is briefly summarized and referenced to minimize 

duplication. The planning record includes all project-specific information such as 

resource reports, ecosystem analyses, and other results of field investigations. The 

supporting resource specialist reports are available on the project 

website http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/nepa_project_exp.php?project=45579. 

Analyzing Environmental Consequences ____________________ 

Environmental consequences are the effects of implementing an alternative on the 

biological, physical, economic, and social environment. The Council on Environmental 

Quality regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

includes a number of specific categories to use for the analysis of environmental 

consequences. Several form the basis of much of the analysis that follows. They are 

explained briefly here. 

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

Direct environmental effects are those occurring at the same time and place as the initial 

cause or action. Indirect effects are those that occur later in time or are spatially removed 

from the activity, but will occur in the foreseeable future. The project is expected to be 

active over about one to five years from the time the decision is made to full 

implementation. Cumulative effects result when the incremental effects of actions are 

added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what 

agency or person undertakes such actions. Cumulative effects can result from 

individually minor, but collectively significant, actions taking place over a period of time. 

Past activities contributed to the existing condition and are considered in the affected 

environment. Present and reasonably foreseeable future actions are assessed along with 

the effects of the proposed action to determine whether significant cumulative effects 

may occur. This analysis is consistent with the Council on Environmental Quality memo 

107
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

from James L. Connaughton titled “Guidance on the Consideration of Past Actions in 

Cumulative Effects Analysis” dated June 24, 2005, incorporated by reference. 

In order to understand the contribution of past actions to the cumulative effects of the 

proposed action and alternatives, this analysis relies on current environmental conditions 

as a proxy for the impacts of past actions. This is because existing conditions reflect the 

aggregate impact of all prior human actions and natural events that have affected the 

environment and might contribute to cumulative effects. 

This cumulative effects analysis does not attempt to quantify the effects of past human 

actions by adding up all prior actions on an action-by-action basis. There are several 

reasons for not taking this approach. First, a catalog and analysis of all past actions would 

be impractical to compile and unduly costly to obtain. Current conditions have been 

impacted by innumerable actions over the last century (and beyond), and trying to isolate 

the individual actions that continue to have residual impacts would be nearly impossible. 

Second, providing the details of past actions on an individual basis would not be useful to 

predict the cumulative effects of the proposed action or alternatives. In fact, focusing on 

individual actions would be less accurate than looking at existing conditions, because 

there is limited information on the environmental impacts of individual past actions, and 

one cannot reasonably identify each and every action over the last century that has 

contributed to current conditions. 

Additionally, the important residual effects of past natural events may contribute to 

cumulative effects just as much as human actions. By looking at current conditions, we 

are sure to capture all the residual effects of past human actions and natural events, 

regardless of which particular action or event contributed those effects. Third, public 

scoping for this project did not identify any public interest or need for detailed 

information on individual past actions. Finally, the Council on Environmental Quality 

interpretive memorandum cited above states, “agencies can conduct an adequate 

cumulative effects analysis by focusing on the current aggregate effects of past actions 

without delving into the historical details of individual past actions.” The cumulative 

effects analysis in this EIS is also consistent with Forest Service Regulations for 

implementing NEPA (36 CFR 220.4(f)). 

The Forest Schedule of Proposed Actions was reviewed to identify which current and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions on the Forest may be considered for cumulative 

effects analysis. Appendix C provides a list of these actions. A search of proposed timber 

harvest plans for future actions on private land with potential cumulative effects are noted 

in appendix C. 

Analysis areas vary by resource, so some ongoing or future actions are included in the 

cumulative effects analysis of some resources and not of others. Cumulative effects may 

include estimated effects from present logging (timber harvest, fuels treatments, road and 

landing construction and maintenance) and wildfire activities (e.g. suppression activities 

and the affected burn areas). Other actions may include but are not limited to fuels 

reduction and/or forest health projects in the vicinity. 

108
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Vegetation _____________________________________________ 

The purpose of this section is to assess the fire impacts to the vegetation on the landscape 

and determine what effects actions will have on increasing the likelihood and speed by 

which burned forested areas are regenerated as well as the consequences of not taking 

any action to accelerate the establishment of conifers on the landscape. Discussion of 

various scientific literature is incorporated to support the evaluation of effects from the 

stands to be treated with either salvage harvest, site preparation and planting, or some 

combination of each. 

Methodology 

Site visits to the project area by foresters and a silviculturist were conducted between 

October 2014 and December 2014. Remotely sensed data on vegetation burn severity 

were field-validated and potential treatment areas were identified. Stand data were 

collected using ocular estimates and plot data collection, as needed. 

Observations included the following: 

• Pre-fire stand condition of vegetation (growth, species composition); 

• Post-fire stand condition of vegetation; 

• Availability of natural seed sources on site and within natural seed distribution 

distance; 

• Availability of suitable snags for retention;

• Availability and suitability of hardwoods for retention; 

• Plantability (reasonable ability to plant conifers in an area), an estimate of 

physical effort needed to conduct artificial regeneration;

• Regeneration potential, an estimate of the potential for artificial regeneration; 

and

• Site class, aspect, and elevation estimates as they relate to artificial regeneration 

attributes and regeneration potential. 

Stand data were compiled from existing plots in the project area and used to simulate 

future stand conditions based on proposed treatments. The Forest Vegetation Simulator 

was used to estimate time needed to establish conifer-dominated stands. Northern spotted 

owl dispersal habitat characteristics were used as a threshold for considering a stand to be 

on a trajectory towards late-successional characteristics (diameter at breast height of 11.0 

inches, canopy cover 40 percent, percentage of conifer composition). In addition to using 

professional judgment and visual cues during site visits, the 1944 Wieslander vegetation 

mapping was used to assess historic species composition and conifer dominance 

throughout the project area (Kelly et al. 2005). Proposed units for planting were 

substantiated using this background information. 

Analysis Indicators 

• Acres treated (site prepared and planted) to promote conifer regeneration; 

• Percent of landscape treated to restore a mature stand of conifers within 60 years 

with and without future fire disturbance; and 

• Vegetation type regenerated in the short-term, and in the long-term.

109
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Spatial and Temporal Context 

Spatial bounding is limited to units within the project area considered for regeneration 

treatments (including salvage units, existing plantations, and select natural stands not 

included in salvage) and hazard tree removal along roads (areas where regeneration is 

likely to be affected by the project). The spatial area surrounding roads on which hazards 

trees may be removed averages an estimated 24 acres per road mile. 

Both short-term and long-term effects will be considered in this analysis. Short-term 

temporal bounding is the time period in which treatments occur from harvest activity, site 

preparation, and planting; this is about one to five years because effects on regeneration 

will begin to be visible during this time period. Long-term temporal bounding is for an 

estimated 40-100 years from project implementation and is based on the maximum time 

for reduction of surface woody fuels following fire (Peterson, Dodson and Harrod 2014) 

and computer-generated modeling that showed stand conditions approaching the desired 

late-successional characteristics.

Affected Environment 

Before the fires of 2014, vegetation types within the project area generally ranged from 

an oak/brush/grass type to well-stocked mixed conifers. Age classes ranged from 20 yearold plantations to late-successional forest. Using the existing vegetation layer provided 

from the CALVEG dataset, the size classes described in Table S-1 were distributed 

throughout the project area. California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) type is 

derived primarily from CALVEG type and relative cover of conifer and hardwood trees 

for various mixed conditions. It represents an estimate of the variation in stand conditions 

that existed before the fires. Table 3-1 displays the percentage of the project area that was 

classified by a specific size class prior to the fires as well as the percentage of each size 

class included within salvage units. Salvage treatments are only proposed for areas of 

moderate to high severity vegetation mortality (i.e. greater than 50 percent of trees firekilled on a unit level, based on Rapid Assessment of Vegetation Condition after Wildfire 

(RAVG)). Using the field-verified RAVG data, treatments are proposed on 28 percent of 

the area within the 185,000-acre burn that resulted in greater than 50 percent mortality 

(64,000 acres burned with more than 50 percent mortality). 

Table 3-1: Percentage of size classes within the project area 

CWHR 

Code

CWHR Size 

Class

Diameter at breast 

height

Percentage 

of diameter 

class within 

Project Area

Percentage 

that burned 

with greater 

than 50 

percent 

mortality

Percentage that 

burned with 

greater than 50 

percent 

mortality within 

proposed 

treatment units

1 Seedling tree <1.0" 1 percent <1

2 Sapling tree 1.0" - 5.9" 6 percent 2 

3 Pole tree 6.0" - 10.9" 16 percent 4 1 

4 Small tree 11.0" - 23.9" 41 percent 11 3 

5 Medium/large 

tree

>24.0" 25 percent 6 2 

110
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

CWHR 

Code

CWHR Size 

Class

Diameter at breast 

height

Percentage 

of diameter 

class within 

Project Area

Percentage 

that burned 

with greater 

than 50 

percent 

mortality

Percentage that 

burned with 

greater than 50 

percent 

mortality within 

proposed 

treatment units

6 Multi-layered 

tree 

A distinct layer of size 

class 5 trees over a 

distinct layer of size 

class 4 and/or 3 trees, 

and total tree canopy of 

the layers >60 percent 

(layers must 

have >10.0 percent 

canopy cover and 

distinctive height 

separation).

0 percent N/A

0 Not Determined / Not Applicable <1 percent 1 percent

The oak/brush/grass type is typically found on low-elevation sites on shallow, rocky soils 

located on southerly and westerly aspects which exhibit harsher conditions than on 

northerly and easterly aspects. As elevation increases, conifer species become more 

prevalent, primarily as a function of favorable environmental conditions for conifer 

survival and growth. Deeper, more developed soils than those at low elevations supported 

mixed conifer stands of Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, incense cedar, and sugar pine. 

Higher elevation sites within the project area lend themselves to favorable conditions for 

red fir and white fir survival and growth, with white fir becoming a substantial 

component of the mixed conifer type. Hardwood species, including Pacific madrone, 

California black oak, canyon live oak, Oregon white oak, tanoak, and bigleaf maple are 

generally a minor component of mixed conifer stand composition. 

The project is focused on areas that burned with moderate and high vegetation severity. 

High severity areas are characterized by total or near-total conifer crown consumption. 

Individual trees in this condition were either killed or damaged beyond their ability to 

survive. Within areas of moderate burn intensity, some crown consumption has occurred 

as a result of the fire but these areas are characterized by total or near-total crown scorch. 

The vast majority of crown-scorched trees have been killed by the fire or damaged 

beyond their ability to survive. Within areas of light vegetative burn severity, the impacts 

on conifers were often severe, especially to the smaller size and lower crown classes. 

Within the fire-burned area, approximately 70 percent of all the existing plantations 

survived the extreme fire conditions of the 2014 Fires. 

Understory vegetation has been totally consumed or top-killed throughout much of the 

project area; the degree of mortality is primarily a function of fire intensity. On areas 

burned at moderate to high intensity levels, mortality is essentially complete. On areas 

burned at low-intensity levels, if the fire was hot enough to consume the organic layer 

then understory vegetation, including conifer seedlings and saplings, were also killed. 

Light-seeded, prolific, early successional weed and grass species, having survived the fire 

in unburned pockets and perimeter areas, will rapidly reinvade burned areas. Wellestablished perennial root or rhizome species will likely re-sprout from existing root 

systems. Brush species, such as manzanita, snowbrush, deerbrush and whitethorn, are 

111
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

well-adapted ecologically to the fire-impacted ecosystems. Assuming fire intensity and 

duration at less than lethal levels, these species are capable of root collar sprouting. Brush 

seed, which may retain viability for 40-150 years in the duff layer, will germinate in 

potentially large numbers for 2-3 years after fire-scarification. Fire top-killed hardwood 

tree species, such as black oak, tanoak, madrone, and live oak are also capable of rootcollar sprouting. These species are able to take immediate advantage of a well-established 

root system, giving them the inherent capability to grow rapidly for early site dominance. 

There is an estimated 150,000 to 300,000 hundred cubic feet (ccf) (75 to 150 million 

board feet) of burned timber that may be removed. The removal of these dead trees will 

help ensure effective and timely restoration of burned treatment stands. Fire killed trees 

retain market value for approximately two years after the fire; smaller trees and smaller 

logs (less than 14 inches in diameter) lose value much more quickly than larger trees and 

logs (Lowell, Willits, and Krahmer 1992). The site is well roaded, making commercial 

removal of merchantable trees feasible. Without using the receipts from the sale and 

removal of dead trees, site recovery may be cost prohibitive. Planting without fuels 

reduction and site preparation would likely result in the loss of conifer plantations before 

they mature, given the median 8- to38-year fire return interval of the Klamath Province 

(Skinner, Taylor, and Agee 2006). 

Environmental Consequences 

Alternative 1 

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Under alternative 1, the entire burned area will be left to recover naturally. Severely

burned trees that survived the 2014 fire will continue to die for several years due to 

injuries to crowns and cambium tissue from the fire, drought stress, and post-fire insect 

attack of weakened trees. Natural regeneration of coniferous forest may occur in severely 

burned patches, but it will be highly variable. Larger burn patches will regenerate more 

slowly because of distances from seed sources. 

Successful natural regeneration in one to two decades, though highly variable, has been 

documented following stand-replacing fires in the Klamath Province within white fir, 

Douglas-fir, and Douglas-fir/tanoak stand types (Shatford, Hibbs and Puettman 2007; 

Joint Fire Science Program Final Report, Project 05-2-1-40 2009). Pine and mixedconifer associations were not sampled in the Shatford et al. study. More typically, 

vegetation is likely to go through an extensive time-period of hardwood- and brushdominated site occupancy (Zhang, Webster, Powers and Mills 2008). Reforestation will 

slowly occur naturally but may take many decades to replace brushfields (Zhang et al. 

2008). In larger patches where the majority of the trees were killed by the fire, reestablishment of forest cover would rely on natural regeneration and may take decades or 

longer. For the larger, contiguous areas of high-severity burn, distance from seed sources 

may further delay natural regeneration. In some cases of high-severity burn, there are no 

living conifer trees available to provide potential seed for potential natural regeneration 

for several miles. 

Overstory and understory vegetation which was killed but not consumed by the fire will 

remain, and over time contribute to higher fuel loadings (Peterson et al. 2014). Given the 

112
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

high residual fuel loading, probable length of time required for site dominance by 

conifers and the fire history, it is likely the area will re-burn before fire-resilient trees can 

become established. 

Suitable lands for conifer regeneration will be re-occupied, generally by brush and 

hardwood species. Without salvage, site preparation and planting, severely burned stands 

will likely be replaced by shrubs and brush (Skinner, Taylor and Agee 2006); 

regeneration of conifers and restoration of forested wildlife habitat may take decades. 

Lands unsuitable for conifer growth will re-vegetate through natural successional 

processes. Grasses, forbs, brush, and hardwoods will continue to dominate these sites for 

many years. Without reforestation efforts, these areas will re-vegetate primarily as areas 

of grass, shrubs and some hardwoods, resulting in a loss of the conifer forest habitat that 

previously existed, for an indefinite period of time. Conifers will generally consist of 

scattered individual or small groups of ponderosa pine, sugar pine, knobcone pine, 

Douglas-fir, incense cedar, and white fir. 

Although natural regeneration of conifer species has occurred elsewhere, following more 

typical wildfire site conditions, the project area has a higher percentage of acres burned at 

high intensities than more typical historic patterns, resulting in prolonged regeneration 

periods and variable stocking patterns on unplanted sites (Shatford et al. 2007). Assuming 

large, stand-replacing fires will continue to occur, long-lasting early-seral plant 

communities will increase within the project area primarily because more area is burned 

at higher intensities than historic patterns predict (Skinner et al. 2006). Although post-fire 

observations may indicate surprisingly prolific regeneration, even on severely burned 

sites, natural regeneration establishment in local wildfires in the past led to desired 

stocking levels typically only being met around the edges of the fire where a good seed 

source is still intact (Bonnett, Schoettle, and Shepperd 2005). The remaining standing 

dead trees would be a hazard to new plantations, forest visitors, and forest workers as 

dead trees fall or create increased fuel on the ground. 

The likelihood and time required for conifer regeneration is affected by bark beetle 

infestations. Alternative 1 has a sizeable risk of bark beetle population increases, 

primarily because all stressed trees remain. This results in the maximum potential habitat 

source for beetles, and the maximum potential loss of living trees as the insect population 

moves into lightly burned areas and adjacent green stands. Lesser levels of mortality are 

anticipated in stands outside the fire-affected area than in the project area but some 

increase in beetle infestation is expected among live trees. Experience from previous 

wildfires indicates that an outbreak can be intense for the one to two years post-fire.

Cumulative Effects

Adding the effects of alternative 1 to those of current and reasonable foreseeable future 

actions listed in appendix C will provide no measurable cumulative effects to the extent 

and time required for conifer regeneration. 

Alternative 2

Direct and Indirect Effects

Salvage Harvest and Reforestation

113
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Salvage harvest, most of which will have subsequent site preparation and planting, will 

occur on an estimated 6,800 acres or about four percent of the National Forest System 

land within the project area. Proposed acres of salvage and planting are in areas that 

primarily burned with high severity effects on vegetation. High severity burn areas have 

very few seed-cone capable trees remaining to provide natural seedling capability. 

Without salvage and planting, these areas will likely not regenerate satisfactorily for 

many decades. The techniques used for salvage harvest, site preparation and planting, and 

the number of acres proposed for each technique, are displayed in chapter 2. For the 

purposes of this analysis, trees within salvage units that have a 70 percent or greater 

probability of mortality from fire damage are considered fire-killed and may be 

harvested; trees that have greater than 30 percent probability of surviving are considered 

green and will be retained unless they pose an eminent threat to safety or must be 

removed for safe and efficient logging operations. Salvage harvest unit boundaries may 

include riparian reserves and patches of green trees that burned with lower severity but 

these areas will not be harvested. Acres salvage-harvested and site-prepared will be 

planted with a variety of coniferous species to ensure diversity, and will be released from 

competing vegetation within a year or so of being planted. Salvage harvest, followed by 

site preparation, planting, and release gives the highest likelihood of successful conifer 

regeneration. Twenty-eight percent of the landscape that burned at moderate to high 

severity will be treated to achieve mature conifer stands.

If fuels are treated effectively, and the area is planted, the amount of time needed to 

restore the site to a sustainable coniferous forest may be reduced. Removing large trees 

by salvage alone is not sufficient fuel treatment. Research has shown that plantations 

established in areas with high slash loadings burned severely, while those where residual 

slash had been adequately treated burned with much less intensity or not at all 

(Thompson, Spies and Ganio 2007; Weatherspoon and Skinner 1995). Therefore, 

effective fuel treatment is an essential component of sustainable reforestation in the 

Klamath Province (Peterson et al. 2014). Research has shown that the quickest way to 

reestablish a coniferous forest after stand replacement fire is by active reforestation (Rose 

and Haase 2005). Aggressive reduction of residual fuels will be necessary to prevent 

future fire events from becoming stand-replacing fires that destroy planted seedlings. 

Research has shown fuel treatments increase the likelihood of the planted trees surviving 

future fires (Weatherspoon and Skinner 1995, Omi and Kalabokidis 1991). Heavy 

residual fuels need to be reduced substantially to help assure sustainability of plantations. 

Follow-up reforestation surveys will be completed to assure that the reforestation 

objectives are achieved.

Since most of the fire-burned areas will be allowed to regenerate naturally (only four

percent will be salvage harvested and another five percent will be site prepared and 

planted outside salvage units), many acres of lands suitable for conifer growth will 

continue to be understocked or non-stocked by conifers, possibly for decades. These 

suitable lands will generally be re-occupied by brush and hardwood species. Substantial 

snag stocking will remain on these reforested lands. Low-impact site preparation 

methods, which create fewer suitable planting spots, combined with losses inflicted by 

falling snags, and limited access, result in generally poor chances for conifer reestablishment on these sites.

114
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Lands unsuitable for conifer growth will also re-vegetate through natural successional 

processes. Grasses, forbs, brush, and hardwoods will continue to dominate vegetation on 

these sites.

Natural Stand Areas Reforestation and Conifer Plantation Reforestation outside Salvage 

Units

In addition to salvage harvest acres site-prepared and planted, selected natural stands and 

conifer plantations that became non-stocked or understocked as a result of the 2014 fires 

will be site-prepared and planted with implementation of alternative 2. Natural stand and 

conifer plantation site preparation and planting will occur on an estimated 7,900 acres 

(five percent of National Forest System lands in the project area). Proposed acres of site 

preparation and planting are primarily in high severity burn areas that have very few 

seed-cone capable trees remaining to provide natural seedling capability. Thus, without 

site preparation and planting, these areas will likely not regenerate conifers satisfactorily 

for many decades. Techniques and acres assigned to each technique are displayed in 

chapter 2.

Roadside Hazard Tree Removal

Hazard tree removal is not a silvicultural treatment to promote conifer regeneration. 

Hazard tree felling, and where appropriate, removal, is proposed to address public and 

administrative safety concerns due to the risk of trees falling onto roads. Where hazard 

tree removal overlaps with proposed salvage harvest units, the effects are the same as 

salvage effects. Hazard tree removal where it does not overlap with proposed salvage 

harvest units will decrease fuel loading and, therefore, potential fuels hazard; this will 

indirectly promote conifer regeneration. Where seed sources are adjacent to roadside 

hazard removal areas, it is likely that natural regeneration will occur. 

Cumulative Effects

The projects added to the effects of the past actions (the affected environment) and the 

direct and indirect effects of the proposed project are portions of the Elk Thin project 

(underburning), the Happy Camp Fire Protection project, Phase 2 (roadside buffer) and 

the Thom-Seider Vegetation Management and Fuel Reduction project (various 

treatments). When combined with the direct and indirect effects of the proposed salvage, 

site preparation, and planting treatments, the end result would be an increase in acres 

treated for hazardous fuels reduction, an increase in acres of roadside treatments and an 

increase in acres of planted conifer stands set on a trajectory towards establishing 

resilience to fire, insects, and disease and towards achieving northern spotted owl 

dispersal, foraging and nesting/roosting habitat characteristics. The objectives of the 

proposed project are in concert with those proposed by these overlapping projects which 

may no longer be implemented within the project area due to changes in conditions. 

However, given the desired condition of resilience and fuels reduction, the proposed 

treatments will beneficially increase the magnitude of the effects of these fuels reduction 

activities. 

Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect Effects 

115
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Effects of alternative 3 will be the same as for alternative 2 for areas in which salvage 

harvest is implemented (5,800 acres, about four percent of the National Forest System

lands within the project area). Twenty-six percent of the landscape that burned at 

moderate to high severity will be treated to achieve mature conifer stands. Effects of site 

preparation and planting outside of salvage units are the same as for alternative 2. Effects 

of areas that are not salvage-harvested will be the same as those in alternative 1. 

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects for alternative 3 are the same as for alternative 2 for areas in which 

salvage harvest is implemented. Effects of site preparation and planting outside of 

salvage units are the same as for alternative 2. Effects of areas that are not salvageharvested are the same as those in alternative 1.

Alternative 4

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Effects of alternative 4 will be the same as for alternative 2 for areas in which salvage 

harvest is implemented (5,900 acres, about four percent of the National Forest System 

lands within the project area). Twenty-six percent of the landscape that burned at 

moderate to high severity will be treated to achieve mature conifer stands. Effects of site 

preparation and planting outside of salvage units are the same as for alternative 2. Effects 

of areas that are not salvage harvested will be the same as those in alternative 1. 

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects for alternative 4 are the same as for alternative 2 for areas in which 

salvage harvest is implemented. Effects of site preparation and planting outside of 

salvage units are the same as for alternative 2. Effects of areas that are not salvageharvested are the same as those in alternative 1.

Alternative 5

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Effects of alternative 5 will be the same as for alternative 2 for areas in which salvage 

harvest is implemented (1,900 acres, one percent of the National Forest System lands 

within the project area). Effects of site preparation and planting outside of salvage units 

are the same as for alternative 2 except site preparation and planting will occur on only 

3,860 acres of matrix lands (two percent of the National Forest System lands within the 

project area). Fourteen percent of the landscape that burned at moderate to high severity 

will be treated to achieve mature conifer stands. Effects of areas that are not salvage 

harvested will be the same as those in alternative 1. 

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects for alternative 5 are the same as for alternative 2 for areas in which 

salvage harvest is implemented except on fewer acres. Effects of site preparation and 

planting outside of salvage units are the same as for alternative 2 except on fewer acres. 

Effects of areas that are not salvage harvested are the same as those in alternative 1.

116
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Comparison of Effects 

Alternatives 1 and 5 will, in time, result in reestablishment of a coniferous forest (Zhang 

et al. 2008; Shatford et al. 2007); however, that forest may not be sustainable in terms of 

fuels and fire history because residual fuels will not have been treated or will only have 

been treated in part. It may also take decades to reach that stage (Zhang et al. 2008).Given 

the fire return interval of the Klamath Province and the fuels present on the site, a stand 

replacement re-burn is likely simply because it takes so long for a coniferous forest to 

reestablish itself. Without fuels reduction and active reforestation in these conditions, reburns where fuels are heavy tend to be stand replacement events (Skinner et al. 2006; 

Weatherspoon and Skinner 1995). The result will likely be a loss of forest cover in this 

area and a conversion to brush/hardwoods. 

Analysis indicators for each alternative are compared in table 3-2. 

Table 3-2: Comparison of analysis indicators for each alternative

Treatments Alternative 

1 

Alternative 

2 

Alternative 

3 

Alternative 

4 

Alternative 5

Acres treated (site 

prepared and 

planted) to 

promote conifer 

regeneration

0 14,700 13,700 13,800 5,700

Percent of 

moderate to high 

severity burned 

landscape 

restored to a 

mature stand 

within 60 years

0 28 percent 26 percent 26 percent 14 percent

Type of vegetation 

likely to 

regenerate in:

Short-term

Grass, 

forbs, brush

Brush, 

hardwoods, 

young 

conifers

Brush, 

hardwoods, 

young 

conifers

Brush, 

hardwoods, 

young 

conifers

Brush, hardwoods, 

some young conifers 

within matrix lands

Type of vegetation 

likely to 

regenerate in:

Long-term

Brush, 

hardwoods, 

isolated 

patches of 

conifers

Mature, 

mixed 

conifer 

stands

Mature, 

mixed 

conifer 

stands

Mature, 

mixed 

conifer 

stands

Brush, hardwoods, 

mature mixed conifer 

within matrix lands;

isolated conifers in 

late successional 

reserves

Compliance with law, regulation, policy, and the Forest Plan

All alternatives are in compliance with law, regulation, policy and the Forest Plan in 

relation to vegetation as displayed in the Forest Plan consistency checklist. Silvicultural 

prescriptions under action alternatives comply with the Forest Plan. Salvage, site preparation 

and planting are all methods for establishing desired conifer stocking with some level of fire 

resilience once seedlings are established.

Fire and Fuels __________________________________________ 

This section provides a synopsis of the effects of the project on fire behavior potential 

and resistance to control of future wildland fire activity across the project area. 

117
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Methodology

Overview of Methodology

The fire and fuels report takes into consideration the three elements that affect fire 

behavior: fuels, weather, and topography. The interactions of these elements present 

potential issues to vegetation and fire suppression capabilities. Although all of the 

elements are important, the project realistically can only affect the fuels element. A 

combination of field-collected data, geospatial data, fire modeling, professional 

judgment, and literature review was used to provide a landscape level picture of potential 

fire behavior and analyze environmental consequences of the project to fire and fuels. 

Using Behave Plus and FlamMap fire behavior modeling programs, fire behavior outputs 

were generated to compare alternatives over time. Post-fire stand data were collected in 

areas that burned with high, moderate and low severity effects. The collected data were 

entered into the Fire Management Analyst (FMAPlus 3) model to quantify canopy and 

tree bole biomass loading. These data were used to enter into a snag-fall and decay model 

that quantifies potential surface fuel loads overtime as snags weaken, break and/or fall 

over. Selected stands were also evaluated using the Forest Vegetation Simulator along 

with the Fire and Fuels Extension of Forest Vegetation Simulator to project future surface 

fuel loads over time. More detailed information and modeling assumptions for each 

program are provided in the fire and fuels resource report, available on the project 

website.

Literature and case studies were reviewed to examine similar landscapes with regard to 

fire behavior, severity, and resistance to control. Conflicting scientific knowledge on the 

effects of post-fire fuels treatments is discussed in the resource report.

Analysis Indicators

Analysis indicators used to evaluate effects of the project include potential fire hazard 

and resistance to control; these are measured by flame length, fireline intensity, rate of 

spread, and surface fuel loading. 

Fire hazard is defined as “a fuel complex, defined by volume, type condition, 

arrangement, and location, that determines the degree of ease of ignition and of resistance 

to control”(National Wildland Coordination Group, 2014). 

Measurement indicators to assess fire hazard include flame length, fireline intensity, and 

rate of spread as fire modeling predicts fire behavior based on surface fuels less than 

three inches in diameter). Fuels larger than 3” in diameter are not used in fire modeling 

programs to display potential fire behavior outputs but are important indicators of 

resistance to control. 

Flame lengths are a visual indicator of fireline intensity; as flame lengths increase, 

fireline intensity increases (see the body of the fire and fuels resource report). 

Byram (1959) defined fireline intensity as the rate of heat energy release per unit time per 

unit length of fire front, regardless of the depth or width of the zone of active flaming 

combustion. With respect to fire suppression, fireline intensity is how hot the fire is 

burning and how close resources can be to the fire; fireline intensity is used to forecast 

whether to use direct or indirect firefighting tactics. 

118
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Resistance-to-control is generally viewed as an estimate of the suppression force required 

for controlling a unit of fire perimeter. For example, “high” resistance to control means 

“slow work for dozers, very difficult for hand crews; hand line will be difficult”(Brown,

Reinhardt, & Kramer, 2003).. 

Surface fuel loading by fuel size category is evaluated as a measure of resistance to 

control. To quantify potential intensity of large fuels (greater than three inches in 

diameter) Byram’s (1959) fireline intensity equation and surface fuel loadings (tons/acre) 

of zero to three inch and three to ten inch diameter material is used to measure resistance 

to control related to fireline production capabilities of fire suppression resources (see the 

body of the fire and fuels resource report).

Spatial and Temporal Context

This analysis is limited to the spatial extent of the project area because effects on fire and 

fuels can be accurately estimated within this area. 

Short-term analysis is considered at one to five years post-fire; long-term analysis 

extends out to greater than 20 years to model the potential effects of standing snags, 

downed wood and subsequent surface fuel loading over time. 

Affected Environment

Few forested regions have historically experienced fires as frequently and with such high 

variability in fire severity as the Klamath Mountains Bioregion(Taylor & Skinner, 1998) 

which includes the project area. Within the project area, lightning has accounted for 74 

percent of ignitions and 82 percent of burned acres in the project area. Median fire return 

interval ranged from eight to 38 years (Taylor, Skinner, & Agee, 2006). A great portion 

of the landscape remained unburned between 20 to 100 years prior to the 2014 fires. 

Approximately 26 percent of the area burned by the 2014 fires experienced high severity 

fire effects. High severity fire areas experienced crown fire activity resulting in full 

consumption of ground, surface and aerial canopy fuels. High severity crown fires result 

in high levels of tree mortality, consuming leaves and small branches but leaving the 

boles largely intact (Ritchie, Knapp, & Skinner, 2012). At the ground and surface fuel 

level, duff and needle cast, small branches and large downed woody material were fully 

consumed; in the canopy full consumption of leaf and needle foliage occurred leaving 

standing dead trees and barren soils (see the body of the fire and fuels resource report). 

Overall, the impact led to high levels of tree mortality. 

Low to moderate severity fire areas experienced a mix of mortality. Generally surface 

fuels within the understory were fully consumed along with burning smaller trees and 

understory vegetation. Where heavy concentrations of fuels burned under the overstory 

canopy, needles were scorched, turned brown and remain within the overstory fuel 

complex. Overtime, needle cast, and small branch wood will fall to the forest floor 

accumulating sufficient fuel loadings to support the ignition and spread of fire. 

The high density of fire-killed trees within the project area presents a unique hazard to 

firefighters and promotes future problem fire behavior as these trees are both ember 

producers and receptors to fire ignition. Over time, fire hazard and resistance-to-control 

are expected to change as dead trees fall and new vegetation is established across the fire 

119
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

area, contributing to surface fuel loading, fuel structure and arrangement, and subsequent 

fire behavior.

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects

No direct effects are anticipated under alternative 1 since no planned activities will occur. 

In the short term, fire spread and intensity are expected to be restricted due to a lack of 

surface fuel loads to support fire spread and a lack of heavy fuel accumulations to affect 

fire intensities.

Indirect effects will occur over the course of a ten to 20 year timeframe as a result of 

alternative 1. Standing snags may retain a substantial amount of biomass that will 

contribute to surface fuels over time as snags fall(Ritchie, Knapp, & Skinner, 2012). 

Areas that supported high and moderate fire severity present future fire hazard within ten

years. Dead trees will continue to decay, break and fall, contributing to surface fuel 

loading and increasing fire hazard (detailed information in the body of the fire and fuels 

resource report) displayed as projected fuel loads over a 50-year time period. Fuel 

loading in the tables is separated by size class (less than 3” and greater than 3” in 

diameter). Material less than three inches in diameter is a main driver of fire ignition and 

spread, and material greater than three inches influences fire intensity and resistance to 

control. 

Forested vegetation that supports large trees intermixed with shade tolerant small 

diameter trees presents a high hazard and subsequent high fire severity in the future as 

smaller fuels accumulate to increase fire ignition and spread. Large fuels contribute to 

sustained ignition during the flaming front and subsequent duration “burn-down” time as 

fuels smolder and are consumed, retaining high intensities for longer periods of time. 

Low severity fire areas where mortality rates within the understory are low have the least 

potential for increased surface fuel loading over time due to the lack of snags that 

accumulate on the surface and lack of shading to reduce shrub growth. Table 3-3 

provides a summary of flame length and intensity over a 50-year period and potential 

change in condition across the landscape with this alternative. 

Over the course of a 50-year period, surface fuel accumulation is expected to occur from 

two sources: (1) new vegetation that establishes and grows over time, and (2) 

accumulations from snags as they fall. Forested areas are anticipated to re-establish into a 

non-forested vegetation composition of shrubs and forbs (see Vegetation section) and in 

turn contribute to fire ignition and spread potential. Over the course of time, it is 

anticipated that fireline intensities from stored standing material that fall and accumulate 

on the surface will exceed intensities of 6,000 British Thermal Units per foot per second 

(btu/ft/sec). Fireline intensities may be greater than 10,000 btu/ft/sec in extreme fire 

events. As shown in the fire and fuels resource report, these are intensities that promote 

fire activity conducive to major fire runs, crown fire activity, and spotting. Re-burn 

within these locations will have a high probability of burning at high severity again due 

to the fire intensity and duration as larger fuels are consumed after the flaming front has 

passed.

120
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

High fireline intensities and snags promote problem fire behavior and high resistance to 

control resulting in the need for large quantities and types of resources. Snags promote 

fire spread via spot fire ignition and, coupled with large down logs, present high 

resistance to control as fireline production rates (constructed fireline) are slower in areas 

with high fuel loads. Since lightning is the predominate cause of ignition in the project 

area, there is a future concern that small fires will be difficult to control and will have a 

high probability of requiring large quantities of suppression resources. Under alternative 

1, control of future large fires will be difficult and time consuming in areas that have high 

densities of snags and surface fuel loadings. Fire managers naturally gravitate to strategic 

ridge systems, roads and natural barriers such as rivers and streams to control large fires. 

Increased time will be required to prepare control lines in areas that have numerous snags 

and large woody downed material, and longer times will be needed to hold and mop-up 

control lines to secure the fire perimeter. Under alternative 1, increased exposure to fire 

suppression resources will be anticipated due to increased line production and mitigating 

the increased densities of snags. 

Table 3-3: Potential fire behavior (by acreage) over the span of 50 years within the Westside Fire 

Recovery project area

Flame Length Fireline Intensity

Year < 4 feet 4 to 8 feet 8 to 11 

feet

> 11 feet < 100 

btu/ft/sec

100 to 

500 

btu/ft/sec

500 to 

1000 

btu/ft/sec

> 1000 

btu/ft/sec

1 198,633 6,494 2,298 7,593 192,647 6,140 4,439 11,792

10 80,739 98,039 10,875 25,365 75,407 108,685 17,659 13,267

50 40,906 40,259 24,510 109,343 35,849 74,944 51,839 52,386

Cumulative Effects 

Ongoing and foreseeable future actions in the project area are listed in appendix C. 

Alternative 1 will not supplement other present and/or reasonably foreseeable future 

projects that are planned to improve forest health, old growth desired conditions, fire 

resilience, and suppression effectiveness across the landscape. Additionally, difficulties 

may preclude future projects from either continuing or being planned due to the high 

density of snags within or adjacent to the Westside Fire Recovery project area. Using fire 

as a management tool in both the planned (prescribed fire) and unplanned setting may not 

meet desired resource objectives due to future fuel loading potential as well as the hazard, 

cost, and time needed to remove decaying hazard trees from planned control lines. This 

will be a limiting factor in future prescribed fire activities.

Concerns raised during public scoping regarding treating fuels adjacent to private lands, 

both those owned by timber companies and residential communities, will not be 

addressed. Fuel reduction activities planned by fire safe councils and other community 

organizations will occur. However, opportunities to develop fuel breaks on the Forest to 

connect with those proposed by adjacent land owners will not be recognized in 

alternative 1. 

The majority of the remaining burned area is owned by Fruit Growers Supply Company 

(FGS) and Michigan California Timber Company, and is located within the Beaver Fire 

area. Both of these companies are either currently treating or planning to treat their land 

by conducting salvage operations on their respective properties. It is understood that FGS 

121
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

is planning a series of fuel breaks within the ridge and road systems of the Beaver Fire 

area; their lands are intermixed with National Forest System land. Salvage operation of 

all trees is generally occurring on slopes less than 45 percent and commercial trees are 

being removed on slopes greater than 45 percent. After salvage operations are completed 

replanting is expected. It is also expected that herbicide treatments will be applied to the 

planted areas to reduce shrub growth. As a result of the operations expected on privately 

owned lands these lands are expected to be relatively fire safe. This is primarily due to 

the removal or reduction of most of the dead and dying trees on these lands. 

Alternative 2

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects

Salvage, Site Preparation, Roadside, Hazardous Fuels Treatments

Alternative 2 implements multiple types of activities to reduce snag densities and surface 

fuel loading. Alternative 2 also increases future fire management actions and fire 

resiliency. Post-fire logging can serve as an effective tool for managing fuel loadings in 

forests regenerating after high severity wildfires (Peterson, Dodson, & Harrod, 2014).. 

The direct effect of salvage harvest is reducing density of snags on the landscape

(Ritchie, Knapp, & Skinner, 2012)and subsequently reducing future accumulations of 

large diameter surface fuels as trees fall to the forest floor. 

Approximately 6,800 acres of salvage harvesting is proposed, which will reduce snag 

densities of trees equal to or greater than 14 inches in diameter at breast height (dbh). 

This action immediately removes larger diameter fire killed trees off-site while generally 

leaving un-merchantable tops and branches on the ground. Within these units, planned 

site preparation activities after salvage harvesting will cut remaining fire killed trees 

(equal to or less than14 inches diameter at breast height). To accomplish fuel reduction 

activities, slash remaining onsite will be reduced to a minimum of ten tons/acre (less than

3 inch diameter fuels), and/or structure and composition of the fuel bed altered, and will 

utilize a combination of methods including, machine and hand piling, broadcast burning 

and/or mastication.

Harvesting of trees are planned utilizing ground based, cable and helicopter logging. It is 

anticipated that there will be a delay between harvesting activities and associated fuel 

reduction activities. During this time frame, greater accumulation of surface fuels due to 

logging activities would be anticipated especially within cable and helicopter units where 

whole tree yarding is not planned. The short term effect of logging is an elevated surface 

fuel loading from broken tops and branch wood. The greatest fuel loadings post-harvest is 

expected to occur within helicopter units, followed by cable and ground based units. 

However, post logging activity breaks the structure and composition of the fuel bed. 

Upon completion of fuel reduction activities, ground based units would be expected to 

reduce the greatest amounts of surface fuels due to the ease of facilitating piling and other 

fuels reduction activities on gentler slopes. Steeper slopes (greater than 40 percent) would 

be anticipated to require hand piling and or broadcast burning to achieve desired surface 

fuel loadings of less than 10 tons/acre. Compared to ground-based and cable units, within 

helicopter units or those areas on steep slopes, larger diameter (greater than 3” diameter) 

fuels may have increased loads as these fuels can be difficult to pile by hand.

122
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Piling and burning activities reduces fuel loading and breaks the continuity of fuel beds. 

Techniques including lop and scatter, and chipping or mastication alter the fuel bed and 

structure of fuels. Mastication is essentially the mulching or chipping of wood material. 

The direct effect of mastication includes changing the structure and composition of the 

fuel bed post fire. With no project activities implemented, surface fuels will increase over 

time as trees fall. As these trees fall in random patterns, fuels will essentially “crisscross” 

and result in some fuels resting on top of others, effectively increasing fuel bed height 

(see the body of the fire and fuels resource report). Higher surface fuel beds will be 

subject to wind and preheating of fuels lower in the surface fuel profile; thus, increasing 

potential fire behavior. Rather than having standing dead material that falls over time, 

chipped material will create a compact fuel bed in locations where mastication is 

identified as a treatment option under the proposed action (see the body of the resource 

report). Material will also be expected to decay faster with masticated material due to its 

proximity to the ground and being saturated for longer period of time during the winter 

months. 

Additional units identified for site preparation generally occur within plantations and 

natural stands in which trees are generally less than or equal to 14inches diameter at 

breast height. Similar effects related to reduction of fuel loadings will occur as described 

above due to the removal of trees during follow-up piling and burning activities. 

Snag retention will occur within riparian reserves and identified leave locations in units 

identified for treatment. No planned salvage harvest will occur in riparian reserves. Snag 

retention outside of riparian zones will utilize a clumping pattern in order to retain snags 

which will promote decreased surface fuel loadings outside of these zones. Within snag 

retention areas and riparian reserves, surface fuel loadings will mirror conditions outlined 

under alternative 1 (see the body of the resource report). 

Treating surface fuels upon completion of cutting activities will have a direct effect on 

reducing surface fuel loading, breaking up of continuous fuel beds and reduction in fuel 

bed depth. Post-fire logging produces a transient pulse of elevated surface woody fuel 

loadings followed by a much longer period of reduced surface woody fuel loadings 

relative to burned stands that are were not logged. Peterson, Dodson, and Harrod (2014) 

found that post-fire logging altered post-fire fuel succession by (1) greatly accelerating 

the deposition of surface woody fuels from logged snags, (2) reducing peak loadings of 

large diameter woody fuels, and (3) initiating the woody fuel decay earlier. 

Ritchie, Knapp and Skinner(2012), evaluated salvaged units following the Cone Fire on 

the Lassen National Forest. They found that after four years higher levels of surface fuel 

accumulations occurred in lower intensity salvage plots. The highest surface fuel 

accumulations occurred in un-salvaged plots four to eight years after the fire. 

Furthermore, the highest levels of large woody debris were associated with un-salvaged 

areas. A key finding observed by Ritchie, Knapp and Skinner (2012) found no support for 

the debate that post-fire salvage logging necessitates subsequent fuel treatment for 

elevated fuels. Under the proposed action, activity generated slash will be piled and 

burned reducing surface fuels to levels consistent with low severity fire effects. 

Post-logging fuel treatments, such as piling and burning, can rapidly reduce total amounts 

and spatial continuity of surface woody fuels, and may allow logged stands to serve as 

fuel-breaks in a landscape-level fire management strategy (Peterson and Harrod 2010). 

123
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

After the initiation and completion of the proposed action surface fuels present will 

consist of the approximate tonnage in each of the size classes, not including large 

material (downed logs) left on site for wildlife or watershed purposes: 

• 1 hour fuels (0 to 1⁄4 inch): 0.6 tons per acre 

• 10 hour fuels (1⁄4 to 1 inch): 2.3 tons per acre 

• 100 hour fuels (1 to 3 inches): 3.4 tons per acre 

Post treatment activities under alternative 2 are expected to significantly reduce large 

surface fuel accumulations in the future compared to alternative 1. The Fire and Fuels 

resource report displays projected surface fuel loads predicted over a 50-year period, 

based on completion of implementation actions. While modeling predicts an expected 

increase in surface fuels less than 3 inches diameter at breast height as compared to the 

alternative 1, after implementation of proposed activities, modeling results predict that 

within ten years alternative 2 will continue to promote low accumulations of surface fuel 

loadings. Comparatively, taking no action significantly elevates surface fuels for decades. 

See Figure 3-1which shows a representative stand from the Walker Creek Drainage with, 

and without salvage harvest and treatment of activity fuels. Salvage logging and 

treatment of activity fuels significantly reduces future fuel loading, particularly in fuels 

greater than 3inches in diameter. 

Figure 3-1: Representative stand from the Walker Creek Drainage with, and without salvage harvest 

and treatment of activity fuels.

124
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Roadside hazard treatments increase the safety of accessing the forest, by reducing the 

potential for dead trees to fall across National Forest system roads and within recreation 

sites. Trees removed offsite reduce surface fuel loadings adjacent to road systems and 

allow for safe ingress/egress within fire area road systems.

Hazardous fuels treatments occur both within the wildland-urban interface and strategic 

road and ridge systems which fire suppression resources used historically to control 

unplanned fires and implement prescribed fire activities. 

Proposed thinning with follow up pile burning, lop and scatter or chipping decreases 

surface fuel loadings to a desired conditions of less than ten tons/acre (less than three

inch diameter fuels), removes small diameter trees which reduces ladder fuels, and 

increases canopy base heights of retained green trees. Reduction in surface fuels in 

conjunction with increasing canopy base heights will reduce flame lengths and crown fire 

initiation of natural or planted trees.

Prescribed fire as a “second-entry” post fire is planned on approximately 11,570 acres. A 

mixed severity burn pattern occurred within units proposed for burning. Direct effects of 

prescribed fire include the consumption and subsequent reduction in surface fuels. 

Prescribed fire activities naturally prune the lower branches of trees by burning the live 

and dead needles and small branch wood effectively increasing the canopy base heights. 

Depending on seasonality, 100 and 1000 hour fuels (greater than 1” in diameter) and 

retained snags can be partially or fully consumed. A mosaic burn pattern will be expected 

due to post fire burn severity patterns. 

Fire Behavior Synopsis

When compared to alternative 1, proposed treatments in alternative 2 effectively reduce 

fuel loading in the short and long term which in turn reduces fire behavior. Similar fire 

behavior is expected for the first one to three years due to the lack of surface fuels to 

support the spread of fire. However, immediate actions taken to reduce standing dead 

trees will reduce fire behavior (flame length, fireline intensity, and spot fire potential) 

long term.

Within ten years, reductions in surface fuel loadings, as a result of planned activities, 

have the potential within proposed treatment areas to: 

• Reduce flame lengths less than four feet 

• Reduce fireline intensity less than 100 btu/ft/sec 

• Decrease spot fire activity through removal of snags and future fuel loading 

• Effectively produce fire behavior such that persons using hand tools can 

generally attack fires at the head or flanks and handline is sufficient to hold the 

fire.

The type of fire behavior predicted under alternative 2 will enable ground crews to use 

direct attack within the units proposed for treatment. Untreated portions of units, such as 

Riparian Reserves, snag retention pockets or unburned islands from prescribed fire 

activities, will be expected to produce flame lengths less than four feet and fireline 

intensities less than 100 btu/ft/sec. 

Reforestation efforts will have better chances of survival due to anticipated surface fuel 

load reductions within planted areas. Using empirical data for northern California forests, 

125
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Weatherspoon and Skinner (1995) found that when wildfire in natural plantations spreads 

to an adjacent plantation, fire intensity and damage to the overstory are much lower in 

plantations where slash has been removed following logging(Peterson, et al., 2009). Until 

tree age and canopy base heights increase younger conifer and hardwood stands will be 

susceptible to re-burn and subsequent mortality, even under alternative 2. Younger trees 

have thinner bark and low canopy base heights allowing for easier transition to crown fire 

even with predicted flame lengths at less than four feet over the majority of the proposed 

units. However, after the removal of large surface fuels, higher survival will be expected 

within stands that continue to have management activities to maintain desired fuel 

conditions, and as trees increase in size and canopy base heights. 

Using projected flame lengths of alternative 1 (see the fire and fuels resource report) and 

alternative 2 (also detailed in the resource report) along with the relationship of critical 

flame length needed to generate crown fire activity based on canopy base height (see the 

resource report), it is anticipated that fuel reduction treatment activities proposed will 

decrease potential crown fire activity as trees increase in size and shed their lower 

branches either naturally or through pruning activities. Figure 21 in the fire and fuels 

resource report displays predicted flame lengths of alternatives 1 and 2 along with critical 

surface flame lengths required to generate crown fire activity based on the canopy base 

heights of trees. The reduction of surface fuel loading along with the change in the 

structure and composition of the fuel bed are anticipated to reduce fire behavior 

comparatively to taking no action, thus, allowing trees to have increased survivability as 

canopy base heights increase over time. One figure in the resource report also shows the 

susceptibility of trees to fire; until trees are able to increase in size along with shedding 

their lower limbs increasing their separation from surface fuels they remain susceptible to 

fire caused mortality. 

Fire Suppression Capabilities

Removal of roadside hazard trees provides for safe ingress and egress to fires. The 

reduction of snags and subsequent fuel loadings modifies flame length and fireline 

intensity which enables direct attack and increases fireline production rates. Increasing

fireline production rates decreases resistance to control by removing large fuel 

accumulations. Moreover, a general reduction in snags will permit safer night-time 

fireline operations. Tables in the Fire and Fuels resource report compare potential 

resistance-to-control based on projected surface fuel loads. 

Project design features that outline clumping snags effectively achieve fire suppression 

capability. Clumped snags will allow resources to locate control lines around these areas 

and safely engage a fire with limited need to fall high densities of snags. Snag retention is 

planned in areas that are rarely used by fire managers to contain a large fire; for example, 

snag retention is planned on the lower one-third of slopes, and away from roads and 

ridgetops that are typically utilized by fire managers to control large fires.

By strategically applying varying post-fire logging treatments within landscapes, post-fire 

logging could reduce woody fuels and help reduce threats of future wildlife behavior to 

human health, property, and ecosystem services (Peterson, Dodson, & Harrod, 2014). 

The Kyburz Fire (Eldorado National Forest, 2013) provides an example of suppression 

success within a previously salvaged area. This fire started at the bottom of a slope within 

the South Fork American River. Diurnal winds fanned the fire up-drainage towards the 

126
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

community of Kyburz, (approximately 1 mile from the fire origin) and re-burned areas 

within the footprint of the Freds Fire (2004). Treatments within the Freds fire areas 

included post fire logging activities to help reduce future fuel loading and snag density. 

The lack of heavy dead and down fuels allowed fire suppression resources to continue to 

construct direct control lines, keeping a safety zone around them within the “black”. 

Salvage harvest activities in the previous Freds fire allowed for a lower intensity Kyburz 

fire, less exposure to hazard trees, and less exposure during mop-up activities (Johnson, 

2013). If direct fire suppression tactics had not been available, as a result of post Freds 

fire treatment and snag reductions, indirect line would have been required during 

nighttime operations, which would have only allowed for indirect fire suppression tactics 

and an increase in fire size (Jacobson, 2013). Resources, including aircraft, heavy 

equipment and personnel were safely able to drop water and retardant in open areas and 

construct line with minimal large woody debris. These tactics increased line production 

rates, and decreased resistance to control, allowing for resources to effectively work 

through the night to complete control lines and keep the fire from entering the community 

of Kyburz. 

Fuel treatments within the wildland urban interface promote safer firefighting actions and 

public evacuation, should a future large fire occur within the project area. Eliminating 

high snag densities and treating surface fuels within the WUI has an indirect effect on 

reducing sources for embers, spotting, and receptive fuel beds. These indirect effects are 

a benefit in alternative 2, when compared to alternative 1, where no action is taken to 

reduce future available material. Additionally, increased spotting and radiation would 

make structures more difficult to defend from crown fire, as opposed to surface fire. 

(Cohen & Butler, 1996) (Scott & Reinhardt, 2001). 

Identified treatments in the WUI modify fire behavior such that fires are anticipated to 

spread slower, with flame lengths less than four feet, allowing responding resources to 

take direct action to control fires. These direct actions are effective due to the change in 

composition and structure of fuels, which promotes low resistance to control when 

compared to alternative 1.

The 2012 Goff Fire highlights the benefits of fuel treatments in which the objective is to 

reduce surface fuel loading and modify fire spread and intensity within the WUI. The 

Seiad Creek Road Shaded Fuel Break project, completed in 2009, was utilized as a 

control line for the Goff Fire. Fuels treatment contributed to easier holding and burning 

along Seiad Creek Road in the community of Seiad Valley (Osborne 2015). 

Both proposed salvage and hazardous fuels treatments outlined in alternative 2 will 

produce similar fire behavior, which could support fire suppression resources. 

Suppression resources would have opportunities to burnout, hold fireline and safely take 

action on any identified spot fires in the advent of a future large fire occurrence. 

Fuel treatments identified along strategic ridge and road systems will enhance future fire 

management activities including fire suppression, managing unplanned ignitions, and 

implementation of prescribed fire. Maintaining these treatments provides opportunities 

for fire managers to focus resources on priority locations, such as in the WUI. These 

treatments also provides opportunities to utilize confine and contain strategies on future 

fires where untreated areas still contain high densities of snags and inhibit safe work 

areas for fire suppression resources. 

127
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Cumulative Effects

The Westside Fire Recovery project, in conjunction with ongoing and foreseeable 

actions, has the potential to increase fire resiliency by managing both unplanned and 

planned fire ignitions across the landscape, as compared to alternative 1. Furthermore, 

fire suppression effectiveness is improved as future projects implemented adjacent to and 

within the project area increase the size and scale of treatments proposed under 

alternative 2. At the stand scale, post-fire logging reduces surface fuels over the long 

term, particularly in the large diameter size classes (greater than 3” in diameter), which 

should increase management options for applying prescribed fire treatments or allowing 

future wildfires to burn without causing excessive damage to the forest vegetation and 

soils (Peterson, Dodson, & Harrod, 2014). 

Communities affected by the 2014 fires continue to reduce fuels on private property 

located adjacent to National Forest System Lands. Alternative 2 complements many of 

these activities to improve fire resiliency, and provides opportunities to enhance the work 

performed by landowners to improve vegetation and fuel loadings. These combined 

actions promote less intense fire behavior and promote safer firefighting action in the 

future, within urban interface fires. The Scott Bar and Seiad Fire Safe Councils are active 

councils which have coordinated fuels treatments on private and public lands in the past 

and can be expected to continue these partnerships into the future. 

Private timberlands are currently in the process of salvage operations on lands affected by 

the 2014 fires. Treatments adjacent to private timberlands will increase the size and scale 

of treatment activities under alternative 2, as well as provide fuel breaks on prominent 

ridge and road systems that stretch across private and forest system lands within the 

Beaver Fire. Christmas Tree and Buckhorn Ridge systems are prominent ridgelines 

within the Beaver fire area that have historically been used to control large fire and where 

planned activities adjoin private and National Forest lands. 

Alternative 3

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects

The direct and indirect effects of alternative 3 are anticipated to be similar to those 

described within alternative 2, except on fewer acres of salvage harvest (about 5,800). 

Proposed activities are anticipated to reduce fire hazard and resistance to control. 

Additional snag recruitment may increase surface fuel loadings in the future where 

additional snags are left within units; however, within areas that receive treatment, 

surface fuel loading projections will be comparable to alternative 2. Project design 

features outlined to leave snags in a clumping pattern, as well as away from strategic fire 

management features (ridges, roads, etc.), will provide safe and effective fire suppression 

activities. Similar effects to those of alternative 2 are anticipated within the project 

boundary of the Happy Camp Complex and Whites fire areas. The smaller size and scale 

of treatment units within these areas will not reduce the benefits of treatments proposed 

with alternative 3.

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 3 does not include salvage harvest activity within the Beaver Fire project 

boundary. Therefore, opportunities to connect fuel treatments which adjoin private land, 

128
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

where salvage and fuel treatments are planned, to the treatments planned on private land 

are diminished due to the reduction of treatment activities. Ability to reduce fire spread 

and intensity across the landscape will be decreased. Adding the effects of alternative 3 to 

the effects of ongoing and reasonable foreseeable future actions is likely to have 

measurable effects on fire.

Alternative 4

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects

The direct and indirect effects of alternative 4 are anticipated to be similar to those 

described within alternative 2, except for fewer acres of salvage harvest (about 5,900 

acres). Proposed activities are anticipated to reduce fire hazard and resistance-to-control 

where treatments occur, and fuels reduction activities to reduce fuel loads to less than ten

tons/acre are expected. 

Cumulative Effects

Adding the effects of alternative 4 to the effects of ongoing and reasonable foreseeable 

future actions is likely to have measurable effects on fire similar to those of alternative 2. 

Treatments reduced under this alternative are intermixed within other proposed activities, 

which still allows for additional buffering to reduce fire spread and intensity adjacent to 

hazardous fuels treatments. 

Alternative 5

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects

Within units that receive treatment, direct effects are comparable to those described 

within alternative 2 with respect to reduction in fire hazard and resistance to control. 

Indirect effects vary by fire area due to the reduction in size and scale of salvage harvest 

activities. 

Within the Beaver fire area, additional fuel treatments added as proposed activities are 

anticipated to modify fire spread and intensity adjacent to private timberlands over a 

greater portion of the area when compared to alternative 2. Fire managers will also have 

increased fuel breaks allowing future fire management options to control unplanned fires. 

Salvage treatments that will not occur within late-successional reserves are expected to 

significantly reduce opportunities to modify fire spread, especially within the Happy 

Camp and Whites fire areas. Many of the units removed under alternative 5 are located 

adjacent to strategic fire management features (ridges, roads, etc.). The reduction in the 

size and scale of treatments will most likely allow future fire activity to spread upslope 

due to anticipated fuel loading and subsequent fire behavior, which is expected to be 

comparable to alternative 1.

Approximately 3,600 acres are not treated in the WUI under alternative 5. Many of these 

areas are adjacent to critical control points and communities, for example Highway 96 

and the community of Seiad. A primary concern is that any future fires that start above 

the community and within snag patches and areas with high fuel loading will be more 

difficult to control and require greater time and effort from resources. 

129
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Cumulative Effects

Varying effects are anticipated based on fire area. Similar effects as described under 

alternative 2 are expected within the Beaver fire area, as there is little late-successional 

reserve in that area. Also, the additional treatments added in alternative 5 in the Beaver 

fire area will further enhance fuel treatment effectiveness at the landscape level due to the 

increase of size and scale of proposed treatments coupled with adjoin private land 

treatment activities.

Within areas that include sizeable acres of late-successional reserve, the reduction in 

salvage harvest activities will substantially reduce the size and scale of treatments at the 

landscape level. Future foreseeable fuels reduction projects may be precluded due to high 

density of snag patches left on the landscape, making some foreseeable projects difficult 

to implement. Adding the effects of alternative 5 to the effects of ongoing and reasonable 

foreseeable future actions is likely to have measurable effects on fire.

Comparison of effects

Table 3-4: Comparison of post-fire effects of alternatives on fire and fuels after ten years

Analysis 

Indicator

Measurement 

Indicator

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 

4 

Alternative 

5 

Fire 

Hazard:

Fuel 

loading of 

small 

material

(<3”) 

Acres with < 10 

tons per acre 14,000 44,800 40,800 41,100 35,200

Flame

Lengths

Acres with 

flame lengths < 

4’

14,000 44,800 40,800 41,100 35,200

Fireline 

Intensity

Acres with < 

100 btu/ft/sec 14,000 44,800 40,800 41,100 35,200

Rate of 

Spread Acres < 20ch/hr 14,000 44,800 40,800 41,100 35,200

Resistance 

to Control

Fuel 

loading of 

large 

material

(> 3”)

Acres with 

greater than 20 

tons per acre

14,000 0 0 0 0 

Compliance with law, regulation, policy, and the Forest Plan

All alternatives comply with law, regulation, policy and the Forest Plan pertinent to fire 

and fuels as displayed in the Forest Plan consistency checklist. 

Terrestrial Wildlife_______________________________________ 

The project is analyzed for its potential effects on wildlife species listed as Endangered, 

Threatened, or Proposed under the Endangered Species Act; designated critical habitat;

130
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Forest Service Region 5 Sensitive Species; Survey and Manage Species (under current 

consideration), Management Indicator Species, and Migratory Birds (MOU 2008). This 

section synthesizes the information and analysis for Threatened, Endangered, Forest 

Sensitive Species, Management Indicator Species, and compliance with Survey and 

Manage Species, and Migratory Species.

Methodology 

The analyses are based on the best21 scientific and commercial data available at the time 

this document was written. Information such as data collected from Forest databases, 

remote sensing vegetation analysis, the Forest existing vegetation (EVEG), direct field 

assessments, California Natural Diversity Database, and the most recent and appropriate 

scientific research and species information, was all used for the consideration of direct, 

indirect and cumulative effects. 

Threatened, Endangered, Proposed and Candidate species in the project area are 

identified using the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service list of Threatened, Endangered, 

Proposed or Candidate Species (Document #490143515-161248 retrieved on February 

11, 2015). The Forest Service (Pacific Southwest Region (Region 5)) Sensitive Species 

list (revised July 3, 2013) identifies the species to consider for this analysis. Using both 

lists, a determination is made of whether the species range overlaps the project area and 

whether habitat is likely to exist in the project area. If both are true, then the species is 

analyzed for the project. 

Special Habitat 

Peregrine falcons were delisted under Endangered Species Act in 1999. However, the 

falcon is not included in the Forest Service Sensitive Species or Management Indicator 

Species lists. Even though the peregrine falcon is considered to be recovered by the USDI 

Fish and Wildlife Service, the Forest Plan provision for Special Habitat Management 

Areas around peregrine falcon eyries for the recovery of the species by managing for high 

quality habitat has not been amended and will be followed. 

The project proposes fuels reduction treatment that occurs within the Special Habitat 

area. The treatment will reduce the risk of high severity fire and consequently maintain 

the existing habitat. Therefore, the proposed treatment is consistent with the management 

of this area and will not be analyzed further for this project. 

Analysis Indicators, Spatial and Temporal Context by Status of Species

Threatened and Endangered Species

Northern Spotted Owl

Risk to Reproduction

21 Best available science is defined as scientific literature that is relevant to the project and available to the 

reader and decision-maker.

131

 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Risk to reproduction is split into four categories representing the relative levels of effects 

resulting from each alternative. Using the existing quality and amount of habitat within 

each core and home range (activity center), the acres of suitable habitat (nesting/roosting 

and foraging habitat) are calculated as the existing condition for the activity center. The 

risk to reproduction for each activity center is categorized depending on the amount of 

habitat in the core and home range (see the Terrestrial Wildlife Biological Evaluation for 

details on categories). 

A high risk means that reproduction is not likely to occur. Moderate level represents the 

ACs that are likely to have difficulty in finding resources and these owls will likely need 

to transverse openings (areas without overstory tree canopy) or use areas of low habitat 

quality to find enough resources. These challenges may result in lower survival or 

reproduction potential for the pair occupying moderate level ACs. Low level ACs have 

enough habitat in the core and home range to support reproduction, but the habitat may 

not be ideally distributed in large patches of high quality habitat. The final category, very 

low, represents the habitat quality and distribution associated with successful 

reproduction over the species range. 

The spatial bounds of the analysis will be limited to the home ranges that overlap the fire 

perimeter plus the project area. The short-term (≤5 years) covers the time when the 

majority of snags will remain standing. The long-term (>10 years) includes the time when 

the snags will likely start falling, resulting in changes to the physical structure of the area.

Changes to Critical Habitat

The analysis estimates the number of critical habitat acres affected by each alternative. 

The use of post-fire burned areas for foraging is a point of disagreement in the literature 

because there is little evidence to support idea that these areas are actually being used for 

foraging; although owls have been found in these areas, there is no evidence that they are 

foraging. For the purpose of this analysis, due to the lack of information on how these 

burned areas are being used, use of post-fire burned areas for foraging will not be 

discussed further. Given the types of treatment proposed for this project that are likely to 

maintain or remove habitat, we focus the reporting of effects on downgrading and 

removing habitat. Habitat removal means the habitat prior to treatment will no longer 

function as NSO habitat after treatment. NSO habitat is generally described as a hierarchy 

in habitat quality with nesting/roosting being the highest quality and foraging and 

dispersal following in order; habitat downgrading signifies the lowering of a habitat 

quality from one level to the next. 

The spatial boundary is all of the areas designated as critical habitat within the analysis 

area. The analysis area is the same as the spatial bounds described in the Risk to 

reproduction. The temporal bounds will be the same as for Risk to Reproduction. 

Forest Sensitive Species 

Bald Eagle 

Level of Disturbance to Nest/Roost Sites

Disturbance will be assessed as a distance from the known nest sites. Any level of 

disturbance less than 1,000 feet from a known nest is a high level of disturbance. 

Disturbance that occurs between 1,000 feet and 1,500 feet of the nest is a moderate 

132
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

disturbance. A low level of disturbance is any noise producing activity that is farther than 

1,500 feet from known nests. For this analysis, a high level of disturbance will likely 

result in an eagle pair abandoning the nest. Moderate level of disturbance will result in 

the adults leaving the nest for a short period of time; this may result in delayed feeding of 

young or not incubating the egg(s). Low level of disturbance may result in the adult 

eagles displaying behavior indicating acknowledgment of the human activity but the 

adults continue to feed offspring. 

The spatial boundary of the analysis is known nest sites in the project area plus a 1,500-

foot buffer. The temporal bounds for the short-term will be the time during 

implementation (about five years) during the reproductive period (January 1 to August 1) 

and roosting period (November 1 to March 31); long term will be ten years.

Risk to Future Potential Nest Areas

The analysis indicator illustrates the risk to potential nest areas from the project activities. 

All salvage or roadside treatments are assumed to remove nesting habitat. If less than ten 

percent of the nesting habitat is removed, the level of risk is low. If between ten percent 

and 25 percent of the nesting habitat is removed, the risk is moderate; if more than 25 

percent is removed the risk is high. 

A low level of risk will result in a distribution of potential nest trees that will likely 

provide ample opportunity for a new nest site. Moderate level of risk will result in fewer 

potential nest trees. High level of risk may result in the eagle not finding another nest tree 

near the current nest tree; thus, the eagles may need to leave the drainage.

The analysis assumes that future potential nest areas will be within 0.5 miles of the 

known nests. If the nest is greater than 0.5 miles from the river then the analysis area 

includes the area between the buffer and the river as well. The temporal bounds for the 

short-term will be the time during implementation (about 5 years) and long term will be 

ten years.

Northern Goshawk

Level of Disturbance to Nest Sites

Loud noises further from the nest site are expected to create less disturbance than the 

same noise closer to the nest. Disturbance will be assessed as a distance from the known 

nest sites. If there are any treatments within 500 feet of a known nest site during nesting 

period (March through August), the level of disturbance is high. Treatments between 500 

feet and 0.25 miles of the nest during the nesting period will lead to a moderate level of 

disturbance; greater than 0.25 miles from known nests during the nesting period is a low 

disturbance. 

Low level of disturbance means that the nesting goshawk is not likely to respond to the 

noise; thus, the noise will not reduce the likelihood of the success of the nest. Moderate 

level of disturbance is likely to result in one of the adults alarm-calling and possibly 

flying toward the noise, thus reducing the time spent foraging to feed the offspring. A 

high level of disturbance will likely result in both adults moving toward the source of the 

disturbance and displaying aggressive behavior; this may lead to the nest being 

abandoned. 

133
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

The spatial boundary for the analysis is 0.25 miles from all known goshawk nest sites. 

The nest sites considered for this analysis have the foraging zone that overlaps the project 

area. The short-term and long-term temporal bounds are five years and 10 years, 

respectively. 

Risk to Reproduction

The amount and quality of nesting habitat can affect successful reproduction. Risk to 

reproduction is analyzed using the amount of habitat in each primary nest zone (0.5 mile 

from nest) and the foraging habitat zone (one mile from nest). The smaller the number of 

acres in each zone, the greater the risk to reproduction (see the Terrestrial Wildlife 

Biological Evaluation for details). 

A high level of risk will result in a nesting pair of goshawks not finding enough resources 

to successfully produce offspring and contribute to the population. A moderate risk may 

provide enough habitat to raise offspring but the pair may spend more time foraging for 

food; this may be more difficult for nests with more than one chick. A low level of risk 

will provide enough habitat and diversity of habitat to find sufficient resources to produce 

a successful nest. 

The spatial bound for the analysis is 1 mile from known goshawk nest sites. The nest 

sites considered for this analysis have the foraging zone that overlaps the project area. 

The short-term temporal bound is the time for project implementation (about five years) 

and the long-term temporal bound is ten years.

Fisher, Marten, and Wolverine

Fisher, marten, and wolverine occupy similar habitat of late-successional, dense conifer 

forest. These species are commonly found at different elevations with some overlap. 

Fishers are commonly observed on the lower 2/3 of the slope while martens occupy 

higher elevations with true fir vegetation types. Wolverines have not been observed on 

the Forest for several years. There is very little information on wolverines in California, 

but wolverines are suspected to use the true fir to alpine zones. However, all three of 

these species move across the landscape and use higher or lower elevation conifer forests 

even though the elevation being used may be outside the average elevation range for the 

particular species.

Connectivity of Habitat

For this analysis, connectivity will be assessed by measuring the change in gap distance 

between areas that provide the necessary cover to avoid predation. 

• High level of connectivity is when the average gap distance is less than 160 feet. 

• Moderate connectivity is when the average gap distance is between 160 and 460 

feet. 

• Low connectivity is when the gap distance is between 460 and 600 feet; very low 

connectivity is when gap distance is more than 600 feet. 

High connectivity means that there is sufficient habitat to provide cover for fisher, 

marten, and wolverine moving within a 7th field watershed. Moderate connectivity means 

there is some challenge to the species moving within a 7th field; this increases the risk to 

mortality and requires extra expense of energy to deviate around large openings. Low 

connectivity presents a great challenge because these species are likely to shift their 

134
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

territory to a more contiguous placement of habitat or move through areas with little to no 

cover. The final category, very low connectivity, represents a situation where openings 

exceed the gap distance that would let these species move through a 7th field watershed; 

risk to survival is substantially increased. 

The spatial boundary for the analysis is the 7th field watersheds within the project area 

because this scale represents the area that is likely to affect movement within a home 

range or dispersal of individuals. The short-term temporal bound is the time during 

implementation (about five years). The long-term is >20 years to represent the time when 

the snags will begin to fall over and connectivity may decrease. 

Change in Home Range

The amount of habitat in each 7th field watershed is assessed for this analysis in its 

current post-fire condition. If more than 50% of the watershed contains denning/resting 

or foraging habitat, and more than 80% of the watershed contains denning/resting, 

foraging and movement habitat, the 7th field watershed contains a viable home range. If 

the watershed does not meet these criteria, it is assumed that the 7th field watershed does 

not contain a home range. 

The effect of a loss of a home range is difficult to estimate in terms of population 

viability. Habitat lost is difficult to replace and it may take many years before the area 

develops into habitat again. However, this analysis doesn’t use true home ranges; rather, 

the analysis provides a metric to display the potential effects. The loss of one home range 

may not have large effects on the population, but the loss of several home ranges can 

result in large effects to the population. 

The spatial bound is the 7th field watersheds that intersect the project area. The 7th field 

watershed is used because the size of the watershed fits within the range of a female 

fisher’s home range and it is a natural division in the landscape. 

Pallid Bat, Townsend’s Big-eared Bat, and Fringed Myotis 

Risk of Disturbance to Roost Sites

The project area doesn’t contain any known bat hibernacula or maternity roosts but does 

have caves and mines that can provide habitat for bats that do exist in the project area. A 

hibernaculum (plural: hibernacula) is usually a cave or mine that provides a constant 

temperature and protection for bats during the winter months. A maternity roost is a place 

where bats give birth and rear their young; maternity roosts can occur in a variety of 

structures such as caves or abandoned buildings. In order to account for the potential 

existence of an undiscovered hibernaculum and maternity site, geological mapping is 

used as a proxy to locate bedrock that typically contains caves (marble/limestone 

deposits). For mining activity, Forest mining data is used to identify the type of mine and 

locations. Using the combination of the geological data and mining data, a 250-foot 

buffer is created for a distance from all potential areas that may contain cave and cavelike structures (possibly containing a maternity roost or hibernaculum); the location of 

this buffer is overlaid with project activities for each alternative to estimate affects to 

these bat species.

If treatment occurred within 250 feet of the potential hibernaculum or maternity site, the 

risk of disturbance is high. If there is only treatment between 250 feet and 1,320 feet of 

135
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

the potential site, the risk of disturbance is moderate. If treatment occurs more than 1,320 

feet from the potential site, the risk of disturbance is low. 

High risk of disturbance may result in a maternity roost being abandoned with the fate of 

the offspring likely dependent on their age. High disturbance of a hibernaculum will 

likely result in all bat ages leaving the warmth of the cave to the colder outside; this may 

result in death of the bats. Moderate risk of disturbance is not likely to affect the 

maternity roost or hibernaculum but instead disturb individuals that come and go from 

the cave (excluding the winter months). Low risk of disturbance will be potentially 

moving a very few individuals from a foraging area but no disturbance of the 

hibernaculum or maternity roost. 

The spatial bound for these bat species is 0.25 miles around all potential hibernacula and 

maternity roosts within the project area. The temporal bound is about five years for the 

short-term representing the time during implementation and greater than ten years for the 

long-term.

Willow Flycatcher

Level of Habitat Alteration

This analysis will estimate the amount of habitat disturbed by the proposed activities; the 

level of effect will be presented in acres and in proportions of habitat affected, based on 

the 7th field watershed scale. Habitat for the species is assumed to be 3rd order streams 

(extent or location of resident trout used as a proxy) and wet meadows (mapped springs 

used as a proxy). If more than ten percent of the habitat is disturbed the level of habitat 

alteration is high. If between five percent and ten percent of habitat is disturbed, this is a 

moderate level of habitat alteration. If less than five percent of the habitat is disturbed, 

the level of habitat alteration is low. 

High level of habitat alteration will likely affect flycatcher reproduction for a given 7th

field watershed and possibly an entire population. Moderate level will likely affect a 

small number of territories and possibly affect a portion of a population. Low level of 

habitat alteration may affect individuals but the population is not likely affected.

The spatial bound is the 7th field watershed. The temporal bound in the short-term is 

about five years and long-term is ten years.

Siskiyou Mountains Salamander 

Risk of Disturbance

The Siskiyou Mountains salamander’s range overlaps one subunit (Happy Camp) of the 

project area. This area has been surveyed for the species and several known sites exist. 

Many of these known sites were affected by the 2014 wildfire. Treatment is proposed in 

areas that burned at high severity and have lost most or all the canopy cover. Even though 

canopy cover is considered a critical component for Siskiyou Mountains salamander 

habitat, canopy cover was not analyzed because very little canopy cover is expected to be 

affected by project activities. Instead, this analysis will focus on assessing the level of 

risk to local populations based on the amount of habitat disturbed by treatment. 

If more than 25 percent of the known sites are disturbed by the project, the risk of 

disturbance is high. If between 20 percent and 25 percent of known sites are disturbed, 

136
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

the risk of disturbance is moderate; if less than 20 percent of the known sites are 

disturbed, it is considered a low risk of disturbance. 

A high risk of disturbance would include a large proportion of known sites being affected 

by the use of heavy equipment during project activities that disturb habitat and likely 

result in negatively affecting the population. The moderate level may include effects to 

localized areas and the population as a whole but to a lower magnitude than high risk. 

Low risk will affect individuals but it is not likely to affect the population.

The spatial bound will be defined by a 130-foot buffer around all known sites. The 

temporal bound in the short-term is the time during implementation about five years. The 

long-term is greater than ten years.

Tehama Chaparral Snail 

Likelihood of Dispersal

Areas affected with high severity wildfire are not likely to support a snail population, and 

snails are likely to disperse to less-affected habitat. This analysis will use the pre-fire GIS 

habitat layer and known sites where snails have been located to identify treatment units 

that may contain snails. The amount of woody debris (>12 inches in diameter) will equate 

to the likelihood of snails being able to disperse to viable habitat. If there are more than 

seven logs (greater than 12 inches in diameter) the likelihood of dispersal is high. If there 

are five to seven logs per acre, the likelihood of dispersal is moderate. If there are fewer 

than five logs per acre, the likelihood of dispersal is low. 

High likelihood of dispersal means that there will be a sufficient amount of woody debris 

to provide cover and moist conditions for snails to move from one location to another. 

Moderate likelihood of dispersal will provide enough woody debris for snails to move 

through part of the area but open areas that impede movement or reduce potential 

survival are likely to be present. Low likelihood of dispersal means little continuous 

cover is present and there is a lower survival of individuals, with the possibility of 

severing connectivity between populations of snails. 

The spatial scale is the Happy Camp and Beaver project areas. The temporal scale is 

about five years, which is the time for implementation. Long-term is >20 years.

Western Bumble Bee

Level of Habitat Disturbance

The western bumble bee, like other species of bumble bees, is sensitive to habitat 

disturbance. In the project area, high-quality habitat for bees is likely to occur in the 

meadows where several species of flowering plants occur. Meadows also offer a high 

density of plants to provide additional structure and small animal burrows that bees also 

use for nesting. Heavy equipment and tree harvest are the most likely source of ground 

disturbance in this project. If more than five acres of meadow habitat will be disturbed by 

ground-based equipment, the level of disturbance is high. If one to four acres of meadow 

are disturbed, the level of disturbance is moderate. If less than one acre of meadow is 

disturbed, the level is low. 

A high level of disturbance will result in affecting at least one bee colony where 

reproduction will be compromised. Moderate level of disturbance will result in removing 

137
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

flowering plants or preventing bees from using an area because of activities. This will 

result in bees traveling further to find food resources if a colony is present within close 

proximity to the treatment. A low level of disturbance will be a temporary interruption of 

bee activities lasting a few hours but bees will return to the area.

The spatial bound is the meadows within the project area. The temporal bound in the 

short-term is about five years (during the period when implementation is expected to 

occur and bees may be disturbed) and long-term is ten years.

Management Indicator Species

The requirement to evaluate landscape and project-level impacts to habitat conditions 

associated with species associations and related management indicator species is 

identified in the Forest Plan (page 4-39). Habitat monitoring requirements are 

summarized in the Management Indicator Species Report Part I. “Habitats” are the 

vegetation types (for example, mixed conifer forest) and/or ecosystem components (for 

example, river and ponds) and special habitat elements (for example, snags) identified in 

the Forest Plan. “Habitat status” is the current amount of habitat on the Forest. For the 

post-fire assessment of habitat, the Rapid Assessment of Vegetation Condition after 

Wildfire (RAVG) data is used (see maps A-2, A-19, and A-24 in appendix A).

Project-level effects on management indicator species are analyzed and disclosed by 

examining the impacts of the proposed project on habitat for management indicator 

species by discussing how direct, indirect, and cumulative effects will change the 

quantity and/or quality of habitat in the analysis area for each habitat association. For this 

analysis, the following analysis indicators are used to determine the level of effects.

Hardwood-Associated Species

Change in hardwood habitat abundance

Overlaying treatment prescriptions for each defined treatment unit with the defined 

habitat results in estimating the acres of hardwood habitat affected by the treatment and 

the levels of effects to the habitat (whether habitat will be degraded or removed). 

Degraded hardwood habitat means that physical structures are changed to the point that 

the quality of the habitat is lessened. Removed habitat is no longer functioning as habitat 

as a result of proposed activities or events. For each alternative, the acres of habitat 

affected are reported for each habitat association.

Spatial bounding for the hardwood associated species is defined by the project area. The 

temporal bound for the hardwood associated species is five years for the short-term to 

include the expected time to complete implementation of the project. The long-term 

spatial bound is ten years which will capture the anticipated fire affected vegetation 

response (e.g. hardwood regeneration). 

Snag-Associated Species

Change in snag habitat abundance

138
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

The analysis of habitat is the same as for hardwood associated species except with a 

focus on snag habitats22. Spatial bounding for snag-associated species is defined by the 

project area. The temporal bound for snag associated species is five years for the shortterm to include the expected time to implement the project. The long-term spatial bound 

is ten years which will capture the anticipated fire affected vegetation response (e.g. the 

time for most or all snags to fall over).

Survey and Manage 

Each alternative is evaluated in terms of how the proposed activities will meet the 

requirements of the species-specific management recommendations if known sites of 

survey and manage species are present, and how the project will comply with the 2001 

Record of Decision (USDA 2001) and the 2001, 2002, and 2003 annual species reviews. 

Requirements of the 2001 Record of Decision include management of known sites as 

recommended by species review and conducting pre-disturbance surveys of potential 

habitat and managing any discovered sites for Siskiyou Mountain salamander and 

Tehama chaparral snail (both analyzed as sensitive species), and the blue-gray 

taildropper. It is assumed that pre-fire habitat that burned with high or moderate 

vegetation-burn severity is no longer habitat so pre-disturbance surveys will not be 

completed. The analysis indicator for effects on survey and manage species is the number 

of known sites affected by the project activities. 

For action alternatives (2, 3, 4, and 5) the spatial boundary will be limited to the 

treatment units. For alternative 1, the spatial boundary will be the same as alternative 2 

since this alternative has the maximum footprint of treatment. The short-term temporal 

bounds will be limited to the time for each activity to be implemented which is about five 

years. The long-term bound will be 20 years. 

22 Snags ranging in diameter and distribution in the project area were created by the 2014 fires. The current 

conditions resulting from these fires include a particular type of habitat that is favorable to some wildlife 

species. One of those species, the black-backed woodpecker, occurs in the snag species association for this 

project. It is a well-studied species that uses stands of dense trees that are affected by high-severity fires. 

Although habitat for black-backed woodpeckers may be affected by this project, the snag association was 

chosen as a management indicator to represent the use of true fir habitat, not the use of fire-affected areas. 

Therefore, effects of the project on snag associated species are analyzed based on the assigned habitat type 

for each species as described in the Forest Plan.

139

 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Table 3-5: Analysis Indicators, Spatial and Temporary Boundaries by Species

Species Status Analysis 

Indicator

Spatial Boundary Temporal Boundary

Northern spotted 

owl 

Federallylisted as 

Threatened 

Risk to 

Reproduction

Home ranges that overlap 

fire perimeter 

Short-term = < 5 years Longterm = >10 years

Changes to 

Critical Habitat

Area designated as critical 

habitat within the home 

ranges that overlap the 

fire perimeter

Short-term = < 5 years Longterm = >10 years

Bald eagle Forest 

Service 

Sensitive 

Level of 

disturbance to 

nest/roost sites

Known nest sites plus a

1,500-foot buffer around 

known sites in the project 

area

Short-term = < 5 years during 

reproductive period (Jan. 1 to 

Aug. 1) and roosting period (Nov. 

1 to Mar. 31) Long-term = >10 

years

Risk to future 

potential nest 

areas

Within 1⁄2 mile of known 

sites and the area 

between the nest and a 

river if the known nest is 

greater than 1⁄2 mile from a 

river in the project area

Short-term = < 5 years Longterm = >10 years

Northern 

goshawk 

Forest 

Service 

Sensitive 

Level of 

disturbance to 

nest sites

1⁄4 mile from all known 

goshawk nest sites 

(foraging zone overlap the 

project area)

Short-term = < 5 years during 

reproductive period (March 1 to 

August 31) Long-term = >10 

years

Risk to 

reproduction

1 mile from known 

goshawk nest foraging 

zone that overlap the 

project area

Short-term = < 5 years Longterm = >10 years

Fisher, Marten, 

Wolverine

Forest 

Service 

Sensitive 

Connectivity of 

habitat

7th field watersheds that 

intersect the project area

Short-term = < 5 years Longterm = >20 years

Changes in 

home range

7th field watersheds that 

intersect the project area

Short-term = < 5 years Longterm = >20 years

Pallid Bat, 

Townsend’s Bigeared Bat, 

Fringed Myotis

Forest 

Service 

Sensitive

Risk of 

disturbance to

roost sites

1⁄4 mile around all potential 

hibernaculum and 

maternities in project area

Short-term = < 5 years Longterm = >10 years

Willow Flycatcher Forest 

Service 

Sensitive 

Level of habitat 

alteration

Meadow and riparian (3rd

order streams or greater) 

within project area

Short-term = < 5 years Longterm = >10 years

Siskiyou 

Mountains 

Salamander

Forest 

Service 

Sensitive and 

Survey and 

Manage 

Species

Risk of 

Disturbance

130-foot buffer around all 

known sites in project 

area

Short-term = < 5 years Longterm = >10 years 

Tehama 

Chaparral Snail

Forest 

Service 

Sensitive and 

Survey and 

Manage 

Species 

Likelihood of 

dispersal

Boundaries of Happy 

Camp and Beaver project 

areas

Short-term = < 5 years Longterm = >20 years 

Western Bumble 

Bee

Forest 

Service 

Sensitive 

Level of habitat 

disturbance

7th field watersheds that 

contain meadow features 

in the project area

Short-term = < 5 years Longterm = >10 years

140
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Species Status Analysis 

Indicator

Spatial Boundary Temporal Boundary

HardwoodAssociated 

Species

Management 

Indicator 

Species

Change in 

hardwood 

habitat 

abundance

Project area Short-term = < 5 years Longterm = >10 years

Snag-Associated 

Species

Management 

Indicator 

Species

Change in 

snag habitat 

abundance

Project area Short-term = < 5 years Longterm = >10 years

Survey and 

Manage Species

Survey and 

Manage 

Species

Habitat 

protection

Potential treatment units Short-term = < 5 years Longterm = >20 years

Affected Environment

Threatened and Endangered Species

Northern Spotted Owl

Risk to Reproduction

Based on habitat in known cores and home ranges remaining after the 2014 fires, about 

80 percent of the activity centers analyzed in the project area is at a moderate or high risk 

to reproduction. The “high” risk activity centers in the project area are not likely to 

produce any offspring because the core and home range aren’t expected to provide 

enough of the resources needed to support the adults and offspring. Northern spotted owl 

breeding pairs in “high” risk activity centers may move to other locations with more 

habitat and possibly reproduce there. The “moderate” risk activity centers may produce 

offspring but the owl will likely need to use low quality habitat or unsuitable habitat to 

find enough resources. The “low” and “very low” risk levels contain enough habitat to 

support reproduction. 

Table 3-6: The level of risk to northern spotted owl (NSO) reproduction given the current condition of 

the core and home range for known activity centers

Risk to Reproduction Number of NSO Core/Home Range

Very Low 3 

Low 14

Moderate 51

High 12

Changes to Critical Habitat

The project area overlaps with four NSO critical habitat subunits: Klamath East 6 and 7 

and Klamath West 7 and 8. Given the 2014 fire severity and pre-fire habitat, KLE6 likely 

lost the least amount of habitat while KLE7 likely lost the largest amount of NSO critical 

habitat acres.

141
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Table 3-7: Critical Habitat Acres by Northern Spotted Owl Habitat Type

Critical Habitat 

Subunit

Critical Habitat area 

in Analysis Area

Northern spotted owl habitat types

Nesting/roosting Foraging Dispersal

KLE6 7,693 1,996 1,579 1,381

KLE7 41,513 7,944 8,466 7,967

KLW7 26,462 2,334 6,009 7,853

KLW8 27,548 6,273 7,174 6,069

Forest Sensitive Species 

Bald Eagle 

Four bald eagle nest sites and three winter roost sites are known to exist along the 

portions of the Klamath and Scott Rivers that occur within the project area. All four nest 

sites have been active recently and are likely to continue to be active. 

Although the 2014 fires burned large areas, only two of the four nest sites were burned. 

One eagle nest near Seiad Valley and one nest near Hamburg had a mix of fire severity in 

the area near the nest site. Although fire can kill the nest tree, a dead tree can continue to 

support a nest for many years. The four nest sites contain about 322, 244, 354, and 197 

acres, respectively, of trees large enough to support a future nest if the trees have the 

desired characteristics. The winter roost sites are less predictable because the eagles don’t 

appear to have a dedicated tree or clump of trees in which they roost but rather use a 

general area. 

Northern Goshawk

Eleven goshawk nests have been occupied at some point in the last twenty years within or 

near the project area. All eleven nests have been affected by the 2014 fires but the level 

of effects to habitat from the fires is variable. Consequently, only one of the eleven nests 

meets the Forest Plan standard and guideline (page 4-29) for habitat minimums. Unlike 

most of the nests, this nest is mostly outside the fire perimeter and the fire created only 

small changes in habitat abundance. 

Fisher, Marten, and Wolverine

Fishers appear to be common on the west side of the forest and there have been many 

observations of fishers near or within the project area over the last 20 years. General 

surveys have been conducted on the west side of the Forest using baited trip cameras and 

positive detections have been made at many of the stations within the project area. 

Despite many attempts with camera traps, wolverines have not been detected on the 

Forest for several years. The last recorded observation was in the early 1980’s according 

to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife database. There are sixteen

documented detections of wolverines on the Forest but no den sites or evidence of 

reproduction has been found. The lack of recent detection may be related to a lack of 

wolverines or to the elusive nature of the species. 

142
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Marten are not likely to occur in the project area but their habitat does exist at higher 

elevations (>4,500 feet) in the project area; for purposes of this project analysis, the 

assumption is made that marten are present at >4,500 feet elevation.

Connectivity of Habitat

For this analysis, 67 7th field watersheds were analyzed, none of which have high habitat 

connectivity, partly or mainly due to the 2014 fires that removed many acres of habitat 

and the number of naturally occurring openings in the project area. Almost half (30) of 

the watersheds have moderate connectivity while the remaining 37 watersheds have low 

(16) or very low (21) habitat connectivity. Past fires that created large openings in a given 

watershed are among the causes of the number of watershed with low or very low 

connectivity. 

Change in Home Range

The 67 watersheds analyzed for this project include 25 watersheds with enough habitat to 

support a home range or contribute to a home range. The remaining 42 watersheds have 

too many open areas (many of which were created by the 2014 fires) or do not have 

enough acres of denning/resting and foraging habitat. 

Pallid Bat, Townsend’s Big-eared Bat, and Fringed Myotis 

The project area contains no known bat hibernacula or maternity roost sites and there are 

no records of these three species existing in the area. Although the occurrence of a bat 

hibernaculum or maternity roost is unlikely to occur, habitat is available since bats use 

open buildings, bridges, mines, or caves, all of which are present in the project area. In 

the analysis area, there are 58 sites identified containing a cave, mine, or the potential to 

contain either of these structures.

Willow Flycatcher

The distribution and amount of willow flycatcher reproduction is not well known on the 

Forest but reproduction is possible. Willow flycatchers are assumed to be present for the 

purposes of this analysis; if reproduction occurs, it is most likely in riparian reserves in 

generally 3rd order streams or larger waterways. Although many acres of riparian habitat 

were burned at high severity by the 2014 fires, the larger waterways are not likely to have 

burned with high severity effects. Patches of willow habitat were consumed by the fire 

while other areas were not burned or burned with low-severity effects. Generally, the 

effect of fire on potential willow flycatcher habitat is mixed and patchy in most areas 

while habitat is completely removed in a few areas.

Siskiyou Mountains Salamander 

The Siskiyou Mountains salamander has a narrow species range; about 25% of its range 

overlaps the Happy Camp fire-related area. There are 48 known sites within the project 

area and many of these sites occur in areas of small-sized talus with dense conifer canopy 

cover that creates cool, moist conditions. Most of these sites have experienced high and 

moderate severity fire from the 2014 fires that removed all or most of the tree canopy 

cover. The lack of canopy cover will likely create conditions at the sites that are hot and 

dry. Changes in temperature and moisture will likely make conditions difficult for the 

salamanders to persist but vegetation that is left or returns and large woody debris may 

143
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

offset these conditions. These sites have not been surveyed after the fire but it is likely 

that these sites are still occupied. 

Tehama Chaparral Snail 

The Tehama chaparral snail is not common on the Forest but has been found in talus 

habitat with canopy cover from conifer or hardwood trees. There are three known sites of 

the snail in the project area. Generally, known sites are located on southerly aspects close 

to riparian areas. The area outside the riparian areas around the known sites is much drier 

than the area within riparian areas; therefore, riparian areas are likely to be important for 

this species. The general area that appears to best fit the snail habitat description burned 

mostly at low and moderate severity in riparian areas during the 2014 fire. Given the 

association of this species with riparian habitat, the species may have pockets of 

remaining high quality habitat. 

Western Bumble Bee

The western bumble is likely to occur over much of the Forest although it has only been 

incidentally observed. The actual distribution of the bee on the Forest is not known. 

Although the species is not exclusively associated with meadows, there is a strong 

relationship with its habitat needs and meadows. Meadows can occur on the Forest at 

almost any elevation possible, but the majority of the meadows in the project area occur 

above 4,000 feet in elevation. The elevation range and the differences in aspect can 

provide bumble bees with a diversity of flowering plants. 

Management Indicator Species

Hardwood-Associated Species

Hardwood habitat abundance

The project area contained about 10,000 acres of hardwood habitat before the 2014 fires; 

about 50% of these acres burned with high to moderate severity effects. Hardwoods that 

burn at high severity are usually a complete loss of habitat for the hardwood-associated 

species. This doesn’t mean that these species will not enter a hardwood stand that burned 

with high severity effects to retrieve their food caches but the lack of canopy cover in 

these areas doesn’t provide much escape cover to avoid predation. Plus, these species rely 

on the acorn mast as a food source; without live hardwoods, these species may need to 

move to other areas in search of food. However, some of the hardwoods do re-sprout 

after a fire and may produce a mast in about ten years. Hardwood re-sprouting is already 

evident in the project area. 

Snag-Associated Species

Snag habitat abundance

The project area contained about 130,000 acres of mid to late-seral forest before the 2014 

fires; about 40% of these acres burned at moderate and high severity. Habitat shifted to 

early seral or low quality habitat with an increase in snag density as a result of the fires.

Many of the cavity-nesting, snag-associated species that potentially occur in the project 

area have interdependent and complex life cycles that rely specifically on this habitat 

144
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

type. The abundant selection of snags can provide primary cavity nesters the opportunity 

to construct several cavities that will in turn provide secondary cavity nesters more 

potential nest sites.

Survey and Manage 

Prior to the fire, a large portion the project area likely provided habitat for survey and 

manage species. However, in the area that burned with moderate and high severity effects 

in the 2014 fires, with the loss of canopy cover, decaying large coarse woody debris and 

leaf litter to provide micro-site conditions, persistence for most of the mollusk and 

salamander sites is not likely. Therefore, only habitat that burned at very low and low 

severity is expected to contain the survey and manage species. 

Table 3-8: Affected Environment Summary

Species Status Analysis 

Indicator Measurement Results

Northern 

spotted owl 

Federallylisted as 

Threatened 

Risk to 

Reproduction

Number of cores/home 

ranges with very low risk 1 

Number of cores/home 

ranges with low risk 18

Number of cores/home 

ranges with moderate 

risk 

11

Number of cores/home 

ranges with high risk 50

Northern 

spotted owl 

Federallylisted as 

Threatened

Changes to 

critical 

habitat

Acres by habitat by 

critical habitat unit:

KLE6 = 7,693; KLE7 = 41,513; 

KLW7 = 26,462; KLW8 = 

27,548

Nesting/roosting KLE6 = 1,968; KLE7 = 6,921; 

KLW7 = 2,149; KLW8 = 5,875

Foraging KLE6 = 1,545; KLE7 = 8,074; 

KLW7 = 5,458; KLW8 = 6,837

Dispersal KLE6 = 1,376; KLE7 = 7,925; 

KLW7 = 7,638; KLW8 = 5,947

Bald eagle Forest 

Service 

Sensitive 

Level of 

disturbance 

to nest/roost 

sites

Number of known 

nesting sites and acres 

of trees large enough to 

support a future nest

Four sites, two of which burned

Risk to future 

potential nest 

areas

Number of known winter 

roosting sites Three winter roost sites

Number of known 

nesting sites with acres 

of trees large enough to 

support a future nest

Four sites: 322, 244, 354 and 

197 acres

Northern 

goshawk 

Forest 

Service 

Sensitive 

Level of 

disturbance 

to nest sites

Number of occupied 

nests and number that 

meet habitat minimums

11 sites known to be occupied 

in last 10 years; 1 nest mostly 

outside fire perimeter that meets 

habitat minimum after 2014 fires

145
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Species Status Analysis 

Indicator Measurement Results

Fisher, 

Marten, 

Wolverine

Forest 

Service 

Sensitive 

Connectivity 

of habitat Watershed analyzed and 

connectivity determined

67 watershed analyzed; 0 have 

high habitat connectivity; 30 

have moderate connectivity; 16 

have low; and 21 have very low 

connectivity

Changes in 

home range

Watershed with habitat 

to support a home range

25 watersheds

Pallid Bat, 

Townsend’s 

Big-eared 

Bat, Fringed 

Myotis

Forest 

Service 

Sensitive

Risk of 

disturbance 

to roost sites

Known hibernacula and 

maternity sites and 

potential sites

0 known sites; habitat possible 

in 58 mines, bridges and caves 

but these are unlikely to provide 

structure for bats

Willow 

Flycatcher

Forest 

Service 

Sensitive 

Level of 

habitat 

alteration

Riparian areas 

associated with 3rd order 

streams

Habitat removed by fires in only 

a few areas; mixed and patchy 

in most areas

Siskiyou 

Mountains 

Salamander

Forest 

Service 

Sensitive 

and Survey 

and Manage 

Species

Risk of 

Disturbance

Known sites and 

remaining habitat

48 known sites and the 2014 

fires removed most or all of the 

tree canopy cover leaving very 

little habitat; sites are unlikely to 

be occupied

Tehama 

Chaparral 

Snail 

Forest 

Service 

Sensitive 

and Survey 

and Manage 

Species 

Likelihood of 

dispersal

Known sites and 

remaining habitat

3 known sites in areas that 

burned at low and moderate 

severity. High quality riparian 

habitat may remain

Western 

Bumble Bee

Forest 

Service 

Sensitive 

Level of 

habitat 

disturbance

Meadow habitat

Some habitat remaining, 

primarily above 4,000 feet in 

elevation

HardwoodAssociated 

Species

Management 

Indicator 

Species

Change in 

hardwood 

habitat 

abundance

Hardwood habitat quality 

remaining after fires

10,000 acres before 2014 fires 

but little habitat remaining that 

has adequate canopy cover in 

the 50% that burned with 

moderate to high severity; future 

re-sprouting in 10 years

SnagAssociated 

Species

Management 

Indicator 

Species

Change in 

snag habitat 

abundance

Snag habitat quality 

remaining after fires

130,000 acres of mid- to lateseral forest provided habitat 

before the 2014 fires, 40% of 

which burned at moderate to 

high severity resulting in low 

quality habitat or a shift to early 

seral habitat with an increase in 

snag density

Blue-gray 

Taildropper

Survey and 

Manage 

Species

Habitat acres

Acres of habitat

Little habitat remaining after 

2014 fires except for areas that 

burned at very low and low 

severity

146
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Environmental Consequences

Threatened and Endangered

Northern Spotted Owl

Alternative 1

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects 

Alternative 1 will not plant any trees or create fuel breaks to protect the project area from 

future wildfires. Northern spotted owls lost a large part of their habitat in the project area 

as a result of the 2014 fires. Planting can play an important part in expediting the forest 

regeneration and development of northern spotted owl critical habitat. Fuels treatments 

can also aid in reducing the likelihood of additional northern spotted owl habitat burning 

at high severity. 

Risk to Reproduction

Alternative 1 will not directly affect this indicator because there are no treatments to 

remove or degrade any northern spotted owl habitat. Almost all the activity centers 

analyzed in this project will continue to accumulate fuels resulting from the burned trees 

falling over. Regeneration of habitat will likely take more than 100 years to develop into 

high quality northern spotted owl habitat, and this slow development of habitat will only 

happen as long as high severity fire doesn’t interrupt forest development. The slow 

habitat development is especially difficult for the 12 or more activity centers that were 

heavily affected by the 2014 fires; habitat in these activity centers is highly unlikely to 

provide the needs for reproducing northern spotted owl. 

Changes to Critical Habitat

Critical habitat for the northern spotted owl overlaps a large portion of the 2014 fires; a 

large number of critical habitat acres were burned at high severity. The loss of critical 

habitat often coincides with the loss of the better habitat for the owl. Alternative 1 will 

not affect northern spotted owl critical habitat. The lack of treatment will retain all the 

remaining habitat and important legacy structures to aid in the development of owl 

habitat by providing physical structure as the stand regenerates. Since northern spotted 

owls and their prey rely on these structures to fulfill their needs for survival and 

reproduction, the maintenance of large trees and large woody debris will increase the 

quality of future owl habitat. 

Cumulative Effects 

Risk to Reproduction

Many of the on-going and future actions (as summarized in appendix C) remove or 

downgrade habitat. The removal or downgrading of habitat is not enough, however, to 

shift the level of risk for any of the activity centers in the analysis area from that 

described in the affected environment so adding the effects of these actions to the effects 

of alternative 1 will not measurably affect reproduction. 

Changes to Critical Habitat

The result of the cumulative actions for alternative 1 is an effect on about 542 acres of 

critical habitat in subunit KLE7. The remaining three subunits have no cumulative effects 

for this analysis indicator from the affected environment so adding the effects of these 

147
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

actions to the effects of alternative 1 will continue the amount of critical habitat on a 

negative trend (about 2% reduction of critical habitat in the analysis area). 

Alternative 2

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects 

Risk to Reproduction

All the known activity centers within the analysis area will have some type of treatment 

in the home range but the level of effects will vary. For analysis indicator 1, three activity 

centers met the “very low” criteria before treatment and alternative 2 will not affect this 

activity center’s risk level. However, one activity center moved to a higher risk level 

from moderate level. The remaining activity centers did not move in risk level. 

Changes to Critical Habitat

Alternative 2 will result in the removal of critical habitat within all four NSO critical 

habitat subunits. The combined roadside hazard and fuels treatment will remove trees that 

pose a risk to human safety including fire-affected trees and trees not affected by fire. 

Despite the prescription of only removing trees that meet the hazard criteria, several trees 

are expected to be removed thus reducing canopy cover and other habitat characteristics 

in the project area. However, not every acre of roadside hazard treatment contains habitat 

and not every acre of habitat receiving roadside hazard treatment will result in habitat 

removal. Therefore, the estimate of effects to northern spotted owl critical habitat is 

likely an overestimate because it is assumed that roadside treatment will downgrade or 

remove critical habitat occurring within the treatment.

Cumulative Effects 

Risk to Reproduction

The direct and indirect effects of alternative 2 plus the effects resulting from other actions 

within the analysis area do not change the risk level for any of the activity centers. The 

risk level does not change due to the other actions, not because the actions do not have an 

effect but because most of the activity centers with other actions are already at the highest 

level of risk for this analysis. These activity centers will continue to have a high risk to 

reproduction and reproduction is not likely to occur in these activity centers so the 

cumulative effects of adding the effects of alternative 2 to the effects of other actions will 

not have a substantial effect on reproduction. 

Changes to Critical Habitat

For this analysis indicator, the cumulative effects of adding the effects of alternative 2 to 

those of other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions will result in 

additional acres of critical habitat being removed. The direct and indirect effect of this 

alternative (about 1,205 acres of nesting/roosting, foraging, and dispersal) plus the effect 

of actions from other projects (about 553 acres of nesting/roosting, foraging, and 

dispersal) will remove about 1,758 acres of critical habitat (nesting/roosting, foraging, 

and dispersal) totaling about 2% of the nesting/roosting, foraging, and dispersal for the 

portion of critical habitat in the analysis area (table 3-9).

148
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Table 3-9: Change in Critical Habitat Acres for Alternative 2

Critical Habitat 

Subunit

Critical Habitat 

area in 

Analysis Area

Change in NSO Critical Habitat from Current Condition

Nesting/roosting (ac)* Foraging (ac)* Dispersal (ac)*

KLE6 3,362 -5 0 -3

KLE7 36,408 -45 (-125) -120 (-283) -39 (-339)

KLW7 21,978 -84 -245 -196

KLW8 22,715 -322 -67 (-77) -79

Total 84,463 Loss of 456 (-536) Loss of 432 (-605) Loss of 317 (-617)

* The acres presented in the parentheses are the acres removed by the alternative and 

cumulative effects combined

Alternative 3

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects 

Risk to Reproduction

Alternative 3 will not treat several small salvage units scattered in the project area, 

including the Beaver Fire-based area. These units are small enough for NSO to likely fly 

across unlike large openings which increase the risk of predation. Even though the lack of 

treatment in these small salvage units reduces the number of habitat acres being affected 

by this alternative, the risk to reproduction is the same as alternative 2. Although each 

activity center is important for northern spotted owl recovery, the “very low” and “low” 

ranked activity centers are most likely to have reproduction and contribute to the 

population. 

Changes to Critical Habitat

The effects of alternative 3 on critical habitat are the same as alternative 2.

Cumulative Effects 

Risk to Reproduction

The direct and indirect effects of alternative 3 plus cumulative effects resulting from 

other actions within the analysis area will not change the risk level for any of the activity 

centers. 

Changes to Critical Habitat

The direct and indirect effects of alternative 3 plus cumulative effects resulting from 

other actions within the analysis area will be the same as for alternative 2.

Alternative 4

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects 

Risk to Reproduction

For this analysis indicator, the resulting level of risk to reproduction is the same as for 

alternative 2 but there are differences in acres of habitat affected. 

Changes to Critical Habitat

The effects of alternative 4 on critical habitat are similar to alternative 2 except fewer 

acres of critical habitat will be removed. The potential effect on current and future critical 

habitat is very similar to alternative 2. There is a loss of 1,195 acres of nesting/roosting, 

2,642 acres of foraging and 2,781 acres of dispersal. 

149
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Cumulative Effects 

Risk to Reproduction

The direct and indirect effects of alternative 4 plus effects resulting from other actions 

within the analysis area resulted in cumulative effects similar to those described for 

alternative 2.

Changes to Critical Habitat

The effects of alternative 4 on critical habitat are similar to alternative 2 except fewer 

acres of critical habitat will be affected. The direct and indirect effect of this alternative 

(about 1,179 acres of nesting, roosting, foraging, dispersal (NRFD) habitat) plus the 

cumulative effect (about 553 acres of NRFD) from other projects will remove about 

1,732 acres of critical habitat (NRFD) totaling about 2% of the NRFD for the portion of 

critical habitat in the analysis area.

Alternative 5

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects 

Risk to Reproduction

Alternative 5 has the least amount of area affected among the action alternatives. 

However, the risk to reproduction level for each activity center is the same as alternative 

2. 

Changes to Critical Habitat

The effect on critical habitat is the same as alternative 2.

Cumulative Effects 

Risk to Reproduction

The direct and indirect effects of alternative 5 plus effects resulting from other actions 

within the analysis area wouldn’t result in any shift in risk level from those presented in 

alternative 2. The cumulative effects of alternative 5 for risk to reproduction is the same 

as alternative 2.

Changes to Critical Habitat

The cumulative effects on critical habitat are the same as in alternative 2.

Forest Sensitive

Bald Eagle 

Alternative 1

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects 

Level of Disturbance to Roost/Nest Sites

The bald eagle nests within the project area will likely continue to provide nesting 

opportunity without treatment. The lack of treatment will have no effect on disturbing 

nesting eagles in the short- or long-term. 

Risk to Future Potential Nest Trees 

The current nesting trees will likely continue to stand and other possible nesting trees are 

available near the current nest site; thus, this alternative will result in no effect on future 

possible nest trees. In the long-term, the nest trees may still be standing and other 

possible nest trees will be available.

150
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Cumulative Effects 

There are no direct or indirect effects resulting from alternative 1, thus no cumulative 

effects.

Alternative 2

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects 

Level of Disturbance to Roost/Nest Sites

Alternative 2 will have treatment within 0.5 miles for all four bald eagle nest sites. 

However, only one nest site is within 1,500 feet of noise created by the proposed 

activities. The Caroline Creek eagle nest has salvage and roadside hazard treatment 

within 600 feet of the nest. In terms of this analysis indicator, the Caroline Creek nest site 

has a high risk of eagles abandoning the nest, if it is an active nest and noise is created 

during the nesting period. In order to mitigate this concern, a project design feature (in 

table 2-1 of chapter 2) will be used to avoid noise disturbance for all four nest sites by 

keeping noise producing activities far enough from the nest to avoid disturbance and/or 

avoid operating equipment during the nesting period. Therefore, the project design 

feature will minimize the risk of creating noise that may result in noise disturbance. 

Using the project design feature, the Caroline Creek nest level of disturbance would be 

low.

Risk to Future Potential Nest Trees

This analysis indicator examines the risk to future bald eagle nest sites. Ideally, eagles 

will have a large selection of large trees to select from in the near area of the active nest 

site in case a new nest tree is needed. Three of the four eagle nests have a small amount 

of treatment (less than four acres) that will remove potential future nest trees within the 

near area (defined in spatial bounds as the analysis area). However, the Caroline Creek 

eagle nest will have a large proportion of potential future nest trees removed from the 

nearby area. According to this analysis indicator, Donna, Muck-A-Muck, and Frying-pan 

eagle nests will have a low risk of affecting the future nest tree availability because of the 

small amount of treatment near them. Caroline Creek nest, however, will have a high risk 

of the eagle pair not finding a nest tree in the future if the eagles choose to move. 

Cumulative Effects 

Level of Disturbance to Roost/Nest Sites

The four nest site analysis areas contain planned activities from the Happy Camp Fire 

Protection, Thom Seider, and McCollins projects on the Forest; on private land, actions 

include one timber harvest plan (#87), and the Grider Creek non-industrial timber 

management plan. A project design feature will minimize disturbance of the eagle nest by 

limiting the time period any activity can occur on the Forest (outside the nesting period) 

or the planned activities are far enough from the nest to avoid disturbance. Therefore, the 

cumulative effect for this analysis indicator results in no disturbance effects from 

alternative 2 plus no additional effects of disturbance from ongoing or future projects 

because effects are minimized or the projects are so far away from the nests that no 

disturbance will occur.

Risk to Future Potential Nest Trees

The current or future activities within the analysis area total about 490 acres in this 

alternative but only about ten acres of treatment are expected to result in the loss of large 

trees that may provide future nest trees. Therefore, the acres affected and resulting risk 

151
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

assessment for the Muck-A-Muck, Caroline, and Frying-pan nests will remain the same 

as presented above and the Donna eagle nest will have three acres affected by alternative 

2. Adding these three acres to the ten acres affected by other projects results in 13 acres 

cumulatively affected. The Donna eagle nest will remain at a low risk to future potential 

nest trees.

Alternative 3

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects 

Level of Disturbance to Roost/Nest Sites

The effects for this analysis indicator in this alternative are the same as described for 

alternative 2. The project design feature will reduce the potential of disturbing nesting 

eagles, thus the risk of disturbance is low for alternative 3. 

Risk to Future Potential Nest Trees 

Like alternative 2, alternative 3 will have a low risk on future nesting trees for Donna, 

Muck-A-Muck, and Frying-pan nest sites. In this alternative, the Caroline Creek eagle 

nest has fewer acres of potential nesting trees affected than in alternative 2 but the risk is 

still elevated according to the analysis indicator criteria because of the number of salvage 

acres near the nest. A project design feature will be used to minimize negative effects to 

potential nest trees by retaining additional large snags in Caroline Creek Bald Eagle 

Management Area and extending the distance between the nest and salvage treatment. 

Even though the project design feature will not remove all the risk, the retention of 

additional large snags will lessen the risk to a moderate level.

Cumulative Effects 

Level of Disturbance to Roost/Nest Sites

The cumulative effects are the same for alternative 3 as in alternative 2 for the level of 

disturbance to roost and nest sites. 

Risk to Future Potential Nest Trees

The cumulative risk to future potential nest trees will be the same as for alternative 2 

except that Caroline Creek nest will have a reduced level of effects on potential future 

nest trees.

Alternative 4 and 5

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects 

Level of Disturbance to Roost/Nest Sites

Potential disturbance for all four nest sites is low for these alternatives. 

Risk to Future Potential Nest Trees

The risk to future nest trees is low for all four nest sites.

Cumulative Effects 

Level of Disturbance to Roost/Nest Sites

The cumulative effects are the same for alternatives 4 and 5 as for alternative 2

Risk to Future Potential Nest Trees

The cumulative effects are the same for alternatives 4 and 5 as in alternative 2 except that 

the Caroline Creek nest will have a reduced level of effects on potential future nest trees.

152
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Northern Goshawk

Alternative 1

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects 

Level of Disturbance to Nest Sites

Alternative 1 will not disturb any of the goshawk nests. Any active nests in the project 

will not be disturbed by heavy equipment or increased road activity. In the long-term, the 

lack of disturbance is expected to continue without action. 

Risk to Reproduction

The eleven goshawk nests that may be affected by this project have been affected by the 

fire which has resulted in most of the nests having a small amount of habitat. Only one 

nest (Sixmile) has sufficient habitat left after the 2014 fires to consider any effect to 

reproduction; there will be no effects from this alternative. Without treatment, the 

remaining ten nests have moderate or high risk levels and will continue to struggle to 

support reproduction; for the high risk nests, reproduction is not likely. Over the longterm, the highly fire-affected habitat will remain in poor condition and will not provide 

habitat for reproduction for the northern goshawk. 

Cumulative Effects 

Level of Disturbance to Nest Sites

There are no direct or indirect effects resulting from alternative 1, thus no cumulative 

effects.

Risk to Reproduction

There are no direct or indirect effects resulting from alternative 1, thus no cumulative 

effects.

Alternative 2, 3, 4 and 5

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects 

Alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5 have the same effects on Goshawks, so they are discussed 

together. 

Level of Disturbance to Nest Sites

Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 will have treatment within 0.25 miles of six goshawk nest sites 

(Kohl, Beaver, China, Elk, Middle, and Hickory). However, a project design feature will 

be used to avoid disturbance of these nests through the sensitive period of nesting. 

Therefore, alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 will have a low risk of disturbing known goshawk 

nests. 

Risk to Reproduction

Ten of the 11 known goshawk nests (the area around the Woodchopper nest contains no 

activities) in the project area contain proposed activities that will remove dead or dying 

trees within areas considered to no longer be habitat; some of the treatment units contain 

fire-damaged trees that still provide canopy cover and meet the description of goshawk 

habitat. 

Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 will remove habitat and result in two nests (Hickory and West 

Whites) increasing in the level of risk to reproduction from moderate to high. Both of 

these nests have abundant habitat in the primary nest zone (0.5 mile radius of the nest) 

but the foraging zone (outside the primary nest zone 0.5 to 1.0 mile) doesn’t contain a 

153
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

large amount of habitat and is, consequently, near the moderate risk category minimum 

for foraging area habitat acres. Therefore, the treatment in these alternatives, although 

small in the number of acres of habitat removed, will result in the Hickory and West 

Whites goshawk nests having a high level of risk to reproduction. 

Cumulative Effects 

Level of Disturbance to Nest Sites

A project design feature will lower the likelihood that noise generated by the project will 

disturb known goshawk nests for alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5. However, one nest located on 

the Forest has private property within 0.25 miles of the nest location. The private owner 

is implementing a project that may or may not provide a limited operating period for this 

nest, thus possibly creating noise that may disturb a nesting goshawk if one is present. 

This nest is not likely to be active, given the substantial amount of habitat lost to a 2014 

fire. Almost the entire primary nest core and a large portion of the foraging zone burned 

at high severity, thus creating conditions unfavorable for a nesting goshawk. Adding the 

effects of the action alternatives to the effects of other projects including those on private 

land is not likely to result in measurable cumulative effects to the level of disturbance to 

known nest sites. 

Risk to Reproduction

Only two nests (Beaver and Kelsey) change in the level of risk to reproduction as a result 

of the effects of action alternatives added to the effects of other projects including those 

on private land. The Beaver nest is located among several parcels of private land and the 

anticipated amount of treatment is expected to move this nest from a moderate level to a 

high level of risk to reproduction. The Kelsey nest was affected by the fire; the addition 

of effects of treatment in the Lovers Canyon project to the effects of treatment in the 

action alternatives will result in the risk to reproduction moving from moderate to high. 

The remaining seven nests have cumulative effects but the effects are not large enough to 

change the level of risk to reproduction. There are measurable cumulative effects to the 

Beaver and Kelsey nests.

Fisher, Marten and Wolverine

Alternative 1

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects 

Connectivity of Habitat

The 2014 fires removed a large portion of the habitat for these species (habitat associated 

with older forests with dense canopy cover), thus reducing the number of home ranges 

for these species. The loss of habitat is likely to continue if another wildfire begins, thus 

continuing to set back the development of forested habitat. The high-severity burned 

forest is not likely to provide much habitat for use by these species since most of the 

vegetation cover has been removed. The connectivity in the watersheds is likely to 

decline from current condition as this occurs (see the affected environment section). A 

lack of overhead cover resulting from the 2014 fires is likely to obstruct the movements 

of fisher and marten but, as the snags start to fall over along with shrub growth, the area 

may provide enough physical structure for fisher and marten to move across these 

openings. The loss of cover will affect marten and fisher much more than wolverine. 

154
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Change in Home Range

Although tall shrubs and woody debris may provide structure for fisher and marten to 

move across openings, one of the most important factors for fisher and marten home 

ranges is sufficient denning/resting habitat. Denning/resting habitat affected by the 2014 

fires will take many years to regenerate; any additional assistance to accelerate the 

regeneration process is likely to help. In the short-term, protection of existing 

denning/resting habitat from future high severity fire is important to conserve viable 

home ranges. Alternative 1 will not help to accelerate regeneration or protect existing 

habitat. Fuels created by the 2014 fires will continue to accumulate and will create 

conditions that increase the likelihood of future high severity fire (see the fire and fuels 

resource report for more detailed information). This accumulation of fuels will threaten 

denning/resting habitat and increase fragmentation of home ranges. Alternative 1 will not 

affect the habitat connectivity for these species or the amount of habitat needed for a 

fisher home range.

Cumulative Effects 

Connectivity of Habitat

As a result of adding the effects of actions considered for cumulative effects to the effects 

of alternative 1, one watershed (Dutch Creek) will not have enough habitat to provide 

connectivity for fisher, marten, and wolverine. The remaining watersheds will continue 

on the trajectory of connectivity described above. Cumulatively, there will be 30 

watersheds with moderate connectivity, 15 with a low connectivity and 22 with a very 

low connectivity. 

Change in Home Range

When added to the current condition of the watersheds and the effects of alternative 1, the 

effects of other projects will result in one additional watershed (Big Ferry-Swanson) not 

providing enough habitat to support a fisher home range; instead of 25 watersheds able to 

support a home range, there will be 24. 

Alternative 2

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects 

Connectivity of Habitat

Alternative 2 will affect habitat connectivity in13 watersheds. There are seven watersheds 

that will go from moderate habitat connectivity to low or very low connectivity in this 

alternative; the remaining six watersheds will drop from low to very low habitat 

connectivity. All other watersheds remain at the same level of connectivity as currently 

provided. 

Change in Home Range

Three (Cougar Creek-Elk Creek, Lower West Fork Beaver Creek, and Tom Martin 

Creek-Klamath River ) of the 25 watersheds that meet the criteria of possibly containing 

or contributing to a fisher home range fall below the fisher home range threshold in 

alternative 2. These three watersheds are not likely to contain a fisher home range after 

treatments are completed.

Cumulative Effects 

Connectivity of Habitat

Adding the direct and indirect effects of this alternative to the effects of other actions will

cumulatively result in one watershed changing in the level of habitat connectivity. Dutch 

155
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Creek has a low level of connectivity in this alternative and the addition of the effects of 

other actions will result in very low connectivity.

Change in Home Range

Adding the direct and indirect effects of this alternative to the effects of other actions will 

result cumulatively in one watershed falling below the level of habitat needed for a fisher 

home range. The Big Ferry – Swanson watershed is affected by the Singleton project and 

projects on private land that will result in the loss of habitat and home range potential in 

the watershed; adding these effects to those of alternative 2 will result in measurable 

cumulative effects.

Alternative 3

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects 

Connectivity of Habitat and Change in Home Range

The effects of alternative 3 on habitat connectivity are the same as for alternative 2 

except Horse Creek and Doggett Creek will remain at the same level of habitat 

connectivity as the current condition. Therefore, effects of alternative 3 are lower than 

alternative 2.

Change in Home Range

The effect of alternative 3 on home ranges is the same as for alternative 2. 

Cumulative Effects 

Connectivity of Habitat and Change in Home Range

The cumulative effects are the same as for alternative 2. 

Alternative 4

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects 

Connectivity of Habitat

The effects of alternative 3 on habitat connectivity are the same as for alternative 2 

except Horse Creek and Doggett Creek will remain at the same level of habitat 

connectivity as in the current condition. Therefore, effects of alternative 3 are less than 

alternative 2.

Change in Home Range

The effects on home ranges are the same as for alternative 2. 

Cumulative Effects 

Connectivity of Habitat and Change in Home Range

The cumulative effects are the same as for alternative 2. 

Alternative 5

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects 

Connectivity of Habitat

Alternative 5 had the smallest effects to habitat connectivity among the action 

alternatives. Six watersheds maintained the current condition level of habitat connectivity 

and four of those watersheds maintained a moderate level of habitat connectivity. The 

moderate level of connectivity is the highest level of connectivity existing in the project 

area, thus this alternative best maintains connectivity in these watersheds.

Change in Home Range

The effect of alternative 3 on home ranges is the same as for alternative 2.

156
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Cumulative Effects 

Connectivity of Habitat and Change in Home Range

The cumulative effects are the same as for alternative 2. 

Pallid Bat, Townsend’s Big-eared Bat, Fringed Myotis 

Alternative 1

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects 

Risk of Disturbance to Roost Sites

Any roost sites that retained the micro-climate condition necessary to support a 

hibernaculum or maternity colony will continue to provide those services. For alternative 

1, the lack of action will not affect bats. The rate of forest regeneration will be slow 

without treatment but bats will be able to continue to use the abundant source of snags. 

The lack of disturbance created by treatment will maintain any hibernacula or maternity 

sites. Therefore, for this analysis indicator, there is no effect on disturbance to bats. 

Cumulative Effects 

There are no direct or indirect effects resulting from alternative 1, thus no cumulative 

effects.

Alternative 2, 3, 4 and 5

The effects of alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5 on risk of disturbance to roost sites are the 

same. 

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects 

Risk of Disturbance to Roost Sites

All the action alternatives have similar direct and indirect effects for this analysis 

indicator. About 75% of the areas with potential hibernacula (or maternity sites) will have 

a low or moderate risk of disturbing a possible bat maternity site or hibernaculum. Given 

the time period when treatment is most likely to occur (summer and fall months), 

treatment is not likely to disturb a possible hibernaculum. The treatments may disturb a 

maternity site because maternity roosts are active from about April to August, but are 

most sensitive during the early spring when the offspring are not capable of flight. 

Although unlikely, the 15 areas with potential hibernacula with moderate risk of 

disturbance could affect a maternity roost; more realistically, treatments more than 250 

feet away are only likely to disrupt foraging bats. Therefore, the sites with potential cave 

or cave-like structures in the 13 areas with potential hibernacula with a high risk of 

disturbance are likely the most vulnerable to abandonment; this could affect a population. 

Maternity roosts are not common because bats need specific cave-environment 

conditions; although there are several possible caves or cave-like structures in the project 

area, very few meet the criteria. 

Cumulative Effects 

Risk of Disturbance to Roost Sites

The direct and indirect effects for each of the alternatives plus the effects of other actions 

will result cumulatively in about doubling the number of areas with potential hibernacula 

that have a high risk of disturbing bats. The majority of this effect is because of the 

uncertainty of mitigations occurring on private land. Therefore, the cumulative effects 

may be an overestimate, especially if private lands are implementing mitigation to 

minimize the negative effects on roost sites.

157
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Willow Flycatcher

Alternative 1

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects 

Level of Habitat Disturbance 

Willow flycatchers are dependent on live riparian vegetation; the loss of this vegetation is 

likely to affect the number of possible areas for nesting. Alternative 1 will not change the 

current condition of the habitat. The remaining areas of habitat will continue to provide 

nesting opportunity to flycatchers. Burned forest is not likely to be beneficial to 

flycatchers so the retention of these snags will not affect this species. In the long-term, 

the habitat will regenerate and possibly produce willow or alder patches for flycatchers. 

For this analysis indicator, the lack of action will have no effect on habitat alteration from 

the current condition. 

Cumulative Effects 

Level of Habitat Disturbance 

There are no direct or indirect effects resulting from alternative 1, thus no cumulative 

effects.

Alternative 2, 3, 4 and 5

The effects of alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5 on the level of habitat disturbance are the same.

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects 

Level of Habitat Disturbance 

The direct and indirect effects on willow flycatcher habitat is low for most (70%) of the 

7th field watersheds in the analysis area. Most of the effects are as a result of fuels 

treatments in the riparian reserves and site preparation outside of plantations. These 

treatments have almost the same footprint for watersheds identified as having “low” and 

“moderate” levels of habitat alteration but, in alternative 5, there are additional treatments 

that will possibly affect riparian habitat; the watersheds where these additional treatments 

will occur have a “high” level of habitat alteration despite the implementation of any 

action alternative. Therefore, the number of watersheds within each of the levels of 

habitat alteration will not change between the action alternatives.

Cumulative Effects 

Level of Habitat Disturbance 

The direct and indirect effects for each of the alternatives plus the effects of other actions 

will result cumulatively in four watersheds shifting from a low to a high level of habitat 

alteration. The effects for these four watersheds may be an overestimate because most of 

the cumulative effects are occurring on private lands and these areas may be managed 

differently from the Forest. Therefore, any mitigation on private land would lessen the 

cumulative effects.

Siskiyou Mountains Salamander 

Alternative 1

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects 

Risk of Habitat Disturbance 

Alternative 1 will not change the existing cool, moist talus habitat typically created by 

dense conifer canopy on northerly slopes needed by Siskiyou Mountain salamander. 

158
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Habitat burned by the 2014 fires at moderate to high severity is likely to have little to no 

canopy cover; the small amount of canopy cover left after the fires will be retained in this 

alternative. In addition, the small spaces between pieces of talus needed by the 

salamander to move deeper or shallower in the talus profile to reach desired temperature 

and moisture will not be disturbed by activities that may compact the talus. For this 

analysis indicator, there is no effect on risk of habitat disturbance. 

Cumulative Effects 

There are no direct or indirect effects resulting from alternative 1, thus there are no

cumulative effects.

Alternative 2, 3, 4 and 5 

The effects of alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5 on level of habitat disturbance are the same.

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects 

Risk of Habitat Disturbance 

All the action alternatives have a similar level of effects on salamander habitat 

disturbance but different activities have different effects. Ground-based equipment is the 

most likely to compact salamander habitat followed by skyline yarding corridors where 

several logs are basically dragged over the same ground. Skyline yarding overall is likely 

to affect fewer acres of talus habitat create fewer compacted areas than logging that uses 

ground-based equipment such as tractors. There are 19 known salamander sites in 

treatment units that are expected to create ground disturbance. In order to minimize 

impacts to these known sites, a project design feature will minimize compaction by 

buffering known sites and maintaining live or dead trees within the buffer. Therefore, 

with implementation of the project design feature, the level of risk for disturbing known 

sites is low.

Cumulative Effects 

Risk of Habitat Disturbance 

The direct and indirect effects for each of the alternatives plus the effects of actions on 

private land that may affect talus habitat will result in four known sites potentially being 

cumulatively affected. The level of risk of disturbing a known site is cumulatively low 

and the cumulative effects may be overestimated if mitigations to reduce effects are used 

on private land projects. 

Tehama Chaparral Snail 

Alternative 1

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects 

Likelihood of Dispersal

Alternative 1 will not affect any talus in conifer and hardwood mixed habitat near 

riparian reserves in project area. There are likely to be some patches of habitat where 

canopy cover and micro-site conditions will provide for the needs of several individuals 

remaining after the 2014 fires. The pre-fire woody debris which is likely to be 

supplemented by the post-fire abundant dead trees will provide small areas of possible 

refugia for dispersing snails. The lack of habitat disturbance will allow remaining habitat 

to provide future habitat when canopy cover regenerates. For this analysis indicator, there 

is no effect on snails dispersing. 

159
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Cumulative Effects 

Likelihood of Dispersal

There are no direct or indirect effects resulting from alternative 1, thus no cumulative 

effects.

Alternative 2, 3, 4 and 5

The effects of alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5 are the same for likelihood of dispersal. 

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects 

Likelihood of Dispersal 

All action alternatives have similar effects on Tehama chaparral snail dispersal habitat 

which consists of some type of physical structure to provide cooler and moisture 

conditions during dispersal. Providing this structure is most important for snails that are 

dispersing across areas without canopy cover. Project design features provide varying 

sizes of woody debris of trees equal to or greater than12 inches in diameter after fuels 

treatments so that treatment units have sufficient woody debris. In addition, project 

design features will retain live and dead trees in the treatment units to provide future 

woody debris, and the known sites of Tehama chaparral snails will not be treated so that 

remaining habitat will be retained. Therefore, given the project design features, the 

likelihood of dispersal will be a high for alternative 2, 3, 4, and 5. 

Cumulative Effects 

Likelihood of Dispersal 

There are no other actions that will affect snail dispersal because no known sites in the 

project area overlap with any other project. Therefore, there will be no cumulative effects 

to snail dispersal.

Western Bumble Bee 

Alternative 1

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects 

Level of Habitat Disturbance

Alternative 1 will not affect bumble bee habitat, most of which is in meadows that 

provide nesting and foraging opportunity for bees. According the vegetation burn severity 

data, most of the 4,000 acres of meadows in the project area burned at low severity in the 

2014 fires; therefore, it is likely that many of the meadows still contain vegetation which 

can provide basic structure for a bumble bee nest site and will produce flowering plants 

this spring. Retaining snags outside meadows will not affect the ability of bumble bees to 

survive or reproduce. For this analysis indicator, there is no effect on bumble bee nest 

disturbance. 

Cumulative Effects 

Level of Habitat Disturbance

There are no direct or indirect effects resulting from alternative 1, thus no cumulative 

effects.

160
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Alternative 2, 3, 4 and 5

The effects on level of habitat disturbance is the same for alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5 

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects 

Level of Habitat Disturbance

All action alternatives have similar effects on the level of disturbance to habitat for the 

western bumble bee. Treatments are not likely to occur in wet meadows but there are 

several meadows that may not be wet that may be treated. In order to capture the 

potential effects of each alternative, it is assumed that any meadow occurring in the 

treatment unit may be disturbed by implementation of the project. Given this situation, 

there are five 7th field watersheds with possible disturbance occurring at a high level. In 

addition, there are five watersheds where a moderate level of disturbance may be created. 

Project design features will minimize negative effects to bumble bee habitat by limiting 

treatments within meadows.

Cumulative Effects 

Level of Habitat Disturbance

The direct and indirect effects for each of the alternative plus the effects of other actions 

will cumulatively result in three watersheds going from a low level of disturbance to a 

moderate level.

Management Indicator Species

Snag Associated Species

Alternative 1

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects 

In this alternative, there will be no removal of trees, road construction, or any other 

activities associated with the project. Potential negative effects of no action would be 

high fuel loads and risk of future high severity fire adjacent to remaining habitat or within 

regenerating habitat. Positive effects would include the total retention of snags which are 

important habitat features within remaining late seral closed canopy coniferous habitat.

Snag-associated species would have abundant source and variety of snags. Black-backed 

woodpeckers, if present, would have the maximum available habitat produced by the high 

intensity fire. Other snag-associated species like the Vaux’s swift and downy woodpecker 

would have a possible increase in more open stands of snags or creation of new snag 

habitat. Secondary cavity nesters, however, may have a reduction in older, decaying 

snags with cavities as those tend to burn up in the fires but, in the long-term, these 

species will likely have an abundant source of previously excavated snags. 

Cumulative Effects 

Other projects in the analysis area are expected to affect habitat to the point that it may 

not function as snag-associated habitat. Overall, about 1,692 acres of the 105,410 acres of 

snag habitat in the analysis area will be affected by actions considered for cumulative 

effects (appendix C). These acres represent the footprint of habitat for snag-associated 

species because habitat for some species overlaps. Affected acres represent about 2% of 

the habitat within the analysis area.

161
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Alternative 2

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects 

The percent of snag-associated species habitat affected by alternative 2 varies between 

individual species but about 12% of snag-associated species habitat will be affected by 

roadside hazard and salvage treatments. The other treatments in this alternative are likely 

to have minor effects on snag-associated species habitat. With implementation of project 

design features, salvage treatment units will not provide five snags on every acre but the 

project will meet the Forest Plan standard of five snags per acre averaged over 100 acres. 

Therefore, alternative 2 is likely to provide a sufficient number of snags of varying decay 

classes to provide a habitat level of “good” snag-associated habitat.

Cumulative Effects 

The direct and indirect effects (about 11,652 acres) of alternative 2 plus effects resulting 

from other projects within the analysis area cumulatively result in about 1,726 additional 

acres of snag habitat being affected. These effects total about 13,378 acres or about 13% 

of the estimated snag-associated species habitat within the project area. Most of the 

effects of other actions occur on private lands (1,692 acres); snag retention on these lands 

is likely to be incidental. Since the Forest project that accounts for the additional 34 acres 

of the cumulative effects must meet the same Forest Plan standards and guidelines as this 

project, these 34 acres will meet the “good” level of snag habitat. Therefore, the 

cumulative effects of alternative 2 will result in 11,693 acres of snag habitat being 

degraded and 1,692 acres will be removed (not provide snag habitat after treatment). 

Alternative 3 and 4

The effects to snag habitat are the same for alternatives 3 and 4. 

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects 

Alternatives 3 and 4 have similar level of effects on habitat as alternative 2, but these 

alternatives are proposing a reduced level of salvage treatment. Alternative 3 (about 

11,468 acres or about 11% of the total snag habitat) and alternative 4 (about 11,352 acres 

or about 11% of the total snag habitat) have similar numbers of acres of snag habitat 

affected in the project area by proposed salvage and roadside hazard treatments. Given 

that these alternatives are using the same minimum snag retention (alternative 3 will have 

additional snag retention beyond alternative 2) as alternative 2, the effects are going to be 

similar, but alternative 3 and 4 will have less acres degraded. Therefore, alternatives 3 

and 4 are likely to provide a sufficient number of snags of varying decay classes thus 

providing a habitat level of “good” snag associated habitat. 

Cumulative Effects 

The direct and indirect effects of alternative 3 (about 11,468 acres) and alternative 4 

(about 11,352 acres) plus the effects resulting from other projects within the analysis area 

result in about 1,692 additional acres of snag habitat being affected for alternative 3 and 

alternative 4. Therefore, the cumulative effects will result in 11,468 acres (alternative 3) 

and 11,352 (alternative 4) of snag habitat being degraded and 1,692 acres will be 

removed (not provide snag habitat after treatment). 

162
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Alternative 5

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects 

Alternative 5 will affect about 8,225 acres or about 8% of the total snag habitat in the 

project area by proposed salvage and roadside hazard treatments. Given that these 

alternatives are using the same minimum snag retention as alternative 2, the effects are 

going to be similar, but alternative 5 will have fewer acres degraded. Therefore, 

alternatives 5 is likely to provide a sufficient number of snags of varying decay classes 

thus providing a habitat level of “good” snag associated habitat. 

Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative effects of alternative 5 are 8,225 acres of snag habitat will be degraded 

and 1,692 acres will be removed (not provide snag habitat after treatment).

Hardwood Associated Species

Alternative 1

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects 

Alternative 1 does not have any direct effects on hardwood-associated species. Hardwood 

stands burned with moderate or high severity effects in the 2014 fires are not likely to 

meet the needs of these species because they are completely or partly dependent on 

hardwood mast as a food source. Without a food source, the species are likely to leave 

this fire-affected habitat to occupy areas with live trees. In the long-term, some of the 

hardwoods will re-sprout and provide future habitat for these species assuming wildfire 

doesn’t return in the near future. An indirect effect of alternative 1 comes from the large 

fuel loads within or adjacent to the hardwood stands that are likely to contribute to 

another wildfire occurring that will prevent these stands from developing into a hardwood 

forest.

Cumulative Effects 

For hardwood associated species, the effects of other actions in the analysis area will

result in removing about 6% (590 acres) of the habitat in the project area. Therefore, the 

cumulative effects of adding the non-quantified indirect effects of this alternative to the 

590 acres of hardwood habitat that will be removed in other actions will result in less 

habitat available in the future for hardwood-associated species.

Alternative 2

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects 

Alternative 2 may affect about 728 acres of hardwood habitat that exists in the roadside 

hazard and salvage treatment units. It isn’t likely that all hardwood trees within roadside 

hazard treatment units will be removed because not all hardwoods along roadsides fit the 

definition of hazard trees (see chapter 2 and referenced document for more detailed 

information). However, since it is difficult to estimate the number of hardwoods that 

might be retained in the hazard tree treatment units, it is assumed that all the hardwood 

trees will be removed for this analysis. The salvage treatment is focused on removing 

conifer trees and there is no intention to remove any hardwoods but, for various reasons 

related to safety and implementation potential, the hardwoods may be damaged. About 

7% of the current oak habitat will be removed by alternative 2. 

163
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Cumulative Effects 

The direct and indirect effects (728 acres) of alternative 2 plus effects resulting from 

other projects within the analysis area (about 590 acres of additional acres of hardwood 

habitat being affected) cumulatively total about 1,318 acres or about 13% of the 

estimated hardwood habitat within the project area. The hardwood habitat on private land 

is assumed to be removed. Therefore, the cumulative effect will be 1,318 acres of 

hardwood habitat being removed (not function as habitat in the near future). 

Alternative 3 and 4

The effects to hardwood-associated habitat are the same for alternatives 3 and 4. 

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects 

Alternatives 3 and 4 will result in removing 717 acres and 679 acres of hardwood habitat 

respectively. Like alternative 2, estimates of effects of alternatives 3 and 4 are likely 

overestimated because roadside hazard treatments are likely to retain most of the 

hardwoods and the hardwoods in the salvage units may be damaged but are likely to 

remain in the units after treatment. 

Cumulative Effects 

The direct and indirect effects (717 acres) for alternative 3 and alternative 4 (679 acres) 

plus effects resulting from other projects within the analysis area (about 590 acres of 

additional acres of hardwood habitat being affected) cumulatively result in about 1,307 

acres being removed for alternative 3 and about 1,279 acres being removed for alternative 

4. Alternatives 3 and 4 each account for about 13% of the estimated hardwood habitat 

within the project area. The hardwood habitat on private land is assumed to be removed. 

Therefore, the cumulative effects will result in 1,307 acres for alternative 3 and 1,279 

acres for alternative 4 of hardwood habitat being removed (not function as habitat in the 

near future).

Alternative 5

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects 

Alternative 5 will result in removing 66 acres of hardwood habitat. Like alternative 2, 

effects of alternative 5 are likely overestimated because the roadside hazard treatment is 

likely to retain most of the hardwoods and the hardwoods in the salvage units may be 

damaged but are likely to remain in the unit after treatment.

Cumulative Effects 

The direct and indirect effects for alternative 5 (66 acres) plus effects resulting from other 

projects within the analysis area (about 590 acres of additional acres of hardwood habitat 

being affected) cumulatively result in about 656 acres or about 7% of the estimated 

hardwood habitat being removed within the project area. The hardwood habitat on private 

land is assumed to be removed. Therefore, the cumulative effects will result in 656 acres 

of hardwood habitat being removed (not function as habitat in the near future). 

Survey and Manage Species

Alternative 1

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects 

Alternative 1 will not have any direct effects on survey and manage species. The lack of 

treatment will not affect important habitat components such as current canopy cover, 

164
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

coarse woody debris, or leaf litter/duff. In the short term, the snags and limited down 

wood in high fire severity affected habitat will continue to provide hot, dry conditions for 

these species. In the moderate fire severity affected habitat, the small amount of canopy 

cover will likely decrease in the short-term with delayed tree mortality, thus creating even 

hotter and drier conditions that may be similar to the high severity fire affected habitat. 

In the long term, the abundant source of snags will provide a source of woody debris (an 

important habitat component for the species, especially for the blue-gray tail dropper) for 

many years. Large woody debris in conjunction with regenerating trees may provide 

micro-site conditions for these species in the long term (20 years) but the regeneration of 

habitat will take much more time (beyond the long-term time span for this analysis). 

Cumulative Effects 

The only cumulative actions within the analysis bounds are Forest projects. These 

projects all have project design features to avoid effects to known sites for survey and 

manage species so there are no cumulative effects from alternative 1 to known sites. 

Alternative 2, 3, 4 and 5

The effects to known sites are the same for alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5. 

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects 

There are known sites in treatment units for action alternatives but, to avoid potential 

negative effects, a project design feature including a protection butter will be applied to 

known sites (see chapter 2). Therefore, the combination of protection buffers for all 

known sites and surveys of Tehama chaparral snail, Siskiyou Mountain salamander, and 

blue-gray taildropper habitat occurring in salvage units, road construction, and landings 

will meet the compliance requirements for survey and manage species.

Cumulative Effects 

There are no direct or indirect effects to known sites from alternatives 2, 3, 4 or 5, so 

there are no cumulative effects. 

Migratory Bird Species

Alternative 1

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects 

This alternative will have no direct or indirect effect on the compliance with the MOU 

between the USDA Forest Service and USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. Migratory birds 

affected by the 2014 fires will continue to be threatened by the possible re-occurring 

wildfires that may affect unburned habitat. Bird species associated with snags and early 

seral habitat will have abundant habitat and predicted future wildfires will add to this 

already abundant habitat. 

Cumulative Effects 

This alternative will have no direct or indirect effect on complying with the MOU, thus 

no cumulative effects. 

Alternative 2, 3, 4 and 5

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects 

Action alternatives for this project will not adversely impact migratory species or their 

associated habitats. The project will potentially affect up to about 10,200 acres of 

165
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

moderate and high severity forested habitat; this habitat will still provide habitat for many

migratory bird species. Potential impacts to migratory species will be minimized through 

the adherence to Forest Plan standards and guidelines for snags and downed woody 

debris, riparian reserve buffers, limited ground disturbance, and maintenance of canopy 

closure. The project is designed to improve habitat conditions through the acceleration of 

late-successional habitat characteristics by planting trees and removing fuels that threaten 

the developing and existing habitat. Specific project design features to minimize negative 

impacts include retaining snags within treatment units which include riparian reserves, 

and retaining legacy components and snags mixed in with green trees. Any soft (snags 

existing prior to the fires) snags (greater than14inches in diameter) felled for safety 

reasons will be left on site as downed woody debris. Additional cull logs will be left on 

site from the operation as well. Therefore, alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5 comply with the 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act MOU. 

Cumulative Effects 

The effects of treatments on up to 10,200 acres of habitat burned at moderate and high 

levels of fire severity, added to the effects of other projects in the project area (about 

11,450 acres of treatment) will cumulatively result in up to 21,650 acres burned with 

moderate and high fire severity effects being affected.

166
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Comparison of Effects by Alternative

Table 3-10: Comparison of effects to species and associations by alternative

Species Indicator Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

Northern spotted owl Risk to reproduction:

Direct/indirect

Cumulative

Very Low 3 (NC)

Low 14 (NC)

Mod. 51 (NC)

High 12 (NC)

Very Low 3 (NC)

Low 14 (NC)

Mod. 50 (NC)

High 13 (NC)

Same as 

alternative 2

Same as alternative 

2 

Same as alternative 

2 

Changes to critical 

habitat:

Direct/indirect

Cumulative

Number of critical 

habitat acres 

affected KLE6 = 0 

(NC)

KLE7 =0 (542)

KLW7 = 0 (NC)

KLW8 = 0 (10)

Number of critical 

habitat acres 

affected 

KLE6 = 8 (NC)

KLE7 = 204 (747)

KLW7 = 525 (535) 

KLW8 = 468 (478)

Same as 

alternative 2

Number of critical 

habitat acres 

affected 

KLE6 = 8 (NC)

KLE7 = 178 (721)

KLW7 = 525 (535) 

KLW8 = 468 (478)

Same as alternative 

2 

Bald eagle Level of disturbance 

to nest/roost sites:

Direct/indirect

Cumulative

No direct, indirect, 

or cumulative 

effect on noise 

disturbance 

Low level of noise 

disturbance to 

nest/roost sites

Low level of noise

disturbance to 

nest/roost sites

Low level of noise 

disturbance to 

nest/roost sites

Low level of noise 

disturbance to 

nest/roost sites

Risk to future 

potential nest areas:

Direct/indirect

Cumulative

No direct, indirect, 

or cumulative 

effects on risk to 

future potential 

nest trees.

Number of nests by 

risk level

High = 1 (NC)

Mod. = 0 (NC)

Low = 3 (NC)

Number of nests 

by risk level

High = 0 (NC)

Mod. = 1 (NC)

Low = 3 (NC)

Number of nests by 

risk level

High = 0 (NC)

Mod. = 0 (NC)

Low = 4 (NC)

Same as alternative 

4 

Northern goshawk Level of disturbance 

to nest sites: 

Direct/indirect

Cumulative

No direct, indirect, 

or cumulative 

effect on noise 

disturbance

Number of nests by 

risk level

High = 7 (9)

Mod. = 3 (1)

Low = 1 (1)

Same as 

alternative 2

Same as alternative 

2 

Same as alternative 

2 

Fisher, Marten, 

Wolverine

Connectivity of 

habitat: 

Direct/indirect

Cumulative

Number of 

watersheds by 

level of habitat 

connectivity

High = 0 (NC)

Mod. = 30 (NC)

Low = 16 (NC)

Very Low = 21 

(NC)

Number of 

watersheds by level 

of habitat 

connectivity

High = 0 (NC)

Mod. = 23 (NC)

Low = 15 (NC)

Very Low = 29 (NC)

Number of 

watersheds by 

level of habitat 

connectivity

High = 0 (NC)

Mod. = 24 (NC)

Low = 15 (NC)

Very Low = 28 

(NC)

Number of 

watersheds by level 

of habitat 

connectivity

High = 0 (NC)

Mod. = 24 (NC)

Low = 14 (NC)

Very Low = 29 (NC)

Number of 

watersheds by level 

of habitat 

connectivity

High = 0 (NC)

Mod. = 27 (NC)

Low = 14 (NC)

Very Low = 26 (NC)

167
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Species Indicator Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

Changes in home 

range:

Direct/indirect

Cumulative

25 home ranges 

(24 home ranges)

22 home ranges (21 

home ranges)

Same as 

alternative 2

Same as alternative 

2 

Same as alternative 

2 

Pallid Bat, Townsend’s 

Big-eared Bat, Fringed 

Myotis

Risk of disturbance 

to roost sites:

Direct/indirect

Cumulative

No direct, indirect, 

or cumulative 

effect on noise 

disturbance

Number of possible 

hibernaculum or 

maternities by risk of 

disturbance

High = 13 (24)

Mod. = 15 (12)

Low = 30 (22)

Same as 

alternative 2

Number of possible 

hibernaculum or 

maternities by risk of 

disturbance

High = 12 (23)

Mod. = 15 (12)

Low = 31 (23)

Number of possible 

hibernaculum or 

maternities by risk of 

disturbance

High = 13 (24)

Mod. = 14 (13)

Low = 31 (22)

Willow Flycatcher Level of habitat 

alteration:

Direct/indirect

Cumulative

No direct, indirect, 

or cumulative 

effect on habitat 

alteration

Number of 

watersheds by level 

of habitat alteration

Low = 48 (44)

Mod. = 3 (NC)

High = 17 (21)

Same as 

alternative 2

Same as alternative 

2 

Same as alternative 

2 

Siskiyou Mountain 

Salamander

Risk of disturbance:

Direct/indirect

Cumulative

No direct, indirect, 

or cumulative 

effect on habitat 

disturbance

Number of known 

sites by level of 

habitat disturbance

Low = 19 (NC)

Mod. = 0 (NC)

High = 0 (NC)

Same as 

alternative 2

Same as alternative 

2 

Same as alternative 

2 

Tehama Chaparral 

Snail

Likelihood of 

dispersal:

Direct/indirect

Cumulative

No direct, indirect, 

or cumulative 

effect on dispersal

Number of known 

sites by likelihood of 

dispersal

Low = 3 (NC)

Mod. = 0 (NC)

High = 0 (NC)

Same as 

alternative 2

Same as alternative 

2 

Same as alternative 

2 

Western Bumble Bee Level of habitat 

disturbance:

Direct/indirect

Cumulative

No direct, indirect, 

or cumulative 

effect on habitat 

disturbance

Number of 

watershed by level of 

habitat disturbance

Low = 3 (0)

Mod. = 5 (8)

High = 5 (5)

Same as 

alternative 2

Same as alternative 

2 

Same as alternative 

2 

Hardwood Associated 

Species

Change in hardwood 

habitat abundance:

Direct/indirect

Cumulative

No direct, indirect, 

or cumulative 

effect on habitat 

abundance

Number of habitat 

acres affected 

728 (1,322)

Number of habitat 

acres affected 

717 (1,312)

Number of habitat 

acres affected 

679 (1,273)

Number of habitat 

acres affected 

713 (1,307)

168
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Species Indicator Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

Snag Associated 

Species

White-headed, Vaux’s, 

and Pileated 

woodpecker

Change in snag 

habitat abundance:

Direct/indirect

Cumulative

About 1,692 acres 

of general snag 

habitat will be 

affected 

cumulative effects 

in the project area

7,552 (8,283) 7,230 (7,961) 7,106 (7,837) 5,767 (6,498)

Hairy and Downy 

woodpecker

Change in snag 

habitat abundance:

Direct/indirect

Cumulative

6,428 (7,080) 6,121 (6,773) 6,010 (6,661) 4,851 (5,502)

Red-breasted 

woodpecker

Change in snag 

habitat abundance:

Direct/indirect

Cumulative

11,001 (12,735) 10,544 (12,278) 10,264 (11,999) 9,066 (10,801)

Black-backed 

woodpecker

Change in snag 

habitat abundance:

Direct/indirect

Cumulative

1,123 (1,203) 1,108 (1,188) 1,096 (1,176) 916 (996)

Survey and manage 

species 

Habitat acres:

Direct/indirect

Cumulative

No direct, indirect, 

or cumulative 

effect on known 

site protection

Number of known 

sites protected from 

habitat disturbance

76 sites

Same as 

alternative 2

Same as alternative 

2 

Same as alternative 

2 

* The number in the parenthesis represents the direct, indirect, and cumulative effect for each alternative and species.

169
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Compliance with law, policy, regulation and the Forest Plan

All alternatives comply with the Endangered Species Act and other relevant laws, 

policies and regulations. Alternatives also comply with the Forest Plan as displayed on 

the Forest Plan consistency checklist, available on the project website.

Botany and Non-Native Invasive Species____________________ 

The Westside Fire Recovery Project Botany Biological Assessment, Biological 

Evaluation, Survey and Manage Review, Noxious Weed Risk Assessment, and Pre-field 

documents: Appendices A-1, A-2, and A-3 are summarized in this section and are 

available in the project record. The purpose of this document is to evaluate the Westside 

Fire Recovery Project in sufficient detail to determine its effects on Endangered, 

Threatened, Proposed, Candidate, Sensitive, and Survey and Manage plant species as 

well as determine the risk of introducing or spreading Noxious Weed species. Unique 

botanical areas of concern are also addressed. 

Methodology 

An office pre-field review was conducted to determine if the Project is within the range 

of any federally listed, Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, Candidate, Sensitive, or 

Survey and Manage botanical species for the Klamath National Forest, and if suitable 

habitat is present within the proposed Project area. Additionally, the review indicated 

whether any populations of species of concern are known to be present within the Project 

area. All species listed for the Forest were considered in this review (USFWS 2104, 

USDA 2013). 

Due to the expedited Project time frame, need to conduct surveys during appropriate 

times for identification (typically when blooming), and the obligation to assess the 

condition of known populations, it was unfeasible to conduct unit surveys in search of 

un-known populations of Sensitive species. Surveys to evaluate the status of known 

populations within Project activity areas will be conducted in the spring and summer of 

2015 during appropriate times for identification. If populations are located within 

treatment areas and the habitat in its current state is likely to be negatively impacted by 

the proposed action, a project design feature intended to protect Sensitive species 

populations from a declining trend in viability. Due to the ephemeral appearance of 

fruiting structures, and the expedited time frame of the Westside Fire Recovery project, 

surveys for Sensitive fungal species were not practical. Sensitive fungi habitat in the 

Project area would be protected through the incorporation of Project design features 

associated with Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines for the Aquatic Conservation 

Strategy and woody material retention associated with wildlife habitat and soil stability 

and productivity. See Aquatic Conservation Report in project record. 

The Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service have adopted standards and 

guidelines for the management of habitat for late-successional and old-growth forest 

related species within the range of the northern spotted owl, commonly known as the 

Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP). The NWFP includes measures for management of 

known sites, site-specific pre-habitat disturbing surveys, and/or landscape scale surveys 

for about 400 rare and/or isolated species. These species are grouped into six categories 

170
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

based on level of rarity, ability to reasonably and consistently locate occupied sites during 

pre-disturbance surveys, and the level of information known about the species or group 

(Table 1). The standards and guidelines for these mitigation measures are known as 

Survey and Manage (SandM). 

Table 3-11: Requirements for Survey and Manage categories.

Category Relative 

Rarity

Pre-disturbance 

surveys

Manage all 

known sites

Strategic surveys

A Rare Yes Yes Yes, not required for NEPA

B Rare No Yes Yes, NEPA requirement

C Uncommon Yes High-priority only Yes, not required for NEPA

D Uncommon No High-priority only Yes, not required for NEPA

E Rare No Yes Yes, not required for NEPA

F Uncommon No No Yes, not required for NEPA

To be in compliance with Survey and Manage direction pre-disturbance surveys will be 

conducted for Category A and C species in project activity units where known sites and 

suitable habitat are still present. Known occurrences within the Project area of Category 

B and E species and high-priority populations of Category D species will be protected for 

continued persistence at the site. If suitable habitat is present at known locations but 

known occurrences cannot be found, habitat elements will be protected to maintain the 

viability of the site. Project design features incorporated into the project for the protection 

of botanical species can be found in chapter 2. 

The Klamath National Forest has a list of weeds that are being tracked and managed 

(appendix B of the Botanical Resources and Non –native Invasive Species report). There 

are a total of 30 high priority weeds on the list and fifteen species of moderate and low 

priority. A high priority weed species is one that is of important local management 

concern because of its currently limited distribution on the Forest, highly invasive nature, 

and demonstrated potential to displace large geographic areas of native plant 

communities. For this project, the risk analysis will only evaluate the likelihood for 

introducing and spreading high and moderate priority species. The low priority species 

present in the project area will not be considered in the analysis because it is of lesser 

concern on the Forest and is not considered an issue locally. 

The invasive species risk assessment was completed to determine the risk of introducing 

and/or spreading non-native invasive species associated with the project. For projects 

having a moderate to high risk of introducing or spreading noxious weeds, the project 

decision document must identify noxious weed control measures that must be undertaken 

during project implementation (FSM 2903.04). 

Based on site visits and RAVG data the following assumptions about habitat condition 

are made: 

• areas characterized by high severity burns experienced 75 percent or greater 

vegetation mortality, loss of canopy and understory cover, and loss of duff layers 

and large woody debris; 

171
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

• areas characterized by moderate severity burns experienced 50-75 percent 

vegetation mortality, substantial reduction in canopy and understory cover, as 

well as duff layers and large woody debris; and 

• areas characterized by no or low severity burns experienced 0-50 percent 

vegetation mortality and a reduction in fuel loading. 

Analysis Indicators

• Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Candidate Species: Likelihood of 

jeopardizing the continued existence of Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, or 

Candidate species populations. 

• Sensitive Species: Trend of Sensitive species population viability measured as 

increasing, declining, or static. 

• Survey and Manage Species: Compliance with Survey and Manage guidelines as 

defined by the 2001 Record of Decision. 

• Non-native Invasive Species: Risk of introducing and/or spreading non-native 

invasive species measured by a rating of high, moderate or low risk. 

Assumptions specific to Botanical Species of Concern

• Analysis is based on spatial population records only, field visits to known sites 

were not conducted prior to analysis; 

• Botanical species of concern located in areas burned at moderate-high intensity, 

as indicated by RAVG data and salvage and site preparation and planting unit 

selection criteria, are assumed to be extirpated; 

• Habitat located in areas burned at moderate-high intensity, as indicated by 

RAVG data and salvage unit criteria, are no longer expected to support viable 

populations of botanical species of concern (except Thermopsis robusta which 

prospers following disturbance); 

• Strategic surveys for Survey and Manage Category B fungi are assumed to be 

complete (pending acceptance of the Draft Document by the Regional Ecosystem 

Office); and 

• Survey and Manage guidelines will be used to analyze effects on botanical 

species that fall under both Sensitive and Survey and Manage categories because 

they provide for a more protective management strategy. 

Assumptions specific to Non-native Invasive Species (NNIS)

• Analysis is based on spatial population records only, field visits to known sites 

were not conducted prior to analysis; 

• Not all existing NNIS infestations are currently mapped; 

• Existing NNIS infestations were spread during the 2014 fires and associated 

suppression efforts; 

• It’s likely that new NNIS infestations were introduced during the 2014 fires and 

associated suppression efforts that are presently undetected; 

• Roadside NNIS infestations are expected to continue to spread along road 

systems regardless of project activities; 

172
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

• Inclusions of privately owned lands within the project boundary may contain 

infestations of NNIS that will spread to National Forest System lands regardless 

of Forest actions and/or efforts at prevention and control; and 

• Once established, NNIS infestations are likely to persist long term. 

Spatial and Temporal Context

The analysis area for botanical species of concern and non-native invasive species is the

project area because it is the most relevant to changes to population viability and the risk 

of spread within the Project area. The temporal bounding for botanical species of concern 

and non-native invasive species will be less than five years for the short-term and greater 

than five years for long-term effects. Temporal bounding were chosen to account for 

species recovery times, seed dormancy and germination requirements, and the difficulty 

of identifying biennial and perennial vegetative life stages (rosettes). 

Affected Environment 

The Westside Fire Recovery project area is composed of the Beaver Fire (Subpart A), 

Happy Camp Complex (Subpart B), and Whites Fire (July Complex) (Subpart C) which 

all occurred on the Klamath National Forest during the summer of 2014. These fires 

resulted in a mosaic pattern of vegetation from the variety of burn intensities that 

occurred across the Project area. 

Modification of the forest structure and composition as a result of fire intensity, duration, 

and suppression efforts has had a profound effect on microclimate characteristics such as 

air temperature, relative humidity, and soil temperature and moisture, which could, in 

turn, result in adverse impacts to native plant communities. In moderate and high burn 

severity areas, microclimate characteristics commonly associated with habitat for species 

of concern have likely been lost, however these areas also provide the opportunity for the 

unique and less frequent elements of the California flora known as fire followers to come 

to life and establish a seed bank that will persist waiting for the next event. These areas 

are also more vulnerable to invasion by noxious weeds due to the lack of ground cover 

that often acts as a barrier to establishment to non-native invasive species. Areas that 

experienced no or low burn severity may provide refugia for native species, and act as a 

seed source from which dispersal into the more intensely burned areas can occur. 

Species of Concern

There are no known populations of Federally-listed threatened, endangered, proposed, or 

candidate species within the Project area; however, suitable habitat is present within 

subpart A for the Endangered lily, Fritillaria gentneri. Suitable habitat and/ or confirmed 

populations of 3 Sensitive species and 17 Survey and Manage species are present in the 

project area. A list of these species and the number of populations assumed alive within 

the project area is displayed below in Table 3-12. 

173
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Table 3-12: List of Sensitive and Survey and Manage botanical species known to be present in the 

Westside Fire Recovery project area.

Scientific Name Status Type Populations In 

Project Area

Albatrellus flettii Survey and Manage-B Fungi 1 

Alpova olivaceotinctus Survey and Manage-B Fungi 1 

Cantharellus subalbidus Survey and Manage-D Fungi 2 

Choiromyces alveolatus Survey and Manage-B Fungi 1 

Cypripedium fasiculatum Sensitive, Survey and Manage-C Vascular plant 30

Cypripedium montanum Sensitive, Survey and Manage-C Vascular plant 23

Eriogonum hirtellum Sensitive Vascular plant 6 

Erythronium hendersonii Sensitive Vascular plant 2 

Gomphus clavatus Survey and Manage-F Fungi 1 

Marsmius applanatipes Survey and Manage-B Fungi 1 

Mycena tenax Survey and Manage-B Fungi 1 

Otidea leporina Survey and Manage-D Fungi 2 

Phaeocollybia californica Survey and Manage-B Fungi 1 

Phaeocollybia fallax Survey and Manage-D Fungi 1 

Phaeocollybia gregaria Survey and Manage-B Fungi 1 

Phaeocollybia olivacea Sensitive, Survey and Manage-E Fungi 3 

Ptilidium californicum Survey and Manage-A Bryophyte 4 

Ramaria abietina Survey and Manage-B Fungi 1 

Thermopsis robusta Sensitive Vascular plant 1 

Tremiscus helvelloides Survey and Manage-D Fungi 2 

Unique Botanical Areas of Concern

Lake Mountain Special Interest Area

This special interest area is composed of 100 acres and is the northern most known 

location of Foxtail pine. It is home to at least 6 different conifer species including: 

western white pine, foxtail pine, Shasta red fir, white fir, mountain hemlock, and Jeffrey 

pine. Such assemblages of high-elevation conifers are rare throughout California and are 

restricted to the Klamath-Siskiyou Mountains. Project design features have been 

incorporated into the Westside Fire Recovery Environmental Impact Statement in order to 

maintain foxtail pine snags within this Special Interest Area. The retention of foxtail pine 

snags is important in order to protect the unique features for which this Special Interest 

Area was designated. 

Cultural Plant Collecting Area

The Cold Creek springs area within subpart B of the Project area is an important resource 

for Adiantium aleuticum which is frequently utilized by local Tribes for basket weaving 

and botanical remedies (Lloyd 1964). The maintenance and perpetuation of cultural 

botanical resource is required by Forest Standard and Guidelines (6-21). There are 6 units 

located in the Cold Creek springs area that may affect the continued viability of this 

174
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

resource. Project design features have been incorporated into the Westside Fire Recovery 

Environmental Impact Statement in order to continue to ensure its preservation and 

continuation. 

Non-native Invasive Species

Twelve non-native invasive species are present within the project area. Of these, 7 are 

considered to be high priority, 4 are considered to be moderate priority and 1 is 

considered to be low priority on the Forest. The current risk of introduction and/or spread 

of NNIS is high due to the numerous NNIS populations present in and adjacent to the 

project area, the high level of disturbance from the 2014 fires which created habitat 

conditions that are extremely vulnerable to NNIS invasion, and the probability that the 

substantial use of the project area for recreation, wood cutting, and hunting will vector 

NNIS propagules into these vulnerable areas. A list of NNIS species, there Forest 

priority, number of populations, and acres of infestations in the project area are displayed 

below in Table -13. 

Table 3-13: List of Non-native Invasive species known to be present in the Westside Fire Recovery 

project area.

Scientific Name Forest Priority Populations in 

Project area

Acres In Project 

area

Cardaria chalepensis Moderate 4 2.5

Cardaria draba Moderate 1 0.1

Centaurea maculosa High 22 13.6

Centaurea pratensis High 2 1.1

Centaurea solstitialis Moderate 17 264.5

Centaurea squarrosa High 5 0.9

Cirsium vulgare Low 3 0.7

Cytisus scoparius High 21 66.7

Euphorbia esula High 55 28.6

Isatis tinctoria Moderate 53 614.4

Lepidium latifolium High 11 2.4

Tribulus terrestris High 1 0.1

Environmental Consequences 

Interactions between the project activities and the potential effects to botanical resources 

are discussed in detail in the Westside Fire Recovery project Botanical Resources and 

Non-native Invasive Species report and summarized here.

Alternative 1

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects 

Threatened, Endangered, Proposed and Candidate Plant Species

There will be no direct or indirect effects to Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, or 

Candidate species because no populations are currently known within the Project area. 

175
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Suitable habitat is present for Fritillaria gentneri within subpart C of the project area and 

will be surveyed for the presence of this species during appropriate times for 

identification. If populations are located, there would still be no direct or indirect effects 

because flag and avoid project design features will be incorporated that would protect 

newly discovered populations. Subsequently, there is no likelihood of jeopardizing the 

continued existence of TEPC species. 

Sensitive Vascular Plants

There would be no direct effect to the three Sensitive botanical species located in the 

project area: Eriogonum hirtellum, Erythronium hendersonii, and Thermopsis robusta. 

Indirect effects to E. hirtellum would be the adverse effects of increased competition 

from early seral species that were stimulated to germinate by the fire. Added competition 

in the short-term would cause a declining trend in population viability; however, the 

long-term trend in population viability would likely remain static as competition balances 

out. 

Erythronium species have been reported to benefit from wildfire. Unfortunately, E. 

hendersonii populations are not within areas that burned during the 2014 fires and may be 

indirectly affected by not receiving the benefits fire provides this genus through 

prescribed burning treatments. The short-term trend in population viability would remain 

static; however, without a disturbance event, stable environmental conditions may cause 

a declining trend in population viability in the long-term.

Disturbance is necessary for the spread and continued vigor of T. robusta populations, 

unfortunately the known population received little disturbance during the 2014 fires. 

Indirect effects may occur from the further development of canopy cover and a stable 

environmental condition which would hinder seed germination and decrease suitable 

habitat in the short term. However, future natural disturbance, especially in areas of fuel 

accumulation, would allow for the creation of new habitat in the long-term. 

Subsequently, there would be a declining trend in population viability until the next 

disturbance event which could create conditions that would allow for an increasing trend 

in population viability. 

Sensitive Bryophytes, Lichens, and Fungi

There would be no direct or indirect effects to Sensitive bryophyte, lichen or fungi 

species because none are known within the project area. Suitable habitat within none to 

moderately burned areas may be present. Indirect effects to suitable habitat for Sensitive 

bryophytes, lichens, and fungi are described below. 

Heavy fuel loading from the accumulation of dead, burnt snags and debris from the 2014 

fires is likely to have an indirect negative effect on potential habitat for Sensitive 

bryophyte, lichen, and fungal species by creating conditions conducive to high severity 

wildfire in the future.

Sedimentation of springs and headwater streams may have a negative indirect effect on 

the aquatic habitat for the sole Sensitive Lichen species causing a declining trend in 

potential population viability (see Hydrology report). 

Sensitive ectomycorrhizal fungi rely on the presence of a live host trees for their 

continued existence and forest re-establishment in severely burned areas may be delayed 

176
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

due to the loss of cone-bearing trees thereby indirectly postponing Sensitive 

ectomycorrhizal fungal re-colonization. This would cause a decline in potential 

population viability because the recovery time for suitable habitat would be hindered. 

Survey and Manage Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, Lichens and Fungi

There would be no direct effects to Survey and Manage vascular plant, bryophyte, lichen 

and fungi species or habitat therefore the project would be in compliance with Survey and 

manage regulations. 

Suitable habitat and known populations may be indirectly affected under alternative 1; 

however, these indirect effects will not affect compliance with Survey and Manage 

regulations. Downed woody debris would provide protected safe site for seed 

germination indirectly benefiting plant community composition. Standing burnt trees 

would provide perches for seed dispersing birds, but may also fall on populations 

damaging them and blocking germinating seeds and emerging seedlings. Re-forestation 

may be delayed in severely burned areas due to the loss of cone-bearing trees thereby 

indirectly postponing Survey and Manage mycorrhizal fungal recolonization. 

Accumulation of dead trees would generate high fuel loads creating conditions conducive 

to high severity wildfire which would cause a negative indirect effect to Survey and 

Manage species. 

Non-native Invasive Species

There would be no direct effect to Non-native Invasive species from project activities.

Existing NNIS populations would continue to spread at their current or higher rates due 

to the disturbance from the 2014 fire and suppression efforts, the subsequent habitat 

vulnerability, and the numerous non-project dependent vectors that are present in or 

utilize the project area. 

The risk of introduction and/or spread of NNIS under this alternative is high due to the 

numerous NNIS populations present in and adjacent to the project area, the high level of 

disturbance from the 2014 fires which created habitat conditions that are extremely 

vulnerable to NNIS invasion, and the probability that the substantial use of the project 

area for recreation, wood cutting, and hunting will vector NNIS propagules into these 

vulnerable areas.

Cumulative Effects

There are no cumulative effects for Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, or Candidate 

species, because there will be no direct or indirect effects. 

All activities and factors listed in Appendix C could have additional effects to Sensitive, 

Survey and Manage, and Non-native invasive species populations in the project area 

when added to alternative 1. On-going and future foreseeable Forest projects have been 

and will be evaluated for effects to Sensitive, Survey and Manage and Non-native 

Invasive species. Project design features have been incorporated into these past projects 

to limit their effects on Sensitive, Survey and Manage and Non-native Invasive species 

populations. It is expected that because of these evaluations and the inclusion of project 

design features, cumulative effects from Forest projects will have a neutral effect on 

population viability trends for Sensitive species, on Forest compliance with Survey and 

Manage regulations, and on the risk of introducing and/or spreading NNIS. 

177
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Projects on private lands are not required to protect Sensitive botanical species, and 

subsequently actions on private lands may lead to a localized downward trend in 

population viability for these species. If that is the case, on-going and future foreseeable 

projects on private lands would have a declining cumulative effect on population viability 

trends for Sensitive species. However, without knowing how many species and/or 

populations are present, how many may be effected, and how project activities will affect 

habitat conditions it is difficult to determine how potential effects from private actions 

would cumulatively influence population viability trends for Sensitive botanical species. 

Forest compliance with Survey and Manage regulations requires pre-disturbance surveys 

for habitat-disturbing projects (Category A and C species only), and the management of 

known and high-priority sites for continued persistence. On-going and future foreseeable 

Forest projects would not cumulatively affect Survey and Manage botanical species and 

would comply with regulations if project design features structured to protect Survey and 

Manage populations and associated habitats are implemented. Additionally, on-going and 

future foreseeable projects on private land that affect Survey and Manage botanical 

species would have no effect on whether the Westside Fire Recovery project is in 

compliance with these regulations since they pertain only to Forest occurrences and 

lands. Therefore, the project would continue to comply with Survey and Manage 

regulations regardless of cumulative actions on Forest or private lands. 

There are 8 grazing allotments that overlap treatment units and may contribute to the 

long-distance dispersal of NNIS infestations in the project area. Livestock mainly 

transport NNIS propagules on their fur or through ingestion. Many NNIS have barbed or 

prickly seeds that readily adhere to animal fur and may potentially be transported longdistance and/or fall off in areas that are currently weed-free. Since many NNIS seeds can 

pass through the stomach unaffected, ingested seeds may also introduce NNIS to new 

areas once they are expelled. The added cumulative effects of grazing to Alternative 1 

would likely increase the risk of NNIS introduction and spread. 

Projects on private lands are not required to mitigate for the spread and/or introduction of 

NNIS species which could also increase negative cumulative effects to NNIS populations 

and subsequently raise the risk rating. 

The BAER team analyzed the project area and prescribed emergency treatments to help 

limit the introduction and spread of NNIS from the 2014 fires and suppression activities. 

Emergency treatments will take place in the first year following the fires (2015) and will 

include additional surveys for NNIS within the fire footprints and contingency areas as 

well subsequent hand removal of newly located infestations. These treatments will help 

control the introduction and spread of annual NNIS species, such as Centaurea 

solstitialis. Unfortunately, biennial and perennial species that have a rosette lifestage are 

difficult to locate in the first year because of their short stature, and may not be found 

during these surveys. The Forest Noxious Weed Detection and Treatment program would 

also continue to survey for and treat new populations that may be introduced or spread 

onto Forest lands through on-going and future foreseeable Forest and Private land 

projects; however, the cumulative risk for the introduction and spread of NNIS would 

remain high due to the particularly vulnerable condition of the habitat. 

178
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Alternative 2 

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects 

Threatened, Endangered, Proposed and Candidate Plant Species

There will be no direct or indirect effects to Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, or 

Candidate species because no populations are currently known within the Project area. 

Suitable habitat is present for Fritillaria gentneri within subpart C of the project area and 

this area will be surveyed for the presence of F. gentneri during appropriate times for 

identification. If populations are located, there would still be no direct or indirect effects 

because flag and avoid project design features will be incorporated that would protect 

newly discovered populations. Subsequently, there is no likelihood of jeopardizing the 

continued existence of TEPC species. 

Sensitive Vascular Plants

Eriogonum hirtellum:

Direct effects to E. hirtellum are unlikely because this species is restricted to bald 

serpentine outcrops and gravelly slope and ridges that typically have no overstory cover 

and very little understory vegetation. Due to the open characteristic of E. hirtellum

habitat, equipment may be transported through the area which could potentially damage 

some individuals within the populations. Eriogonum hirtellum populations may be 

indirectly effected by increased competition from early seral species that were stimulated 

to germinate by the fire. In the short-term, these effects would have a declining effect on 

population viability as individuals are impacted. However, because effects would be 

minimal and to individuals and not the population as a whole, the long term trend in 

population viability would remain static. 

Erythronium hendersonii:

Direct effects to E. hendersonii populations would be both beneficial and negative to 

population persistence. The removal of excess understory vegetation would provide a 

beneficial effect by opening up habitat and reducing light competition; and negative 

effects would occur to specific individuals and portions of the habitat where piles are 

burned. Project design features will mitigate effects to underground bulbs from pile 

burning; subsequently, this alternative would result in an increasing trend in population 

viability due to the beneficial impacts of fuels treatments on suitable habitat. 

Thermopsis robusta:

Effects to this population would be both beneficial and negative. Use of the gravel 

pullout where this population occurs would provide a short term benefit by creating 

disturbance necessary for the creation of new suitable habitat and population expansion. 

However, vegetation recovery and encroachment would cause negative long-term effects 

on population viability. While there would be a short-term increasing trend in population 

viability due to use of the gravel pullout, overall there would be a declining trend in 

population viability until the next disturbance event that would again allow for an 

increasing trend in population viability. 

Sensitive Bryophytes, Lichens, and Fungi

There would be no direct or indirect effects to Sensitive bryophyte, lichen or fungi 

species as a result of Alternative 2, because none are known within the project area. 

179
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Suitable habitat within none to moderately burned areas may be present. Indirect effects 

to suitable habitat for Sensitive bryophytes, lichens, and fungi are described below. 

Fuels treatments would provide an indirect, long-term benefit to suitable habitat by 

reducing excessive fuel loading and the potential for another high severity wildfire in the 

future which would cause an increasing trend in potential population viability through the 

maintenance and protection of suitable habitat. 

Conifer planting associated with this alternative may indirectly benefit sensitive 

ectomycorrhizal fungi by increasing the speed at which severely burned areas are 

reforested. This would cause an increasing trend in potential population viability through 

the creation and restoration of suitable habitat. 

Sedimentation of springs and headwater streams may have a negative indirect effect on 

the aquatic habitat for the sole Sensitive Lichen species. The risk of sedimentation would 

increase under this alternative in comparison to alternative 1, causing a more precipitous 

decline in potential population viability because suitable habitat would have a higher risk 

of degradation. However, legacy site restoration will reduce the risk of sedimentation in 

the Elk creek watershed resulting in a static trend in potential population viability in that 

specific watershed (see the Hydrology report). 

Survey and Manage Plant Species

Cypripedium fasciculatum and Cypripedium montanum: 

Eighteen C. fasciculatum and 16 C. montanum populations are present within activity 

units. These are both Category C species, and thus to be in compliance with Survey and 

Manage guidelines populations deemed high priority must be protected. High priority 

will be given to robust, healthy populations located in areas with intact suitable habitat 

present following the 2014 fires. Implementation of flag and avoid protection measures 

for high priority populations would result in very minimal direct effects to C. 

fasciculatum and C. montanum populations as well as compliance with required 

guidelines. This alternative is expected to provide a long-term benefit to C. fasciculatum 

and C. montanum populations and suitable habitat by reducing excessive fuel loading and 

the potential for a high severity wildfire. 

Survey and Manage Bryophytes

Ptilidium californicum: 

There are 2 populations of P. californicum located in in roadside hazard activity units. 

Ptilidium californicum is a Category A species, and thus to be in compliance with Survey 

and Manage guidelines all known sites must be protected. Implementation of flag and 

avoid protection measures would result in no direct effects to populations ensuring 

compliance with required guidelines. 

Roadside treatments may indirectly effect P. californicum populations by creating small 

canopy openings adjacent to populations. This would be a short-term effect as larger 

canopy elements would be maintained and shading to the habitat would not be 

significantly reduced. The reduction in excessive fuels may indirectly benefit populations 

by reducing the risk of a future high severity wildfire. 

Survey and Manage Fungi

180
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Albatrellus flettii: 

There is 1 A. flettii population located in an activity unit. Albatrellus flettii is a Category 

B species, and thus to be in compliance with Survey and Manage guidelines all known 

sites must be protected. Implementation of flag and avoid protection measures would 

result in no direct effects to this population ensuring compliance with required guidelines. 

Subsequently, there would be no likelihood of effecting this population. However, there 

is the likelihood that project activities would beneficially affect suitable habitat by 

reducing excessive fuels, thereby decreasing the risk of a future high severity fire event 

that would kill host trees and moisture requirements necessary for survival. 

Otidea leporina: 

There is 1. O. leporina populations located in an activity unit. Otidea leporina is a 

Category D species, and thus to be in compliance with Survey and Manage guidelines 

populations deemed high priority must be protected. Little is known about this species 

making it difficult to designate whether it is a high-priority population. If appropriate 

habitat components are present to support mycorrhizal and saprophytic fungi this 

population will be designated high-priority. Implementation of flag and avoid protection 

measures will result in no direct effects to this population as well as compliance with 

required guidelines. 

Phaeocollybia californica and Phaeocollybia olivacea: 

There is 1 population of P. californica and 2 populations of P. olivacea located in activity 

units. Phaeocollybia californica is a Category B species and P. olivacea is a Category E 

species which both require the protection of all known sites in order to be in compliance 

with Survey and Manage guidelines. Implementation of flag and avoid protection 

measures would result in no direct effects to these populations ensuring compliance with 

required guidelines. Project activities would beneficially affect suitable habitat by 

reducing excessive fuels, thereby decreasing the risk of a future high severity fire event 

that would kill host trees and moisture requirements necessary for survival. 

Tremiscus helvelloides: 

There is 1 population of T. helvelloides located in an activity unit. Tremiscus helvelloides

is a Category D species and thus to be in compliance with Survey and Manage guidelines 

high-priority populations must be protected. This population will be considered high 

priority if the habitat still provides adequate shade, moisture, and substrate necessary to 

support jelly fungi. Implementation of flag and avoid protection measures will result in 

no direct effects to this population as well as compliance with required guidelines. 

Prescribed burn treatments would have a beneficial indirect effect on these populations 

by reducing excessive fuels, thereby decreasing the risk of a future high severity fire 

event. 

Non-native Invasive Species

The project area is already highly susceptible to NNIS infestation regardless of project 

activities due to the numerous NNIS infestations already present, the vulnerability of the 

project area from the 2014 fires, and the high recreational use of the area. Project 

activities are not expected to increase invasion potential through the removal of canopy 

cover or duff layers because these elements were already lost during the 2014 fires. 

In this alternative, the five risk factors combined have a high potential for NNIS 

introduction and spread within the project area when compared to alternative 1, due to the 

181
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

higher level of ground disturbing activities and increased vectors. Ground disturbance 

that includes the movement of soils contaminated with NNIS propagules, such as road 

and landing construction, grading, and treatment of watershed legacy sites, would directly 

contribute to the spread of these infestations. With extensive infestations occurring along 

roadways, dispersal distance may be increased through transport on recreational or 

project related vehicles and equipment. Helicopter logging in areas infested with NNIS 

would increase the rate of spread because down drafts from rotor blades could displace 

weed seeds and disperse them over large distances. Water-tenders could also spread 

NNIS propagules through waterways when filling their tanks, allowing new infestations 

to establish downstream. 

Project design features and mitigation measures would minimize these effects; however 

the risk would remain high due to the pre-existing condition. Continuation of the existing 

Forest weed monitoring and treatment would detect any new high-priority weed sites that 

may become established within the project area. Quickly treating these sites will limit 

new NNIS establishment. 

Cumulative Effects

There are no cumulative effects for Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, or Candidate 

species, because there will be no direct or indirect effects. 

All activities and factors listed in appendix C of the Westside Fire Recovery project

Environmental Impact Statement could have additional effects to Sensitive, Survey and 

Manage, and Non-native invasive species populations in the project area when added to 

alternative 2. On-going and future foreseeable Forest projects have been and will be 

evaluated for effects to Sensitive, Survey and Manage and Non-native Invasive species. 

Project design features have been or will be incorporated into ongoing and future 

foreseeable Forest projects to limit their effects on Sensitive, Survey and Manage and 

Non-native Invasive species populations. 

Sensitive species viability and persistence may be both beneficially and negatively 

affected by cumulative Forest projects. Project design features have been or will be 

incorporated into all on-going and future foreseeable Forest projects to limit negative 

effects on population viability trends. Consequently, the cumulative effect of Forest 

projects on Sensitive species would be expected to cause a short-term declining trend in 

population viability as individuals are lost, but would create a long-term increasing trend 

in population viability from the beneficial impacts of management activities on suitable 

habitat (i.e. fuel treatments, conifer planting, habitat creation, etc.). 

Projects on private lands are not required to protect Sensitive botanical species, and 

subsequently actions on private lands may lead to a localized downward trend in 

population viability for these species. If that is the case, on-going and future foreseeable 

projects on private lands would have a declining cumulative effect on population viability 

trends for Sensitive species. However, without knowing how many species and/or 

populations are present, how many may be effected, and how project activities will affect 

habitat conditions it is difficult to determine how potential effects from private actions 

would cumulatively influence population viability trends for Sensitive botanical species. 

Forest compliance with Survey and Manage regulations requires pre-disturbance surveys 

for habitat-disturbing projects (Category A and C species only), and the management of 

182
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

known and high-priority sites for continued persistence. On-going and future foreseeable 

Forest projects would not cumulatively affect Survey and Manage botanical species and 

would comply with regulations if project design features structured to protect Survey and 

Manage populations and associated habitats are implemented. Additionally, on-going and 

future foreseeable projects on private land that affect Survey and Manage botanical 

species would have no effect on whether the Westside Fire Recovery project is in 

compliance with these regulations since they pertain only to Forest occurrences and 

lands. Therefore, the project would continue to comply with Survey and Manage 

regulations regardless of cumulative actions on Forest or private lands. 

The five risk factors combined have a high potential for NNIS introduction and spread 

within the project area for Alternative 2, due to the high level of ground disturbing 

activities and increased vectors. Project design features and mitigation measures would 

minimize these effects; however the risk would remain high due to the pre-existing 

condition. On-going and future foreseeable projects would also implement mitigation 

measures aimed at reducing NNIS introduction and spread. Unfortunately, project design 

features cannot eliminate risk and it is expected that new NNIS infestations may still 

become established despite these mitigation measures. Consequently, on-going and future 

foreseeable Forest projects have the potential to elevate the cumulative risk of NNIS 

introduction and spread, resulting in a continued risk rating of high. 

There are 8 grazing allotments that overlap treatment units and may contribute to the 

long-distance dispersal of NNIS infestations in the project area. Livestock mainly 

transport NNIS propagules on their fur or through ingestion. Many NNIS have barbed or 

prickly seeds that readily adhere to animal fur and may potentially be transported longdistance and/or fall off in areas that are currently weed-free. Since many NNIS seeds can 

pass through the stomach unaffected, ingested seeds may also introduce NNIS to new 

areas once they are expelled. The added cumulative effects of grazing to Alternative 2 

would likely increase the risk of NNIS introduction and spread. Projects on private lands 

are not required to mitigate for the spread and/or introduction of NNIS species which 

could also increase negative cumulative effects to NNIS populations and subsequently 

raise the risk rating. 

The BAER team analyzed the project area and prescribed emergency treatments to help 

limit the introduction and spread of NNIS from the 2014 fires and suppression activities. 

Emergency treatments will take place in the first year following the fires (2015) and will 

include additional surveys for NNIS within the fire footprints and contingency areas as 

well subsequent hand removal of newly located infestations. These treatments will help 

control the introduction and spread of annual NNIS species, such as Centaurea 

solstitialis. Unfortunately, biennial and perennial species that have a rosette lifestage are 

difficult to locate in the first year because of their short stature, and may not be found 

during these surveys. The Forest Noxious Weed Detection and Treatment program would 

also continue to survey for and treat new populations that may be introduced or spread 

onto Forest lands through on-going and future foreseeable Forest and Private land 

projects; however, the cumulative risk for the introduction and spread of NNIS would 

remain high due to the particularly vulnerable condition of the habitat. 

183
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Alternative 3 and 4

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects 

Threatened, Endangered, Proposed and Candidate Plant Species

These alternatives will have the same direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to 

Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Candidate botanical species as Alternative 2 and 

the same project Design Features would be incorporated to mitigate those effects. 

Sensitive Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, Lichens, and Fungi

These alternatives will have the same direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to Sensitive 

botanical species as Alternative 2 and the same project Design Features would be 

incorporated to mitigate those effects. Additionally, the added retention of snag clumps 

and coarse woody debris under this Alternative would indirectly benefit habitat for 

Sensitive bryophytes and fungi by mitigating effects to microclimate and providing 

substrate. 

Survey and Manage Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Fungi

These alternatives will have the same direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to Survey 

and Manage species as Alternative 2 and will incorporate the same project Design 

Features to mitigate those affects. Additionally, the added retention of snag clumps and 

coarse woody debris under this Alternative would indirectly benefit habitat for Survey 

and Manage bryophytes and fungi by mitigating effects to microclimate and providing 

substrate.

Non-native Invasive Species

Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects from these alternatives to the spread and 

introduction of NNIS infestations would be the same as for Alternative 2 and the same 

Project Design Features would be incorporated to mitigate those affects.

Alternative 5 

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects 

Threatened, Endangered, Proposed and Candidate Plant Species

These alternatives will have the same direct, indirect, and cumulative effects to 

Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Candidate botanical species as Alternative 2 and 

the same project Design Features would be incorporated to mitigate those effects. 

Sensitive Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, Lichens, and Fungi

This alternative will have the same direct, indirect, and cumulative affects to Sensitive 

botanical species as Alternative 2 and will incorporate the same Project Design Features 

to mitigate those affects. 

Survey and Manage Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Fungi

This alternative will have the same direct, indirect, and cumulative affects to Survey and 

Manage botanical species as Alternative 2 and will incorporate the same Project Design 

Features to mitigate those affects. 

Non-native Invasive Species

184
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects from this alternative to the spread and 

introduction of NNIS infestations would be slightly less than for Alternative 2, because of 

the reduction in acres treated, resulting in less disturbed ground and chance of 

introduction of new species. The decrease in risk is very minimal and not enough to 

lower the risk rating from high. The same Project Design Features would be incorporated 

to mitigate effects.

Comparison of Effects

Table 3-14: Comparison of effects to Species of Concern and NNIS by Alternatives.

Group Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

TEPC No direct, indirect 

or cumulative 

effects

No direct, indirect 

or cumulative 

effects

Same as Alt 2 Same as Alt 2 Same as Alt 2

Sensitive No direct effects

Indirect effects 

from competition, 

lack of 

disturbance, 

delayed 

reforestation, 

sedimentation of 

aquatic habitat, 

and increased risk 

of fire

Direct effects to 

individuals may 

occur, but are not 

likely to result in a 

trend toward 

federal listing or a 

loss in population 

viability

Same as Alt 2. 

Additionally, 

the added 

retention of 

snag clumps 

and coarse 

woody debris 

would mitigate 

microclimate 

and provide 

substrates for 

Sensitive 

species 

Same as Alt 2. 

Limiting 

treatments in 

Riparian 

Reserves would 

protect the 

majority of 

habitat for 

Sensitive 

bryophytes and 

fungi, reduced 

road construction 

would limit risk of 

stream 

sedimentation. 

Same as Alt 2

Survey 

and 

Manage

No direct effects

Indirect long-term 

effects from 

competition, lack 

of disturbance, 

delayed 

reforestation, and 

increased risk of 

fire 

No direct effects 

to Category A, B 

and E species 

because all known 

sites would be 

protected. Minimal 

direct effects to 

Category C and D 

species because 

high priority sites 

would be 

protected with the 

implementation of 

project design 

features. 

Same as Alt 2. 

Additionally, 

the added 

retention of 

snag clumps 

and coarse 

woody debris 

would mitigate 

microclimate 

and provided 

substrates for 

Survey and

Manage

species 

Same as Alt 2. 

Limiting 

treatments in 

Riparian 

Reserves would 

protect the 

majority of 

habitat for 

Survey and

Manage

bryophytes and 

fungi

Same as Alt 2

NNIS No direct effects

Indirect long-term 

effects from 

habitat disturbance 

and non-project 

dependent vectors

High risk of 

spread due to 

numerous existing 

NNIS populations, 

habitat 

vulnerability, nonproject and project 

dependent 

vectors, and 

ground disturbing 

activities. 

Same as Alt 2 Same as Alt 2 Risk of NNIS 

spread would 

be slightly less 

than for the 

Alternative 2. 

The decrease 

in risk is very 

minimal and 

not enough to 

lower the risk 

rating from 

high.

185
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Determination of Effects

Alternative 1

Under alternative 1, it is my determination that the Westside Fire Recovery project will 

not affect the Sensitive plant species: Eriogonum hirtellum, Erythronium hendersonii, 

and Thermopsis robusta. 

Alternative 2

Under alternative 2, it is my determination that the Westside Fire Recovery project may 

affect individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or a loss 

of viability for the Sensitive plant species: Eriogonum hirtellum, Erythronium 

hendersonii, and Thermopsis robusta. 

Alternative 3

Under alternative 3, it is my determination that the Westside Fire Recovery project may 

affect individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or a loss 

of viability for the Sensitive plant species: Eriogonum hirtellum, Erythronium 

hendersonii, and Thermopsis robusta. 

Alternative 4

Under alternative 4, it is my determination that the Westside Fire Recovery project may 

affect individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or a loss 

of viability for the Sensitive plant species: Eriogonum hirtellum, Erythronium 

hendersonii, and Thermopsis robusta. 

Alternative 5

Under alternative 5, it is my determination that the Westside Fire Recovery project may 

affect individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or a loss 

of viability for the Sensitive plant species: Eriogonum hirtellum, Erythronium 

hendersonii, and Thermopsis robusta. 

Compliance with Law, Regulation, Policy, and the Forest Plan

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Botanical Species: 

The Westside Fire Recovery project complies with section 7 of the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973, as amended, in the preparation of a Biological Assessment and Biological 

Evaluation and the disclosure of effects; Forest Service Policy (FSM 2670), and Klamath 

National Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines for Sensitive plant species have been met 

by managing populations for viability where possible. 

Survey and Manage Plants: 

The Westside Fire Recovery project complies with the 2001 Record of Decision and 

Standards and Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, 

and other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines by preparing an assessment and 

documenting effects (USDA 2014a). 

Non-native Invasive Species: 

The Westside Fire Recovery project complies with Forest Service Manual 2900 and 

Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines for Non-native invasive species by preparing the 

186
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Noxious Weed Risk Assessment, and providing Project Design Features to minimize 

effects. 

Range _________________________________________________ 

The purpose of this section is to describe the condition of the range resource in the 

Westside Fire Recovery project (project) area and how rangeland resources may be 

affected by the proposed action and alternatives for this project. 

Methodology

The method used to determine effects on rangeland resources included a qualitative 

comparison of each alternative’s likelihood of affecting the amount of forage available 

for livestock use and rangeland condition. Existing rangeland conditions were determined 

through field visits, monitoring data, and historical records for each allotment. 

To describe the rangeland resources in the project area and analyze alternatives, the 

following Klamath National Forest Geographic Information System data files were used:

• Allotment and unit/pasture boundaries; 

• Fire intensity; and

• Project alternative maps.

Condition and trend of rangelands is determined by monitoring “key areas” on upland, 

meadow, and riparian rangeland areas. Key areas are a small ecological site or plant 

community that is responsive to management actions and indicative of the larger 

ecological site or plant community they are intended to represent (USDI 1999b). 

Condition and trend monitoring protocols employed include Best Management Practices 

Effectiveness Program (BMPEP), Photo Point Monitoring, and Rooted Frequency. 

Following the 2014 fires, ocular observations were made to ground truth the fire intensity 

maps, assess condition of key areas, and estimate vegetation regrowth potential for 

forage.

Analysis Indicators

The effects of the project on rangeland resources are evaluated using two analysis 

indicators: 

• Amount of Available Forage 

• Rangeland Condition 

Amount of forage and rangeland condition are the biggest impact to allotment viability. 

Adequate forage is needed to sustain cattle grazing without exceeding rangeland 

standards and guidelines and rangeland condition can indicate if grazing is a proper use 

of the land. 

Spatial and Temporal Context

The spatial limits of this analysis are limited to the grazing allotments which fall within 

the project area. This allows for analysis of the total effect to all rangeland resources 

associated with the project. Due to the nature of grazing permits, effects are measured in 

187
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

the short term of 10 years or less and long term of 20 years to consider trend of the 

rangeland resource. 

Affected Environment 

The project encompasses portions of the East Beaver, Dry Lake, Horse Creek, 

Johnny/Seiad, South Klamath, Big Ridge, Scott Bar Mountain, Marble Valley, Etna 

Creek, and South Russian allotments and includes all areas on the Lake Mountain and 

Middle Tompkins allotments. Allotment names, status, use period, and permitted 

cow/calf pair numbers are provided in table 3-14. 

Table 3-15: Allotments within the project boundary

Area Allotment Name Status Use Period and 

Permitted Number

Beaver Fire East Beaver Active 4/1-6/15, 44 pairs

6/16-10/30, 250 Pairs

Beaver Fire Dry Lake Active 4/15-5/09, 116 pairs

5/10-10/15, 170 Pairs

Beaver Fire Horse Creek Active 4/15-10/15, 101 pairs

Beaver Fire Johnny/Seiad Vacant N/A

Happy Camp Complex Scott Bar Mountain Vacant N/A

Happy Camp Complex Lake Mountain Active 7/15-10/15, 25 pairs

Happy Camp Complex Middle Tompkins Vacant Currently being 

analyzed

Happy Camp Complex Big Ridge Active 7/15-10/15, 120 Pair

Happy Camp Complex Marble Valley Active 7/15-10/15, 35 Pair

Whites Fire Etna Creek Active 7/15-10/15, 54 pair

Whites Fire South Russian Active 7/15-10/15, 40 pair

Seiad/Johnny, South Klamath, and Scott Bar Mountain will not be discussed further as 

they are vacant and are not expected to be restocked within the next 10 years. Middle 

Tompkins is also vacant; however, it is included because it is currently undergoing 

analysis to update the allotment management plan. Although Big Ridge is within the 

project boundary, it will not be discussed further as all grazing activities are in wilderness 

and therefore treatments will not overlap with rangeland resources. 

Allotment Monitoring

Rangeland condition assessment methods most commonly used on the Forest are Rooted 

Frequency Plots (USDI, 1999a) in key areas. Table 2 shows the most current reading of 

rooted frequency plots within the affected allotments. 

188
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Table 3-16: Condition based on Rooted Frequency Plots

Allotment Plot Name Year of Last 

Reading

Vegetation 

Type

Vegetation 

Condition1 Overall Conditon2 Ecological Condition3

Dry Lake KLA1402-Dead 

Cow*

2014 Moist 

Meadow

Fair Good Satisfactory

East 

Beaver

KLA9904-

Trapper Creek*

2009 Wet 

Meadow

Moderate Moderate Satisfactory

East 

Beaver

KLA0202-

Trapper Creek*

2007 Dry 

Meadow

Moderate Moderate Satisfactory

Horse 

Creek

No Frequency 

Plots 

Established

Lake 

Mountain

KLA1301-Kuntz 

Creek

2013 Dry 

Meadow

Moderate Moderate Satisfactory

Middle 

Tompkins

KLA1302-Tyler 

Meadows

2013 Moist 

Meadow

Moderate High Satisfactory

Middle 

Tompkins

KLA1201-

Middle Creek 

Meadows

2012 Moist 

Meadow

Moderate Moderate Satisfactory

Marble 

Valley

KLA0103- Big 

Rock*

2006 Moist 

Meadow

Moderate Low Unsatisfactory

Etna 

Creek

KLA1401-

Meeks 

Meadow*

2014 Moist 

Meadow

Good Good Satisfactory

South 

Russian

No Frequency 

Plots 

Established

*Plot is not within the Westside Project boundary but is the nearest key area within the allotment that is representative of 

rangeland conditions.

1

Vegetation condition:. There are two ranking scales displayed in the table because region 5 recently changed their scoring 

system for rangeland plots. High, Moderate, and Low refer to high seral, mid seral and early seral respectively. The terms 

poor, fair, good, and excellent are the current classifications for rangeland condition.

2 Overall condition is based upon hydrologic, vegetative, and soil conditions. 

3

Ecological condition simply summarizes overall condition as either satisfactory or non-satisfactory 

As outlined in table 2, most rangeland key areas are in satisfactory condition. Marble 

Valley is in unsatisfactory condition due to shallow rooting depth and bare soil, which 

can put rangeland at risk of undesirable plant invasion. However, the vegetation in the 

Marble Valley area had been maintaining mid-seral species since 2001 and reevaluation 

of this site is expected to occur in 2015. Conditions within the South Russian and Horse 

Creek areas have been measured by other methods, thus no frequency plots have been 

established to date. 

Riparian conditions on the Forest allotments are assessed through the BMPEP (table 3-

16). The grazing protocol for the Pacific Southwest Region (Region 5) of the Forest 

Service records herbaceous and woody utilization levels, stream-bank disturbance, 

ground cover, bank angle, riparian and upslope erosion, and riparian vegetation 

condition. 

189
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Table 3-17: Most current BMPEP rating for each allotment within the project area

Allotment 

Name

Key Area Year 

Evaluated

Met Implementation 

Standards?

Met Effectiveness 

Criteria?

Dry Lake Dead Cow* 2009 Yes Partial 

East Beaver West Long John* 2008 Yes Yes

Horse Creek Salt Creek* 2012 Yes Yes

Lake Mountain Lookout Spring 2013 Partial Partial 

Middle 

Tompkins

Tyler Meadows 2008 Yes Yes

Marble Valley South Fork Kelsey 2009 Yes Yes

Etna Creek Meeks Meadow 2010 Partial Partial 

South Russian Lees Meadow 2013 Yes Yes

Allotments that met both implementation and effectiveness BMPEP criteria demonstrate 

that grazing is not degrading water resources in the allotment. Changes in grazing 

management are recommended and implemented for sites that partially meet the criteria. 

In the three allotments that partially met effectiveness criteria, trampling had caused 

stream-bank vulnerabilities or exposed soil at the edges of ponds. These disturbances 

were localized and did not cause impacts to beneficial uses such as fisheries and wildlife 

use.

2014 Wildfire

During the summer of 2014, the Beaver, Happy Camp Complex, and Whites fires burned 

about 200,000 acres of land. As a result, the project was developed in response to 

landscape-level changes to forested habitat resulting from the 2014 wildfires on the 

Klamath National Forest. Table 4 outlines the levels of burn mortality by acre for each 

allotment as a result of these fires.

Table 3-18: Fire intensity

Allotment 

Name

Total 

Allotment 

Acres

1-10 

% 

10-25 

% 

25-50 

% 

50-75 

% 

75-90 

% 

>90 % Total 

Burned

Acres

Percentage of 

allotment 

acres burned

Dry Lake 41,501 2962 1704 2031 1633 1046 7890 17,266 42 %

East 

Beaver

67,042 1941 982 920 685 399 2567 7,494 11 %

Horse 

Creek

37,055 401 191 188 147 94 1017 2,038 6 %

Lake 

Mountain

9,655 1334 724 838 686 455 2735 6,772 70 %

Middle 

Tompkins

14,736 3204 1471 1344 795 420 1759 8993 61 %

Marble 

Valley

8,136 7 2 2 0 0 0 11 <1 %

Etna 

Creek

18,903 351 112 94 63 48 253 921 5 %

190
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Allotment 

Name

Total 

Allotment 

Acres

1-10 

% 

10-25 

% 

25-50 

% 

50-75 

% 

75-90 

% 

>90 % Total 

Burned

Acres

Percentage of 

allotment 

acres burned

South 

Russian

13,200 647 275 269 215 149 796 2351 18 %

Total 210,228 10,847 5,461 5,686 4,224 2611 17,017 45,846 21 %

Field visits performed after the fire revealed that burning was patchy and irregular 

throughout the allotments. The fire severity drifted toward the extreme with most acres 

either being in the 1-10 percent mortality category or over 90 percent mortality category. 

The most intense burning occurred where dense closed canopy forest dominated the 

landscape. Herbaceous forest understory and shrublands were burned in a patchy manner, 

but because this forage component is widely scattered and separated, effects could not be 

comprehensively assessed at time of inspection. Direct effects of the burn on meadows 

were minimal. Most meadows were either unburned or lightly burned in some areas. In 

general, the fire did not produce serious mortality on primary rangeland to the point of 

altering existing conditions. 

To allow for post-fire recovery of vegetation, livestock grazing areas will be modified 

within the project area where necessary. For the Middle Tompkins allotment, livestock 

grazing permits will not be authorized until 2016 or later. Lake Mountain and Dry Lake 

allotments will be monitored prior to the 2015 grazing season to determine if vegetation 

has recovered enough to support grazing and grazing won’t hinder tree establishment. If 

grazing is allowed, animals may be turned out at a later date and/or the season may be 

shortened in the fall to allow for optimal vegetation recovery and the most beneficial use 

of livestock grazing. These modifications for post-fire livestock use of rangelands will be 

variable based to rangeland conditions and climate as observed by rangeland managers. 

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Under alternative 1, no treatments are proposed for the project area. As a result, there will 

be no direct effects to rangeland resources, and rangelands will slowly heal from wildfire 

effects. New areas of transitory rangeland will likely be available for livestock and 

wildlife where moderate or low severity burns occurred. Not removing hazardous trees 

through salvage harvest, hazardous fuels treatments, roadside hazard treatments, and site 

preparation, planting and release may limit livestock access to forage in the short term 

and could make livestock management (turnout, moving, and gathering cattle) dangerous 

for permittees. Areas that were severely burned will be susceptible to weed invasion 

which may lower productive rangeland conditions in the long term. 

Cumulative Effects 

This alternative will not add project-related incremental effects to the effects of current or 

future grazing projects, because no management activities are proposed. Grazing, projects 

on private lands, and recreational activities will not adversely affect the availability of 

191
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

rangeland forage, and rangeland conditions will continue to fluctuate in response to 

climatic conditions, wildfire, and grazing management.

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4

The description of treatments for all alternatives are provided in chapter 2. 

Salvage harvest, hazardous fuels treatment, roadside hazard treatments, and site 

preparation, planting, and release activities are planned as proposed treatments within the 

allotment boundaries. The alternatives maps and descriptions have been reviewed and the 

proposed activities will have minimal effects on rangeland resources because the 

proposed activities do not often overlap the same areas where cattle graze. Most salvage 

harvest and planting activities take place on steeper slopes which cattle rarely, if ever, 

use. Capable rangeland, or areas that are accessible to cattle and produce forage, are 

generally limited to a 40 percent or less slope during rangeland capability analysis on the 

Klamath National Forest (Holechek 1989; USDA Forest Service 2001). Project activities 

are also planned in timbered vegetative communities that are not likely to be able to 

produce substantial forage because of heavy canopy cover and lack of a seedbank. 

Efforts will be taken to schedule grazing in areas that are not actively being treated so as 

to minimize stress to livestock and protect young seedlings. Permittees will be notified 

through Annual Operating Instructions of areas where harvesting, burning activity, and/or 

grazing restrictions will occur that could affect their permit. Additionally, Range project 

design features have been created to protect rangeland improvements such as cattle 

guards and corrals. 

For a description of alternatives and a list of project design features, see table 2-1 of 

chapter 2. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, are discussed together as they all have similar effects 

on rangeland resources. Acres of proposed activities within range allotments for 

alternative 2 are displayed in table 3-18 since this alternative proposed the greatest 

number of acres of treatment of any alternative.

Table 3-19: Approximate acres of proposed activities within allotment boundaries

Allotment Name Fuels Salvage Harvest Units Roadside Hazard Prep and Plant Total

Dry Lake 2,102 859 1,921 1,481 6,363

East Beaver 922 12 756 0 1,690

Horse Creek 238 0 246 301 785

Lake Mountain 1,018 1,551 1,306 155 4,030

Middle Tompkins 482 1,172 2,423 1,178 5,255

Marble Valley 0 0 103 103

Etna Creek 228 20 48 0 296

South Russian 12 0 24 0 36

Grand Total (acres) 5,002 3,614 6,827 3,115 18,558

192
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Many of the proposed activities overlap spatially so the footprint on the landscape will be 

less than the acres proposed under each individual treatment: this is displayed as the 

number of “dissolved” acres in table 3-19. 

Table 3-20: Percentage of allotment acres treated under alternative 2

Allotment Name Forest service acres within 

allotment

Total dissolved 

acres

Percentage of allotment acres 

being treated

Dry Lake 37,457 4860 13 %

East Beaver 41,607 1489 4 %

Horse Creek 23,224 558 2 %

Lake Mountain 9,655 3217 33 %

Middle Tompkins 14,736 4533 31 %

Marble Valley 8,136 103 1 %

Etna Creek 17,254 217 1 %

South Russian 12,277 34 0.3 %

Total 164,346 15,011 9 %

Only a small percentage of the East Beaver, Horse Creek, Marble Valley, Etna Creek, 

and South Russian allotments have acres proposed for treatments. This is largely due to 

the fact that only a portion of those allotments were burned, and what was burned, did not 

burn at high intensity. Additionally, the Marble Valley, Etna Creek, and South Russian 

allotments include wilderness areas which are not treated in any alternative. 

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects 

Where capable rangeland overlaps with salvage logging or fuels treatments, the project 

will likely provide new areas of transitory range. This will temporarily (5-10 years) 

increase the amount of forage available for livestock and wildlife, encourage animals to 

disperse on the landscape, and decrease grazing pressure on primary rangelands. Heavy 

equipment operations during treatment will likely increase the chance of weed dispersal; 

however, weed project design features (NNIS-1 through NNIS-5) will be in place and 

provide for proper mitigation. Livestock management will also be safer for permittees 

after hazardous trees have been removed. Rangeland conditions should not be negatively 

affected as a result of alternatives 2, 3 and 4, as a Range project design feature (Range-3) 

protects allotment meadows. 

Cumulative Effects 

Adding the effects of alternatives 2, 3, or 4 to the ongoing and reasonable foreseeable 

future actions identified in alternative 1 will not have substantial cumulative effects to 

range. There will be a slight increase of transitory range available for livestock and 

wildlife foraging and rangeland conditions will continue to fluctuate in response to 

climatic conditions, wildfire, and grazing management.

Alternative 5 

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects 

193
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Direct and indirect effects of alternative 5 will be similar to alternatives 2, 3, and 4. 

Fewer acres will be available as transitory range as the proposed number of harvested 

acres is reduced by 75 percent in alternative 5 from that in alternative 2; however, the 

number of acres to be planted is only reduced by half. Overall, the condition of the range 

should remain relatively the same and forage will increase marginally when compared to 

alternative 2, 3, or 4. The same project design features as previously outlined in the direct 

and indirect effects of alternatives 2, 3 and 4 will be incorporated into alternative 5 to 

mitigate effects.

Cumulative Effects 

Cumulative effects will be similar to those of alternatives 2, 3, and 4. 

Comparison of Effects 

Alternative 1 will have neutral effects to rangeland resources but will be more dangerous 

to permittees managing cattle in allotments as a result of no treatment activities. 

Alternative 5 will slightly increase forage availability and reduce hazards to permittees, 

as compared to alternative 1.

Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 will benefit rangeland resources the most as the treatments 

proposed will increase the amount of forage available, decrease grazing pressure on 

primary rangelands, and reduce hazards for permittees who maintain rangeland 

conditions. 

Table 3-21: Comparison of alternatives for rangeland resources

Rangeland Indicator Alternative 1 Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 Alternative 5

Availability of Forage No effect Increase Increase somewhat but less 

than alternatives 2, 3, or 4.

Rangeland Condition neutral neutral neutral

Compliance with law, regulation, policy, and the Forest Plan 

The project is in compliance with law, policy, and regulation related to rangeland 

resources, and is in compliance with the standards of the Forest Plan as displayed in the 

Forest Plan consistency checklist, available on the project website. 

Water Quality___________________________________________ 

This section compares potential impacts and benefits to hydrologic function and water 

quality of project alternatives. Results of the analysis are used to verify that project 

alternatives adhere to existing law, regulation, and policy such as the Clean Water Act 

(specified by Total Maximum Daily Load requirements for the Klamath, Salmon, and 

Scott Rivers) and Forest Plan requirements including those related to the Aquatic 

Conservation Strategy. See Aquatic Conservation Report in project record. 

Methodology

The effects of project alternatives on hydrologic function and water quality are analyzed 

based on existing Forest ecosystem analysis documents, recent watershed field surveys, 

and Geographic Information System (GIS) reports and modeling. Ongoing stream 

194
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

channel monitoring to meet North Coast Region Water Quality Control Board (Water 

Board) waiver requirements, and field surveys during and after the 2014 fires provided 

current data. Data were synthesized to define existing watershed conditions for 

comparison with Total Maximum Daily Load requirements for the Klamath, Salmon, and 

Scott Rivers, Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives and desired watershed conditions 

from the Forest Plan. See Aquatic Conservation Report in project record. 

The Forest uses standardized Cumulative Watershed Effects (CWE) models (Equivalent 

Roaded Area, Universal Soil Loss Equation, and mass-wasting) to assess effects of past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable activities as described further in the body of the 

Hydrology resource report and relevant supporting references. Cumulative watershed 

effects models were used to index watershed disturbance (Equivalent Roaded Acres – 

ERA), evaluate the effects of soil erosion (Universal Soil Loss Equation – USLE) and 

evaluate the potential for mass-wasting (landsliding). 

Models were updated to incorporate effects of the 2014 fires and road improvements 

identified in BAER assessments. The updates provide a picture of post-fire watershed 

conditions. The potentially ground-disturbing activities and events that are included in the 

CWE modeling for both US Forest Service lands and private lands in the project area are: 

• Vegetation removal (timber harvest, thinning, fuels reduction); 

• Roads used for temporary access; 

• Log landing construction and enlargement; 

• Effects of wildfires and suppression efforts (including fire lines);

• Prescribed burning; 

• Road improvements (outsloping, rocking and crossing upgrades) (results shown 

as negative numbers); and 

• Road decommissioning (results shown as negative numbers). 

Ground-disturbing activities are assigned coefficients of disturbance in the Equivalent 

Roaded Area (ERA) model to represent the disturbance created by a road segment of 

equal size in area (Haskins 1986). Effects from vegetation management, wildfire, and 

prescribed fire show naturally reduced disturbance over time for all three models (ERA, 

universal soil loss equation (USLE) and mass-wasting (GEO)). Recovery curves are 

displayed in figures 1, 2 and 3 for the three models. Sediment yield (cubic 

yards/acre/year) estimated by the USLE occurs in the first winter season, requires a 2-

year, 6-hour storm, and recovers to background rates within seven years (USDA Forest 

Service 2004). Sediment yield (cubic yards/acre/decade) estimated by the mass-wasting 

model depends on a ten-year storm event, and yield recovers to background rates in 50 

years (USDA Forest Service 2004). The models make assumptions regarding the rates of 

recovery for the processes represented by the models. As site re-vegetation provides 

increased interception, evapotranspiration, ground cover, and mechanical strength, the 

effects of ground disturbing activities lessen (see figures 3-1, 3-2 and 3-3). Road and 

landing areas do not recover naturally over time; however, their coefficients of 

disturbance can be reduced if the areas are improved by decommissioning, outsloping, 

rocking, or crossing upgrades. 

Model results fall on a continuum. The models are indexed using a “risk ratio.” The 

threshold of concern for the risk ratio for both models is 1.0. The threshold of concern 

does not represent the exact point at which adverse cumulative effects will occur. Rather 

195
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

it serves as a “yellow flag” indicating increasing susceptibility for adverse effects to 

beneficial uses in a watershed (Bell 2012). 

Figure 3-2: Fire disturbance recovery curves for the Forest cumulative watershed effects ERA model

Figure 3-3: Fire and vegetation management recovery curves for the Forest cumulative watershed 

effects USLE model 

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Equivalent Roaded Area Coefficient

Years After Fire

Fire Disturbance Recovery - ERA Model

High-Severity Fire

Moderate-Severity Fire

Low-Severity Fire

Prescribed Fire

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

C Factor

Years After Disturbance

Fire and Management Disturbance Recovery - USLE Model

High-Severity Fire, 12% Cover

Moderate-Severity Fire, 35% Cover

Cable-Yarded Cut Unit, 55% Cover

Underburn, 80% Cover

196
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Figure 3-4: Recovery curves for the Forest cumulative watershed effects mass-wasting model 

Analysis Indicators

Analysis indicators are chosen to be responsive to Total Maximum Daily Load (Clean 

Water Act) requirements and the Forest Plan (including Aquatic Conservation Strategy 

objectives), and to demonstrate potential differences between project alternatives with 

respect to hydrologic function and water quality. 

Risk to Channel Morphology

The risk to channel morphology is analyzed using the ERA model. Watersheds with risk 

ratios of less than 1.0 are considered to have a low risk to channel morphology. 

Watersheds with risk ratios of between 1.0 and 1.5 have a moderate risk and watersheds 

with greater than 1.5 risk ratios have a high risk. 

A low risk to channel morphology means that there is not likely to be a measurable 

change to peak flows and the channel bed, banks and floodplain will undergo natural 

modifications that are proportional to the storm events. A moderate risk indicates that 

peak flows may be artificially increased by the actions taken. The increased peak flow is 

likely to leave the channel susceptible to modifications that are slightly more than would 

occur under natural conditions. The perturbation of the geomorphic processes would be 

over the short term (about two to four years). A high risk to channel morphology means 

that the increase in peak flows would lead to undesirable changes (such as channel 

straightening and loss of coarse wood) that would require long-term recovery (greater 

than ten years). 

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

0 10 20 30 40 50

Sediment Delivery (cubic yards / acre / 10 years)

Years After Disturbance

Disturbance Recovery - Mass Wasting Model 

Granitic Bedrock, Slopes > 65%

Dormant Landslides

Non-Granitic Bedrock, LowModerate Slopes

197
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Risk of Sediment Regime Alteration 

The risk to water quality from sediment regime alteration is evaluated using the USLE 

and the mass-wasting model as described in the methodology section. Watersheds with a 

risk ratio for both models of less than 1.0 have a low risk of sediment regime alteration. 

Watersheds with at least the risk ratio between 1.0 and 1.5 of just one of the models have 

a moderate risk of sediment regime alteration. Watersheds with one model with risk 

ratios of greater than 1.5 and one greater than 1.0 have a high risk of sediment regime 

alteration.

A low risk means that water quality may be affected but the beneficial uses in the 

watershed are still occurring with nuisance interruptions in the natural processes. A 

moderate risk means that water quality is being affected and there are minor, short-term 

(2-4 years) interruptions to beneficial uses in the watershed. A high risk means that water 

quality is being affected on the long-term (greater than 10 years) and beneficial uses may 

be impaired. The effects of repairing or not repairing legacy sediment sites on the risk of 

erosion and sedimentation are also analyzed. 

Risk of Temperature Regime Alteration

The risk to water quality from temperature regime alteration is assessed by analyzing 

effects to shade in Riparian Reserves. Vegetation burn severity data are used to assess 

effects of the 2014 fires on vegetation and related reduced shade as a baseline for the 

analysis of project activities. Riparian areas subject to moderate and high vegetation burn 

severity provide reduced shade relative to pre-fire conditions; shade protects water 

temperatures from solar insolation and warming. The effects of the project on shade are 

estimated by intersecting the treatment areas likely to remove live vegetation with 

Riparian Reserves. These areas are assumed to have the potential for shade loss. Shade 

will not be lost over much of the treatment area because the treatments focus on removal 

of only dead or small live trees. However, large live trees may be felled for safety. So the 

areas are considered to have the potential to loss stream shading. The landslide likelihood 

as assessed in the geology report is also used as a proxy for vegetation loss. Landslides 

can trigger debris flows which have been shown to remove vegetation along stream 

channels. Watersheds with less than 20% of the live vegetation affected by the fire or 

treatments in the project in the Riparian Reserves have a low risk of temperature regime 

alterations. Watersheds with between 20-50% live vegetation affected or a highly likely 

landslide likelihood have a moderate risk of temperature regime alteration. Watersheds 

with more than 50% of the live vegetation affected or an almost certain landslide 

likelihood have a high risk of temperature regime alterations. 

A low risk means that the stream temperatures will remain within the range of natural 

variability. A moderate risk means that the stream temperatures will be affected on the 

short-term until shrubs and hardwoods re-sprout in the Riparian Reserve. A high risk 

means that the temperature will be measurably affected and it will take more than 10 

years to recover. 

Trend of Riparian Function

The trend of Riparian Function is analyzed at the project scale. It is intended to give an 

overall look at how the Riparian Reserves are functioning and whether the function is 

improving (positive trend), declining (negative trend) or staying the same (neutral trend). 

198
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

The information from the indicators above is used to determine the magnitude and 

direction of the trend. 

Spatial and Temporal Context

The spatial context for the hydrologic analysis is the project area that includes portions of 

the following eight 5th field watersheds: Beaver Creek; Humbug Creek-Klamath River; 

Horse Creek-Klamath River; Seiad Creek-Klamath River; Lower Scott River; Thompson 

Creek-Klamath River; Elk Creek; and North Fork Salmon River. The 5th field watersheds 

are the analysis area for broad scale effects analysis. The 7th field watersheds are 

considered small scale for a project area of this size. There are seventy-five 7th field 

watersheds that intersect portions of the three fire-related areas (Happy Camp Complex, 

Beaver, and Whites fires). In addition to the analysis of broad- and small-scale 

watersheds, the effects of proposed new infrastructure are analyzed. Effects to water 

quality of proposed temporary roads, stream crossings, and landings are assessed. The 

long-term temporal bounding for this analysis is up to 10 years because recovery of the 

fire-disturbed hydrologic function (from ERA modeling) and surface erosion (from 

USLE modeling) is appreciable in the first decade. The short-term is between 2 and 4 

years after implementation. 

Affected Environment

The analysis of the affected environment includes the Eddy Late Successional Reserve, 

Elk Thin, Fish Meadows, Glassups Timber Sale, Happy Camp Fire Protection Phase 2, 

Johnny O’Neil Late Successional Reserve Habitat Restoration and Fuels Reduction, Lake 

Mountain Foxtail Pine, Lower Scott Roads, North Fork Roads Storm-proofing, Oak Flat 

Thin, Singleton, Thom Seider Vegetation Management and Fuels Reduction, and Two Bit 

Vegetation Management projects, as well as the work done under the Burned Area 

Emergency Response, grazing allotments, Timber Harvest Plans since 2005, and private 

land salvage (under Emergency Timber Harvest Plans). These are on-going activities and 

the CWE model includes them in the “current” portion of the results. To remain 

consistent, all of these projects are included in the analysis of the affected environment, 

which represents the effects of the past and on-going actions. 

General information on the affected environment for the project is provided in chapter 1. 

Watershed hydrology is characterized by dry summer and fall months followed by 

significant winter precipitation. Morphology and function of the steep stream channels is 

controlled by large floods such as those in 1997, 1974, 1964, and 1955 (Stewart and 

LaMarche 1967; de la Fuente and Elder 1998), and associated landslides and debris 

flows. Riparian vegetation is primarily hardwood (an example is shown in figure 4) 

although valley bottom mixed-conifer vegetation with large Douglas-fir trees was 

historically significant (Mondry 2004). While significant portions of the Walker Creek 

watershed burned at moderate and high severity in 2014, the main-stem valley bottom 

was mostly unburned. The steep main stem channel (≥ 3%) and predominantly even-aged 

hardwood riparian forest is typical of lower-gradient streams in the analysis area. This 

reach was surveyed and monitored by the USDA Forest Service Redwood Sciences Lab 

after significant disturbance from the 1997 flood. 

199
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Figure 3-5 : Walker Creek in the Happy Camp Complex Fire area (Photo by Zack Mondry 11/15/14).

Effects of the 2014 wildfires on existing conditions in the project area are greatest where 

forested areas burned with continuous high severity (see figure 3-5 for an example). Postfire sediment has already been delivered to project areas streams such as Elk and Grider 

creeks during winter 2014-2015 storms (B. Miller, Klamath National Forest, written 

communication). 

Figure 3-6: Effects of high-severity fire on a forested hillslope in Whites Gulch (Photo by Zack 

Mondry 11/26/14).

200
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

The current risk to channel morphology by 7th field watershed is displayed in the 

appendices of the hydrology report. There are sixty-three watersheds with a low risk and 

nine watersheds with a moderate risk. Doggett and Kohl Creek are the only two 

watersheds with a currently high risk to channel morphology. Their elevated risk is a 

result of the effects of the 2014 wildfire. 

Currently there are five 7th field watersheds with a high risk of sediment regime 

alteration. These are Soda Creek-Beaver Creek, Lower West Fork Beaver Creek, Doggett 

Creek, McKinney Creek and Kohl Creek. All of the watersheds, except McKinney Creek, 

have elevated risks due to the effects of the 2014 wildfires. McKinney Creek has an 

elevated risk because of the current private land timber harvest activities. There are 

eighteen watersheds with moderate risks and 51 watersheds with a low risk of sediment 

regime alteration. 

One cause of impairment to water and hydrologic function is legacy sediment sites from 

past management including historic mining, road building, and silviculture (Water Board 

2010, Water Board 2005). A majority of the legacy sediment sites are associated with the 

road system, most of which was constructed prior to modern best management practices 

(BMPs). Culverts were commonly designed to pass a 25-year flood rather than the 100-

year flood required by current road standards. Road construction often did not avoid 

unstable slopes or riparian areas that are protected by today’s BMPs. As a result of these 

construction practices, some of the current road system is not resilient to natural 

disturbance by fire and floods. Some of the impact to water quality from the 1997 floods 

occurred when landslides and debris flows removed riparian vegetation, reduced stream 

shade, and increased water temperatures (De La Fuente and Elder 1998, Water Board 

2010). The Total Maximum Daily Load requirements for the Klamath, Scott, and Salmon 

Rivers were developed to insure that road stream crossings withstand a 100-year flood 

without diverting or failing. 

The Forest has completed legacy sediment site inventories for most roads on the Forest 

(USDA Forest Service 2012). The results of the analysis by 7th field watershed are in the 

appendices of the Hydrology resource report. A total of 953 legacy sediment sites were 

inventoried within the project boundary. The legacy sediment sites are associated with 

undersized culverts, stream diversion potential at road crossings, or roads located on 

unstable slopes. More detailed information on legacy sediment sites is provided in the 

Hydrology resource report. 

There are currently eight watersheds with high risk of temperature regime alteration. 

These are Buckhorn Gulch-Beaver Creek, Kohl Creek, Lower Grider Creek, O’Neil 

Creek, Walker Creek, Caroline Creek, Granite Creek and Middle Elk Creek. All of these 

watersheds have elevated risk due to the 2014 wildfires. There are twenty-one and fortyfive watersheds with a moderate and low risk respectively. 

The trend of riparian function is currently a slowly climbing positive trend. The firekilled trees will start to fall and add coarse wood to the riparian reserves which will create

channel complexity. The increased landslide risk will both move coarse wood to the 3rd to 

5th order streams but may also remove riparian vegetation that provides shade. The shade 

producing vegetation on small streams (including shrubs and hardwoods) recovers 

quickly; the shade on larger streams (large conifers required) will take longer to 

regenerate. 

201 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects

There are no direct effects to channel morphology, water quality (sediment and 

temperature regimes), or channel function resulting from alternative 1. Recovery curves 

can be viewed as a timeline of the magnitude and duration of indirect effects on 

hydrologic function and hillslope sediment production of the 2014 wildfires and 

alternative 1. 

Over the long-term, the fuel load conditions will lead to fire intensity and flame lengths 

that are conducive to major fire runs, crown fires, and spotting. The large fuels 

component (greater than 3 inches) will lead to an elevated fire intensity and duration of 

fire on the landscape if it should re-burn. In 10 years, the conditions under alternative 1 

will lead to nine percent of the area having flame lengths greater than 11 feet. Sixty 

percent of the treatment area is likely to experience flame lengths between 4 and 11 feet 

and thirty-one percent is likely to have flame lengths of less than 4 feet. (See fire and 

fuels report). High flame lengths are associate with high severity fire and will contribute 

to accelerated sediment delivery(DeBano et al. 2005), increased stream temperatures 

(Pabst and Spies 2001)and stream flows (Neary, et al. 2005a)and increased potential for 

the introduction of toxic chemicals from fire retardant application during future fire 

suppression efforts(Neary, et al. 2005b). 

Risk to Channel Morphology

Alternative 1 will allow for passive recovery of vegetation in the watersheds which will 

be slower than if treatment, including planting, would occur. The extended duration of 

decreased interception, use of water by plants, and ground cover will extend the risk to 

channel morphology over the long-term. 

Risk of Sediment Regime Alteration

In the longer-term, legacy sediment sites will continue to have a high risk of failing in 

future floods and impacts will be similar to the channel scour, loss of stream shade, 

increased stream temperatures, and sedimentation that occurred in the 1997 flood as 

described by De La Fuente and Elder (1998). These impacts will adversely affect 

beneficial uses and violate the Waiver and water quality standards in the Basin Plan 

(State of California Water Board 2011). The risk of road failures is greater at sites located 

below high-severity burns due to increased runoff and peak flows. 

The risk to sediment regime alteration will passively recover from current condition 

toward pre-fire conditions over the next four to five years for surface erosion. The 

recovery for landslide-related sediment will start in about 10 years and could take up to 

80 years to be reduced to pre-fire levels because of the length of time required to reestablish forest vegetation without artificial regeneration (see Geology report). 

Risk of Temperature Regime Alteration

The watersheds with a high risk of temperature regime alterations, without artificial 

regeneration, will have an extended duration of elevated risk. Natural regeneration will 

occur, but in general it will more than 80 years to get trees with 10 inch diameters at 

202
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

breast height in areas burned with high and moderate severity (personal communication, 

Project Silviculturist). 

Trend of Riparian Function

Large-wood loading to riparian zones and stream channels that is expected to occur under 

this alternative is widely regarded as beneficial for sediment retention, channel function, 

habitat complexity, cover, and nutrient cycling (Keller and Swanson 1979; Nakamura and 

Swanson 1994; Grant and Swanson 1995). Given the relatively small acreage of Riparian 

Reserve that burned at moderate- and high-severity in 2014, and the small length of 

stream channels affected, negative fire effects are not expected to channel function 

resulting from burned Riparian Reserve areas. Where fire impacts increase large wood 

loading to stream channels, effects will be positive for channel sediment metering and 

other functions. However, the elevated likelihood of landsliding (see geology report) will 

take more than 80 years to recover under alternative 1. Debris flows can have substantial 

effects on channel function. The overall trend of riparian function is positive but has a 

gentle slope (long-term recovery). 

Cumulative Effects

The projects added to the effects of the past actions (the affected environment) and the 

direct and indirect effects of the project are portions of the Jess project, Salmon 

Reforestation, Scott Bar Underburn, Lovers Canyon, McCollins and Sawyers Bar Fuels 

Reduction Project that are in the 7th field watersheds analyzed. The Jess project and 

Lovers Canyon project are the only two future projects that have any effect on risk ratios 

or number of watersheds with high or moderate disturbance. 

Risk to Channel Morphology

One watershed, Jessups Gulch, moves from a low risk to a moderate risk. The cumulative 

elevation in risk is a result of the Jess project. These effects will be mitigated via project 

design features but the risk will likely remain moderate. All other watersheds remain the 

same as in the affected environment. Cumulatively the number of watersheds with a low 

risk to channel morphology is sixty-two. The number of watersheds with a moderate risk 

goes from nine to ten and high risk remains at two. 

Risk of Sediment Regime Alteration

There is no change in any of the risk categories for any of the 7th field watershed. The 

risk ratios increase by an average of 0.02 which results in no change of average risk ratio 

when reported to a single decimal place. The largest increase was in Jessups Gulch where 

the USLE and mass-wasting risk ratios increase by a value of 0.2 due to the effects of the 

Jess project. The risk of sediment regime alterations for Jessups Gulch remains low when 

cumulative effects are considered. 

Risk of Temperature Regime Alteration

The cumulative effects for risk to temperature regime alterations made the assumption 

that there would be no loss of shade on streams from Forest Service projects because of 

the Total Maximum Daily Load requirements. It was assumed that there is a loss of shade 

for all private land harvests including private land salvage of 2014 fire areas. There is no 

change in the risk levels for any of the watersheds as a result of adding the actions 

considered in this portion of the analysis to the project effects. There were increases in 

203
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

the percent of the Riparian Reserves with the potential to lose shade, but none of the 

changes were large enough to increase the risk category. 

Trend of Riparian Function

Riparian Reserve function will continue on a slow, positive trend. There may be a slight 

downward dip in riparian function in watersheds with private land harvest due to the loss 

of shade in the stream channels. This will be a short-term cumulative effect on the 

smaller streams as shrubs and hardwoods can provide shade, however on the main stems 

the downward trend will be more long-term until large conifers are shading the stream 

again. 

Alternative 2

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects

The fire severity will remain low for 10 years post-treatment for all areas treated in the 

alternative. If the area should re-burn during this time, the risk to water quality will be 

small and short-term.

Risk to Channel Morphology

There will be sixty-three 7th field watersheds that will continue to have a low risk to 

channel morphology, nine watersheds that will continue to have a moderate risk, and two 

with a high risk. Alternative 2 proposes construction or reconstruction of temporary 

roads, installation and removal of stream crossings, and construction of log landings in 

Riparian Reserves. While effects of these activities on channel morphology is minor to 

undetectable at the watershed scale, site-scale effects are anticipated from some 

infrastructure. These temporary road actions include 14 stream crossings (four of 

perennial streams and 10 of intermittent streams). Temporary stream crossings will likely 

have short duration effects to water quality due to sediment production during in-channel 

actions and in the first winter after use; they will likely be small-scale and limited to the 

immediate downstream channel reach, depending on flow regime and channel 

morphology. Further detail on site-scale effects is provided in the Hydrology and Aquatic 

resources reports. The project design features (table 2-35 in chapter 2) are not accounted 

for in the modeling and are intended mitigate effects including surface runoff from 

temporary roads and landings which can exacerbate peak flows. 

Risk of Sediment Regime Alteration

The effects of alternative 2 do not change the risk categories for any watershed compared 

to alternative 1. The USLE model increases for nine watersheds and the mass-wasting 

model increase for seventeen watersheds. The risk ratio increase is less than 0.2 in all 

cases. The changes in the risk ratios are not enough to change the risk category for any of 

the watersheds. The treatment of legacy sites in the Elk Creek 6th field watershed will 

reduce the chronic sediment delivery to stream channels. Site-scale alteration of the 

sediment regime is anticipated in some cases as described in the Hydrology and Aquatic 

resources reports.

Risk of Temperature Regime Alteration

The effects to risk of temperature regime alterations assumed that the only action that 

would remove shade on streams would be roadside hazard treatments. There is no 

204
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

treatment in the Riparian Reserves in the salvage units and site preparation and fuels 

treatments are only removing dead vegetation. The indirect effect of alternative 2 leads to 

nine watersheds having high risk, one more than alternative 1. Robinson Gulch moved 

from moderate risk under alternative 1 to high risk for alternative 2. There are also ten 

watersheds that move from a low risk under alternative 1 to a moderate risk under 

alternative 2. These are Miller Gulch-Klamath River, Upper Grider Creek, Tom Martin 

Creek, Horse Creek-Klamath River, Headwaters of Elk Creek, Upper Elk Creek, Lower 

East Fork Elk Creek, Hoop & Devil, Lower South Russian Creek and Big Creek. The 

numbers of watersheds with low and moderate risk are 35 and 30, respectively. 

Trend of Riparian Function

The Riparian Reserve function will have a positive trend. The trend will be for a little 

faster recovery due to planting of burned stands in Riparian Reserves that will increase 

the speed of reforestation. There is limited removal of large trees from the Riparian

Reserves so coarse wood is not likely to be measurably reduced on the watershed scale. 

The landslide likelihood remains the same as for alternative 1. However, the duration of 

the elevated risk is reduced for some of the most at risk watersheds (see Geology report). 

Cumulative Effects 

Risk to Channel Morphology

The actions considered for cumulative effects are the same as for alternative 1. The 

cumulative effect on risk to channel morphology is that Jessups Gulch will move from a 

low risk to a high risk. These effects will be mitigated via project design features but the 

risk will likely remain moderate. All other watersheds remain at the same risk level as for 

the indirect effects of alternative 2. 

Risk of Sediment Regime Alteration

Thirteen of the watersheds had an increase in the risk ratio for USLE and three for the 

mass-wasting model as a result of future foreseeable actions but no increase was large 

enough to change a risk category. The largest increase in USLE risk ratio was in Jessups 

Gulch (0.2). The largest increase in the mass-wasting risk ratio was also in Jessups Gulch 

(0.2). The risk ratio is reduced due to the legacy site treatments in seven and six 

watersheds for the USLE and mass-wasting model, respectively. 

Risk of Temperature Regime Alteration

The actions considered in cumulative effects increased the shade loss potential for 19 

watersheds. Big Ferry-Swanson has an increase in percentage of the watershed with 

shade loss potential of 12.4%, Quigley’s Cove has an increase of 8.6%, Doggett Creek of 

7.6% and Dutch Creek of 6.7%. The other watersheds have increases of less than 3%. 

These increases are not enough to move any of the watersheds into another risk category. 

Trend of Riparian Function 

The trend of the Riparian Reserve function will remain positive. There may be a slight 

downward dip in riparian function in watersheds with private land harvest due to the loss 

of shade in the stream channels. This will be a short-term cumulative effect on the 

smaller streams as shrubs and hardwoods can provide shade, however along main stems, 

the downward trend will be longer-term until large conifers are shading streams again.

205
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Alternative 3

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects

The fire severity will remain low for 10 years post-treatment for all areas treated in the 

alternative. If the area should re-burn during this time, the risk to water quality will be 

small and short-term.

Risk to Channel Morphology

The risk to channel morphology for all watersheds for alternative 3 is the same as for 

alternative 2. 

Risk of Sediment Regime Alteration

The risk of sediment regime alterations is the same as for alternative 2. The mass-wasting 

risk ratios for eight watersheds were reduced slightly but not enough to change the risk 

categories for any of the watersheds. Site-scale alteration of the sediment regime is 

anticipated in some cases as described in the Hydrology and Aquatic resources reports.

Risk of Temperature Regime Alteration

The risk of temperature regime alterations is the same as for alternative 2. 

Trend of Riparian Function 

The trend of riparian function is the same as for alternative 2. 

Cumulative Effects

Risk to Channel Morphology

The cumulative effects for risk to channel geomorphology for all watersheds for 

alternative 3 are the same as for alternative 2. The increases to the risk ratios from actions 

considered for cumulative effects are the same as for alternative 2. 

Risk of Sediment Regime Alteration

The cumulative effects for risk of sediment regime alteration for all watersheds for 

alternative 3 are the same as for alternative 2. The increases to the risk ratios from actions 

considered for cumulative effects are the same as for alternative 2.

Risk of Temperature Regime Alteration

The cumulative effects on risk of temperature regime alterations are the same as for 

Alternative 2. 

Trend of Riparian Function 

The cumulative trend of riparian function is the same as for alternative 2. 

Alternative 4

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects

The fire severity will remain low for 10 years post-treatment for all areas treated in the 

alternative. If the area should re-burn during this time, the risk to water quality will be 

small and short-term.

Risk to Channel Morphology

206
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

The risk to channel morphology for all watersheds for alternative 4 is the same as for 

alternative 2. Fifteen watersheds have risk ratios less than for alternative 2. However, 

none of the risk ratios decreased enough to reduce the risk categories. 

Risk of Sediment Regime Alteration

The risk of sediment regime alterations is the same as for alternative 2. The USLE risk 

ratios for six watersheds are reduced and mass-wasting risk ratios for six watersheds are 

reduced but not enough t0 change the risk categories for any of the watersheds. Site-scale 

alteration of the sediment regime is less for alternative 4 than for alternatives 2 and 3 due 

to reduced miles of proposed temporary roads and no stream crossings as described in the 

Hydrology and Aquatic resources reports.

Risk of Temperature Regime Alteration

The risk of temperature regime alteration is the same as for alternative 2. However, the 

reduction in roadside treatments reduced the percent potential shade reduction in fourteen 

watersheds. Lower West Fork Beaver, Dutch Creek, Middle Creek, Deep Creek, and 

Horse Creek had potential shade-loss reduced by 1.1%, 1.8%, 2.7%, 1.3% and 3.1%, 

respectively. In the remaining watersheds, reductions were less than 1%. None of these 

reductions were enough to reduce risk categories. 

Trend of Riparian Function 

The trend of riparian function is the same as for alternative 2 with the exception of sitescale effects that are smaller for alternative 4 than for alternatives 2 and 3. 

Cumulative Effects

Risk to Channel Morphology

The cumulative effects for risk to channel geomorphology for all watersheds for 

alternative 4 are the same as for alternative 2. The increases to the risk ratios from actions 

considered for cumulative effects are the same as for alternative 2.

Risk of Sediment Regime Alteration

The cumulative effects for risk of sediment regime alteration for all watersheds for 

alternative 3 are the same as for alternative 2. The increases to the risk ratios from actions 

considered for cumulative effects are the same as for alternative 2.

Risk of Temperature Regime Alteration

The cumulative effects are the same as for Alternative 2. The relative increases in the 

potential shade loss were the same as for alternative 2. None of the watershed risks were 

reduced compared to alternative 2. 

Trend of Riparian Function 

The cumulative trend of riparian function is the same as for alternative 2. 

207
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Alternative 5 

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects

The fire severity will remain low for 10 years post-treatment for all areas treated in the 

alternative. If the area should re-burn during this time, the risk to water quality will be 

small and short-term.

Risk to Channel Morphology

The risk to channel morphology for all watersheds for alternative 5 is the same as for 

alternative 2. Seventeen watersheds have risk ratios less than for alternative 2; however 

the changes are not enough to change the risk category for any of the watersheds.

Risk of Sediment Regime Alteration

The risk of sediment regime alterations is the same as for alternative 2. The mass-wasting 

risk ratios for nine watersheds were reduced but not enough to change the risk categories 

for any of the watersheds. Site-scale alteration of the sediment regime is less for 

alternative 5 than for alternatives 2 and 3 due to the reduced miles of proposed temporary 

roads and no stream crossings as described in the Hydrology and Aquatic resources 

reports.

Risk of Temperature Regime Alteration

The risk of temperature regime alterations is the same as for alternative 2.

Trend of Riparian Function 

The trend of riparian function is the same as for alternative 2. 

Cumulative Effects

Risk to Channel Morphology

The cumulative effects for risk to channel geomorphology for all watersheds for 

alternative 5 are the same as for alternative 2. The increases to the risk ratios from actions 

considered for cumulative effects are the same as for alternative 2.

Risk of Sediment Regime Alteration

The cumulative effects for risk of sediment regime alteration for all watersheds for 

alternative 5 are the same as for alternative 2. The increases to the risk ratios from actions 

considered for cumulative effects are the same as for alternative 2.

Risk of Temperature Regime Alteration

The cumulative effects on risk of temperature regime alterations are the same as for 

alternative 2.

Trend of Riparian Function 

The cumulative trend of riparian function is the same as for alternative 2. 

Comparison of Effects

The CWE model results by 7th field watershed for direct and indirect effects, and for 

cumulative effects, for analysis indicators are in the appendices of the hydrology report. 

A comparative summary of the effects of alternatives on analysis indicators for water 

(hydrology) is displayed in table 1. 

208
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Table 3-22: Number of 7th field watersheds in each risk category for analysis indicators 

Indicator Ranking Alternative 

1 

Alternative 

2 

Alternative 

3 

Alternative 

4 

Alternative 

5 

Channel 

Morphology

Low 63 63 63 63 63

Moderate 9 9 9 9 9 

High 2 2 2 2 2 

Risk to 

Sediment 

Regimes

Low 51 51 51 51 51

Moderate 18 18 18 18 18

High 5 5 5 5 5 

Risk to 

Temperature 

Regimes

Low 45 35 35 35 35

Moderate 21 30 30 30 30

High 8 9 9 9 9 

Trend of Riparian Function Very Slow, 

Positive

Slow, 

Positive

Slow, 

Positive

Slow, 

Positive

Slow, 

Positive

Aquatic Resources (includes fisheries)______________________ 

This section describes the environment for aquatic resources in the analysis area and 

discloses the effects to these resources.

Methodology 

Analysis is based on three components: (1) a review of existing information for streams 

in the analysis area; (2) post-fire field review of proposed treatment units, Riparian 

Reserves and stream channels; and (3) a review of best available information related to 

aquatic resources present and potential impacts of the various actions proposed. Existing 

information came from the Forest Plan, watershed analyses conducted by the Forest,

existing stream survey data and reports, and other environmental analyses completed for 

projects within the analysis area. These sources provide information on watershed 

histories and land uses, aquatic species distribution and habitat use within the analysis 

area, and aquatic habitat conditions. 

The analysis area 5th field and 7th field watersheds provide habitat for the special status 

aquatic species listed under analysis indicators.

Analysis Indicators 

Threatened and Endangered Species/Forest Service Sensitive Species

There are no endangered species in the analysis area and the Southern Oregon/Northern 

California Coast (SONCC) Coho Salmon is the only threatened species; critical habitat 

has been identified for SONCC Coho Salmon. Three key habitat indicators from the 

Analytical Process for Developing Biological Assessments for Federal Actions Affecting 

Fish within the Northwest Forest Plan Area (USDA-USDOC-USDI 2004) are used for 

the analysis of effects to Coho Salmon. This allows standardization of evaluations of 

actions and effects for conferencing/consultations under Section (§) 7(a)(2) of the ESA. 

The same analysis indicators are used to evaluate effects on Forest Service sensitive 

species: Upper Klamath-Trinity River (UKT) Chinook Salmon; Klamath Mountains 

209
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Province (KMP) steelhead; Pacific lamprey; Klamath River lamprey; southern torrent 

salamander; foothill yellow-legged frog; cascade frog; and western pond turtle. These 

indicators are: water temperature; sediment (fine sediment in substrates and substrate 

embeddedness); and large wood. Essential fish habitat (EFH) has been determined for the 

SONCC Coho Salmon and the UKT Chinook Salmon as required by the MagnusonStevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act; effects on EFH are also measured 

by effects on these indicators. 

Management Indicator Species

Management indicator species associations are identified in the Forest Plan as 

associations that may be affected by management activities. Analysis of effects of actions 

on these associations involves examining the impacts of the project on habitat 

associations for management indicator species. Species associations related to aquatic 

species are the river/stream association and the marsh/lake/pond association. For this 

analysis, the following analysis indicators will be used to determine the level of effects 

for each habitat association. 

River/Stream Associated Species (steelhead, resident rainbow trout, tailed frog, and 

cascades frog: 

Change in Water Quality (WQ), physical barriers, substrate, refugia, stream-bank 

condition, disturbance history/regime, flows, drainage network, and Riparian Reserves. 

Aquatic species included in this association are steelhead and resident trout, tailed frog, 

and Cascades frog. For purposes of the management indicator species association 

analysis, river/stream habitat is degraded where the project may result in impacts to the 

near stream environment, water quality, and/or aquatic habitat to the point that the quality 

of the habitat is lessened. River/stream habitat is removed if the habitat is affected by the 

project such that it is no longer suitable habitat for the indicator species. 

Marsh/Lake/Pond Associated Species (western pond turtle):

Change in low gradient, open water habitat quality, including streamside vegetation and 

large wood. 

Western pond turtle is the only species analyzed for this association. The analysis of this 

habitat association is the same as for river/stream associated species except with an 

emphasis on perennial low gradient streams, ponds and other lentic waterbodies. 

Spatial and Temporal Context 

The aquatic resources analysis area is comprised of the 5th field watersheds and their 7th

field drainages that were affected by the 2014 fires and in which activities are proposed 

for this project (see list of these watersheds in chapter 1). 

The temporal bounding of the analysis includes effects during implementation, short-term 

effects expected to occur within the first year following implementation, and long-term 

effects (greater than one year).

210
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Affected Environment 

The affected environment describes the 5th field watersheds in the 2014 burned areas, the 

special status aquatic resources that are likely to be present, and the pre-project condition 

of the key indicators of habitat quality for aquatic species (temperature, sediment, and 

large wood). 

Table 3-24displays the miles of stream that were affected by moderate or high severity 

fire in 2014 (43 miles of perennial and 124 miles of intermittent streams). Due to the 

nature of fire salvage, project actions and effects are likely within or near streams that 

were affected by the fires. Within the riparian areas that were heavily affected by 

moderate and high severity effects from the fires, riparian and aquatic habitat are 

currently degraded in terms of loss of shade/canopy cover and soil cover, as well as 

potential for hydrophobic soils in areas that burned hot (see the Soil section of this 

chapter and the Soil resource report). These changes led to a reduced capacity of the 

riparian area to provide shade and cover for aquatic organisms and to reduced capacity to 

slow overland flow and filter out sediment before it reaches stream channels.

Threatened and Endangered Species/Forest Service Sensitive Species

Habitat is present in the analysis area for the threatened SONCC Coho Salmon, and for 

all Forest Service sensitive species identified in the analysis indicators discussion. 

Foothill yellow-legged frog and Western pond turtle are known to occur in the Klamath 

River, Scott River, and North Fork Salmon River; they are assumed to occur in all 

relatively low gradient and low elevation slow water habitat (mostly restricted to the 

Klamath River and a few larger tributaries such as sections of Beaver Creek for the 

yellow-legged frog with turtles occurring in a wider range of habitats). Cascade frogs 

have been observed at Wilderness lakes that comprise the headwaters of several analysisarea streams (Elk Creek, Kelsey Creek, Canyon Creek, and South Russian Creek). 

Cascade frogs are assumed to occur in the project area within, or near, stream and lake 

habitat above 2,500 feet. Most of the Forest (including the analysis area) is outside the 

expected distribution of Southern Torrent salamander; this species occurs in or very near 

coastal streams to the west of the Forest. It is not likely that Southern torrent salamanders 

occur in the project area but, since presence cannot be ruled out, it is assumed that they 

may occur in suitable stream habitat only in the western-most parts of the Happy Camp 

Ranger District (Elk Creek for this analysis). 

Special status aquatic species occur within suitable aquatic habitat that, in general, would 

be described as properly functioning stream and/or lake ecosystems with high water 

quality, substrate character, and large woody material; all of these interact to create or 

maintain important aquatic habitat components such as streamside cover, relatively stable 

water temperatures, deep pools, and suitable reproductive habitat. 

Management Indicator Species

River/Stream Associated Species 

High quality riparian and aquatic habitat abundance 

The project area contains about 802 miles of perennial stream habitat and 1,012 miles of 

intermittent stream habitat. Resident trout occur in approximately 338 miles of stream in 

211
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

the project area drainages and steelhead in approximately 224 miles. Cascades frogs may 

occur in about 314 miles of stream in project area drainages and tailed frogs may occur 

throughout all perennial streams in the project area. 

It is reasonable to assume that high quality riparian and aquatic habitat does not currently 

occur in areas of moderate/high fire intensity, and aquatic habitat in streams downstream 

of these areas is likely also experiencing negative effects such as increases in 

sedimentation, water temperature and peak flow events. These areas will recover over a 

range of time frames, dependent upon local site conditions and weather. Along stream 

reaches that were not impacted by the 2014 fires, riparian and aquatic habitats within 

project area streams are generally of high quality as management actions are restricted as 

described in the Forest Plan and Aquatic Conservation Strategy (report in project record). 

Marsh/Lake/Pond Associated Species

High quality, low gradient open water habitat abundance 

The project area contains about 802 miles of this stream habitat and 362 acres of lentic 

habitat that defines this species association. The quality or condition of this habitat 

association was not heavily impacted by the 2014 wildfires as relatively few miles of low 

gradient perennial streamsides on the Klamath, Scott, and North Fork Salmon River 

burned at moderate or high severity. Riparian habitat near lakes was also mostly 

unaffected by the 2014 fires. 

Water quality in the Klamath River, Scott River, and North Fork Salmon River is listed 

as impaired and is on the 303(d) Clean Water Act list as noted in the Hydrology section 

of this chapter and related resource report. Following is a summary of existing conditions 

in the analysis area as it relates to the key habitat indicators used for this analysis 

(temperature, sediment, and large wood). 

Stream Temperature 

Use of mainstem habitat by aquatic species is the most limited by water quality during 

the summer months (June through September) when water temperatures are high 

throughout the day. Juvenile fish must use tributaries and other off-channel areas where 

cooler water can be found. In general, mainstem habitat in these rivers is not suitable for 

productive summer or winter rearing, making tributary habitats highly valuable for 

growth and survival of Coho Salmon (NMFS and USFWS 2013). 

The percent of stream channels burned is an indication of how stream shade was directly 

affected by 2014 wildfires. 

212
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Table 3-23: Summary of stream channel burn severity data from BAER Reports (USFS 2014a-2014f) 

for the 2014 fires.

Fire Area Stream Type Moderate miles (%) High miles (%) Total (miles)

Beaver Fire Intermittent 37 (28%) 10 (8%) 47

Perennial 5 (14%) <1 (0%) 5 

Happy Camp Complex Intermittent 50 (18%) 2 (1%) 52

Perennial 27 (11%) <1 (0%) 27

Whites Complex Intermittent 21 (24%) 4 (5%) 25

Perennial 9 (14%) 2 (3%) 11

TOTAL (miles) Intermittent 108 16 124

Perennial 41 2 43

Sediment 

Habitat for special status aquatic species is dependent upon watershed processes like 

natural sediment supply and sorting. Access to tributary rearing habitat and refugia for 

salmonids during parts of the summer is blocked by alluvial barriers. Soils in these areas 

are highly erodible, and in combination with the steep terrain, recent intense fires, and a 

legacy of past timber harvest and road-building, fine sediment loading has contributed to 

impaired conditions throughout the Middle Klamath (see the Hydrology and Soil sections 

of this chapter and resource reports, including the Aquatic Species resource report, for 

more detailed information). 

Large Wood

Current levels of large woody debris across streams in the analysis area are generally 

considered “at risk.” Large wood was removed from many streams on the Forest in the 

1960’s and 1970’s with the intent of preventing damage to downstream infrastructure. 

Floods (1964 and 1997) removed shallow-rooted vegetation such as alders, and debris 

flows delivered large wood to mainstem channels in some areas (Elk Creek). Many 

riparian areas along the Middle Klamath and North Fork Salmon River remain partially 

barren as a result of historic placer and hydraulic mining activities, and lower hillslope 

road construction that disconnected the river from its floodplain. 

Aerial photos show that while there are areas of disturbance, the majority of riparian 

areas surrounding tributaries and high quality refugia for salmonids contain abundant 

riparian vegetation and have adequate structure and diversity. The percent of stream 

channels burned in 2014 (table 3-21) provides an indication of current and near-term 

instream large wood conditions. 

Environmental Consequences

Because aquatic species of special concern have some overlapping habitat requirements, 

potential project impacts to their habitat (indirect effects) are discussed together using 

key habitat indicators that reflect the quantity and quality of suitable habitat for these 

species pre- and post-project. 

213
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Alternative 1 

Threatened/Endangered and Forest Service Sensitive Species

Direct Effects 

Under alternative 1, there would be no action taken to meet the purpose and need for the 

project and desired future conditions within the project area (see chapter 1). 

This alternative is not a baseline condition, but rather a description of future 

circumstances without implementation of the project. This alternative is a continuation of 

the current level of management including road maintenance, hazard tree removal, 

dispersed recreation, mining, watershed restoration, appropriate management and fire 

suppression against the back-drop of about 160,000 acres of Forest lands in the project 

area that burned in 2014. No direct effects will occur under this alternative since no 

activities will be implemented as a result of the project. 

Indirect Effects 

For the sediment and temperature indicators, watershed conditions will recover over time 

from the impacts of the 2014 fires. In the moderate and high burn severity areas 

surrounding stream channels, an increase in large wood loading is expected in the near 

term from falling snags, and a reduction in large wood available for recruitment is 

expected over the long-term unless and until these areas naturally recover with large 

conifers.

Salvage Harvest and Reforestation 

Alternative 1 will not remove burned trees or help to restore forests including in moderate 

and high fire intensity areas. Without salvage, site preparation and replanting, severely 

burned stands (such as in Walker Creek) will likely be replaced by shrubland (Skinner et 

al. 2006, page 174) and restoration to conifer stands may take decades or even longer. 

Planting without site preparation would likely result in the loss in conifer plantations 

before they mature given the median five to 25-year fire return interval predicted within 

the analysis area. Failing to salvage and reforest moderate to high severity stands in 

subsequent years increases the potential for a future wildfire to spread and cause adverse 

impacts to Riparian Reserves (including Sediment, Stream Temperature and Large 

Wood) because it will be unsafe to fight the fire directly. This alternative can indirectly 

affect sediment regimes in the analysis area when a future wildfire occurs because there 

will be an increased potential for severe fire effects if fuels are not reduced and because 

the abundance of burned trees within the fire areas will make fire suppression difficult if 

not impossible. With this alternative, short-term negative impacts of post-fire salvage 

logging on aquatic resources will be eliminated. 

Fuels Reduction 

Immediate post-fire conditions in the analysis include reduced surface fuel loading across 

the landscape. Thus, over the next one to five years, if a fire occurs there is a low 

potential for fire spread and fire intensity that would add to the ongoing watershed 

impacts to aquatic species and their habitat. Fire suppression would be effective in 

containing new fire ignitions. Within five to ten years, the potential for a future wildfire 

to spread and cause adverse impacts to watershed processes and fish habitat increases. 

Within moderate to high severity burn areas, enormous amounts dead trees will remain 

214
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

standing and some will fall, creating high fuel loads across the burned landscape. If a fire 

does not occur within this time, these areas will likely be covered with shrubs and dead 

and down snags, making the area susceptible to high severity fire. Where stand-replacing 

fire intensity occurs on hillslopes and in streamside zones, adverse impacts to habitat 

indicators and aquatic species are expected to be negligible in the short-term (due to 

current low surface fuel loading) and moderate or more sizeable when/if the next wildfire 

occurs.

Hazard Tree Abatement

Hazard tree reduction as described for this project will not occur under this alternative. 

Hazard tree removal will continue where it is part of ongoing actions, or where proposed 

in future projects. 

Temporary Roads, Landings and Water Drafting 

Since no project activities, including construction of temporary roads and landings or 

water drafting, will occur under this alternative, there will be no effects on habitat 

indicators or aquatic species associated with these activities. With alternatives 2, 3, and 5 

there are several sites (along tributaries of Doggett and Grider) where project temporary 

road actions involve using roads that currently have legacy sediment sites, or areas that 

are at risk of erosion (and therefore a threat to water quality) due to past land use. 

When/if the project uses these roads they will be hydrologically stabilized and any active 

erosion, or risk of erosion will be addressed. For the drainages where this would occur 

with the action alternatives, the opportunity to improve/protect water quality would be 

foregone with alternative 1. 

Legacy Sites 

None of the treatments to address roughly 150 legacy sediment sites in the Elk Creek 

watershed will occur in this alternative; there will be no treatment to address undersized 

culverts, diversion potential, fill removal on abandoned roads, or aquatic organism 

passage. Also, road storm-proofing treatments on about 33 miles of system road in the 

Elk Creek watershed will not be covered by this alternative. 

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1 will not add project-related direct effects to the effects of past, 

present/ongoing or future projects because no management activities are proposed. 

There will be minimal impacts on aquatic species from reasonable foreseeable future 

actions in other projects. Where there is spatial or temporal overlap of projects currently 

undergoing implementation, they have already been accounted for in the existing 

environment. Where future actions do overlap with the project, cumulative effects will be 

minor because adding the indirect effects of alternative 1 to the effects of other projects is 

not expected to cumulatively produce measurable effects to aquatic species.

Management Indicator Species

Direct Effects

Because there would be no action taken, there would be no direct effects. 

215
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Indirect Effects

An important indirect effect of the alternative 1, relative to riparian and aquatic resources, 

is the missed opportunity for the legacy site treatments included in all of the action 

alternatives. 

Failing to salvage and reforest moderate to high severity stands that were burned in 2014 

would have no effect on stream temperature, sediment, or large wood over the next one to 

five years as postfire conditions include reduced surface fuel loading across the 

landscape. From five to10 years out, failing to salvage and reforest moderate to high 

severity stands, and conduct fuels treatments, increases the potential for a wildfire that 

spreads and is likely to cause adverse impacts to Riparian Reserves and aquatic habitat. 

As large trees fall and brush accumulates, it becomes more unsafe to fight fires directly 

and, therefore, fires are likely to burn across more drainages causing more negative 

effects to aquatic habitat. 

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects to management indicator species associations are similar to the 

cumulative effects to threatened and Forest Service sensitive species.

Alternative 2 

Threatened/Endangered and Forest Service Sensitive Species

Direct Effects

The potential for direct effects to aquatic resources is associated with actions that occur in 

active stream channels. All action alternatives are the same with respect to potential 

direct effects to aquatic resources because all action alternatives include water drafting 

and crossing upgrades part of legacy sediment site treatment, which are the only actions 

proposed within active stream channels. Several temporary stream crossings will be 

required as part of temporary road actions; these crossings are outside/above fish habitat 

therefore effects to habitat and species associated with temporary stream channel 

crossings are disclosed below under indirect effects. Project design features described in 

chapter 2 control the manner in which project-related water drafting will occur. 

Specifically, the project design feature Watershed-35 does not allow for any 

improvement or modification of water drafting sites within Coho Salmon critical habitat

and it requires that Forest Service fisheries biologists help to approve water drafting 

locations so as to minimize potential impacts to thermal refugia. By adhering to NOAA 

(2001) water drafting specifications, Forest Best Management Practices, and the project 

design feature (Watershed-38) specifically developed to restrict modification of drafting 

sites within Coho Salmon critical habitat and ensure that thermal refugia are protected, 

effects of water drafting on fish are likely to be discountable. It is expected that if there 

are aquatic species in the vicinity of drafting sites, they will move out of the area 

temporarily when a truck approaches. Due to inclusion of protection measures, water 

drafting is likely to have only minor short-term direct effects on aquatic species or their 

habitat, with no long-term effects. 

Legacy sediment site repair will be implemented including design features to minimize or 

eliminate negative effects to aquatic species. Specific requirements designed to protect 

aquatic species during legacy site repair include project design features Watershed-18, 

216
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Watershed-19, Watershed-20, and Watershed-21 (table 2-35 of chapter 2). Culvert 

upgrades, including three culverts that will be upgraded with an open bottom arch 

structure, require work within a stream channel. None of these actions will occur within 

Coho Salmon critical habitat, and all are greater than 350 feet from critical habitat which 

in many cases is well above occupied critical habitat; therefore, no direct effects to Coho 

Salmon are expected. Due to implementation of project design features and all relevant 

Best Management Practices, direct effects to other special status aquatic species will be 

limited to disturbance or displacement at the site during the time work is occurring. 

Indirect Effects

All alternatives include watershed project design features that were developed for this 

project by watershed specialists to minimize impacts to soils and riparian/aquatic 

resources. Implementation of project design features is critical to ensure that the project 

meets Forest Plan direction and all other applicable law, regulation, and policy. 

Salvage Harvest and Reforestation 

These actions are proposed only outside of Riparian Reserves. This analysis concludes 

that, based on the CWE analysis and post-fire field reviews, proposed salvage and 

reforestation actions may result in only minor effects to aquatic species and their habitat. 

Given the substantial landscape-level effects of the 2014 fires, and the slight incremental 

increase in disturbance that salvage harvest would cause while removing dead trees and 

allowing for reforestation and quicker restoration of these areas, the negative indirect 

effects of these actions are expected to be discountable.

Site preparation and planting activities are proposed within salvage units and otherwise 

mostly within plantations that burned at high or moderate severity. All action alternatives 

include hand treatments within Riparian Reserves that are within site preparation and 

planting units unless safety of forest workers prohibits use of these treatments. These 

treatments target plantations that were heavily burned during recent fires and are within 

units where ground-disturbing actions are proposed. The hand treatment is designed to 

provide near-term soil cover in these areas where the natural buffering capacity of the 

Riparian Reserves has been temporarily lost. The treatment is likely to reduce short term 

erosion/stream sedimentation at the site level, and help promote and encourage natural 

regeneration and soil recovery in the Riparian Reserve. 

Fuels Reduction 

Project design features related to fuels treatments were developed to sufficiently protect 

Riparian Reserve functions including stream temperature, sediment, and large wood. 

Therefore, these actions are likely to have discountable short term effects on habitat 

indicators and minor effects on aquatic species. Additionally, project fuels treatments are 

designed to reduce the adverse effects of future wildfires and, therefore, would provide 

some protection for future watershed condition and function, especially if/when the future 

fire is greater than five years in the future. 

Hazard Tree Abatement

The risk of impacts to habitat indicators is associated with removal of groups of hazard 

trees from within Riparian Reserves that parallel streams or are at road/stream crossings. 

Project design feature Watershed-14 specifies that all hazard trees greater than 26 inches 

in diameter at breast height, and within one site-tree distance from a fish bearing stream, 

217
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

will be left onsite. Considering that the probability of wood entering an active stream 

channel from greater than one tree height is generally low (FEMAT, 1993), this project 

design feature is likely to ensure that roadside hazard tree removal (the only action that 

would remove trees from Riparian Reserves) would have discountable effects to large 

wood recruitment. Based on watershed project design features, and Forest and projectspecific Best Management Practices (see appendix D for details) that will be 

implemented to maintain the function of Riparian Reserves during hazard tree removal 

(including equipment exclusion and leaving felled trees on site in near-stream zones) and 

field review of hazard tree removal areas, this analysis concludes that hazard tree 

abatement along roadsides will have discountable effects to habitat indicators and minor 

effects to aquatic species. 

Roads, Landings and Water Drafting 

New temporary roads, particularly temporary road stream crossings, have a high risk for 

affecting aquatic habitat indicators at the site scale because of their impacts on sediment 

regimes and drainage networks. 

Alternative 2 would have moderate short-term negative effects to habitat indicators 

(particularly sediment) and aquatic species at the site-scale within these vulnerable 

drainages, due to construction/reconstruction of temporary roads, installation and 

removal of stream crossings, and new landings in Riparian Reserves. These temporary 

road actions include fourteen stream crossings (4 perennial and 10 intermittent streams) 

that are above the range of fish in the following drainages: Doggett Creek, BuckhornBeaver Creek, Grider Creek, O’Neil Creek, Kuntz Creek, China Creek, Caroline CreekKlamath River , and Whites Gulch. Temporary stream crossings would likely have short 

duration effects to water quality due to sediment production during in channel actions, 

and in the first winter after use. Effects for individual crossings would likely be smallscale and limited to the immediate downstream channel reach, depending on flow regime 

and channel morphology. The intensity of effects would be low for individual crossings. 

These temporary crossings will be removed before the rainy season (see chapter 2). 

Therefore the excess material will be removed before debris flow events are likely 

making the increase in risk small. In some cases, project temporary road actions are 

proposed on road beds and crossings that were not properly hydrologically stabilized (or 

decommissioned). Where these sites are actively eroding, or at risk for erosion, they 

classify as legacy sediment sites and will be treated for hydrologic stabilization after use 

in this project. Therefore long term beneficial effects in terms of reduced erosion, and/or 

risk of erosion, are expected at several sites where legacy sediment sources will be 

addressed (Doggett Creek and Grider Creek, in addition to the legacy site treatment 

proposed for Elk Creek). 

Scale and intensity of temporary road effects could increase to moderate in the case of the 

long road segment traversing multiple mid- or upper-slope channel crossings in Caroline 

Creek-Klamath River drainage (46N62). This drainage experienced a debris flow in the 

1997 flood event that affected road stream crossings, the largest of which is the Gard 

Creek crossing which involves a perennial and an intermittent channel. There is also an 

active landslide below the road, west of Gard Creek, that is narrowing the roadbed. 

Temporary re-opening of the road will require the reinstallation of stream crossings and 

widening the road on an active landslide. The effects of this work were incorporated into 

the geology risk analysis for Caroline Creek-Klamath River drainage. At the site scale the 

218
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

probability of re-activating the landslide by temporarily widening the road is moderate. 

Where the roadbed is narrowed due to road-fill related landslides, proposed reconstruction of this segment could add weight to the head of the landslide which could 

cause it to re-activate if a landslide producing storm should occur before vegetation is reestablished. 

Landings located within Riparian Reserves, especially new landings, have a high risk of 

effects to habitat indicators and aquatic species because landings will disturb soils and 

vegetation in close proximity to stream channels. Also, landings are locations where 

equipment/vehicles are used, refueled, and temporarily staged during project activities. 

Alternative 2 allows for several new landings in Riparian Reserves where they meet 

specific criteria in a project design feature such as not requiring the removal of any 

vegetation that provides stream shade, and not involving substantial ground disturbance 

in areas with direct hydrologic connection to a stream channel (Watershed-5). These 

effects could be of moderate duration (longer than temporary crossings which are pulled) 

and low to moderate intensity, depending on the volume of potentially unstable material. 

Construction and use of these landings in Riparian Reserves still has the potential to 

cause minor negative effects to habitat indicators and moderate effects to aquatic species 

at the site-scale, although with implementation of required Best Management Practices 

and project design features the likelihood of sizeable effects to aquatic resources is 

relatively low.

Stream reaches that are likely to be negatively affected by temporary road actions and 

landings include portions of Doggett Creek, Beaver Creek, Grider Creek, O’Neil Creek, 

Kuntz Creek, Whites Gulch, China Creek, and Klamath River (due to actions in Gard 

Creek and Caroline Creek drainages). 

All action alternatives will require water drafting at the same locations designated by the 

Forest Service. Vegetation providing stream shade will not be removed, and there will be 

no modification of drafting sites within Coho Salmon critical habitat. Water drafting can 

result in short term and localized increases in turbidity, particularly when the water hose 

is set into and pulled from the water. Watershed project design features (37 and 38) will 

be implemented to minimize effects of water drafting on sediment and aquatic habitat. A 

measurable increase in turbidity is not expected beyond the immediate drafting area. 

Water drafting will result in discountable effects to sediment and minor effects to aquatic 

species.

Legacy Sites

These activities involve upgrading culverts, including 3 sites that will be upgraded to 

open bottom arches, and addressing diversion potential and other road-related issues that 

are a potential threat to water quality (mostly sediment). Project specific design features 

and BMPs are designed to protect aquatic habitat from impacts associated with these 

activities. These protective measures are likely to be sufficient so that impacts to aquatic 

habitat and species are likely to be minor and localized and not result in any significant 

effect to any special status aquatic species. These actions will also result in meaningful 

beneficial effects in terms of aquatic organism passage and habitat connectivity at 

crossings and significant reduction in potential future sediment-related impacts from 

roads in Doolittle, Cougar, East Fork Elk, and mainstem Elk creeks. Trout would have 

219
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

unimpeded access to a total of about one mile of additional habitat in Malone, Twin, and 

Upper Elk creeks post-project.

Cumulative Effects

Current and future foreseeable actions considered for analysis within the twenty-nine 6th

field watersheds (Table F-1) that intersect the WSFR Project boundary are provided in 

Appendix F. The activities listed in F-1 were accounted for in the project CWE analysis 

and interpretation. The KNF uses standardized Cumulative Watershed Effects (CWE) 

models (Equivalent Roaded Area, Universal Soil Loss Equation, Mass Wasting) to assess 

effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities. In addition other current 

actions, models were updated to incorporate effects of the 2014 fires and road 

improvements identified in BAER assessments. The modelling provides the fundamental 

assessment of post-fire existing conditions, as well as an initial assessment of the project 

No Action alternative. Subsequently, effects of project action alternatives were modeled 

based on proposed actions. These model results reflect that there will be minimal 

cumulative impact from adding the effects of alternative 2 to the past, present and 

reasonable foreseeable future actions. 

The site level analysis found that short term negative effects to aquatic habitat may occur 

in several stream reaches due to the project. Ongoing and future actions in these 

drainages where site level effects are expected include grazing, private timber harvest 

(green and salvage timber harvest plans), and two Forest Service vegetation projects 

(Thom Seider and Eddy LSR projects). Additive effects related to sediment delivery to 

streams are likely only as a result of private timber harvest, particularly in Doggett Creek. 

These effects to habitat are likely restricted to within the first year post project and, 

although it will contribute to elevated sediment inputs to the Klamath River, it is not 

expected to appreciably reduce the current quality of fish habitat in Doggett Creek. 

Management Indicator Species (River/Stream Association)

Direct Effects

Project actions that occur in streams could directly impact aquatic habitat. These actions 

are: water drafting; legacy site culvert upgrades, including 3 crossings that will be 

upgraded to bottomless arch structures to improve aquatic organism passage; and 

temporary road crossings. 

Water drafting will be implemented according to NOAA specifications (when within 

Coho Salmon critical habitat), Forest Best Management Practices that minimize potential 

impacts to flows and eliminate the likelihood that sites could be dewatered, and project 

design features. No more than 10% of streamflow can be taken within NOAA 

specifications and no more than 50% per Forest Best Management Practices. Also, 

temporary modification of the streams at drafting sites is prohibited in Coho Salmon 

critical habitat and restricted in all fish-bearing waters. Therefore, water drafting actions 

are not likely to meaningfully reduce the quantity or quality of river/stream habitat. 

Legacy site culvert upgrades and aquatic organism passage improvement projects include 

protective measures to eliminate, or minimize to discountable levels, the potential shortterm negative effects to aquatic habitat which may only occur during and immediately 

after construction. The amount of habitat affected is limited to the immediate area of 

220
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

stream channel where work is occurring. These actions are directed to occur during the 

driest part of the season. If there is any flow present, the work site is dewatered then rewatered at the completion of work, according to Best Management Practices and 

protection measures agreed upon during interagency ESA consultation to sufficiently 

minimize negative effects to salmonids (Facilities Maintenance and Watershed 

Restoration programmatic Biological Assessment 2004). 

Temporary roads used by the project include stream crossings. Direct effects to aquatic 

habitat may occur while crossings on temporary roads are being constructed, or 

reconstructed, used, and hydrologically restored after use. Due to these actions 

river/stream habitat for management indicator species may be affected at 14 sites; four 

perennial stream crossings and ten intermittent stream crossings, none of which are fishbearing. Reaches of Doggett Creek, Beaver Creek, Grider Creek, O’Neil Creek, Kuntz 

Creek, Whites Gulch, China Creek, Gard Creek, and Caroline Creek would be affected. 

Indirect Effects

Vegetation treatments proposed only include Riparian Reserve treatment within site 

preparation and planting units and within fuels treatment units. These treatments will 

provide ground cover, reduce fuel accumulations, and encourage natural regeneration in 

Riparian Reserves. Equipment and activities such as handline construction are restricted 

within Riparan Reserves so that additional ground disturbance from these activities is not 

likely to result in any effect to aquatic habitat. These treatments are designed to provide 

benefits to aquatic habitat by providing near-term ground cover to help slow overland 

flow and filter sediment before it reaches stream channels; these actions are likely to 

provide short term protection of aquatic habitat and encourage natural revegetation in 

Riparian Reserves.

Salvage is not proposed within Riparian Reserves so there would be no effects of this 

treatment on Riparian Reserves.

There will be beneficial effects to aquatic species, and to the connectivity of aquatic 

habitat, at the three sites that will have crossings upgraded with bottomless arches. These 

sites are in the lowest reaches of Twin Creeks and Malone Creek, just upstream of their 

confluence with Elk Creek (just upstream of confluence of Elk and East Fork Elk 

Creeks), and in upper East Fork Elk Creek (see project maps). These structures will allow 

for free movement of special status fish and amphibian species under these road crossings 

where passage has been blocked for many years during most or all flows. Trout are likely 

to have unimpeded access to at total of about one mile of additional habitat in Malone, 

Twin, and Upper Elk creeks post-project. The culvert upgrades, to occur on 45 sites, will 

also have beneficial effects to the passage of watershed products like coarse sediment and 

large wood down through the Elk Creek watershed. All action alternatives also include 

stormproofing 33 miles of road in the Elk Creek watershed. These actions will provide 

additional benefit to aquatic habitat in Doolittle, Cougar, East Fork Elk, and mainstem 

Elk creeks by reducing diversion potential and chronic sediment inputs from roads. 

Cumulative Effects

Project effects to river/stream MIS habitat will not reduce the quantity of habitat 

available. The quality of MIS habitat is expected to be temporarily reduced along stream 

reaches associated with the 14 sites where temporary road crossings and landings are 

221
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

constructed. Due to the legacy sediment site treatments included in the project, the 

quality of MIS habitat will be improved long-term in reaches of Elk Creek, Doggett 

Creek, and Grider Creek because sites with active erosion, or at risk for erosion, will be 

hydrologically stabilized. River/stream habitat for resident trout, tailed frog and Cascade 

frog will benefit from meaningful improvement in habitat connectivity along a total of 

about one mile in Twin, and Upper Elk creeks post-project as a result of three aquatic 

organism passage upgrades. 

Alternative 3 

Threatened/Endangered and Forest Service Sensitive Species

Direct Effects

The direct effects of alternative 3 are the roughly the same as for alternative 2. 

Indirect Effects

Salvage Harvest and Reforestation 

Reforestation actions, and potential effects, are the same as for alternative 2. Alternative 

3 eliminates salvage harvest in the Beaver Fire area, and reduces salvage acreage in 

Happy Camp Fire area substantially (in Walker Creek and Caroline Creek-Klamath River 

drainages). Therefore, any impacts to Beaver Creek associated with salvage harvest are 

eliminated under this alternative and there would be a slight reduction in harvest-related 

impacts in Walker Creek and the mid-Klamath River. 

Fuels Reduction 

Fuels reduction actions, and potential effects, are the same as for alternative 2.

Hazard Tree Abatement. 

Hazard tree actions, and potential effects, are the same as for alternative 2. 

Roads, Landings and Water Drafting 

All sites where negative short term effects to aquatic habitat are expected with alternative 

2 remain in alternative 3. Therefore, roads, landings, and water drafting actions, and 

potential effects, are roughly the same as for alternative 2. 

Legacy Sites

Legacy sediment site treatments, and potential effects, are the same as for alternative 2.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects will be slightly less where salvage and associated roads/landings are 

dropped (Walker and Beaver Creeks). 

Management Indicator Species

Direct Effects

Direct effects of alternative 3 on aquatic habitat are the same as for alternative 2.

Indirect Effects

Indirect effects would be roughly the same as for alternative 2.

Cumulative Effects

222
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Cumulative effects would be roughly the same as for alternative 2.

Alternative 4 

Threatened/Endangered and Forest Service Sensitive Species

Direct Effects

The direct effects of alternative 4 are roughly the same as for alternative 2.

Indirect Effects

Alternative 4 includes a limitation on use and construction of temporary roads in 

sensitive watersheds (which reduces several harvest units and landings). Therefore, site 

level negative effects that may occur with alternative 2 will not occur with alternative 4. 

Alternative 4 also includes a lop-and-scatter hand treatment (trees less than 16 inches in 

diameter at breast height) within Riparian Reserves within salvage units unless safety of 

forest workers prohibits it. These actions are designed to increase near-term soil cover in 

fire-affected Riparian Reserves to help slow overland flow and trap/filter sediment before 

it enters stream channels. Planting is not included in Riparian Reserves, but the hand cut 

lop/scatter treatments would help to promote natural revegetation and recovery of soils in 

these Riparian Reserves.

Salvage Harvest and Reforestation

Reforestation actions, and potential effects, are the same as for alternative 2. Alternative 

4 reduces salvage harvest acreage by approximately 900 acres across the project area so 

there will be a slight reduction in the discountable effects described for alternative 2.

Fuels Reduction 

Fuels reduction actions, and potential effects, are the same as for alternative 2.

Hazard Tree Abatement 

Alternative 4 reduces the extent of hazard tree removal by not including this treatment on 

Maintenance Level 1 roads that will not be used by the project. This reduces the total 

acreage potentially affected by hazard tree removal by about 1,000 acres. Therefore, the 

discountable effects described for alternative 2 are slightly reduced in this alternative in 

the following drainages: Lower West Fork Beaver, Dutch Creek, Middle Creek, Deep 

Creek, and Horse Creek.

Roads, Landings and Water Drafting 

Water drafting actions, and potential effects, are the same as with alternative 2. 

Alternative 4 is notably different than the other action alternatives with respect to 

construction and use of temporary roads as it limits these actions in sensitive watersheds 

to only include ridgetop sections of temporary road no longer than 250 feet and precludes 

stream-crossing construction. New landing construction in Riparian Reserves is also 

eliminated under this alternative, so exceptions granted under alternative 2 do not apply 

with alternative 4 and potential negative effects from new landings in Riparian Reserves 

are eliminated. Because this alternative eliminates these activities in these areas, the 

effects will be discountable and may result in only minor effects to aquatic species at 

both the watershed and the site scale. With alternative 4 there will be no short term 

negative impacts to reaches within the following streams: Doggett Creek, Beaver Creek, 

223
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Grider Creek, O’Neil Creek, Kuntz Creek, Whites Gulch, China Creek, Gard Creek, and 

Caroline Creek.

With alternatives 2, 3, and 5 there are several sites (along tributaries of Doggett and 

Grider) where project temporary road actions involve using roads that currently have 

legacy sediment sites, or areas that are at risk of erosion (and therefore a threat to water 

quality) due to past land use. When/if the project uses these roads they will be 

hydrologically stabilized and any active erosion, or risk of erosion will be addressed. For 

the drainages where this would occur with the action alternatives, the opportunity to 

improve/protect water quality in these areas would be foregone with alternative 4. 

Legacy Sites 

Legacy sediment site treatments, and potential effects, are the same as for alternative 2.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects will be less with alternative 4 because actions that are likely to result 

in negative short term effects at the site scale (temporary road crossings and new landings 

in RR) are eliminated. With alternative 4, the project is not likely to add to the elevated 

sediment conditions in Doggett Creek which largely result from fire effects along with 

substantial private timber harvest. 

Management Indicator Species

Direct Effects

Direct effects due to water drafting and legacy sediment site treatment are the same as 

alternative 2. Site level direct effects due to temporary road crossings are eliminated with 

this alternative.

Indirect Effects

Indirect effects of alternative 4 are roughly the same as with alternative 2.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects of alternative 4 would be less than alternative 2 because river/stream 

habitat at the 14 temporary road crossing locations would not be affected with alternative 

4. 

Alternative 5 

Threatened/Endangered and Forest Service Sensitive Species

Direct Effects

The direct effects of alternative 5 are the same as for alternative 2.

Indirect Effects

Salvage Harvest and Reforestation 

Alternative 5 eliminates salvage harvest in areas designated as late successional reserve 

in the Forest Plan, and eliminates site preparation and planting in these areas plus in 

riparian reserves and inventoried roadless areas. Compared to alternative 2, many fewer 

acres in the Happy Camp and Whites fire areas will have salvage and reforestation 

treatments. The potential discountable effects resulting from these treatments (described 

224
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

for alternative 2) will be moderately reduced with this alternative. This alternative 

removes site preparation and planting on about 3,300 acres in the Happy Camp Fire area, 

and 650 acres in Whites Fire, compared to alternative 2. The beneficial effect of site 

preparation and planting on reforesting parts of the burned landscape will be foregone on 

these acres.

Fuels Reduction

Alternative 5 includes about 1,000 more acres of fuels treatment in the Beaver Fire area 

than are in other action alternatives. As described for alternative 2, fuel reduction actions 

are likely to have only discountable negative short-term effects on habitat indicators and 

minor effects on aquatic species. Additionally, project fuels treatments are designed to 

reduce the adverse effects of future wildfires and, therefore, will provide some protection 

for future watershed condition and function, especially if/when the future fire is greater 

than five years in the future. 

Hazard Tree Abatement 

Hazard tree actions, and potential effects, are the same as for alternatives 2. 

Roads, Landings and Water Drafting

Because this alternative involves substantially less salvage, and site preparation and 

planting acreage, landings and road actions are also reduced, potentially sizeable sitelevel effects of temporary road crossings and landings are reduced with this alternative, 

but not eliminated. Site level negative short term effects to aquatic habitat are expected in 

the following streams: Doggett Creek, Beaver Creek, Kuntz Creek, Whites Gulch, Gard 

Creek, and Caroline Creek; negative effects described for alternative 2 are avoided in 

Grider Creek, O’Neil Creek, and China Creek. The extent of water drafting needed to 

support implementation of this alternative will also be reduced.

Legacy Sites 

Legacy sediment site treatments, and potential effects, are the same as for alternative 2.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects will be the same as for alternative 2. 

Management Indicator Species

Direct Effects

Direct effects of alternative 5 on aquatic habitat are slightly less than with alternative 2. 

Temporary road crossings do not include reaches of Grider Creek, O’Neil Creek, or 

China Creek; therefore, site level negative effects to aquatic habitat at these locations are 

avoided. 

Indirect Effects

Indirect effects of alternative 5 are roughly the same as for alternative 2.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects would be roughly the same as for alternative 2.

225
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Comparison of Effects 

Table 3-23 displays miles of temporary road and number of stream crossings under each 

alternative. Although some of this information is available in chapter 2 of this draft EIS, 

more specific information on stream crossings is displayed in table 3-23. 

Table 3-24: Miles of temporary roads needed for the action alternatives and number of stream 

crossings

Road type or Stream Crossings Needed Alternatives 2 and 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

Miles New Temporary Road 3.6 1.2 0.8

Miles Temporary Roads on Existing 

Alignment (Roadbed)

9.9 2.7 4.0

*Miles of Reopening of 

Decommissioned Roads

9.0 0.4 3.4

Total Miles of Temporary Roads 22.6 4.4 8.1

Number of Temporary Road Stream 

Crossings 

14 0 8 

Number of Temporary Road Stream 

Crossings in fish habitat

0 0 0 

Potential direct effects to aquatic species from all of the action alternatives are associated 

with water drafting and legacy sediment site repair. Indirect effects to aquatic habitat are 

primarily associated with temporary road and stream-crossing construction within 

sensitive drainages, and locating landings within Riparian Reserves. These higher risk 

actions are proposed under all action alternatives, with the exception of Alternative 4 

which limits temporary road building and eliminates stream crossings. Alternative 4 

addresses watershed concerns by limiting temporary road construction in sensitive 

watersheds to short segments on ridgetops that are not hydrologically connected to the 

drainage network, precludes stream crossing installations within sensitive watersheds, 

and prohibits new landings within Riparian Reserves. 

The implementation of project design features, and in particular those developed to 

reduce negative impacts to watershed values, minimizes negative direct and indirect 

effects to habitat indicators (sediment, water temperature and large wood) under all 

action alternatives. All action alternatives include hand lop-and-scatter treatments in 

Riparian Reserves of heavily fire-affected site prep and plant (plantation) units, where 

safety allows, which will provide near term ground cover and promote soil recovery and 

regeneration in riparian areas. Alternative 4 includes additional protections for aquatic 

resources in sensitive watersheds. In addition to the limitations on roads, stream crossings 

and landings as described above, Alternative 4 reduces site-scale sedimentation concerns 

by also requiring lop-and-scatter hand treatments in Riparian Reserves within salvage 

harvest units, where safety allows, to improve ground cover. These measures are 

important, and may provide meaningful benefit to downstream aquatic habitat, given the 

degraded conditions on the landscape as a result of the 2014 wildfires. 

The CWE models indicate the severity of effects to watershed disturbance that was 

associated with the 2014 wildfires. The action alternatives add only a slight incremental 

increase to this disturbance, an increase that is determined to be minor at the watershed 

scale. Roads and landings within Riparian Reserves represent the highest risk of negative 

effects to habitat indicators at the site-scale in sensitive watersheds. Implementation of 

226
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

the action alternatives will allow for a faster recovery of conifer stands in these burned 

watersheds than will alternative 1. Alternative 4 allows for this recovery and addresses 

impacts to habitat indicators and aquatic species in sensitive watersheds. 

Relative to aquatic species, alternatives 2, 3, and 5 involve short term negative effects to

habitat at the site scale (due to temporary road actions and landings) for the following 

special status aquatic species: resident trout and tailed frog (MIS); foothill yellow-legged 

frog, Cascade frog, and western pond turtle (Forest Service Sensitive). Habitat for Coho 

Salmon (Threatened), Chinook salmon, steelhead, Pacific lamprey, and Klamath River 

lamprey (Forest Service Sensitive) may also be negatively affected with alternatives 2, 3, 

and 5. These impacts are expected in large part due to the vulnerable post fire condition 

of project area watersheds and streams where project disturbance would occur. With 

alternative 4 these site level impacts to aquatic habitat are avoided, and also site level 

benefits are lost for a few sites where project hydrologic stabilization of existing road 

beds and crossings (after use in the project) would benefit/protect water quality long 

term. All action alternatives include hand lop-and-scatter treatments in heavily burned 

plantation Riparian Reserves, where safe, which will provide benefits; only alternative 4 

adds this beneficial treatment to Riparian Reserves in salvage units which may provide 

meaningful benefit to downstream habitat in the drainages it occurs. All alternatives 

include legacy sediment site treatment, including aquatic organism passage improvement, 

in Elk Creek watershed. 

Table 3-25: Summary of comparison of effects of alternatives for aquatic resource analysis 

indicators

Indicator Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

Temperature Discountable Discountable Discountable Discountable

Sediment

Site-Scale Potentially Sizeable Potentially Sizeable Discountable Minor Negative

Watershed Scale Discountable Discountable Discountable Discountable

Large Wood Discountable Discountable Discountable Discountable

Compliance with law, regulation, policy, and the Forest Plan 

The Forest Plan consistency checklist reflects how the project meets specific standards 

and guidelines from the Forest Plan. Interagency consultation under Endangered Species 

Act section 7 is currently in progress with National Marine Fisheries Service; this will 

also include consultation under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act.

Soil ___________________________________________________ 

This section describes the current situation and effects of the project on soil resources.

Methodology and Analysis Indicators

Analysis of the effects of individual management activities on the soil resource (soil 

productivity and soil ecosystem functionality) is guided by the Forest Plan Standards and 

Guidelines and FSM 2500, Chapter 2550, Supplement 2500-2012-1. Four indicators were 

227
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

chosen that address relevant issues in the Westside Fire Recovery project (project) and 

measure compliance with Forest Plan Standard and Guidelines. The indicators include: 

soil stability, surface organic matter, soil organic matter, and soil structure. 

The unit measures for each indicator is acres not meeting desired conditions. Soil stability 

desired conditions are not met when Erosion Hazard Ratios (EHRs) are high or when soil 

cover is less than 30 percent. 

For this project, surface organic matter is coarse wood greater than 12 inches in diameter 

which is either down, or standing and dead. The surface organic matter indicator is not 

met when this material averages less than 200 cubic feet per acre, and partially meets 

when it averages less than 500 cubic feet per acre. 

Soil organic matter desired conditions are not met when major portions of the area have 

had the upper soil layer displaced or removed to a depth of 8 inches and an area large 

enough to affect productivity for the desired plant species (100 square feet). 

Soil structure desired conditions are not met when major portions of the area have 

reduced infiltration and permeability capacity indicated by soil structure and macroporosity changes. Infiltration is the process by which water on the ground surface enters 

the soil. Soil macro-porosity is the amount of the soil that is composed of larger pores 

which are important for soil water movement and gas exchange. 

The projected acres not meeting desired conditions for each indicator and activity type 

were determined from monitoring data collected from previous salvage projects, and 

based on scientific research.

Spatial and Temporal Context 

For all four soil indicators, the analysis area is bounded by the project activity units 

because this is where impacts to soil could occur. The analysis is further bounded in time 

by the foreseeable future period during which effects of this project can persist as 

detectable, significant effects. Soil cover, as it affects soil stability, can recover quickly if 

needle-cast is available, and grasses, forbs, and shrubs re-sprout. The temporal boundary 

for soil stability is five years. Soil organic matter can take a long time to rebuild after it is 

lost through displacement or erosion. Once compacted, soil structure can remain affected 

for decades. The temporal boundary for soil organic matter, surface organic matter, and 

soil structure is 30 years. 

Affected Environment 

Soils within the project area are mainly derived from metamorphic rock, granitic rock, 

glacial till, or ultramafic rock. A soil map can be found in appendix A of the Soil 

resource report and table 4 of that report displays the proportion of general soil groups 

and the corresponding soil properties used in the analysis of this report. 

The dominant soils within the analysis area are mostly sandy loams or loams with 

gravelly to extremely gravelly texture modifiers, indicating high natural infiltration rates, 

and high rock content in many areas. These soils range from shallow to deep, reflecting a 

wide range of soil productivity and soil hydrologic groups. Specific dominant soils 

include the Clallam, Holland, Gilligan, Deadwood, and Jayar. Compaction ratings are 

moderate for these soils.

228
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

The affected environment includes past actions within the project area. The 2014 

wildfires have impacted soil organic matter and soil cover. The greatest impacts to soil 

structure have occurred on approximately 1,500 acres that have been impacted by 

vegetation management using heavy equipment within the last 30 years. Field monitoring 

results indicate that the extent of detrimentally compacted soil is minimal, yet soil cover 

and soil organic matter have been impacted. This indicates past forest management has 

had a minimal impact on detrimental soil porosity and the 2014 fires have likely 

overshadowed past management effects to soil cover and organic matter. The existing 

soil condition is most dominated by the Whites, Beaver, and Happy Camp fires that 

burned through the project area between July and September 2014. 

Currently, approximately 500 acres of the project area are not meeting desired conditions 

for soil stability (see table 5 of the Soil resource report). The areas that are not meeting 

the desired condition have high EHRs due to recent wildfires which combusted organic 

matter on top of the soil surface. Soil disturbance resulting in bare soil (less than 30 

percent cover) generally results in high EHRs if slopes are greater than 20 percent. 

The current condition is that approximately 660 acres of the project area are not meeting 

desired conditions for soil organic matter because they have high Soil Burn Severities 

(SBS). Major impacts to soil productivity have occurred in areas with moderate to high 

SBS. Negative impacts include destruction of the protective vegetation canopy and forest 

floor, a significant loss of soil carbon and nitrogen, and reduced infiltration capacity, 

which can lead to landslides, dry ravel (downslope movement of loose, dry particles), and 

erosion by wind and water causing increased runoff and sediment input into streams 

(Erickson 2008). 

All of the project area is meeting the desired condition for surface organic matter. 

Although many areas of the project have less than 200 cubic feet per acre of large woody 

debris in contact with the soil, there is a high volume of standing dead trees, greater than 

12 inch diameter. These would contribute organic material to the soil surface within the 

next several years and would eventually be cycled into the soil to provide for plant 

growth.

It is estimated less than 20 acres of the project area are not meeting desired conditions for 

soil structure because severe soil compaction was measured on 2 percent of the soil plots 

monitored and approximately 1,500 acres have been impacted by harvest equipment 

during the last 30 years. Within the project area, soil textures of sandy loam and loam 

produce moderate compaction ratings (table 2 of the Soil resource report). 

Environmental Consequences 

Alternative 1

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects 

Immediately following the 2014 fires, EHRs were high on approximately 57 percent of 

the project area. Within one year following the fire, soil cover would increase on areas 

with low to moderate soil burn severities. Soil cover is less likely to increase on areas 

with high SBS because tree canopy has been consumed. Therefore, areas with high EHRs 

would decrease to moderate, except where there is high SBS on approximately 490 acres. 

These areas would not meet the desired condition for soil stability. Based on field data 

229
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

collected, it is estimated that soil cover is less than 30 percent on this same area. Effective 

soil cover will only be fully reestablished after surface vegetation recovers. This will 

expose the soil to higher erosion potential over the next 3 to 6 years (Berg and Azuma 

2010). 

Under alternative 1, large surface organic matter could reach sufficient levels within 

approximately five years and contribute to the recovery of soil productivity. It is possible 

that the surface organic matter indicator would not be met if material greater than 12 inch 

diameter exceeds 800 cubic feet. If a wildfire occurs during the next 10 to 15 years, soils 

would burn with a high SBS directly beneath this large woody debris. This could occur 

on approximately 2,500 acres of the project area and it’s estimated large wood could 

cover 5 to 10 percent of this area. 

Soil organic matter will remain intact unless severe storm events result in the loss of large 

amounts of topsoil. Soil structure conditions will remain the same in the short term, with 

very slow long-term natural recovery of old skid trails and landings. 

Cumulative Effects 

Grazing is the only reasonably foreseeable future action that would occur within the same 

area as this project. Although minimal amounts of grazing activities are ongoing within 

allotments found within the project area, most of the project activities are proposed on 

steeper slopes which cattle use rarely, if ever, or are largely transitory in nature. Further, 

annual operating instructions provided to permittees will limit permitted grazing activities 

as needed to minimize impacts, not only to rangeland health but also to soil conditions 

(see range section of this chapter and the Rangeland resource report). For these reasons, 

no measurable cumulative impacts to soil indicators are anticipated as a result of ongoing 

grazing activities when added to the activities proposed with this project.

Wildfire and forest management are an ongoing impact to soil stability, surface organic 

matter, soil organic matter and soil structure. The effects from the 2014 wildfires 

overwhelm effects from past management practices. The cumulative effects for 

alternative 1 would be a continued increase in soil stability due to falling needles, 

branches, and eventually tree boles. This would result in decreased EHRs and a gradual 

increase in soil organic matter as material decomposes. These processes would encourage 

the return of vegetation which would further increase soil cover and eventually soil 

organic matter. Soil organic matter would reach desired conditions more slowly in areas 

with high SBS, and recovery could take several decades to a century. Surface organic 

matter would be expected to reach desired conditions within approximately 10 years. 

Damage to soil structure would continue to ameliorate, yet this process occurs slowly. 

The most compacted areas could take approximately 30 years to reach desired condition. 

The natural falling of dead needles, branches, and eventually tree boles would continue to 

assist in the recovery of soil stability. Larger surface organic matter would be added from 

the falling of tree boles over the next 5 to 10 years to meet the surface organic matter 

indicator. The surface organic matter indicator may not be met if a wildfire occurs during 

the next 10 to 15 years, resulting in high SBS directly beneath large woody material in 

contact with the soil. Soil organic matter will remain intact unless severe storm events 

result in the loss of large amounts of topsoil. Soil structure conditions will remain the 

230
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

same in the short term, with very slow long-term natural recovery of old skid trails and 

landings. 

Soil indicators would not be met on approximately 660 acres for alternative 1. This 

occurs mainly where soils burned with high SBS and soil stability and soil organic 

material (SOM) have been impacted.

Alternative 2

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects 

On approximately 2,000 acres, soil stability and SOM would be impacted with most 

disturbances on temporary roads, landings, and skid trails. Construction of new 

temporary roads, associated with ground based harvest, would have the highest impact to 

soil stability and sedimentation (Rice et al. 1972). Newly constructed roads are the largest 

source of erosion and this is exacerbated in a burned environment because the capacity of 

the landscape to moderate flow and trap sediment is greatly reduced (Peterson et al. 

2009). Project design features would require subsoiling 60 percent of new temporary 

roads and landings, and would require maintaining at least 50 percent effective soil cover. 

If soil cover is not available, soil stability and SOM could be impacted over the long 

term. Subsoiling would promote the recovery of soil stability, SOM, and soil structure yet 

soil productivity would remain impacted over the long term on compacted surfaces that 

are not subsoiled. This includes skid trails, existing or previously decommissioned 

temporary roads, and existing landings. Soil structure would be impacted on 

approximately 15 percent of ground-based harvest and less than 1 percent of helicopter 

and skyline. 

During harvest, felling of dead trees would increase soil cover approximately 10 to 20 

percent. Ground based skidding would remove soil cover and impact SOM on 

approximately 30 percent, 10 percent of skyline, and less than 1 percent of helicopter. 

Post fire accelerated erosion due to ground based salvage logging could result in a 6 to 

1,000 fold increase in sediment production (Wagenbrenner 2015). This would mainly 

occur due to reduced infiltration on skid trails and other areas disturbed by ground based 

equipment, which would concentrate runoff as rill erosion. Where skidding occurs 

through areas with less than 50 percent soil cover, a project design feature would require 

applying at least 50 percent soil cover on skid trails greater than 15 percent slope. This 

could limit accelerated erosion on areas with higher EHRs. 

Reductions in large woody material could lessen impacts to SOM if a wildfire occurs 10 

to 15 years from now. Fuels specialist collected plot data which indicates reductions of 

large woody material could lessen impacts on approximately one third of the harvested 

area. 

Vegetation recovery and subsequent ground cover could lag behind undisturbed areas by 

three years or more (Robichaud 2011). Seedlings that germinate following a wildfire may 

be damaged or killed by mechanical disturbance associate with subsequent salvage 

logging (Van Nieuwstadt 2001). Areas most heavily impacted such as landings and main 

skid trails would be the slowest to recover. Ground-based harvest would be expected to 

delay vegetation recovery on up to 30 percent of a units area, and ground based harvest of 

roadside hazard could impact 30 to 60 percent. Vegetation began to recover almost 

231
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

immediately following the fires and will continue to add soil cover and increase soil 

stability where undisturbed. 

Site preparation or fuels management zones could result in impacts to soil cover, soil 

organic matter and soil structure, especially if mechanical equipment is used. A project 

design feature would require site preparation treatments to be designed to meet the Forest 

Plan soil management direction. Site preparation and tree planting could benefit soil 

stability and SOM if brush fields, which are less effective soil cover, would otherwise 

dominate the site over the long term. 

Proposed underburning would have minimal impacts to soil stability. The greatest 

impacts would occur due to line construction activities where dozers are used to re-scrape 

control lines to mineral soil. 

Proposed legacy site treatments would be designed to improve soil stability over the long 

term. Minor, localized impacts to soil stability and SOM could occur due to culvert 

replacements and road maintenance, yet implementation of best management practices 

would maintain soil cover on disturbed areas. Road maintenance would have a beneficial 

impact to soil stability by improving drainage and decreasing the potential for rill and 

gully erosion. Likewise, culvert upgrades would decrease the diversion potential of 

drainages and resulting accelerated erosion. 

For alternative 2, 2,800 acres would not meet desired conditions for soil stability, 825 

would not meet surface organic matter, 2,214 acres for SOM, and 1,255 for soil structure. 

Cumulative Effects 

Adding the effects of alterative 2 to the effects of past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions could have substantial negative effects on soil desired 

conditions. Past effects due to forest management and the 2014 fires have been 

considered and discussed in the affected environment and the effects to soil stability, 

surface organic matter, soil organic matter and soil structure addressed there. Impacts to 

soil structure would occur on 70 acres proposed for ground-based harvest where harvest 

has occurred in the past 10 years. 

Effects from grazing are as discussed under alternative 1. Adding these effects to the 

effects of alternative 2 will not result in measurable cumulative effects. On approximately 

2,800 acres, soil indicators would not be met. This is an increase of approximately 2,300 

acres compared to alternative 1. The number of acres that do not meet desired conditions 

for soil structure, soil organic matter, and soil structure is reduced to the extent possible 

with project design features. 

Soil stability and SOM would be impacted most due to disturbance on temporary roads 

and landings. During harvest, felling of dead trees would increase soil cover 

approximately 10 to 20 percent. Ground based skidding would then remove soil cover 

and impact SOM on approximately 30 percent, 10 percent of skyline, and less than 1 

percent of helicopter. Soil structure would not meet desired conditions on approximately 

1,255 acres, mainly on new temporary roads, landings, and skid trails. Site preparation or 

fuels management zones could result in impacts to soil indicators, especially if 

mechanical equipment is used. Site preparation and tree planting could benefit soil 

232
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

stability and SOM if brush fields, which are less effective as soil cover, would otherwise 

dominate the site over the long term. 

Alternative 3

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects 

Alternative 3 would propose approximately 480 fewer acres of ground-based harvest, 250 

fewer acres of helicopter and 310 fewer acres of skyline harvest than alternative 

2therefore, fewer acres would be impacted by ground-based mechanical equipment. 

Alternative 3 proposes 1,215 fewer acres of fuel management zone treatments. This 

would decrease the area that would not meet desired soil conditions by approximately 

100 acres because less soil cover would be removed due to use of mechanical equipment 

and removal of vegetation providing soil cover. 

Under alternative 3, mechanical equipment would remove soil cover on approximately 

940 acres in addition to 495 acres that would have high EHRs in alternative 1; a total of 

approximately 1,435 acres of the project area would not meet desired conditions for soil 

stability (see table 5 in the Soil resource report).

Reductions in large woody material could lessen impacts to SOM if a wildfire occurs 10 

to 15 years from now. Fuels specialist collected plot data which indicates reductions of 

large woody material could lessen impacts on approximately one third of the harvested 

area. 

For alternative 3, 2,380 acres would not meet desired conditions for soil stability, 560 

would not meet surface organic matter, 1,980 acres for SOM, and 1,085 for soil structure. 

Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative effects of alternative 3 would be very similar to alternative 2. Adding the 

effects of alterative 3 to the effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions could have measurable negative effects on soil desired conditions. The highest 

cumulative impacts to soil stability and surface organic matter would occur when 

mechanical equipment is used on soil that burned with a high SBS. Project design 

features have been developed to maintain soil cover and restrict additional use of 

mechanical equipment when desired conditions are most likely not met. 

On approximately 2,400 acres, soil indicators would not be met. This is an increase of 

approximately 1,900 acres compared to alternative 1. The number of acres that do not 

meet desired conditions for soil structure, soil organic matter, and soil structure is 

reduced to the extent possible with project design features. 

Alternative 4

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects 

Alternative 4 would propose approximately 70 fewer acres of ground-based harvest, 560 

fewer acres of skyline and 290 fewer acres of helicopter than in alternative 2; therefore, 

fewer acres would be affected by mechanical equipment. In addition, 2.4 miles less 

temporary roads would be constructed, 15.8 miles less existing and previously 

233
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

decommissioned roads would be used, 10 fewer existing landings would be used, and 40 

fewer new landings would be constructed. 

The decreased use of landings would result in the greatest decrease, approximately 50 

acres, of area not meeting the soil stability indicator. Less ground-based harvest would 

result in approximately 30 fewer acres where soil stability is not met, and 16 fewer acres 

because less temporary roads would be used or constructed. 

Under alternative 4, mechanical equipment would remove soil cover on approximately 

1,450 acres and, in addition to 495 acres which would have high EHRs under alternative 

1, a total of approximately 1,945 acres of the project area would not meet desired 

conditions for soil stability (see table 5 of the Soil resource report). This is 360 fewer 

acres compared to alternative 2. 

Alternative 4 proposes to harvest fewer ground-based and skyline units. Therefore, 

approximately 440 acres would not meet the surface organic matter indicator which is 

390 fewer acres compared to alternative 2. 

Fewer acres proposed for ground based harvest, and fuel management zone treatments 

would result in less impact to SOM because less area would be impacted by mechanical 

equipment. It’s estimated approximately 1,450 acres would not meet desired conditions 

for SOM under alternative 3. This is a decrease of 530 acres compared to alternative 2. 

Fewer acres of proposed ground based harvest and fuel management zone treatment 

would decrease impacts to soil stability and SOM. Fewer temporary roads and landings 

would reduce impacts to soil stability, SOM, and soil structure. Site preparation and tree 

planting could benefit soil stability and SOM if brush fields, which are less effective as 

soil cover, would otherwise dominate the site over the long term.

Reductions in large woody material could lessen impacts to SOM if a wildfire occurs 10 

to 15 years from now. Fuels specialist collected plot data which indicates reductions of 

large woody material could lessen impacts on approximately one third of the harvested 

area. 

For Alternative 4, 2,415 acres would not meet desired conditions for soil stability, 440 

would not meet surface organic matter, 1,690 acres for SOM, and 1,090 for soil structure. 

Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative effects of alternative 4 would be very similar to alternative 2. Adding the 

effects of alterative 4 to the effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions could have measurable negative effects on soil desired conditions. 

On approximately 2,400 acres, soil indicators would not be met. This is an increase of 

approximately 1,900 acres compared to alternative 1. The number of acres that do not 

meet desired conditions for soil structure, soil organic matter, and soil structure is 

reduced to the extent possible with project design features. 

Alternative 5

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects 

Alternative 5 would propose approximately 290 fewer acres of ground-based harvest, 

2,780 fewer acres of skyline and 1,840 fewer acres of helicopter compared to alternative 

234
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

2; therefore, fewer impacts would occur due to mechanical equipment. In addition, 29 

fewer existing landings would be used, and 18 fewer new landings would be constructed. 

Reductions in large woody material could lessen impacts to SOM if a wildfire occurs 10 

to 15 years from now. Fuels specialist collected plot data which indicates reductions of 

large woody material could lessen impacts on approximately one third of the harvested 

area. 

Less ground-based harvest would result in the greatest decrease, approximately 125 

acres, of area not meeting the soil stability, SOM, and soil structure indicator. Fewer 

landings used would result in approximately 115 fewer acres where these indicators 

would not be met. Site preparation and tree planting could benefit soil stability and SOM 

if brush fields, which are less effective as soil cover, would otherwise dominate the site 

over the long term. 

Fewer acres proposed for ground-based harvest would result in less compaction. It’s 

estimated alternative 5 would result in approximately 370 acres with reduced infiltration 

which is 650 acres less than alternative 2. 

Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative effects of alternative 5 would be very similar to alternative 2. Adding the 

effects of alterative 5 to the effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions could have measurable negative effects on soil desired conditions. 

On approximately 1,600 acres, soil indicators would not be met. This is an increase of 

approximately 1,100 acres compared to alternative 1. The number of acres that do not 

meet desired conditions for soil structure, soil organic matter, and soil structure is 

reduced to the extent possible with project design features. 

Compliance with law, regulation, policy, and the Forest Plan

Although soil indicators would not be met on about 4,000 acres, this is less than 10 

percent of the project area. Therefore, Forest Plan Standard and Guidelines 3-1 and 3-2 

would be met at the project scale. A forest consistency checklist has been completed that 

reviews the soil standards and guidelines. Forest Plan Standard and Guidelines 3-3 

through 3-6 would be met because project activities are not expected to result in major 

decreases to surface organic matter and soil organic matter. Forest Plan Standard and 

Guideline 3-7 has been met by the selection of soil plots where soils were field verified. 

Geology _______________________________________________ 

Methodology

Three days of field review were completed to validate geologic and geomorphic 

mapping. Unstable lands are designated as Riparian Reserves in the Forest Plan (Standard 

and Guideline MA 10-2, pg. 4-108). The unstable lands component of Riparian Reserves 

includes active landslides, inner gorges, toe zones of dormant landslides and severely 

weathered and dissected granitic lands. List of actions considered for cumulative effects 

in appendix C (map project record). This analysis assumes that if less than 1 percent of 

the 7th field watershed is in the project boundary there will be no effect to landslide risk. 

235
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

So only the sixty-seven watersheds with greater than 1 percent of their area in the project 

boundary are analyzed (see appendix B of the Geology resource report for list of 

watersheds analyzed).

The Cumulative Watershed Effects GEO model is used to estimate the landslide 

potential. The model uses mapping of the geomorphology, past and present disturbances, 

and coefficients developed using research on the effects of the 1964 flood event on 

landslide rates. The output from the model is volume of sediment delivered to the mouth 

of the 7th field watershed during a 10-year storm event (cubic yards per decade). The 

volumes are converted into a risk ratio to estimate landslide potential across the Forest 

and among project alternatives. A threshold of concern for the risk ratio is 1.0. This is not 

the point at which significant effects occur but a yellow flag indicating that additional 

impacts need to be considered closely for resource degradation and impacts to beneficial 

uses of water. Mitigations to prevent unacceptable negative impacts will be considered 

for watersheds with proposed activities that are over the threshold of concern. A more 

detailed description of the cumulative watershed effects modeling process is available in 

a Forest-wide document (Bell, 2012). 

The indicator used in this analysis for effects on unstable lands is landslide risk. Risk is 

the intersection between the potential of landsliding and the consequence of landsliding. 

Landslide potential is estimated from the GEO model risk ratio. Consequences analyzed 

include: 1) impacts to human health and safety; 2) impacts to infrastructure; and 3) 

impacts to natural resources. Landslide risk ranges from very high, which indicates an 

immediate need for mitigation of the risk, to very low, which indicates a nuisance 

disruption. See appendix A of the Geology resource report for details. 

The long-term elevated risk of landslide in a 7th field watershed is related to tree root 

support. Areas with compromised root support (due to fire or forest management) have 

about 6.5 times higher landslide rate than areas with intact roots (Amarathus et al. 1985). 

After trees die the root support begins to decline immediately and provide almost no 

support after about a decade. Duration of elevated risk is analyzed using the state of 

vegetation in a 7th field watershed. The measure of duration of elevated risk will be the 

percent of the watershed with moderate or high severity wildfire left to naturally 

regenerate (or left unplanted). So, if more than 75 percent of the high and moderate 

vegetation burn severity is left to naturally regenerate the duration of elevated risk in the 

watershed is assumed to be greater than 80 years. If the percent left unplanted in a 

watershed is less than 75 percent, it will be assumed that the duration of elevated risk is 

about 30 years. If less than 10 percent of the watershed was burned with high or moderate 

vegetation burn severity the elevated risk is assumed to be acute and will recover in two 

to five years. 

Spatial and Temporal Context

The spatial scale for the landslide risk and cumulative effects analysis is the 7th field 

watershed because the models used for analysis are calibrated at the 7th field scale. The 

temporal scale is from the present to ten years for short-term and 10 to 50 years for longterm. Elevated landslide rates due to forest management in Northern California have been 

shown to begin to decrease around 7 to 12 years after a disturbance and recover in about 

50 years (Ziemer 1981).

236
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Affected Environment

The Beaver portion of the project area is mainly underlain by Condrey Mountain Schist 

bedrock. The schist contains graphite (which is commonly used as a lubricant) which 

makes the area susceptible to large scale deep-seated landslides. The large dormant 

landslide deposits in the Beaver fire area are due to a combination of the graphitic schist 

and past climatic and seismic activity (more than 1,000 years ago). There are small 

portions of dormant landslide deposits that have experienced active landsliding in recent 

history (less than 100 years). 

The Happy Camp portion of the project area has three distinct geologic types. The Elk 

Creek area is primarily metasedimentary and metavolcanic bedrock. These areas have 

few landslides and the primary landslide mechanism is debris flow of sediment stored in 

the stream channels. There are areas of ultramafic rock that have small dormant 

landslides but few have active landslides within them. The Grider/Walker Creek area is 

underlain by highly weathered and dissected granitic lands. The watersheds are 

susceptible to shallow landsliding such as debris slides and debris flows. The Tompkins 

Creek area is underlain by a mosaic of bedrocks including ultramafic, granitic and 

metasedimentary bedrock. The actual landslide rate is low with only a handful of active 

landslides in the area. 

The Whites portion of the project area is mainly underlain by metasedimentary and 

metavolcanic bedrock. These rocks are ancient ocean floor and tend to be fairly stable 

(low landslide potential). The headwaters of Music Creek and Taylor Creek are underlain 

by granitic bedrock which has been highly weathered. This led to the development of 

highly weathered and dissected granitic lands, susceptible to shallow landsliding such as 

debris slides and debris flows. 

Of the sixty-seven 7th field watersheds analyzed for this project, three currently have a 

very high landslide risk. These are Rancheria Creek, Walker Creek and Lower Grider 

Creek. The likelihood that a landslide event will occur in Lower Grider and Walker 

Creek is almost certain and highly likely in Rancheria Creek. These three watersheds 

have a catastrophic consequence if a landslide (specifically a debris flow) occurs due to 

the proximity to the creek of private property with residential structures. There are twenty 

watersheds with a high landslide risk mainly due to the susceptibility of municipal water 

supplies, fish habitat and access to landslide events. Thirty of the watersheds analyzed 

have a moderate landslide risk and twelve have a low landslide risk. 

There are forty 7th field watersheds that have more than 10 percent high or moderate 

vegetation burn severity. These watersheds will have an elevated landslide risk of greater 

than 80 years. These include Rancheria Creek, Lower Grider Creek, and Walker Creek 

which have very high landslide risks and thirteen of the watersheds with high landslide 

risks. The other twenty seven watersheds are assumed to have acute elevated landslide 

risk that will last about two to five years. Maps of the geomorphology and bedrock are in 

the Geology resource report on the project website. 

237
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects

There are no direct effects to landslide risk under this alternative. The area will recover 

naturally including the re-establishment of vegetation and ground-cover, increasing root 

support and intercepting precipitation which reduces landslide risk and potential. 

However, prolonged hardwood and brush dominated occupancy will not provide the root 

support to maintain stable slopes (Jackson and Roering 2009). The landslide risk will 

remain the same as current conditions for about 10 to 12 years (Zeimer 1981) and slowly 

begin to reduce as conifer forest begins to be established. The project area may take up to 

80 years to recover to a pre-fire landslide risk level. It could take longer in areas where 

seed sources have been eliminated due to large pockets of high and moderate severity 

vegetation burn such as Walker, Grider and O’Neil Creek. 

Cumulative Effects

The projects added to the effects of the past actions (the affected environment) and the 

direct and indirect effects of the project are portions of the Jess project, Scott Bar 

Underburn, Lovers Canyon, McCollins and Sawyers Bar Fuels Reduction Project that are 

in the 7th field watersheds analyzed. The Jess project and Lovers Canyon project are the 

only two future projects that have any effect on the risk ratio or percent watershed with 

high or moderate disturbance. Jess project increases the risk ratio for 0.01 and 0.07 for 

the Eddy Gulch and Jessups Gulch respectively. The Jess project increases the percent of 

the watershed with high and moderate disturbance by 1.5 percent for both watersheds. 

Lovers Canyon increases the risk ratios for South Fork Kelsey and Middle Creek by 0.03 

and 0.02 respectively, and the percent disturbed is increased by 3.3 percent for both 

watersheds. The landslide risks are not increased by the addition of the effects of these 

projects. None of the projects affect the duration of elevated risk in the watersheds. 

Alternative 2 

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects

There are about 3,920 acres of salvage units (about 2,000 acres of salvage logging) on 

steep, weathered granitic lands (Riparian Reserve) proposed in this alternative. No 

salvage will occur on inner gorges, active landslides or toe zones of dormant landslides 

(see chapter 2 for project design features). Also proposed are about 960 acres of site 

preparation and planting, 4,395 acres of roadside hazard tree removal and 3,940 acres of 

fuels treatments on unstable lands considered to be Riparian Reserves. 

Alternative 2 does not change the landslide risk for any watershed. There is a change in 

the risk ratio or the percent of watersheds with high or moderate disturbance for twentyeight watersheds due to treatments. The average change in risk ratio is 0.01 and the 

maximum change was 0.11. The average change in percent of the watershed with high 

and moderate disturbance is 0.24 percent and the maximum change is 1.1 percent. 

There is a reduction in the duration of elevated risk due to planting for nine watersheds 

compared to alternative 1. The 7th field watersheds with a high landslide risk that will 

238
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

have a reduced duration of elevated risk are Upper Grider Creek, Cliff Valley, Lower 

Grider Creek, O’Neil Creek, Walker Creek, and Caroline Creek. The reduction in 

duration of elevated risk will benefit natural resources and infrastructure in the long-term. 

Middle Creek, Horse Creek, and Upper Elk Creek have a moderate landslide risk and will 

have a duration of elevated risk of 30 years in this alternative. Lower Grider and Walker 

Creek have very high landslide risk due to the potential to impact private land – so the 

reduction of elevated risk from more than 80 years to 30 years is of great benefit for 

protecting human safety and private property in these two watersheds. Rancheria Creek, 

which also has a very high landslide risk, will continue to have a greater than 80-year 

duration of elevated risk because there is less than 25 percent of the high and moderate 

vegetation burn severity areas being planted. All other watersheds will have a greater 

than 80 year duration of elevated risk. 

Cumulative Effects

The projects added to the effects of the past actions (the affected environment) and the 

direct and indirect effects of the alternative are portions of the Jess project, Salmon 

Reforestation, Scott Bar Underburn, Lovers Canyon, McCollins and Sawyers Bar Fuels 

Reduction Project that are in the 7th field watersheds analyzed. The Jess project and 

Lovers Canyon project are the only two future projects that have any effect on the risk 

ratio or percent watershed with high or moderate disturbance. Jess project increases the 

risk ratio for 0.01 and 0.07 for the Eddy Gulch and Jessups Gulch respectively. The Jess 

project increases the percent of the watershed with high and moderate disturbance by 1.5 

percent for both watersheds. Lovers Canyon increases the risk ratios for South Fork 

Kelsey and Middle Creek by 0.03 and 0.02 respectively and the percent disturbed is 

increased by 3.3 percent for both watersheds. The landslide risks are not increased for 

any 7th field watershed by the addition of the effects of these projects. None of the 

projects affect the duration of elevated risk in the watersheds.

Alternative 3

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects

There are about 3,750 acres of salvage units (about 1,900 acres of salvage logging) on 

steep, weathered granitic lands (Riparian Reserve) proposed in this alternative. No 

salvage will occur on inner gorges, active landslides or toe zones of dormant landslides 

(see chapter 2 for project design features). Also proposed are about 960 acres of site 

preparation and planting, 4,395 acres of roadside hazard tree removal and 3,940 acres of 

fuels treatments on unstable lands considered to be Riparian Reserves. 

The indirect effects to the landslide risk are the same as for alternative 2. The duration of 

elevated risk will not be reduced in Horse Creek, because the percent of the 7th field 

planted drops below 25 percent. All other durations of elevated risk will remain the same 

as alternative 2. 

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects are the same as for Alterntive 2. 

239
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Alternative 4 

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects

There are about 3,740 acres of salvage units (about 1,900 acres of salvage logging) on 

steep, weathered granitic lands (Riparian Reserve) proposed in this alternative. No 

salvage will occur on inner gorges, active landslides or toe zones of dormant landslides 

(see chapter 2 for project design features). Also proposed are about 960 acres of site 

preparation and planting, 4,290 acres of roadside hazard tree removal and 3,940 acres of 

fuels treatments on unstable lands considered to be Riparian Reserves. 

The indirect effects to landslide risk are the same as for alternative 2. There are only five 

7th field watersheds that have a reduction in the duration of elevated risk. Lower Grider 

will have an elevated risk for more than 80 years under this alternative compared to 30 

years in alternative 2. Upper Grider Creek, Horse Creek, and Upper Elk will have an 

elevated risk for more than 80 years compared to 30 years under alternative 2. All other 

durations of elevated risk are the same as alternative 2. 

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects are the same as for Alternative 2. 

Alternative 5 

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects

There are about 465 acres of salvage units (about 250 acres of salvage logging) on steep, 

weathered granitic lands (Riparian Reserve) proposed in this alternative. No salvage will 

occur on inner gorges, active landslides or toe zones of dormant landslides (see chapter 2 

for project design features). Also proposed are about 960 acres of site preparation and 

planting, 4,395 acres of roadside hazard tree removal and 3,970 acres of fuels treatments 

on unstable lands considered to be Riparian Reserves. 

The indirect effects for landslide risk are the same as for alternative 2. The duration of 

elevated risk is the same as for alternative 4. 

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects are the same as for Alternative 2. 

Compliance with law, regulation, policy, and the Forest Plan

The project is compliant with the Klamath National Forest Plan (1995, as amended) 

Standards and Guidelines. A geologic investigation was completed and natural 

regeneration of vegetation on unstable lands will improve slope stability in portions of 

the project area but recovery could take between 30 and 80 years. 

Air Quality _____________________________________________ 

The purpose of this section is to analyze the effects of the project and its alternatives on 

air quality including ambient air quality standards.

240
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Methodology

Analysis Indicators and Methodology 

Compliance with the General Conformity Rule of the Clean Air Act for nitrogen oxides 

must be analyzed for this project. The conformity rules apply only to the activities 

occurring in the federal non-attainment areas and makes exceptions for activities with 

emissions considered to be less than “de minimis” values. The de minimis for nitrogen 

oxide emissions is 100 tons per year. The average emissions of nitrogen oxides are 

estimated through the use of the First Order Fire Effects Model (FOFEM).

The analysis will include an evaluation of the estimated residence time of smoke from 

project activities and its impact to the worst days haze to determine compliance with the 

Regional Haze Rule (40 CFR Part 51). Compliance with the Regional Haze Rule requires 

that states make reasonable progress towards achieving natural visibility conditions in 

Class I areas. The reasonable progress means that the worst haze days get less hazy and 

that visibility does not deteriorate on the best days, when compared with the baseline 

period of 2000 to 2004 (California Air Resource Board 2009). Federal agencies should 

not prevent this progress through management activities. Methodology is discussed in 

detail in the Air Quality resource report, available on the project website. 

The analysis on roadless resources will focus on the effects to the roadless character, 

specifically the sense of solitude due to smoke emissions outside of normal wildfire 

season. 

The Council on Environmental Quality recommends that Federal agencies disclose in 

documentation of their NEPA analyses the effects of climate change for actions that are 

estimated to emit more than 25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents annually 

(Council on Environmental Quality 2014). This is not a threshold for adverse effects but 

rather a trigger point for when an analysis of greenhouse gas emissions is needed. 

Spatial and Temporal Context

For this project, the spatial boundary includes the project area, the local communities, 

inventoried roadless areas, and the Marble Mountain Wilderness. Temporally, emissions 

from mobile sources such as logging trucks and tractors, as well as from prescribed 

burning, are transient and the impacts are short-lived and the air quality regulations are in 

terms of one-year emissions. The temporal analyses are on an annual basis and 

considered short-term. Impacts are considered long-term if they persist for more than a 

year. The cumulative effects of the mobile source emissions, fugitive dust and smoke 

emission will be addressed on the 7th field watershed scale.

Affected Environment

The project area is primarily forested federally managed lands with no substantial humancaused emission sources within the area other than emission and fugitive dust from 

logging and recreation. Other emission contributions will be smoke and haze from 

seasonal wildland and prescribed fires from both within and outside the county. 

According to the California Air Resources Board 

(http://www.arb.ca.gov/app/emsinv/emssumcat.php) the nitrogen oxide emissions are 

primarily from heavy-duty diesel trucks (such as from the I-5 corridor). 

241
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

The project is adjacent to the Marble Mountain Wilderness which is designated as a Class 

I wilderness by the Clean Air Act. The project is adjacent to the Russian Wilderness; 

however, this is a Class II wilderness and is not subject to the regional haze rule. The 

worst air quality days are dominated by organic aerosols (particulate matter associated 

that cause a haze in the air). Organic aerosols peak during the summer months and are 

strongly correlated with the incidence of wildfires Invalid source specified.. 

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects

Under this alternative no management action will be taken that will emit nitrogen oxides, 

greenhouse gases, or impact the visibility in the Marble Mountain Wilderness. 

Cumulative Effects

There are no direct or indirect effects for this alternative and therefore no cumulative 

effects.

Alternatives 2, 3 and 4

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects

The emissions from mobile emissions sources related to the project (trucks, heavy 

equipment, helicopters, chainsaws, etc.) will be about 26 tons. It is assumed that all of the 

salvage will occur in one year. The First Order Fire Effects Model estimates there will be 

about 5 pounds per acre of nitrogen oxides emitted during prescribed burning of activity 

fuels. There is about 16,245 acres of prescribed fire. It is assumed that 20 percent of the 

prescribed fire will be implemented in any given year. So the emissions from prescribed 

fire will be 8 per year. This means the project will not emit more than about 34 tons of 

nitrogen oxide emissions per year. This is less than the de minimus of 100 tons per year 

maximum allowed to meet regulations in the Conformity Rule. 

The prescribed fire proposed in the project area will occur over a few days of any given 

year. Burning will occur in the spring or fall, outside of the wildfire season. Since the 

wildfire season is the time of the year when haze is at its worse, the project won’t impact 

visibility on the worst haze days. The likelihood that prescribed burning on a few days 

any given year will affect the average visibility on the best days over an entire year is 

small. The likelihood of preventing the progress of the Regional Haze Plan is very low 

for this alternative. The likelihood of impacting inventoried roadless character is low, 

smoke is common in the project area from natural sources and the effects are transient. 

The greenhouse gas analysis uses the same assumptions as the Ambient Air Quality 

Standards analysis. Every acre burned will emit approximately 14 metric tons of carbon 

dioxide equivalents. This alternative proposes prescribed fire on about 16,250 acres of 

activity fuels. This analysis assumes that 20 percent of the proposed prescribed burning 

(or about 3250 acres) will occur in any given year. Therefore, the greenhouse gas 

emissions from prescribed fire will be about 45,500 metric tons of carbon dioxide 

equivalents annually. The emissions from heavy equipment (including yarders, loaders 

242
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

and log trucks) will be about 84 metric tons of carbon equivalent per vehicle or about 840 

metric tons per year. Helicopter yarding will emit about 186 metric tons per year of 

carbon dioxide equivalents. Together the total greenhouse gas emission from the 

alternative will be about 46,525 metric tons per year. 

Cumulative Effects

Adding the effects on air quality of alternative 2 to effects of ongoing or reasonably 

foreseeable future actions in the project area is expected to provide minimal cumulative 

effects with the oversight of the Siskiyou County Air Pollution Control District. Criteria 

pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions will degrade air quality cumulatively with 

activities occurring in the surrounding area. However, these emissions are expected to be 

minimal and able to disperse readily. Compliance with Burn Day, Marginal Burn Day, 

and No Burn Day designation, and coordination with and permitting from the Siskiyou 

County Air Pollution Control District, will minimize cumulative effects of prescribed 

fire. 

Alternative 5

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects

The effects of Alternative 5 are the same as for Alternative 2, 3 and 4 except there are 

17,455 acres of burning proposed. This is about 8.7 tons per year of nitrogen oxides 

emitted from prescribed burning. There is also about 30 percent the amount of salvage 

activities in Alternative 5 than in the other alternatives. So the emissions from heavy 

equipment are expected to be 30 percent of the other alternatives which is about 7.5 tons 

per year. The helicopter yarding will emit about 0.3 tons per year for this alternative. The 

total nitrogen oxide emissions are estimated to be 16.5 tons per year. The likelihood of 

the progress of the Regional Haze Plan will remain the same as in Alternative 2. The 

effects to the inventoried roadless character are the same as for alternatives 2, 3 and 4. 

Greenhouse gas emissions will be 49,180 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents.

Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative effects are the same as in alternative 2. 

Compliance with law, regulation, policy, and the Forest Plan

All alternatives are compliant with the Clean Air Act and the Conformity Rule. The 

project will not prevent the progress of the State of California’s Regional Haze Plan as 

required by the Regional Haze Rule, and will be consistent with the Forest Plan as 

displayed on the Forest Plan consistency checklist, available on the project website. 

Cultural Resources ______________________________________ 

The purpose of this section is to analyze the Westside Fire Recovery Project in sufficient 

detail to determine its effects on properties included in or eligible for the National 

Register of Historic Places (NRHP). This analysis is required under Section 106 of the 

Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended and is accomplished by the Klamath 

National Forest (Forest) under the Programmatic Agreement Among the USDA Forest 

Service, Pacific Southwest Region (Region 5), California State Historic Preservation 

243
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Officer, Nevada State Historic Preservation Officer and the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation (Regional PA) and the Programmatic Agreement Among the Klamath 

National Forest, California State Historic Preservation Officer and the Advisory Council 

on Historic Preservation for the Westside Fire Recover Project (Westside Fire Recovery 

PA).

Detailed descriptions of the project alternatives are found in chapter 2. 

Methodology

The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as amended “requires federal agencies to 

take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties.” This is 

accomplished through a four-step process following 36 CFR Part 800, the implementing 

regulations for Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The regulations 

allow alternative procedures for meeting Section 106 to be developed through 

programmatic agreements. The Pacific Southwest Region of the Forest Service (Region 

5) which includes the Forest has entered into a programmatic agreement for complying 

with Section 106. Additionally, the Forest developed the Westside Fire Recovery PA to 

address project specific issues and concerns. The Westside Fire Recovery PA allows 

limited project activities to occur within certain historic properties without adverse 

effects, as long as project-specific Standard Resource Protection Measures (SRPMs) are 

applied. The Westside Fire Recovery PA--developed in consultation with the California 

State Historic Preservation Officer, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and 

local tribes--tiers to the Regional PA and meets the requirements for compliance under 

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. 

There are two key parameters for analyzing effects to historic properties. The first 

parameter is defining an Area of Potential Effect. 36 CFR 800.16(d) defines the Area of 

Potential Effect, which is essentially the area within which project activities are expected 

to occur that may affect historic properties. By delineating the area within which effects 

are anticipated to occur, the scope of analysis is established. The second parameter is 

determining whether historic properties are present or identified within the Area of 

Potential Effect. Identification is a three-step process of pre-field research, field surveys, 

and consultation. 

Once the Area of Potential Effect is defined and historic properties within the Area of 

Potential Effect identified, analyses are conducted to determine if the proposed project 

will directly or indirectly cause changes in the character or use of the historic 

properties. If no historic properties are present, there will be no adverse effects. If historic 

properties are present and any potential adverse effects can be mitigated through project 

design features or SRPMs, historic properties will not be adversely affected. If historic 

properties are present and potential adverse effects cannot be mitigated through

management or SRPMs, the Forest will prepare a Historic Property Treatment Plan that 

will stipulate the actions the Forest will take to resolve the effects. 

Analysis Indicators

Indicators for analyzing project effects on historic properties are (1) the number of 

historic properties in the project area that are at risk from project activities and (2) the 

degree (level) to which the integrity of historic values of these properties may be 

244
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

diminished by the project activities. Direct and indirect effects, as well as the effects of 

reasonably foreseeable future actions (cumulative effects), that may diminish the integrity 

of historic properties identified in the area of potential effects are analyzed. 

At-risk historic properties are those that are significant and retain integrity and have been 

identified as being susceptible to adverse effects by specific undertaking activities. The 

degree to which an at-risk historic property’s integrity is diminished by project activities 

is indicated by relative degree within four categories - negligible, minor, moderate or 

major. If the project activities would change one or more of the character-defining 

features and diminish the integrity of the resource to the extent that it would no longer be 

eligible for listing on the NRHP, the effects would be adverse (the degree of change 

would be moderate or major). Adverse effects to sites must be resolved in consultation 

with the State Historic Preservation Office.

Spatial and Temporal Context

Spatial boundaries for the analysis of effects are the Area of Potential Effect as defined 

by the National Historic Preservation Act and its implementing regulations (36 CFR Part 

800). The Area of Potential Effect for this project includes areas within the project area 

boundaries where treatment activities are proposed and areas used in support of treatment 

activities. This Area of Potential Effect was chosen because this is the area potentially 

affected by project activities. Temporal boundaries for the short term are based on the 

effect being anticipated to occur during or within one to five years of implementation. 

Long-term effects will occur after the first five years following implementation.

Affected Environment

The affected environment for the Westside Fire Recovery Project broadly consists of 

steep, rugged mountains, incised by numerous rivers and creeks. The isolating effects of 

this landscape have resulted in a diversity of natural resources that have been sought and 

used by humans for thousands of years. Evidence of past use is spread across the project 

area but is concentrated into those areas people used most intensively, such as terraces, 

benches, areas along the rivers and their tributaries and areas where resources such as 

plants, animals or mineral were exploited relatively easily. A record of human presence is 

found across the landscape in the material remains left behind which comprise a record of 

irreplaceable and non-renewable resources related to past human life and land use. This 

record is includes historic properties as well as locations of cultural importance to local 

Native American groups. 

Although few archaeological investigations into the prehistory of the project area have 

been conducted, Pilot Ridge, the foundational study for the interior North Coast Ranges 

revealed evidence of 8,000 years of human occupation and highlighted a forager 

subsistence- settlement pattern that required frequent moves of entire social units to 

locate resources. Archaeological site distributions shifted over time, in response to 

climatically induced vegetation shifts, and produced generalized artifact assemblages 

(Hildebrandt and Hays 2007). 

The project lies within the ancestral territories of groups from the Shastean Complex, 

specifically the Scott River and Klamath River Shasta, as well as the Karuk Tribe. Like 

most tribes in California, the Shastean and Karuk people were engaged in a seasonal 

245
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

subsistence rounds. The people would foray out from permanent village sites throughout 

the year as resources became available for harvesting and processing. When resources 

had been procured, individuals and families would return to the village sites and store the 

supplies for future use. The project area has numerous culturally significant plant stands 

(e.g. tanoaks, bear grass, hazel, huckleberry) within and adjacent to natural openings, 

plantations and meadow areas. Important species were often managed and enhanced by 

tribes through the use of fire. 

Euro-Americans entered into Siskiyou County in 1827, with regular forays into the area 

by the early 1840s. With the 1851-1852 gold strikes, the gentler-slopes/lower-elevations 

of the Klamath Mountain watersheds steadily became transformed into an intensively 

exploited and densely populated landscape. By the 1870s, large-scale hydraulic mining of 

the region’s placer deposits began. From the 1870s into the early twentieth century, 

systems of high ditches, head boxes, iron-pipe penstocks, “giant” nozzles, huge sluice 

systems, and the other accoutrements of “hydraulicking” transformed many of the 

project-area’s stream bottoms into a landscape of vast, linear ‘washing pits’ (the minedout areas of ancient alluvium) located within, adjacent, and parallel to the stream courses. 

The project area encompasses portions of several historic mining districts. 

Livestock operations arose in support of the miners and later expanded as fluctuating 

mining populations stabilized and communities became more settled. With the creation of 

the National Forest Preserves in 1905, most of the project area became part of the 

Klamath National Forest. By the 1950s the timber industry assumed a prominent role in 

the use of the landscape. During its prominence, until the passage of environmental laws 

in the late 1960s and early 1970s, this industry extracted vast stands of timber from the 

Forest, the effects of which are still visible across the landscape. Recreation in the form 

of hunting, fishing, rafting, hiking and camping has been and continues to be a key 

component of the land use within the project area. 

Approximately 75 percent of the Area of Potential Effect has never been surveyed for 

historic properties, though about 80 percent of this area has slopes greater than 30 

percent. There are 159 recorded sites within the Area of Potential Effect. At the time of 

publication, no Traditional Cultural Properties or Scared Sites had been identified within 

the Area of Potential Effect. Most, if not all, archaeological sites within the project area 

have been affected to some degree by various agents of disturbance, whether 

environmental processes, land management actions and/or public use.

Environmental Consequences

Using the analysis indicators outlined above, each alternative is considered based on the 

proposed management actions and their potential level of effects to historic properties 

and cultural resources. If an action alters in any way the characteristics that qualify the 

property or resource for inclusion on the NRHP, it is considered to have an effect. An 

effect can be direct or indirect, beneficial or adverse. Effects are “adverse” when the 

alterations diminish one or more of the seven elements of a historic property’s integrity 

(location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association). The degree 

(level) to which the integrity is diminished by the proposed actions are classed into four 

categories that are based upon relative degree – negligible, minor, moderate, major. A 

“no adverse effect” occurs when the project has an effect on the resource but is not 

harmful to the characteristics that qualify the resource for inclusion on the NRHP. A 

246
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

finding of “no adverse effect” may also occur if the effects of the proposed project can be 

reasonably predicted and project design features or SRPMs can be used to avoid or 

minimize potential adverse effects to historic properties (Regional PA, Stipulation 7.8(b). 

SRPMs are provided in the Regional PA, Appendix E; additional project-specific SRPMs 

are provided in the Westside Fire Recovery PA.

Under the National Historic Preservation Act, Section 304 and the Archaeological 

Resources Protection Act of 1979, Section 9a, the disclosure of information revealing the 

location or character of historic or archaeological resources is prohibited when this 

information would open the resources or their settings to a substantial risk of harm, theft, 

or destruction. Therefore, discussion of the effects of this project is generalized to types 

of historic properties and cultural resources rather than individual properties or 

resources. Project design features are sufficient to protect these resources while not 

disclosing their locations. Management and/or SRPMs are prescribed at the individual 

property or resource level and are documented in the Archaeological Survey Report for 

this project (R2014-05-05-2188-0). 

Alternative 1

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects

There would be no direct effects to archaeological sites because no management actions 

would be implemented. However, there would also be no actions taken in the project area 

to reduce fuels or fire-weakened trees from within and around archaeological sites. Treemortality, such as that resulting from wildfires, puts historic properties and cultural 

resources at risk. When trees are left to fall naturally, these trees may damage or destroy 

site features or displace the same when uprooting (e.g. rock walls, house pits). The effects 

of tree fall are often compounded by erosion which can bury or displace cultural deposits, 

fuel loading if left on the ground (see below), and accelerated decay as previously 

unexposed surfaces become exposed. Lack of road roadside hazard treatments may also 

affect linear resources through erosion, and blowouts where culverts are plugged creating 

negative effects to morphological features. Therefore, a possible indirect adverse effect 

resulting from alternative 1 is the continued risk of damage to sites from wildfire, tree fall 

and erosion. At particular risk are large scale historic mining sites (tens to hundreds of 

acres) consisting primarily of earthen and rock features (e.g. hydraulic headwalls, ditches, 

raceways, waste-rock piles, processed sediment deposits, roads, etc.). The indirect, shortterm effects to archeological resources would be negligible but indirect, long-term effects 

would be moderate to major. 

There would be no direct effects to traditional use areas because no management actions 

would be implemented. However, fire-adapted plants may not be enhanced if low 

intensity prescribed fire is not used in the project area. The result is indirect adverse 

effects through the long-term degradation or loss of these species that then reduces 

opportunities for tribal members for gathering, hunting and other subsistence 

opportunities over time. These effects would be moderate to major.

Cumulative Effects

Under alternative 1, fuels loads will increase through time and increase the potential for 

high intensity and high severity wildfires. High intensity fire within the project area will 

247
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

destroy features/components of sites and as fire-weakened trees continue to fall, the 

damage and destruction of these effects will continue to accumulate. Additionally, the 

lack of roadside hazard treatments may result in increased erosion and plugged culverts, 

especially after high precipitation events. High intensity fire, widespread tree fall, erosion 

and blowouts would result in the loss of NRHP values to archaeological sites, and result 

in a moderate to major effects. The degradation of traditional-use areas and plants will 

accelerate over time, resulting in the loss of culturally important places and plant 

communities. With these losses, the ability for local tribal communities to sustain their 

traditions and cultures is compromised. The cumulative effects would be moderate to 

major.

Alternative 2

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 2 includes actions that have the potential to effect 159 previously recorded 

historic properties and an unknown number of unrecorded historic properties and cultural 

resources. 

Salvage Harvest and Roadside Hazard Tree Removal

There would be no direct effects to historic properties as the result of salvage harvest and 

roadside hazard tree removal because actions would not be, for the most part, 

implemented within the boundaries of these sites. The Westside Fire Recovery PA allows 

limited project activities to occur within the boundaries of certain types of historic 

properties. For example, harvest activities will be allowed when implemented from 

existing roads within historic archaeological sites following SRPM and project design 

features as will the use of specific types of existing landing (e.g. located within the debris 

field of large hydraulic mines). However, even when using SRPMs and project design 

features to reduce the risk of adversely affecting historic sites, the potential for direct 

effects still exists if there is subsurface material present (when operating within site 

boundaries). While a site locality is recorded to the archaeologist’s best ability, the 

possibility of unrecorded material can still exist, especially if the site has not been 

tested. The need to create as little ground disturbance as possible can prevent potential 

subsurface artifacts, if present, from exposure, displacement or damage. 

The removal of dead and dying trees from within and adjacent to historic properties and 

cultural resources results in direct and indirect beneficial effects; these effects are 

moderate to major in both the short and long term. 

Fuels Reduction

There would be no direct effects to historic properties as the result of fuels reduction 

because actions would not be, for the most part, implemented within the boundaries of 

these sites. Prescribed fire will not occur within site boundaries, and other types of fuel 

reduction, if occurring in site boundaries will be conducted under the provisions of the 

Regional PA. For example, brush would be removed by hand and piled outside of the site 

boundaries. 

The use of SRPMs to reduce or mitigate adverse effects to historic properties and cultural 

resources may however foster conditions that result in indirect effects. By avoiding or not 

treating within site boundaries, a higher fuel load is left within the site compared to 

248
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

surrounding areas. Intense fire may damage or destroy combustible artifacts or 

permanently alter materials susceptible to heat or flame within a site. Not only do “leave” 

areas increase the risk that future fires will burn with higher intensity within a site’s 

boundary, they direct the public’s attention to these areas which may result in increased 

looting and vandalism. These indirect adverse effects to historic properties are minor in 

the short term but moderate to major in the long term.

Any identified traditional-use areas, if left unmanaged or avoided, often become choked 

with brush and downed fuels, which limit their potential use and the quality and/or 

quantity of any materials sought at these locations. Without fire, these areas may also lose 

important settings and viewsheds, rendering them unsuitable for use in cultural 

practices. These indirect adverse effects to historic properties are minor in the short term 

but moderate to major in the long term.

Site Preparation and Planting

Site preparation and planting activities create significant ground disturbance which would 

result in direct adverse effects to historic properties and cultural resources if allowed to 

occur within site boundaries. As such, SRPMs and project design features will be used to 

prevent these activities from occurring within site boundaries. There will be no direct or 

indirect adverse effects as the result of site preparation and planting, in either the short or 

long term.

Cumulative Effects

Reducing the likelihood of a high intensity wildfire through proposed actions within the 

Area of Potential Effect, combined with similar types of other projects already 

implemented or implemented in the reasonably foreseeable future, will result in a 

cumulatively beneficial effect to historic properties and cultural resources that are 

moderate to major. However, for those historic properties and cultural resources avoided 

by treatments both under the proposed actions and by actions in the reasonably 

foreseeable future, there will be moderate to major cumulative effects.

Alternatives 3, 4 and 5

Direct and Indirect Effects

The direct and indirect effects of alternatives 3, 4 and 5 are essentially the same as the 

effects described under alternative 2.

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects of alternatives 3, 4 and 5 are the same as the effects described 

under alternative 2.

Comparison of Effects

Under alternative 1, there would be no direct effects to historic properties or cultural 

resources because no management actions would be implemented. There would be 

moderate indirect, short-term effects to historic properties, and moderate to major indirect 

long-term effects to historic properties and cultural resources. 

Under alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5, there would be no direct adverse effects from project 

activities in the short or long term; there would be direct beneficial effects as the result of 

249
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

salvage harvest and roadside hazard tree removal. Indirect adverse effects are created 

when historic properties and cultural resources are avoided, thereby creating “leave” 

islands. These effects are minor in the short term but moderate to major in the long 

term. Indirect beneficial effects result in both the short and long term as the likelihood of 

damage and destruction to resources is decreased when dead trees are salvaged and fuel 

loads reduced in the surrounding areas. 

Reducing the likelihood of a high intensity wildfire and tree-fall within the Area of 

Potential Effect, combined with similar types of other projects already implemented or 

implemented in the reasonably foreseeable future will result in a cumulatively beneficial 

effect to historic properties and cultural resources that are moderate to major. However, 

for those historic properties and cultural resources avoided by treatments both under the 

proposed actions and by actions in the reasonably foreseeable future, there will be 

moderate to major cumulative effects.

Compliance with law, regulation, policy, and the Forest Plan

All action alternatives adhere to applicable heritage resource laws, regulation, policy, and 

the Forest Plan). Documentation of the effects of each alternative in this report meets 

legal compliance. The Forest Plan consistency checklist, displayed on the project website, 

identifies the Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines that apply to this project and related 

information about compliance with the Forest Plan. 

The Native American Graves Protection Act of 1990, Executive Order 13007, entitled 

Indian Sacred Sites, and Executive Order 13175, entitled Consultation and Cooperation 

with Indian Tribal Governments provide direction on the protection of cultural resources 

in federal land management decisions. Both federally recognized and non-federally 

recognized tribes were contacted early in project planning and were engaged throughout 

the planning process, in accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act, NEPA 

and other laws, regulations and policy. Tribal engagement is summarized in chapter 1, 

Public Involvement. Consultation was conducted with the Karuk Tribe, Quartz Valley 

Indian Reservation, and the Confederated Tribes of the Siletz. The Forest conferred with 

the Shasta Indian Nation and the Shasta Nation, Inc. 

Written and verbal comments received during tribal consultation were considered when 

refining the proposed action and while developing project alternatives; many tribal 

concerns were incorporated in these alternatives. Consultation with the tribes regarding 

the proposed project is on-going. 

Social and Economic Environment_________________________ 

The purpose of this section is to analyze the effects of the Westside Fire Recovery project 

on rural social and economic health, and identify any disproportionate effects to 

minorities and disadvantaged groups in Siskiyou County. Safety is an important value to 

people in Siskiyou County; therefore, one purpose of this analysis is to gain a better 

understanding of how safety relates to the purpose and need of this project and its 

proposed actions. In particular, how safety of local residents, the recreating public, and 

forest workers such as firefighters and planting contractors are affected by the treatments 

being proposed. 

250
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Methodology

Social 

Information from federal data sources is used to compare the social status of Siskiyou 

County to the State of California and the United States to provide background 

information for effects of the project on minorities and disadvantaged groups. The 

Economic Profile System – Human Dimensions Toolbox which compiles statistics from 

federal data sources is used as a source of information for this analysis. 

Economic

Economic effects are analyzed using information from a customized version of an inputoutput model that summarizes inter-industry production and consumption for each state 

and county in the United States (IMPLAN). Since the data sources and methods used by 

IMPLAN are approximations of reality that sometimes contain substantial departures 

relative to actual conditions in the state or county, a customized model was developed 

(SCFSM) in 2012. This model customizes the standard Siskiyou County IMPLAN model 

to provide a more reliable representation of Siskiyou County’s forest sector. It was 

developed primarily to support defensible analysis of the economic impacts of national 

forest projects in Siskiyou County and is used in the analysis of the Westside Fire 

Recovery project. More information on both the SCFSM and IMPLAN models is 

provided in the body of, and appendix to, the Socio-economic resource report.

Analysis Indicators

Social Environment

Social analysis is based on the quality of life of people affected by this project. Quality of 

life depends partly on the ability of people to sustain themselves and their families; that is 

analyzed in the economic portions of this document. The indicators used for the social 

analysis include lifestyles, values, beliefs, health and safety of individuals and 

communities. For this project, there are three measures for evaluating the effects of the 

project on quality of life for Siskiyou County residents: 

• The value of using the resources of the Forest, and project area in particular, for 

the benefit of county residents (Siskiyou County Land and Resource 

Management Plan 1994). This will be analyzed using the estimated volume of 

timber products the alternatives will produce. 

• Changes to the “fire-safe character of communities” in the project area. This will 

be analyzed using the acres of fuels treatments in each alternative. It is assumed 

that fuels treatments have the indirect effect of creating more fire-safe 

communities. Safety for Forest workers, firefighters and the public. This is 

estimated by the number of acres on which standing dead trees are removed by 

salvage harvest and by the number of miles and acres of roadside hazard trees 

removed (for those who use roads in and through the project area). Also see the 

discussion about resistance to control regarding fire suppression tactics in the 

Fire and Fuels section of this chapter 3. 

Assumptions made in this analysis include that it is probable that any portion of the 

project area will be accessed by the public, firefighters or Forest workers. Hazard trees 

can directly harm a person or property but can also pose an indirect hazard such as 

251
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

blocking access to or from portions of the Forest or to major escape routes during storms 

or future wildfires. 

Economic Environment

The Forest Plan includes a Forest-wide goal to promote the economic stability of local 

communities (Forest Plan page 4-9). Economic analysis indicators for this report are: 

1. total economic outputs; 

2. labor income (wages and proprietor’s income); 

3. number of jobs created; 

4. revenue generated based on the estimated volume from timber sale units; and 

5. estimated project revenue returned to Siskiyou County. 

Spatial and Temporal Context

Siskiyou County is used as the spatial analysis area for social effects and for fiscal effects 

(timber receipts) because the project area is entirely within the county. The model used to 

analyze other economic effects takes into account impacts within a four-county area 

including Siskiyou, Shasta and Trinity counties in California and Jackson County in 

Oregon because the project’s direct economic effects through the veneer manufacturing, 

logging, log hauling and forestry support services are realized through this larger area.

The three fire-related project areas are used as the spatial analysis area for effects to 

safety because treatments proposed to improve safety are entirely within these project 

areas. 

This analysis considers one to five years as the short-term time period for effects analysis 

on safety and other social and economic indicators. This temporal bounding approximates 

when treatments will be completed and most fire-killed trees are likely to fall, and when 

treatments will be completed and products from implementation will have entered the

wood products market. Five to ten years is the long-term time period for effects analysis 

on safety and other social and economic effects.

Affected Environment

Social Environment

In terms of safety, the following conditions describe the affected environment: 

• Trees killed or severely burned by wildfire (i.e. snags) are often unstable and at 

risk for falling or snapping off, especially during winter snow, rain, and high 

wind events. 

• Infrastructure, including utility lines, roadways, bridges, trailheads, 

campgrounds, and fire lookouts within the project area, are surrounded by firekilled and damaged trees and preexisting danger trees that pose a hazard to the 

public and Forest workers. As a result of the 2014 fires, infrastructure, including 

utility lines, roads, bridges, trailheads, campgrounds, and fire lookouts within the 

project area are surrounded by fire-killed and damaged trees and preexisting 

danger trees that pose a hazard to the public and Forest workers and restrict 

access. About 650 miles of roadways are affected.

252
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

• Dead and dying trees within proposed salvage harvest areas present a safety 

hazard to firefighters (should the area burn again) or others who may recreate or 

work in these areas.

• A high probability of future high-intensity wildfires (due to heavy fuel loading 

from existing fire-killed timber) threatens structures and presents a safety hazard 

to nearby residents and firefighters (should the area burn again). Progressively 

increasing fuel loads (where potential flame lengths exceed four feet) provides 

conditions in which fires are resistant to suppression tactics. 

The closest communities to this project are the communities of Happy Camp, Seiad 

Valley, Yreka, Fort Jones, Etna, Klamath River, Scott Bar, Hamburg, and Sawyers Bar. 

Social effects of the project, including safety concerns, will be most noticeable in these 

communities and the surrounding rural areas of the county. 

The Siskiyou County population consists of Caucasian, African American, American 

Indian, Hispanic, Asian, Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, and other races. The 

American Indian population is a greater percentage of the population in Siskiyou County 

than in the State of California; therefore, potential impacts of management actions on the 

American Indian population will be disclosed. A larger percentage of the population of 

Siskiyou County is unemployed or below the poverty line than in the state of California; 

the impacts of the project on low-income populations in Siskiyou County will also be 

disclosed. 

Lifestyles, attitudes, beliefs and values of Siskiyou County residents are similar to those 

of rural residents in other counties in the western United States. Many local residents 

depend on the environment to support them, and they want forest products to be used for 

the benefit of the county. The concern regarding the fire-safe character of the 

communities in and adjacent to the project boundary and for the general safety of the 

public, forest workers and firefighters is addressed above. Conditions related to safety 

have changed in the last few years due to high intensity wildfires that have left many 

acres of the Forest in an unsafe condition and are of particular concern to communities 

within and adjacent to the project area boundaries. 

Economic Environment 

Labor income in Siskiyou County has held relatively constant since 1970; non-labor 

income has been on a steady rise.

From 1970 to 2011, employment grew from 14,085 to 20,224 jobs, a 44 percent increase 

over 1970. Since 1990, the annual unemployment rate ranged from a low of 7.5 percent 

in 2000 to a high of 16.6 percent in 2010. Siskiyou County unemployment rates tend to 

be higher than the rest of the United States. 

In 1998, timber represented more than seven percent of total employment of Siskiyou 

County but by 2011, timber represented five percent of total employment, mirroring the 

trend in the United States as a whole. Jobs in the timber sector in the county decreased to 

410 jobs in 2011. “Although National Forests account for more than 60 percent of the 

county’s land base, the share of the county’s timber harvest off federal lands has 

decreased from roughly 50 percent to less than 20 percent since the northern spotted owl 

was listed as threatened in 1990. Since 1990, the number of wood products 

manufacturing facilities in the county has declined by half” (Dennis 2012). 

253
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Siskiyou County has limited sawmilling (i.e., lumber production) capacity compared to 

the other counties in the four-county region. The main log-processing facilities in 

Siskiyou County are veneer mills. Siskiyou County’s veneer mills typically purchase 

relatively low-value logs and may produce relatively high-value wood products compared 

to sawmills. More information on the economic environment is provided in the body of, 

and appendix to, the Socio-economic resource report.

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects

Social and Economic 

Under this alternative no project treatment activities are proposed. The social effects of 

this alternative will be a continuation of the current distribution of jobs among racial and 

ethnic groups. Alternative 1 will not contribute to timber employment jobs and the 

county’s economic situation will not be improved. There will be no disproportionate 

effects on American Indians or the poor. 

The lifestyles, values and beliefs of the people in Siskiyou County will not be changed 

and the wish that resources of the Forest be used to benefit local residents will not be 

fulfilled. The concern regarding the fire-safe character of the communities will not be 

addressed because no project-related fuels treatments will be implemented. 

The effect on safety of implementing alternative 1 will be that zero burned acres will be 

treated and zero miles of roadside hazard trees will be removed. This will increase the 

likelihood that forest workers, firefighters, or public users of Forest land will be injured 

by a fire-killed or hazard tree as time goes on and the trees deteriorate and fall down. 

Because no roadside hazard trees will be removed in this alternative, safe travel on roads 

within the fire area will be hindered year after year due to new trees falling into the roads 

or roads may need to be closed for various periods of time to assure public safety which 

will affect public access to the Forest. Fallen trees in the road may also delay the 

response of firefighting personnel to new wildland fires in and around the project area. 

Safety for Siskiyou County as a whole will decrease since the project area represents 

about 10% of the Siskiyou County land base. 

Without treatment, hazards would not be abated around critical infrastructure. 

• Salvage treatments would not be accomplished. Without salvage harvest, snags 

would continue to decay, break, and fall. This would increase surface fuel 

loading, which will increase the severity and intensity of future fires. Increased 

fire intensities and dead and decaying standing trees would inhibit the effective 

control of future fires and/or put fire suppression crews at increased risk. (See 

fuels and vegetation sections in this chapter.)

• Reforestation of burned forested areas would not be accomplished with this or 

any other project, since planting crews cannot safely operate in areas of dead and 

decaying standing trees. It is a violation of Office of Safety and Health 

Administration codes to plant or treat hazardous fuels under, or adjacent to, 

snags. Since there would also be fewer funds available from timber contract 

254
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

receipts, the opportunity to restore forested habitat through site preparation and 

reforestation work would be lost. 

• In the short term, Forest workers such as firefighters, planters, researchers, and 

surveyors would either risk working in conditions that may subject them to 

injury or death from fallen snags or would not work in the areas because the 

areas would be deemed unsafe for work. In the long term, jack-strawed 

conditions from fallen snags would impeded effective travel through areas of 

high to moderate severity burns, which would put workers at increased risk or 

eliminate their ability to work in the areas. 

• In the short and long term, no treatment of hazard trees along roadways and 

nearby infrastructure would increase safety risks to forest workers and the public. 

The number of fallen snags along roadways would be innumerable –far too many 

to be addressed by fire crews and through permitted public fuelwood removal. 

To mitigate safety risks to the public, Forest Orders may be needed temporarily 

to close road access to portions of the Forest, which would impact public access 

(see the Recreation section of this chapter). 

• In the long term, increased fire intensities and the continued existence of dead 

and decaying standing trees would inhibit the effective control of future fires 

and/or put fire suppression crews at increased risk. See the Fire and Fuels section 

of this chapter for details. 

Cumulative Effects

Ongoing and foreseeable future actions in the project area are listed in appendix C. Some 

projects, including projects with hazard tree and fuels treatments improve safety 

conditions for the public and forest worker. However, alternative 1 would not 

supplement other present and/or reasonably foreseeable future projects that are planned to 

improve safety across the landscape. Additionally, because of access issues resulting 

from fallen snags along roadways, difficulties may preclude future projects from either 

continuing or being planned due to the high density of snags within or adjacent to the 

project area. Using fire as a management tool in both the planned (prescribed fire) and 

unplanned setting may not meet desired resource objectives due to future fuel loading 

potential as well as the hazard, cost and time needed to remove decaying hazard trees 

from planned control lines. This will be a limiting factor in future prescribed fire 

activities. 

For cumulative social and economic effects of indicators other than safety, all current and 

reasonably foreseeable similar actions within Siskiyou County over the next five years 

were considered; for this analysis, it is assumed that actions in the four-county area will 

be similar to those in Siskiyou County. Future foreseeable actions on National Forest 

System land within Siskiyou County are available on the Forest Service Schedule of 

Proposed Actions website: http://www.fs.fed.us/sopa/. These projects include the 

Salmon Salvage, Two Bit, Jess, Hotelling Roadside Hazard, Crawford, McCollins LSR, 

Eastend, Craggy, and Lover’s Canyon projects on the west side of the Forest, Big Pony, 

Ruffed Grouse, Butte Mountain, Little Deer, Landlord, Pumice, Six Shooter, and Harlan 

projects on the eastside of the Forest, and the Harris project on the Shasta Trinity 

National Forest. A list of planned Timber Harvest Plans for California can be found 

at: http://calfire.ca.gov/resource_mgt/resource_mgt_forestpractice_thpreviewprocess.php. 

255
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Since it is difficult if not impossible to obtain detailed information on the amount of 

harvest expected or the economic value of such harvest, it is assumed that timber harvest 

on private lands will continue at a rate similar to the past. There are also a number of 

salvage projects on private land covered by exemptions from requiring a timber harvest 

plan. 

Implementation of alternative 1 will neither support nor add to the demand for timber 

industry jobs and its related industries employment. Adding the social and economic 

effects of these projects to the effects of alternative 1 will not result in substantial social 

or economic cumulative effects.

Alternative 2

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects

Social

The social effects of this alternative will include more jobs available for Siskiyou county 

residents from the 2,236 additional jobs provided and a continuation of the current 

distribution of jobs among racial and ethnic groups. There will be no disproportionate 

effects on American Indians or the poor. 

The lifestyles, values and beliefs of the people in Siskiyou County will include some 

fulfillment of the desire that resources of the Forest be used to benefit local residents. The 

concern regarding the fire-safe character of the communities will be addressed through 

fuels treatments on ridges and near communities. 

Treatments will improve safety conditions within the project area include roadside hazard 

treatments, hazardous fuels treatments, and salvage harvest treatments. 

A majority of hazards along 640 miles of roads and other infrastructure, including 

campgrounds, fire lookouts, trailheads, bridges would be treated in 2015 prior to winter 

weather operational restrictions. Since roadside hazard treatments are buffered to 250 feet 

on either side of the road, roadside hazard treatments incorporate bridges, campgrounds, 

fire lookouts, trailheads. Treatments will abate hazards along roadways and other 

infrastructure, improving safety conditions for the public and forest works and mitigating 

potential damages from falling fire-killed trees and other hazard trees. Hazard treatments 

along roadways are critical for providing safe and effective access for the public and 

forest workers. Treatments are also proposed along utility corridors where needed to 

protect infrastructure and improve conditions for fire suppression tactics. The removal of 

fire-killed trees and other hazard trees from around local communities, key infrastructure, 

and roads would also provide fire managers with improved options for effectively 

managing potential future wildfires. 

Salvage harvest on 6,800 acres within 11,700 acres of salvage units would reduce safety 

hazards, promoting improved safety conditions for public and forest workers, including 

but not limited to firefighters, planters, and surveyors. By removing fire-killed trees 

before they fall and become “jack-strawed” and making foot travel feasible, safety 

conditions and suppression effectiveness for firefighters is improved. 

Hazardous fuels treatments within fuel management zones (i.e. fuel breaks) and the 

wildland urban interface treatments also improve safety conditions of firefighters and 

256
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

improve suppression tactics around local communities, improving the safety conditions 

of local residents. Although fire plays an important role in the ecosystem, reducing these 

fuel loads minimizes the intensity and severity of future fires, thus improving the 

likelihood of firefighting success. 

Proposed treatments decrease the likelihood that forest workers, firefighters, or public 

users of Forest land will be injured by a fire-killed or hazard tree as time goes on and the 

trees deteriorate and fall down. Safety for Siskiyou County as a whole will increase since 

the project area represents about 10% of the Siskiyou County land base. 

Economic

Economic effects of alternative 2 include an economic output of $210,206,000, labor 

income value of $53,107,000, and employment increased by 1,236 jobs. Timber revenues 

from implementing this alternative are estimated at $11,892,000 and returns to Siskiyou 

County at $2,973,000 based on 25% of timber revenue receipts. Wholesale veneer value 

is estimated as $98,700,000, logging costs at $33,140,000 and hauling cost at 

$10,515,000. Required costs to restore the project landscape through site preparation, 

planting and fuels reduction are estimated as $36,460,000. 

Cumulative Effects

As noted above, implementation of alternative 2 will have measureable social and 

economic effects on Siskiyou County; adding the social and economic effects of the 

ongoing and reasonable foreseeable future projects identified in alternative 1 to the 

effects of alternative 2 will result in noticeable social and economic cumulative effects, 

especially in the timber sector. Since this sector is such a small part of the economy of 

Siskiyou County, however, overall cumulative effects to the county are not expected to 

be substantial. In terms of safety, projects, especially those with hazard tree and fuels 

treatments, improve safety conditions for the public and forest workers. Treatments 

proposed in this project would supplement other present and/or reasonably foreseeable 

future projects that are planned to improve safety across the landscape. Roadside hazard 

treatments proposed in this project would provide access to other future projects within or 

adjacent to the project area, providing access for treatments. Using fire as a management 

tool in both the planned (prescribed fire) and unplanned settings would meet desired 

resource objectives due to lower future fuel loading potential and fewer hazards, 

providing conditions to improve the likelihood of suppression effectiveness. See the Fire 

and Fuels section of this chapter for details. 

Alternative 3

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects

Social

Social effects will be similar to those of alternative 2 except that (1) safety will be 

affected by 5,800 acres of salvage logging within 9,600 acres of salvage units; and (2) 

1,067 jobs are expected to be created. Effects of this alternative to improving safety will 

be similar to alternative 2 except that 5,800 acres will have large fuels removed through 

salvage harvest.

Economic

257
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Economic effects of alternative 3 include an economic output of $185,381,000, labor 

income value of $46,523,000, and employment increased by 1,067 jobs. Timber revenues 

from implementing this alternative are estimated at $9,851,000 and returns to Siskiyou 

County at $2,463,000 based on 25% of timber revenue receipts. Wholesale veneer value 

is estimated as $87,000,000, logging costs at $29,807,000 and hauling cost at $9,260,000. 

Required costs to restore the project landscape through site preparation, planting and 

fuels reduction are estimated as $29,310,000. 

Cumulative Effects

As noted above, implementation of alternative 3 will have measureable social and 

economic effects on Siskiyou County; adding the social and economic effects of the 

ongoing and reasonable foreseeable future projects identified in alternative 1 to the 

effects of alternative 3 will result in noticeable social and economic cumulative effects, 

especially in the timber sector. Since this sector is such a small part of the economy of 

Siskiyou County, however, overall cumulative effects to the county are not expected to 

be substantial. 

Alternative 4

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects

Social

Social effects will be similar to those of alternative 2 except (1) safety will be affected by 

5,900 acres being salvage logged within 10,200 acres of salvage units; and (2) 1,074 jobs 

are expected to be created. Effects of this alternative to improving safety will be similar 

to alternative 2 except that 5,900 acres will have large fuels removed through salvage 

harvest.

Economic

Economic effects of alternative 4 include an economic output of $189,564,000, labor 

income value of $47,338,000, and employment increased by 1,074 jobs.Timber revenues 

from implementing this alternative are estimated at $9,586,000 and returns to Siskiyou 

County at $2,396,000 based on 25% of timber revenue receipts. Wholesale veneer value 

is estimated as $88,900,000, logging costs at $30,940,000 and hauling cost at $9,463,000. 

Required costs to restore the project landscape through site preparation, planting and 

fuels reduction are estimated as $29,500,000. 

Cumulative Effects

As noted above, implementation of alternative 4 will have measureable social and 

economic effects on Siskiyou County; adding the social and economic effects of the 

ongoing and reasonable foreseeable future projects identified in alternative 1 to the 

effects of alternative 4 will result in noticeable social and economic cumulative effects, 

especially in the timber sector. Since this sector is such a small part of the economy of 

Siskiyou County, however, overall cumulative effects to the county are not expected to 

be substantial. 

258
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Alternative 5

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects

Social

Social effects will be similar to those of alternative 2 except that (1) safety will be 

affected by 1,900 acres being salvage logged within 3,400 acres of salvage units and an 

additional 1,200 acres adjacent to private property will have fuels reduced; and (2) 549 

jobs are expected to be created. 

Economic

Economic effects of alternative 5 include an economic output of $83,752,000, labor 

income value of $21,932,000, and employment increased by 549 jobs. Timber revenues 

from implementing this alternative are estimated at $6,334,000 and returns to Siskiyou 

County at $1,583,000 based on 25% of timber revenue receipts. Wholesale veneer value 

is estimated as $39,500,000, logging costs at $11,712,000 and hauling cost at $4,214,000. 

Required costs to restore the project landscape through site preparation, planting and 

fuels reduction are estimated as $25,802,000. 

Cumulative Effects

As noted above, implementation of alternative 5 will have some social and economic 

effects on Siskiyou County; adding the social and economic effects of the ongoing and 

reasonable foreseeable future projects identified in alternative 1 to the effects of 

alternative 5 will result in social and economic cumulative effects, including some in the 

timber sector. However, overall cumulative effects to the county are not expected to be 

substantial.

Comparison of Effects

The project’s economic effects on Siskiyou County and the four-county region will be 

largest under the alternative 2, about 12 percent smaller under alternatives 3 and 4, and 

about 50 percent smaller under alternative 5. The relative contributions of timber 

harvesting and landscape restoration to the project’s economic effects are given by their 

relative monetary values.

Table 3-25 displays a comparison of the social and economic effects of alternatives. 

259
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Table 3-26: Comparison of Social and Economic Effects of Alternatives

Indicator Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5

Economic 

Output $0 $210,206,000 $185,381,000 $189,564,000 $83,752,000

Labor Income $0 $53,107,000 $46,523,000 $47,338,000 $21,932,000

Employment 

(Jobs) 0 1,236 1,067 1,074 549

Timber Sale 

Revenue $0 $11,892,000 $9,851,000 $9,586,000 $6,334,000

Meets local 

social value 

for use of 

resources 

(potential 

revenue to 

county)

$0 $2,973,000 $2,463,000 $2,396,000 $1,583,000

Fuels 

Management 

Zones

0 4,800 4,800 4,800 6,000

Roadside 

Fuels 

Treatments

0 4,400 4,400 4,400 4,400

Wildland 

Urban 

Interface 

Treatments

0 2,200 2,200 2,200 2,200

Salvage 

Harvest 

Treatments

0 6,800 5,800 5,900 1,900

Roadside 

Hazard 

Treatments

0 9,000 9,000 8,000 9,000

Total Acres 

Treated to 

Improve 

Safety 

Conditions

0 27,200 26,200 25,300 23,500

All action alternatives will address priority treatment areas for safety. Consequently, 

effects to safety are only incrementally different among action alternatives, differing only 

by the acres of salvage harvest treatments proposed. 

Compliance with law, regulation, policy and the Forest Plan

Actions are consistent with the Forest Plan. Forest Plan management goals and standards 

and guidelines related to safety include to: 

• provide an economical, safe, and environmentally sensitive transportation system 

for the Forest. Emphasize the maintenance and restoration of existing roads over 

the construction of new roads where appropriate (Forest Plan, page 4-8);

• provide administrative sites and facilities that effectively and safely serve the 

public and accommodate the workforce. Provide facilities with barrier-free 

access (Forest Plan, page 4-8); and 

260
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

• provide an economical, safe, and environmentally sensitive transportation system 

for the Forest. Emphasize the maintenance and restoration of existing roads over 

the construction of new roads where appropriate. Provide administrative sites and 

facilities that effectively and safely serve the public and accommodate the 

workforce. Provide facilities with barrier-free access. (Forest Plan, page 4-37). 

Forest Plan management direction related to other social and economic indicators is to: 

• assist rural, forest-dependent communities with efforts to enhance their economic 

stability and social vitality (Forest Plan, page 4-65);

• work with local community leaders and individuals to provide opportunities for 

the development of natural resource-based enterprises (Forest Plan, page 4-65); 

and 

• consider rural development options and opportunities in resource decisions that 

may assist rural communities in achieving long-term economic development 

stability and quality of life (Forest Plan, page 4-66).

All alternatives will be consistent with law, regulation, policy and the Forest Plan in 

relation to the social and economic environment as displayed in the Forest Plan 

consistency checklist. 

Scenery________________________________________________ 

Methodology

This evaluation applies current National Forest Landscape Management methodology in 

conjunction with existing Forest Plan direction. It relies heavily on previous field studies 

of similar types of projects, as well as field observations from sensitive viewpoints, 

computer modeling to determine visibility of project activities, and consideration of 

public preferences for scenic quality. This evaluation relies on the following assumptions: 

ASSUMPTION 1: Wildfires are a natural ecological process that commonly occurs 

on the Forest, and as such their effects to scenery are perceived as natural. Associated 

fire suppression activities (i.e. fire breaks) could be perceived as management 

activities.

ASSUMPTION 2: Project activities proposed in Modification and/or Maximum 

Modification Visual Quality Objective (VQO) areas would typically meet their 

assigned VQOs. Frequently activities in these VQO areas are not visible from any 

high or moderate sensitivity viewpoints, or if they are, at middle-ground or 

background distances. 

ASSUMPTION 3: The North Fork Salmon River road (1C01) was used as a proxy 

for visibility from the North Fork Salmon River. State Highway 96 was used as a 

proxy for visibility from the Klamath River. The Scott River road (7F01) was used as 

a proxy for visibility from the Scott River. Differences in elevation, adjacent 

vegetation, topographic screening, slope position, and horizontal alignments were 

factors considered in determining visibility and effects from the river perspective. 

ASSUMPTION 4: Because of a highly accelerated timeline to complete project 

analysis, winter weather conditions limiting access, and a multitude of potential 

viewpoints to consider for scenery effects, a computer model was used to determine 

visibility of project activities from sensitive viewpoints. The primary limitations of the 

261
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

model include no consideration for screening vegetation and elevation differences of 

up to five feet; therefore, the resultant analysis describes a “worst case” analysis in 

terms of what may be visible from viewpoints. The visibility determination has not 

been field verified. 

ASSUMPTION 5: Sensitive viewpoints which are linear in nature, such as trails, 

roads, or rivers did not utilize the computer model. The visibility assessment was 

based on previous experience, on-the-ground knowledge, and map reviews. The 

visibility determination has not been field verified. 

ASSUMPTION 6: Analysis was based upon professional judgment and experience of 

a landscape architect with 25 years of Forest scenery evaluation experience. Based on 

professional judgment, it is estimated that the project has an 85-90 percent probability 

of successfully meeting or exceeding Visual Quality Objectives as predicted. See the 

“Visual Resource Management” section in 2013 Forest Plan Monitoring Report for 

more information. 

The general process for a scenery evaluation follows: 

1. Determine high or moderate sensitivity viewpoints located within or adjacent to the 

project area from which the project may be visible. 

2. Extensive/intensive office review of project descriptions and maps; assessing project 

activity locations (orientation, slope position, distance from viewer, etc.), logging 

systems, combined with on-the-ground knowledge of topography and vegetation. 

3. Two team field reviews were conducted of the project area, focusing on representative 

examples of project activities.

4. Individual project activities were evaluated for their visibility from high or moderate 

sensitivity routes. Noticeable changes from project activities to existing landforms 

and vegetation are evaluated in terms of form, line, color, and texture contrasts. 

Utilizing professional expertise, the overall visual dominance and degree of 

noticeable contrast to the existing scenic character is then compared against the 

Visual Quality Objectives (VQOs) which define levels of acceptable visual change. A 

judgement call of “meet,” “not meet,” or “exceed” the assigned VQO is then made.

5. To minimize scenery effects, project design features were developed; these are 

displayed in table 2-1 of chapter 2 of this draft EIS. Recreation and scenery project 

design features were designed to minimize or mitigate the effects of all action 

alternatives on recreation and scenery resources.

6. Cumulative effects to scenery were evaluated within a larger context than the 

individual project activities themselves, considering the potentially affected 

viewsheds as a whole. 

Analysis Indicators

Analysis indicators used to determine the effects of alternatives on scenery include: 

Scenic Character

The overall visual impression or image that gives a geographical area its identity. Scenic 

character is a qualitative description of the combination of vegetative patterns, landforms, 

water characteristics, and cultural features. The existing scenic character description 

provides a basis for comparing changes from alternatives and desired scenic character. 

262
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Visual Quality Objectives (VQOs)

Define levels of acceptable visual change, and are identified in the Forest Plan. The 

VQOs for the project area are defined below (table 2):

• Retention VQO - management activities are not visually evident to the casual 

Forest visitor.

• Partial Retention VQO – management activities may be noticeable, but are 

subordinate to the characteristic landscape. 

• Modification VQO - management activities appear altered and dominate yet 

reflect nearby natural features.

• Maximum Modification VQO - management activities appear strongly altered 

and dominate but appear as natural occurrences when viewed at distances greater 

than 5 miles.

Spatial and Temporal Context 

The spatial scale for analysis of effects to scenery includes the viewsheds from the Forest 

Plan-identified sensitive viewing locations. The temporal scale is defined as three years 

for short-term effects, at which time projects are required to meet their assigned VQOs 

(except Maximum Modification which is immediate). These timeframes are required by 

Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines. Long-term effects are defined as ten years or 

longer. 

Affected Environment 

Scenic Quality of or within National Forests is valued for the aesthetic enjoyment and 

physiological benefits it offers. “Viewing Natural Features” and “Viewing Wildlife” are 

the second and third respectively, most popular recreation activities of visitors to the 

Klamath National Forest (USDA 2012). Scenic quality within the project areas is 

important to the people who live and work in the area and to Forest visitors. Both of these 

groups travel through the areas, enjoying views from State, County, and Forest roads, and 

while recreating on National Forest lands, trails, rivers, or roads. The scenery of these 

areas contributes an important part to the Forest’s scenic resources. 

Other recreational use in the project area consists of dispersed-type recreation such as 

hiking, equestrian, camping, hunting, and woodcutting (see the Recreation section of this 

chapter and the Recreation resource report). Scenery is an important component that 

affects recreation use, setting, and the recreation experience. 

Viewsheds of the Project Areas

Table 3-26 displays a list of all the potential viewpoints located in/or near the three 

project areas that project activities could be visible from. A total of 60 potentially 

affected viewpoints were identified for the three project areas: Beaver Fire (9 

viewpoints), Happy Camp Complex Fire (34 viewpoints), and Whites Fire (17 

viewpoints). The scenery assessment of project activities uses these viewpoints. The 

distance zone listed identifies the closest project activity from the viewpoint. 

263
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Table 3-27: Identified potential viewsheds, Sensitivity Level, and Distance Zone by project area

Potential Viewpoint(s) Visual Sensitivity Level Distance Zone

Happy Camp Complex

State Highway 96 (State of Jefferson Scenic Byway) High Foreground

Klamath Wild and Scenic River High Foreground

Klamath River community High Foreground

Hamburg High Foreground

Seiad High Foreground

Happy Camp High Foreground

O'Neil Creek Campground High Foreground

Sarah Totten Campground High Foreground

Curly Jack Campground High Foreground

Lake Mountain Lookout* High Foreground

Gordon's Ferry River Access High Foreground

Indian Creek River Access High Foreground

Scott River road (7F01) High Foreground

Scott Wild and Scenic River High Foreground

Johnson Bar River Access High Foreground

Scott Bar High Foreground

Sugar Pine Trail High Foreground

Townsend Gulch River Access High Foreground

Gold Flat River Access High Foreground

Tompkins River Access High Foreground

Tom Martin Peak Trail Moderate Foreground

Scott Bar Lookout* Moderate Middleground

Box Camp Trailhead Moderate Middleground

Paradise Trailhead Moderate Middleground

Grider Creek road (46N66, 46N24X) High Foreground

Grider Creek Campground High Foreground

Grider Creek (Wild andScenic River) High Foreground

Pacific Crest Trail High Middleground

Cold Springs Trailhead High Foreground

Tyler Meadows Trailhead High Foreground

Elk Creek road (7C001) Moderate Foreground

Elk Creek (Wild and Scenic River) Moderate Foreground

Bear Lake Trailhead road (16N05, 15N06) Moderate Foreground

Bear Lake Trailhead High Foreground

Beaver Fire

State Highway 96 (State of Jefferson Scenic Byway) High Foreground

Klamath Wild and Scenic River High Foreground

Klamath River community High Foreground

Gottville River Access High Foreground

Brown Bear River Access High Foreground

Beaver Creek Road (8J01/11) High Foreground

Beaver Creek Campground Moderate Foreground

264
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Potential Viewpoint(s) Visual Sensitivity Level Distance Zone

Pipeline Gap/Deer Camp Road* (40S01) Moderate Foreground

Buckhorn Bally Lookout* Moderate Foreground

Whites Fire

North Fork Road (FH102) Moderate Foreground

Sawyers Bar High Foreground

South Russian Creek (recommended Wild and Scenic 

River)

Moderate Foreground

Timber Camp Trailhead Moderate Foreground

Timber Camp Trailhead road (36N58, 36N15) Moderate Foreground

Pacific Crest Trail Moderate Middleground

Hogan Lake Trail Moderate Middleground

Statue Lake Trail Moderate Middleground

Twin/Big Blue/Paynes Lake Trail Moderate Middleground

Mule Bridge Road (41N36) Moderate Foreground

North Fork Salmon Wild and Scenic River Moderate Foreground

Music Creek Trailhead Moderate Foreground

South Russian Creek Trailhead Moderate Foreground

Idlewild Campground Moderate Foreground

Mule Bridge Trailhead Moderate Foreground

Eddy Gulch Lookout* Moderate Middleground

Eddy Gulch Lookout road (39) Moderate Foreground

Whites Gulch Trail* Moderate Foreground

South Russian Creek Trail* Moderate Foreground

High = high level of interest in scenery; 

Moderate = secondary County or Forest road, recreation site or area, moderate use

* = Viewpoints identified as a sensitive viewpoint post-Forest Plan and as such were not utilized in the development of 

Forest Plan VQOs. Post-Forest Plan viewpoints are not required to meet S and G 11-1, but should be considered during 

project planning.

SOURCE: USDA, Forest Service, Klamath National Forest. 2009. Scenery Sensitivity Levels Map, Klamath National 

Forest – Westside, which is filed at the Klamath National Forest Headquarters, Yreka, CA.

Existing Scenic Character

Scenic Character is the overall visual impression or image that gives a geographical area 

its identity. The overall scenic character consists of steep, rugged mountainous terrain 

which is bisected by major rivers and tributary creeks. These creeks are flanked by midelevation, steep terrain with numerous side drainages. The mountains are overlain with 

largely continuous, mixed conifer forest canopies. There are breaks in the forest canopy 

from previous wildfires, rock outcrops, meadows, roads, and older harvest activities are 

evident. In the background, more open higher elevation ridges and peaks provide a visual 

backdrop.

Vegetation is diverse in both pattern and species, with the Douglas-fir/white fir mixed 

conifer forest being most dominant. Conifer species include ponderosa pine, sugar pine, 

incense cedar, and white fir. Also, common is the Douglas-fir/tanoak community where 

Douglas-fir dominates the overstory with hardwoods found in the understory such as 

canyon live oak, black oak, white oak, pacific madrone, and big leaf maple. The 

hardwoods are slowly being overtopped by the conifers and declining in numbers. Some 

265
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

forested areas are extremely dense, where wildfires have been artificially suppressed for 

at least 50 years. This density of vegetation not only obstructs in-canopy views to the 

forest floor, but provides ladder fuels thereby increasing the risk of extreme wildfire 

events. Streams display extremely high water clarity. Air quality is high, with coastal 

moisture occasionally adding clouds and haze to the typical clear views under blue skies.

The scenic character of the project areas was substantially affected by the 2014 fire 

season, as described in chapter 1 of this draft EIS. The fires burned with high severity in 

many areas, creating standing dead trees, blackened tree boles and brush skeletons, bare 

soil, and dying trees with brown needles. The fire opened up views into the forest, 

exposing hillsides, bare soil, and rock outcrops. In many places the once green forest now 

looks like blackened toothpicks, while ocassionally some green trees survived the fire.

Existing Scenic Integrity

Scenic integrity is the relative degree of natural appearance displayed by a landscape. In 

the three project areas, current scenic integrity as viewed from inventoried sensitive 

viewpoints is as follows: 1) Some limited evidence of existing roads, fire breaks, 

plantations, and past and on-going logging units. 2) Vegetation and/or topography screen 

most of these management activities except when in the immediate vicinity of the activity 

or from distant viewpoints. Cumulatively, across the project areas as a whole, the 

alterations are minor, and generally a near-natural appearance dominates. Therefore the 

project areas have Moderate Scenic Integrity and meet a Partial Retention VQO as 

defined in the Forest Plan.

Desired Scenic Character 

The ideal, socially valued Scenic Character of the Westside project area would display a 

more attractive, forested condition. These conditions would include increased vegetative 

and spatial variety throughout a largely continuous but more open and irregular forest 

canopy, with more frequent small, irregular openings and edges. There would be a 

widepread presence of large trees as individuals and clumps, features such as outcrops, 

rocks and barrens, meadows, irregular patches of native shrubs, forbs and grasses in 

openings and forest floor understories, scattered standing snags, scattered irregular firekilled canopy openings containing clumps of standing dead trees over a green surface of 

conifer seedlings. This more open forest canopy would support attractive views through 

the forest canopy as well as to more distant mountainous landscapes. 

Management Direction

Management direction for Scenery comes from the Forest Plan primarily under Standards 

and Guidelines for the Visual Resource Management Program and Retention and Partial 

Retention VQO Management Areas 11 and 15 respectively. However a VQO is identified 

in the Forest Plan for all National Forest lands; hence each Management Area lists the 

appropriate VQO in a Standard and Guideline under the “Visual Resource Management” 

subheading. Table 2 displays VQOs of Management Areas in which activities are 

proposed in this project. 

For the Klamath Wild and Scenic Designated Recreational River (Management Area 13), 

a Retention VQO supersedes the Partial Retention VQO because Highway 96 is an 

eligible State Scenic Highway. 

266
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

For General Forest lands (Management Area 17), a Modification or Maximum 

Modification VQO is utilized. The location of these VQOs was determined using criteria 

from the Visual Resource Management System. A majority of General Forest lands have 

a Modification VQO. 

Table 3-28: Desired Visual Quality Objective (VQO) by Management Area (per Forest Plan)

Visual Quality Objective (Vqo)*

Forest Plan Management Area Preservation Retention Partial 

Retention

Modification Maximum 

Modification

Ma-5 Special Habitat X 

Ma-7 Special Interest Area X1

Ma-10 Riparian Reserves X 

Ma-11 Retention Visual 

Quality Objective X 

Ma-12 Designated And 

Recommended 

Scenic Rivers

X 

Ma-13 Designated And 

Recommended 

Recreational Rivers

X2 X 

Ma-15 Partial Retention 

Visual Quality 

Objective

X 

Ma-17 General Forest X X 

* VQO(s) are specifically identified by a Standard and Guideline for each Management Area. 

1 Per Forest Plan “Manage these areas to meet the intent of the Forest VQO map. As a minimum, manage the lands 

within the areas to meet a Retention VQO.”

2 Retention VQO designated elsewhere in Forest Plan for State Scenic Highways may supersede Partial Retention VQO.

A complete description of alternatives can be found in chapter 2. 

Environmental Consequences 

Alternative 1 

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects 

Alternative 1 would result in direct short- and long-term adverse effects to scenic 

character. In the short term, evidence of the fire with standing dead trees, blackened tree 

boles and brush, bare soil, and dying trees with brown needles or leaves would continue 

to be quite noticeable. Along many viewpoints, most screening vegetation has lost all 

needles or leaves, opening up views into the forest of bare soils, streams, and rock 

outcrops. Trees with burnt roots would start falling down. In two to three years, some 

brushes and grasses would return to the burn areas providing some green color, texture, 

and ground cover. 

Decay and wind disturbance would lead to the smaller diameter, fire-killed trees falling 

down within the first ten years, with the majority of all trees falling down within the next 

267
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

20 years (Russell et al. 2006). Standing trees would provide visual clues of the past fires 

for decades. As dead trees fall, the scenic character of areas once-forested would change 

becoming much more open. Extremely high fuel loads would develop creating a 

landscape that is susceptible to a high intensity, high severity fire. In many areas these 

conditions would likely create a long term vegetation change away from a coniferdominated vegetation type towards a shrub-dominated ecosystem. 

Without both harvest and replanting treatments within the project areas, current 

conditions would likely result in increased growth of brush. The competing brush, 

combined with a limited seed source would inhibit the natural regeneration of conifer 

species that dominated the landscape prior to the fires. The desired scenic character of a 

forested canopy with large tree character, as well as increased species diversity would be 

adversely affected. Without management treatments, achievement of the desired 

condition for scenery would be set back 50 plus years or more. 

Visual Quality Objectives establish acceptable levels of alteration for management 

activities. For alternative 1, there would be no effects to the Visual Quality Objectives 

because no project activities will be implemented. 

Cumulative Effects 

Several other private land parcels within the project area have been or are proposed for 

salvage logging. Removal of all dead trees would create texture contrasts with adjacent 

forested lands. If trees are removed up to and along straight property boundaries, these 

line contrasts would likely be noticeable from some sensitive viewpoints. 

Other ongoing and future foreseeable actions on the Forest include projects with 

vegetation treatments such as commercial thinning, pre-commercial thinning, and 

mastication. Most projects also include a fuels treatment component such as 

underburning, thinning of small diameter understory trees or brush, piling, and pile 

burning. All of these projects would affect scenery, creating both short- and long-term 

beneficial effects to scenic character. Densely forested areas would be opened up 

(thinned); this more open forest canopy would support attractive views through the forest 

canopy as well as to more distant mountainous landscapes. Fuels treatments would 

increase the resilency of the areas to high intensity wildfires and help to perpetuate 

ecologically established scenery. These projects would create noticeable visual contrasts 

in the short term and likely be visible from some sensitive viewpoints. In two-three years 

after project completion, “greening up” these activities would appear near-natural. 

Adding the effects of these projects to the effects of alternative 1 on scenic character 

would have minor cumulative effects.

Alternatives 2, 3, 4 and 5

Because of minor differences between alternatives, the analysis description for all four 

alternatives has been combined into one section. The four action alternatives propose 

hazardous fuels treatments, salvage harvest, roadside hazard treatments, and reforestation 

(site preparation, planting, and release). Table 3-28 displays the acreage of treatment 

types within each action alternative by type of VQO.

268
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Table 3-29: Acres of Treatment Types by Alternative by Visual Quality Objectives for the project area

Treatment Type Retention Partial Retention Modification Maximum Modification

Alternative 2

Fuels Treatments 2,264 18,162 775 231

Salvage Harvest

Units (<60% of the 

unit is salvage 

logged)

1,646 9,100 697 689

Roadside Hazard 1,695 15,941 1,610 1,118

Site Prep/Plant 197 6,335 841 484

Total 5,801 49,539 3,923 2,522

Alternative 3

Fuels Treatments 2,264 18,162 775 231

Salvage Harvest 

Units (<60% of the 

unit is salvage 

logged)

1,611 8,040 529 176

Roadside Hazard 1,695 15,941 1,610 1,118

Site Prep/Plant 197 6,335 841 484

Total 5,767 48,479 3,755 2,009

Alternative 4

Fuels Treatments 2,264 18,162 775 231

Salvage Harvest 

Units (<60% of the 

unit is salvage 

logged)

872 8,464 664 629

Roadside Hazard 1,663 15,199 1,472 1,116

Site Prep/Plant 197 6,335 841 484

Total 4,996 48,180 3,752 2,460

Alternative 5

Fuels Treatments 2,269 18,599 1,230 525

Salvage Harvest 

Units (<60% of the 

unit is salvage 

logged)

236 1,957 677 659

Roadside Hazard 1,695 15,941 1,610 1,118

Site Prep/Plant 30 2,540 801 484

Total 4,230 39,038 4,318 2,785

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects

Below is a generalized description of the various project activities and associated effects 

to scenic character. A discussion of effects to VQOs then follows: 

269
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Visibility Analysis

A computer viewshed analysis was used to determine the visibility of project activities. 

The primary limitations of the model include no consideration for screening vegetation 

and elevation differences of up to five feet; therefore, the resultant analysis describes a 

“worst case” analysis in terms of what may be visible from viewpoints. The visibility 

determination has not been field verified. Sensitive viewpoints were analyzed to 

determine if any project activity would be visible, and then if so which specific 

treatment(s). The analysis indicated most viewpoints would have visibility of two project 

treatments or more; three viewpoints would not have visibility of any activities. Results 

are displayed in table 4 for fire-related project areas.

Table 3-30: Visibility of Project Treatments From Sensitive Viewpoints for Three Project Areas.

Potential 

Viewpoint(s) 

Visual 

Sensitivity 

Level

Project 

Area

Fuels 

Treatments

Salvage 

Harvest

Roadside 

Hazard 

Treatments

Site 

Prepatation 

and 

Planting

Is the project area or activity potentially visible from the scenic 

viewpoint23?

Beaver Fire

State Highway 

96 (State of 

Jefferson 

Scenic Byway)

High Y Y N Y N

Klamath Wild 

and Scenic 

River

High Y Y N Y N

Klamath River 

community

High Y Y N N N

Gottville River 

Access

High Y Y N Y N 

Brown Bear 

River Access

High N N N N N

Beaver Creek 

Road (8J01/11)

Moderate Y Y N Y Y

Beaver Creek 

Campground

Moderate Y Y N N Y

Pipeline 

Gap/Deer 

Camp Road* 

(40S01)

Moderate Y Y Y Y Y 

Buckhorn 

Bally Lookout*

Moderate Y Y Y Y Y

Happy Camp Complex

State Highway 

96 (State of

Jefferson 

Scenic Byway)

High Y Y Y N N

23 Based upon computer modeling; not field verified.

270

 
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Potential 

Viewpoint(s) 

Visual 

Sensitivity 

Level

Project 

Area

Fuels 

Treatments

Salvage 

Harvest

Roadside 

Hazard 

Treatments

Site 

Prepatation 

and 

Planting

Is the project area or activity potentially visible from the scenic 

viewpoint23?

Klamath Wild 

and Scenic 

River

High Y Y Y N N 

Hamburg High Y Y Y N N

Seiad High Y Y Y Y Y

Happy Camp High Y Y N Y Y

O'Neil Creek 

Campground

High Y Y Y Y N 

Sara Totten 

Campground

High Y Y Y N N

Curly Jack 

Campground

High Y Y N N N

Lake Mountain 

Lookout*

High Y Y Y Y Y

Gordon's Ferry 

River Access

High Y Y Y Y Y 

Indian Creek 

River Access

High Y Y N Y Y 

Scott River 

road (7F01)

High Y Y Y N N

Scott Wild and 

Scenic River

High Y Y Y N N

Johnson Bar 

River Access

High Y Y Y Y N

Scott Bar High Y Y N N N

Sugar Pine 

Trail

High Y Y N Y N

Townsend 

Gulch River 

Access

High Y Y N Y N 

Gold Flat River 

Access

High Y Y N Y N

Tompkins 

River Access

High Y Y N Y N

Tom Martin 

Peak Trail

Moderate Y N Y N N

Scott Bar 

Lookout*

Moderate Y Y Y Y Y 

Box Camp 

Trailhead

Moderate Y Y N Y Y

Grider Creek 

road (46N66, 

46N24X)

High Y Y Y N N

Grider Creek 

Campground

High Y Y Y Y N 

Grider Creek 

(Wild 

andScenic 

River)

High Y N Y N N

Pacific Crest 

Trail

High Y Y Y N N 

271
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Potential 

Viewpoint(s) 

Visual 

Sensitivity 

Level

Project 

Area

Fuels 

Treatments

Salvage 

Harvest

Roadside 

Hazard 

Treatments

Site 

Prepatation 

and 

Planting

Is the project area or activity potentially visible from the scenic 

viewpoint23?

Cold Springs 

Trailhead

High Y N Y Y Y 

Tyler Meadows 

Trailhead

High Y Y Y N Y

Elk Creek road 

(7C001)

Moderate Y Y N N N

Elk Creek (Wild 

and Scenic 

River)

Moderate Y Y N N N

Bear Lake 

Trailhead road 

(16N05, 15N06)

Moderate Y N N Y N

Bear Lake 

Trailhead

High Y N N Y N

Whites Fire

North Fork 

Road (FH102)

Moderate Y Y

Sawyers Bar High Y Y Y N Y

South Russian 

Creek 

(recommended 

Wild and 

Scenic River)

Moderate N N N N N

Timber Camp 

Trailhead

Moderate Y Y N Y N

Timber Camp 

Trailhead road 

(39N58, 39N15)

Moderate Y Y Y Y Y

Pacific Crest 

Trail

Moderate Y Y N N N

Hogan Lake 

Trail

Moderate N N N N N

Statue Lake 

Trail

Moderate Y N Y Y Y

Twin/Big 

Blue/Paynes 

Lake Trail

Moderate Y N N N N 

Mule Bridge 

Road (41N37)

Moderate Y Y N Y N

North Fork 

Salmon Wild 

and Scenic 

River

Moderate Y Y Y Y N

Music Creek 

Trailhead

Moderate Y N N N Y

South Russian 

Creek 

Trailhead

Moderate Y N N Y Y

Idlewild 

Campground

Moderate Y Y N N N

272
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Potential 

Viewpoint(s) 

Visual 

Sensitivity 

Level

Project 

Area

Fuels 

Treatments

Salvage 

Harvest

Roadside 

Hazard 

Treatments

Site 

Prepatation 

and 

Planting

Is the project area or activity potentially visible from the scenic 

viewpoint23?

Mule Bridge 

Trailhead

Moderate Y Y N N N 

Eddy Gulch 

Lookout*

Moderate Y Y Y Y Y

Eddy Gulch 

Lookout road 

(39)

Moderate Y Y Y Y Y

Whites Gulch 

Trail*

Moderate Y Y N N N 

South Russian 

Creek Trail*

Moderate N N N N N

Salvage Harvest 

The removal of dead and dying trees would create large openings with line and texture 

contrasts with adjacent burned or forested areas. Individual larger snags and clumps with 

no treatment would be retained for wildlife resources. These would provide some texture 

to the units when viewed from sensitive viewpoints. Logging systems can further 

influence the noticeable visual contrasts by the disturbances they create. Helicopter 

creates the least visual contrasts; skyline creates linear contrasts from log skidding and 

cable corridors; and ground-based creates more color contrasts from soil disturbance by 

equipment and log skidding. 

Roadside Hazard Treatments

The removal of both merchantable and non-merchantable hazard trees along system roads 

and through treatment units, would “open up” travel corridors in those areas where a 

higher number of trees are removed. In other areas where only individual or isolated trees 

are removed, there would be little change or effect to overall scenic character. Ground 

disturbance, tree stumps, and trees felled and left would be noticeable in the short term. A 

recovery time of three years would allow seasonal leaf and needle cast, weathering 

(graying) of tree stumps and chips, and resprouting of vegetation or “greening up” to 

soften these effects.

Hazardous Fuels Treatments

These treatments would occur along strategic ridgelines, roads, or control lines. Trees 

would be removed (12 inches in diameter at breast height or less) and other understory 

vegetation by mechanical, machine, or hand work. Slash would be piled and burned, lop 

and scattered, or chipped. Remaining trees would be pruned up to seven feet. The shortterm visual impacts from felling and piling dead trees and then burning would create 

color and texture soil contrasts. Removing understory vegetation and tree pruning would 

open views into the forest and of the forest floor. Fuels breaks along visible ridgelines 

would create longer-term linear contrasts. A recovery time of three years would allow 

seasonal leaf and needle cast, weathering (graying) of tree stumps and chips, and 

resprouting of vegetation or “greening up” to soften these effects. 

273
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Prescribed Fire

The short term visual impacts from underburning would create brown vegetation, red tree 

crowns, blackened duff layer, and scorched trunks. Scraping control lines to mineral soil 

would create linear disturbances. Recovery times of three years would allow revegetation 

or “greening up” of many of the burn effects. At that point, any residual effects from the 

underburn would appear as a natural occurrence, consistent with the many wildfires that 

have occurred throughout the Forest. Underburning would create long term positive 

effects such as the creation of more open stands where forest visitors can look into stands, 

larger trees and wildlife can be observed by travelers, greater species diversity, and 

increased resiliency of the stand to wildfire. This activity would easily meet all assigned 

VQOs and help meet (Standard and Guideline 11-4) to perpetuate the Forest’s 

ecologically established land 

Site Preparation, Planting and Release (Reforestation)

Planting in areas previously stocked (pre-fire) with conifers, combined with rocky or 

unplantable sites, and tree survival rates, would provide spatial variability across the 

project areas. This would speed up recovery of burned areas to a mostly forested 

condition with some openings and appear natural in the long term. This would be 

consistent with the Desired Scenic Character to a forested condition. 

Visual Quality Objectives (VQOs)

A “worst case scenario” has been utilized to make the “meet” or “not meet” Forest VQOs 

determination. This strategy was employed because results have not been field verified, 

nor have site specific project design features been developed to possibly reduce visual 

disturbances to acceptable levels. The “meet” or “not meet” determination by project 

treatment is based on previous Forest projects of a similar nature. 

Table 3-31: Preliminary Results of Meeting or Not Meeting VQO by Alternative by Treatment Type.

All Alternatives and 

Treatment Type

Does Treatment Type Meet VQO? (Yes or No)

Retention Partial Retention Modification Maximum Modification

Fuels Treatments Y Y Y Y

Salvage Harvest N*24 Y/N* Y Y

Roadside Hazard N* Y/N* Y Y

Prepare Site and Plant Y Y Y Y

Minor localized short-term direct adverse effects to VQOs from management treatments 

would occur during project implementation with the presence of equipment, smoke, 

stumps, exposed soils, and cut and/or piled vegetation. 

24 *= Not meeting a VQO in the three year timeframe is inconsistent with Forest Plan Standards and 

Guidelines numbers MA12-7 and MA13-6. However, an exception is allowed under Forest Plan Standards 

and Guidelines number 11-7 which states ”In the case of recovery activities after extreme catastrophic 

events such as intense wildland fires, time periods to achieve the VQOs stated in Forest-wide and 

Management Area Standards and Guidelines may be extended. This would be necessary where previously 

unnoticed scenery alterations are exposed to view due to loss of vegetative screening, or during timber 

salvage activities where recovery of forest vegetation is determined to be of greater importance than 

achievement of VQOs within the time periods established.”

274

 
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Retention VQO areas

Salvage harvest and roadside hazard treatments in Retention VQO areas would likely not 

meet the Retention VQO – where management activities are not visually evident to the 

casual Forest visitor. However an exception is allowed under Forest Plan Standards and 

Guideline 11-7 which states “In the case of recovery activities after extreme catastrophic 

events such as intense wildland fires, time periods to achieve the VQOs stated in Forestwide and Management Area Standards and Guidelines may be extended. This would be 

necessary where previously unnoticed scenery alterations are exposed to view due to loss 

of vegetative screening, or during timber salvage activities where recovery of forest 

vegetation is determined to be of greater importance than achievement of VQOs within 

the time periods established.” 

The presence of high stumps and tree marking paint (if used) would be noticeable for five 

to 10 years even after “greening up.” This includes salvage units located in the 

foreground distance zone of Highway 96, Klamath Wild and Scenic River, Tyler 

Meadows Trailhead, Cold Springs Trailhead, Grider Creek (recommended Wild and 

Scenic River), Grider Creek Campground, Grider Creek road (46N66, 46N24X), and the 

Pacific Crest Trail (between Cold Springs Trailhead and Highway 96). 

Partial Retention VQO areas

Salvage harvest and roadside hazard treatments in the foreground distance zone along 

hiking trails would likely not meet the Partial Retention VQO in three years – where 

management activities may be noticeable, but are subordinate to the characteristic 

landscape. The presence of high stumps and tree marking paint (if used) would be 

noticeable to hikers for 10 years or more. This includes units bisected by both the Tom 

Martin Peak and Bear Lake trails.

Although this appears inconsistent with Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines numbers 

MA15-1, MA15-5, and MA15-10, an exception is allowed under Forest Plan Standards 

and Guideline 11-7 which states ”In the case of recovery activities after extreme 

catastrophic events such as intense wildland fires, time periods to achieve the VQOs 

stated in Forest-wide and Management Area Standards and Guidelines may be extended. 

This would be necessary where previously unnoticed scenery alterations are exposed to 

view due to loss of vegetative screening, or during timber salvage activities where 

recovery of forest vegetation is determined to be of greater importance than achievement 

of VQOs within the time periods established.” 

All other project activities (including salvage units not located in foreground distance 

zones along hiking trails) would likely meet their assigned VQO of Partial Retention in 

three years. A recovery time of three years would allow seasonal leaf and needle cast, 

weathering (graying) of tree stumps and chips, and resprouting of vegetation or “greening 

up” to soften these effects. Thus project activities would appear near-natural to Forest 

visitors. 

Thus in the long-term these project activities (salvage harvest and roadside hazard 

treatments in the foreground distance zone along hiking trails) and all other project 

activities would appear near-natural to Forest visitors and meet a Partial Retention VQO. 

Forest Plan direction would be met. 

275
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Modification and Maximum Modification VQO areas

All activities would meet their assigned VQOs within Forest Plan timelines. These 

activities are located either in middleground or background distance zones from sensitive 

viewpoints or not visible. 

However cumulative scenic quality effects are evaluated in a larger context than the 

individual project activities themselves - the potentially affected viewsheds as a whole. 

The scenery analysis area includes the multitude of viewsheds throughout the project 

areas. When viewed from multiple viewpoints, proposed management activities in all 

viewsheds would be appear visually subordinate to the characteristic landscape. All 

viewsheds would be natural or near-natural appearing and meet or exceed a Partial 

RetentionVQO.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects of action alternatives are the same as for alternative 1.

Comparison of Effects 

Scenery effects are displayed by alternative in table 6.

Table 3-32: Scenery Comparison of Effects of Alternatives

Indicator Alternative 1 (No Action) Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 

Visual 

Quality 

Objectives 

(VQOs)

No effect to VQOs Minor localized short-term direct adverse effects to 

VQOs from management treatments during project 

implementation with the presence of equipment, smoke, 

stumps, exposed soils, and cut and/or piled vegetation. 

“Greening up” for three years after project completion 

would reduce visual evidence of fuels, roadside hazard, 

and site prep/plant activities to acceptable levels. 

Although VQOs would not be met for salvage harvest 

and roadside hazard treatments in Retention or Partial 

Retention (foreground zone along hiking trails) VQO 

areas, Forest Plan consistency will be met (Forest Plan 

SandG 11-7) 

Scenic 

Character

Long term adverse effect with permanent 

vegetation change away from a coniferdominated vegetation type towards a 

shrub-dominated ecosystem.

Achievement of the desired condition 

would be set back 50 plus years or 

more. 

Indirect long-term beneficial effect to scenic character 

from management treatments would be speeding up 

recovery of the burn areas to a conifer-dominated 

character that is more consistent with historic scenery 

conditions and Desired Scenic Character.

Compliance with law, regulation, policy, and the Forest Plan 

This project would help achieve the Forest Plan desired conditions to perpetuate 

ecologically established scenery. Reforestation would speed up recovery to a forested 

condition and fuels reduction treatments would reduce the likelihood of high intensity 

wildfires. The project would meet Forest Plan Visual Quality Objectives (VQOs) in the 

long term. 

In the short term, noticeable visual disturbances from salvage harvest and roadside hazard 

treatments in Retention VQO areas and some Partial Retention VQO areas would likely 

not meet their assigned Visual Quality Objectives (VQOs). Although this appears 

276
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

inconsistent with some Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, an exception is allowed 

under Forest Plan Standards and Guideline 11-7 which states ”In the case of recovery 

activities after extreme catastrophic events such as intense wildland fires, time periods to 

achieve the VQOs stated in Forest-wide and Management Area Standards and Guidelines 

may be extended. This would be necessary where previously unnoticed scenery 

alterations are exposed to view due to loss of vegetative screening, or during timber 

salvage activities where recovery of forest vegetation is determined to be of greater 

importance than achievement of VQOs within the time periods established.” These 

disturbances would “green up” over time (10 years) and meet the Retention or Partial 

Retention VQO. Integration of scenery project design features insures this project is 

consistent with Forest Plan scenery desired conditions and direction.

Recreation _____________________________________________ 

The purpose of the section is to identify recreation use and opportunities in the project 

area and examine the effects of the project alternatives on these uses and opportunities.

Methodology

A recreation assessment of project activities was conducted using field and office review, 

professional expertise, and on-the-ground knowledge. 

Analysis Indicators 

Analysis indicators used to determine the effects of alternatives on recreation include: 

1. Recreation use - Will overall use increase or decrease as a result of the action?

2. Recreation Opportunities - How will the project affect existing and or new 

recreational opportunities? 

Spatial and Temporal Context 

The geographic extent for analysis of the effects for recreation include the three 

individual project areas - Beaver Fire, Happy Camp Complex, and the Whites Fire 

included as part of the Westside Fire Recovery Project. This unit of spatial analysis is 

used for determining direct, indirect, and cumulative effects. A short-term timeframe of 

three years allows the activities associated with this project to be mostly completed. A 

long-term temporal bound of 10 years allows completed activities associated with this 

project to be established. 

Affected Environment 

Recreational use in the project areas is low and consists primarily of dispersed recreation 

opportunities. “Dispersed recreation is outdoor recreation that involves relatively low 

density use and occurs over broad expanses of land and water. Eighty percent of the 

Forest’s recreational use is dispersed recreation. Most dispersed activity occurs during the 

summer and fall months. All dispersed areas are currently managed at low standard 

levels” (Forest Plan, page 3-11). Dispersed recreation opportunities include primitive 

camping, fishing, hunting, equestrian use, hiking, swimming/water play, whitewater 

rafting/kayaking, woodcutting, and viewing scenery. 

277
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Camping occurs at both developed campgrounds and primative dispersed campsites 

within the Wildernesses or along roads throughout the project areas. See Table 1 below 

for a listing of these features. 

Hunting is the most popular primary activity for Forest visitors (USDA Forest Service 

2012), with large numbers of people visiting the Forest primarily to hunt deer or other big 

game (elk, bear). During hunting seasons, developed campground occupancy increases, 

many primative campsites are occupied, and All-terrain Vehicles (ATVs) use Forest 

roads in the project areas.

Hiking occurs on numerous Wilderness trails, the Pacific Crest Trail (PCT) and other 

trails. The 2014 fires burned two bridges (Grider 3 and 4) and some trail signs. Trail 

treads were also damaged from burned tree roots, soil erosion from increased runoff, and 

increased sedimentation of water diversion features. For detailed information see the 

Burned Area Emergency Response reports for Happy Camp Complex, Whites Fire, and 

Beaver Fire, dated 10/1/2014, 9/12/2014, and 9/12/2014, respectively (reports are 

available at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/klamath/home).

Fishing occurs on rivers and high elevation lakes. Drift boats float the Klamath River for 

steelhead and salmon. Trout fishing occurs at high elevation lakes in the Wildernesses. 

Whitewater rafting/kayaking and swimming water play occur primarily on the Klamath 

and Scott Rivers and to a lesser degree on the North Fork Salmon River. Use occurs from 

outfitter-guided trips as well as private parties. Some of these users camp at nearby river 

accesses, dispersed sites along the river or developed campgrounds. 

Woodcutting is a popular recreation activity on the Forest; Douglas-fir, incense cedar, 

white oak, black oak, and madrone are preferred woodcutting species. 

Scenery is an important component that affects recreation use, setting, and the recreation 

experience. Viewing scenery from within or outside project area boundaries occurs while 

driving along roadways such as the State of Jefferson Scenic Byway, floating or fishing 

rivers such as the Klamath or Scott Wild and Scenic Rivers, hiking on the Pacific Crest 

Trail other Wilderness trails, or overlooking the area from viewpoints such as fire 

lookouts. 

For the Beaver Fire, there are six recreation features within the project area (one 

developed campground and five features related to dispersed recreation). For the Happy 

Camp Complex Fire, there are 23 recreation features within the project area (five 

developed campgrounds and 18 features related to dispersed recreation). For the Whites 

Fire, there are 10 recreation features within the project area (one developed campground 

and nine features related to dispersed recreation). See table 3-31 for more information. 

Table 3-33: Summary of Recreation Features located within Beaver Fire, Happy Camp Complex Fire, 

and Whites Fire Project Areas

Recreational Feature Feature Description

Beaver Fire

Klamath River Designated National Wild and Scenic River 

Gottville River Access Klamath River access

Highway 96 State of Jefferson 

Scenic Byway

National Forest Scenic Byway 

278
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Recreational Feature Feature Description

Pacific Crest Trail (PCT) National Scenic Trail

Beaver Creek Campground Developed Campground 

Dispersed Campsites (5)25 51D010 (Deer Meadows) adjacent, 51D002, 51D003 (Beaver/Hungry Ck), 

51D029, 51D029A (Brown Bear) shown on Motor Vehicle Use Map

Happy Camp Complex Fire

Klamath River Designated National Wild and Scenic River 

Indian Creek River Access Klamath River access

Scott River Designated National Wild and Scenic River 

Johnsons Bar River Access Scott River access

Townsend Gulch River Access Scott River access

Gold Flat River Access Scott River access

Sugar Pine River Access Scott River access

Tompkins Creek River Access Scott River access

Bridge Flat Campground Scott River access

Elk Creek Recommended National Wild and Scenic River 

Grider Creek Recommended National Wild and Scenic River 

Pacific Crest Trail (PCT) National Scenic Trail

Cold Springs Trailhead PCT access/Marble Mountain Wilderness access

Tyler Meadows Trailhead PCT access/Marble Mountain Wilderness access

Kelsey Creek Trail National Recreation Trail

Bear Lake Trailhead Kelsey Creek Trail access

Highway 96 State of Jefferson 

Scenic Byway

National Forest Scenic Byway

Sarah Totten Campground Developed Campground

ONeil Creek Campground Developed Campground (closed for 6 years)

Grider Creek Campground Developed Campground (currently closed by Forest Order until 05/15/15)

Curly Jack Campground Developed Campground

Dispersed Campsites (28)26 As shown on Motor Vehicle Use Map

Lake Mountain Lookout Fire Lookout

Whites Fire

North Fork Salmon River Designated National Wild and Scenic River 

South Russian Creek Recommended National Wild and Scenic River 

Pacific Crest Trail National Scenic Trail

Mule Bridge Trailhead Dispersed Campsites, Marble Mountain Wilderness access

Timber Camp Trailhead Russian Wilderness access

South Russian Trailhead Russian Wilderness access

Music Creek Trailhead Russian Wilderness access

25 Total number of dispersed campsites shown is taken from 2012 Motor Vehicle Use map and does not 

include campsites in Wilderness or immediately adjacent to forest roads.

279

 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Recreational Feature Feature Description

Idlewild Campground Developed Campground (currently closed by Forest Order until 05/15/15)

Robinson Flat Dispersed campsites

Dispersed Campsites (3)27 54D001, 54D011, 54D012 shown on Motor Vehicle Use Map

A complete description of the Westside Fire Recovery project can be found in chapter 2. 

Environmental Consequences 

Alternative 1 

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects

Recreation Use 

Under this alternative no project treatment activities are proposed. Without treatment 

there would be about 640 miles of untreated roadways with fire-killed tree hazards. 

Fallen snags along 640 miles of roadways would substantially impact access for 

recreational uses such as dispersed camping, scenic driving, and hunting. As fire-killed 

trees continue to decay and fall, public and worker safety would be threatened and the 

likelihood of potential injuries or death to individuals would increase. Forest Orders to 

restrict public access might be needed to mitigate risks to the recreating public. 

With the exception of temporary closures by Forest Order, there is no reason to expect 

recreation use to measurably increase or decrease as a result of this alternative. 

Temporary closures of campgrounds, roads, rivers, or trails or portions of the burn area 

would displace users to other available areas within or outside of the burn affected area. 

Fire-killed trees from the recent fires would greatly increase firewood availability for 

permitted collection; the permitted public would be most likely to collect fallen fire-killed 

trees and/or newly created (fire-killed) snags adjacent to roads. Firewood cutting use 

would likely increase in burned areas in the short term. Since re-sprouting of hardwood 

trees and brush in burned areas would attract deer by providing browse, if Forest Orders 

do not affect public access, deer hunting use in burned areas would likely increase in the 

short term. Recreation use is also associated with scenic vistas; see the scenery section of 

this chapter and the Scenery resource report for detailed information. 

Recreation Opportunities 

The likelihood of damage to infrastructure such as campgrounds and trails would 

progressively increase. As fire-killed snags continue to fall, it is anticipated that 

maintenance work and associated costs would increase, as well as the safety hazard to 

Forest visitors, workers, and volunteers who use or maintain Forest trails and other 

recreation infrastructure. 

If and where access to the recreating public is not restricted, then fire-killed snags and 

resultant loss of shade would create hot and dry dispersed campsites and trail sections for 

27 Total number of dispersed campsites shown is taken from 2012 Motor Vehicle Use map and does not 

include campsites in Wilderness or immediately adjacent to forest roads.

280

 
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

hikers, adversely affecting their recreational experience. Assuming no Forest Orders are 

issued closing public access, camping at both developed campgrounds and primitive 

dispersed campsites would be expected to continue at their current rates.

Cumulative Effects

Based on current and reasonably foreseeable future actions (listed in appendix C), there 

are no cumulative effects to recreation because these do not overlap in time or space with 

recreation use and opportunities. 

Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects 

Recreation Use 

The operational impacts from project activities such as traffic, noise, dust, and smoke are 

short-term adverse impacts to recreationists; effects would be temporary in nature. Safety 

hazards from fire-killed snags along Forest roadways used for access by the recreating 

public would be abated. Forest Orders to restrict public access because of road conditions 

would not likely be required, providing for continued public access for recreational 

opportunities. Recreational use is not expected to measurably increase or decrease as a 

result of this alternative.

Project implementation may result in short-term changes in recreational use patterns but 

will not impact recreational opportunities. 

Recreation Opportunities 

Indirect long term beneficial effects to recreation facilities such as river accesses, 

campgrounds, dispersed campsites, and trailheads would occur from adjacent fuels 

treatments and roadside hazard removal. These activities would minimize damage or 

protect Forest Service infrastructure (i.e. signage, toilets, tables, etc.) at developed sites 

from future wildfires. Removal of hazard trees adjacent to dispersed campsites would 

increase safety at these sites. Table 3-32 provides a list of recreation facilities that benefit 

from roadside hazard and fuels treatments.

Table 3-34: List of Recreation Facilities benefiting from Roadside Hazard and Fuels Treatments

Project Area Recreational Feature

Beaver Fire Beaver Creek Campground

Gottville River Access

Happy Camp Complex Fire Johnson Bar River

Townsend Gulch River Access

Gold Flat River Access

Sugar Pine River Access

Thompkins Creek River Access

Bridge Flat Campground

Cold Springs Trailhead

Bear Lake Trailhead

Sarah Totten Campground

ONeil Creek Campground

Grider Creek Campground

281
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Project Area Recreational Feature

Whites Fire Mule Bridge Campground/Trailhead

Idlewild Campground

Robinson Flat

An indirect beneficial effect to recreation from prescribed burned, site preparation and 

replanting would be both a short- and long-term improvement in big game habitat and 

future big game hunting opportunities. 

A project design feature blocking access to temporary roads upon project completion 

would mitigate unauthorized public travel off system roads. 

An indirect beneficial effect to recreation would be that non-merchantable (<16”dbh) 

trees felled during roadside hazard treatments would be left along non-strategic roads for 

wood-cutters. This readily available wood would cause a short-term increase in permitted 

fuelwood collection. 

When Forest visitors recreate on National Forest System lands, they use a variety of 

recreation settings. The settings or Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) Classes are 

identified in the Forest Plan for each Management Area and are listed in table 3-33. 

Table 3-35: Applicable Desired Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Classes by Management Area

Forest Plan Management 

Area

Desired ROS Class*

# Management Area Primitive

SemiPrimitive 

NonMotorized

SemiPrimitive 

Motorized

Roaded 

Natural Rural Urban

Ma-5 Special Habitat X X X

Ma-7 Special Interest Area X X X

Ma-10 Riparian Reserves X X X

Ma-11 Retention Visual 

Quality Objective X X X 

Ma-12 Designated And 

Recommended 

Scenic Rivers

X X X 

Ma-13 Designated And 

Recommended 

Recreational Rivers

X X X 

Ma-15 Partial Retention 

Visual Quality 

Objective

X X X 

Ma-17 General Forest X X

* A range of ROS Classes is specifically identified by a Standard and Guideline for each Management 

Area.

While visitors are recreating in these settings, they would see some evidence (visual 

disturbances) of management activities within various recreation settings. The effects to 

the naturalness of these settings are measured using Visual Quality Objectives (VQOs) 

which are compatible with ROS Classes. Table 3-34 displays compatibility between ROS 

Classes and VQOs. 

282
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Table 3-36: Compatibility of Visual Quality Objectives (VQOs) and Recreation Opportunity Spectrum 

(ROS) Classes

Visual Quality Objectives

ROS Class Preservation Retention Partial 

Retention 

Modification Maximum 

Modification

Primative (P) Norm Inconsistent Unacceptable Unacceptable Unacceptable

Semi-Primative 

Non-Motorized 

(SPNM) 

Fully 

Compatible

Norm Inconsistent Unacceptable Unacceptable

Semi-Primative 

Motorized (SPM)

Fully 

Compatible

Fully 

Compatible

Norm (1) Inconsistent Unacceptable

Roaded Natural 

(RN)

Fully 

Compatible

Norm Norm Norm Inconsistent

Rural (R) Fully 

Compatible

Fully 

Compatible

Norm Norm Inconsistent

Urban (U) Fully 

Compatible

Fully 

Compatible

Fully 

Compatible

Fully 

Compatible

Not Applicable

1 = Norm From Sensitive Roads And Trails.

Source: Usda, Forest Service. 2000. Landscape Aesthetics A Handbook For Scenery Management. Agriculture Handbook 

Number 701. Page F-3.

Some recreation settings would be adversely affected in the short-term from project 

activities not meeting the compatible VQO. Salvage harvest and roadside hazard 

treatments may affect the quality of the recreation experience while driving, floating, 

hiking, or camping at the following locations: Highway 96, Klamath Wild and Scenic 

River, Tyler Meadows Trailhead, Cold Springs Trailhead, Grider Creek (recommended 

Wild and Scenic River), Grider Creek Campground, Grider Creek Road (46N66, 

46N24X), Tom Martin Peak trail, Bear Creek Trail, and the Pacific Crest Trail (between 

Cold Springs Trailhead and Highway 96). 

Within Retention VQO areas, salvage harvest and roadside hazard treatments would 

likely not meet the Retention VQO in the short term – where management activities are 

not visually evident to the casual Forest visitor. The presence of high stumps and tree 

marking paint (if used) would be noticeable for five to 10 years even after “greening up.” 

This includes salvage and roadside hazard treatment units located in the foreground 

distance zone of Highway 96, Klamath Wild and Scenic River, Tyler Meadows 

Trailhead, Cold Springs Trailhead, Grider Creek (recommended Wild and Scenic River), 

Grider Creek Campground, Grider Creek road (46N66, 46N24X), and the Pacific Crest 

Trail (between Cold Springs Trailhead and Highway 96). A recovery time of up to ten 

years for “greening up” and plant growth may be required to soften these effects. 

Although the action alternatives appear to be inconsistent with the assigned Retention 

Visual Quality Objective (VQO) and certain Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines for 

Retention, an exception is allowed under Forest Plan Standards and Guideline11-7 which 

states 

“In the case of recovery activities after extreme catastrophic events such 

as intense wildland fires, time periods to achieve the VQOs stated in 

Forest-wide and Management Area Standards and Guidelines may be 

extended. This would be necessary where previously unnoticed scenery 

283
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

alterations are exposed to view due to loss of vegetative screening, or 

during timber salvage activities where recovery of forest vegetation is 

determined to be of greater importance than achievement of VQOs within 

the time periods established.” 

Within Partial Retention VQO areas, salvage harvest and roadside hazard treatments in 

the foreground distance zone along hiking trails would likely not meet the Partial 

Retention VQO in the short term– where management activities may be noticeable, but 

are subordinate to the characteristic landscape. The presence of high stumps and tree 

marking paint (if used) would be noticeable to hikers for 10 years or more until screening 

vegetation hides effects. This includes units bisected by both the Tom Martin Peak and 

Bear Lake trails. However, the same exception under Standard and Guideline11-7 (cited 

above) also applies to partial retention areas for this project. 

Thus in the long-term project activities would appear natural or near-natural to Forest 

visitors and meet Visual Quality Objectives (VQOs) which are compatible with ROS 

Classes. Forest Plan direction would be met. The Scenery and the Wild and Scenic Rivers 

sections of this chapter and related resource reports provide more information on the 

relationship between recreation and those resources. 

Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative effects of action alternatives are the same as those of alternative 1. 

Comparison of Effects 

Recreation effects are displayed by alternative in table 3-35. 

Table 3-37: Recreation Comparison of Effects of Alternatives for all three fire areas

Indicator Alternative 1 (No Action) Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 

Recreation 

Use

Potential short-term impact or 

displacement of recreational use if 

a Forest Order is needed to 

mitigate for public safety. 

There would be no short-term 

adverse effects associated with 

project implementation.

Increased short-term use of burn 

areas for firewood cutting and deer 

hunting. 

Recreational use is not expected to measurably 

increase or decrease as a result of this alternative.

Direct short-term adverse effect from smoke, road 

closures, or increased traffic during project 

implementation.

Indirect short-term increase in use from firewood 

cutting of felled (non-merchantable) trees left along 

non- strategic roads from roadside hazard 

treatments. 

Recreation 

Opportunities

Direct long-term adverse effect to 

dispersed camping and hiking 

opportunities in burn areas from 

loss of shade. 

Increased short-term and longterm safety concerns from fallen 

snags. Increased maintenance 

costs for Forest infrastructure. 

No adverse effects to recreation 

settings from project 

implementation.

Indirect short and long-term beneficial effect to big 

game hunting opportunities from prescribed fire and 

replanting. 

Indirect long-term beneficial effect to developed 

recreation facilities and dispersed campsites from 

fuels and roadside hazard treatments. These 

treatments would protect Forest Service 

infrastructure and/or increase safety at these sites.

Indirect long-term adverse effects to recreation 

settings from project activities in some locations. 

284
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Compliance with law, regulation, policy, and the Forest Plan 

This project will help achieve Forest Plan direction to maintain existing Recreation 

Opportunity Spectrum Classes. See the Forest Plan consistency checklist for details about 

applicable standards and guidelines. 

Wild and Scenic Rivers ___________________________________ 

A Wild and Scenic Rivers evaluation was conducted for three designated and three 

recommended rivers as part of the Westside Fire Recovery Project. The evaluation used 

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (P.L. 90-542, as amended) protection requirements in 

conjunction with existing Forest Plan direction. 

Project activities were evaluated using field review, GIS analysis, and professional 

judgment for their potential effects to: 1) free flowing conditions; 2) water quality; 3) 

identified outstandingly remarkable value(s); and 4) Visual Quality Objectives (VQOs). 

Analysis determined that all action alternatives would protect these values and would be 

fully compliant with all WSR Act protection requirements and Forest Plan Standards and 

Guidelines. Select information on resource effects for outstandingly remarkable values is 

reiterated in this report as taken from the Aquatic Resources, Hydrology, Wildlife, and 

Scenery reports. For complete details see those reports.

Methodology 

Project activities were evaluated for all three project areas using field review, GIS 

analysis, and professional judgment for their potential effects to: 1) free flowing 

conditions; 2) water quality; 3) identified outstandingly remarkable value(s); and 4) 

Visual Quality Objectives. Select information on resource effects for water quality, 

fisheries, geology, wildlife, scenery, and vegetation is reiterated in this report as taken 

from the Aquatic Resources, Hydrology, Wildlife, and Scenery reports. For complete 

details see those reports.

Analysis Indicators 

Analysis indicators are identified for each of the values listed below to be protected or 

maintained: 

1. Free Flowing Conditions: As applied to any river or section of a river, means 

existing or flowing in natural condition without impoundment, diversion, 

straightening, rip-rapping, or other modification of the waterway. 

Indicator: Potential resource effects were evaluated to determine if project activities 

would be located within the bed and banks of the river and create an obstruction or 

modification of the free-flowing river characteristics. 

2. Water Quality: Water quantity and quality must be sufficient to protect river values. 

Indicators: Resource effects to beneficial uses, stream temperature and shading, and 

Cumulative Watershed Effects. 

3. Outstandingly Remarkable Value(s): Each river shall be managed to protect and 

enhance the values for which the river was designated, while providing for public 

recreation and resource uses which do not adversely impact or degrade those values. 

Indicators: 

Fisheries: sediment, stream temperatures, and large wood; 

285
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Vegetation: treatments in either old growth or Engleman Spruce stands; 

Wildlife: Bald Eagle –level of disturbance to nest/roost sites and risk to future 

potential nest areas; Siskiyou Mountain Salamander – risk of disturbance; 

Geology: presence of treatments on Malone landslide; 

Water Quality: risk to sediment and temperature regime alteration. 

4. Visual Quality Objectives (VQOs): 

Scenic Rivers - From the Forest Plan, Standard and Guideline # MA12-7: Design 

management activities to meet the Retention VQO within the WSR Corridor. Meet 

the Partial Retention VQO in the foreground and the middleground beyond the 

Corridor. 

Recreational Rivers - From the Forest Plan, Standard and Guideline # MA13-6: 

Design management activities to meet a Partial Retention VQO within the WSR 

corridor, in the foreground beyond the Corridor and in the middleground beyond the 

corridor. 

Indicators: Potential effects were evaluated to determine if project activities would 

meet either a Retention or Partial Retention VQO as seen from the river corridor. 

Spatial and Temporal Context 

The spatial analysis boundary for free flowing, water quality and outstandingly 

remarkable value is the river area or designated corridor. This corridor is approximately 

1⁄4 mile on each side of the river. For Retention and Partial Retention VQOs the analysis 

boundary is the river viewshed out to four miles. Temporal bounding is three years for 

short term effects, at which time projects are required to meet the assigned VQOs of 

Retention or Partial Retention. This timeframe is required by Forest Plan Standards and 

Guidelines. Long term effects would be ten years or longer. 

Affected Environment

In 1968 the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act was established to protect American rivers, 

including free-flowing conditions, water quality and their many values “for the benefit 

and enjoyment of present and future generations”. As of 2012, 203 rivers encompassing 

12,598 miles had been included in the National Wild and Scenic River (WSR) System. 

Rivers or sections of rivers must be free-flowing and possess at least one “outstandingly 

remarkable” value, such as fish, wildlife, recreation, scenery, geology, history, cultural 

features, or other values including ecology. WSRs displaying varying degrees of existing 

human alteration are assigned corresponding classification levels of Recreational, Scenic 

or Wild. There are six designated or recommended WSRs in the three project areas which 

are potentially affected by the Westside Fire Recovery Project. These are identified and 

described below: 

Designation 

The Klamath, Scott, and North Fork Salmon Rivers, which were designated by the 

Secretary of Interior in 1981 for their outstandingly remarkable anadromous fisheries 

values, are components of the National Wild and Scenic River (WSR) System. 

Elk, Grider, and South Russian Creeks are recommended for inclusion in the National 

Wild and Scenic Rivers system in the 1995 Forest Plan. This preliminary administrative 

recommendation to the Secretary of Agriculture is retained until such time as Congress 

286
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

takes action. These recommended rivers are managed under the same guidance as 

designated rivers. 

Outstandingly Remarkable Values (ORVs) 

These may include: fish, wildlife, recreation, scenery, geology, history, cultural features, 

or other values including ecology. Values for potentially affected WSRs are listed in 

Table 1 below. 

Classification 

WSRs displaying varying degrees of existing human alteration are assigned 

corresponding classification levels of Recreational, Scenic or Wild. The Klamath, Scott, 

and North Fork Salmon Rivers have segments designated with a “recreational” 

classification. Rivers classified as “Recreational” WSR segments display the most level 

of development, and may include roads, bridges, buildings, and agricultural or forest 

clearings. 

The Scott River and Grider Creek have segments identified with a “Scenic” 

classification. The Scenic classification applies to those rivers or sections of rivers that 

are free of impoundments, with shorelines or watersheds still largely primitive and 

shorelines largely undeveloped, but may be accessible in places by roads. River 

classifications are listed in Table 3-36 below. 

Table 3-38: Summary of Potentially Affected Wild and Scenic Rivers by Segment Number, 

Classification, and Outstandingly Remarkable Value(s)

River Segment 

Number

Segment 

Description

Classification Outstandingly 

Remarkable 

Value

Description Of 

Outstandingly 

Remarkable Value

Klamath 

River

Kl01 Forest Boundary 

Near Ash Creek 

Confluence To 

Forest Boundary 

With Six Rivers 

National Forest

Recreational Anadromous 

Fisheries

Anadromous Fisheries 

Scott 

River

Sc01 Shackleford Creek 

To Mccarthy Creek

Recreational Anadromous 

Fisheries

Anadromous Fisheries

Scott 

River

Sc02 Mccarthy Creek To 

Scott Bar

Scenic Anadromous 

Fisheries

Anadromous Fisheries

Scott 

River

Sc03 Scott Bar To 

Klamath River

Recreational Anadromous 

Fisheries

Anadromous Fisheries

North 

Fork 

Salmon 

River

Nf03 Mule Bridge 

Campground To 

Forks Of Salmon

Recreational Anadromous 

Fisheries

Anadromous Fisheries 

Elk 

Creek

El03 Bridge In Sec 19 To 

Bridge In Sec 25

Recreational Fisheries Fish And Game 

Rearing Pond For 

Chinook, Large 

Bedrock Holding 

Ponds Present.

Elk 

Creek

El03 Geologic The Malone Landslide 

Offers The Opportunity 

To Observe The 

Effects Of A Large 

Slump/Debris Slide On 

A Major Stream.

287
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

River Segment 

Number

Segment 

Description

Classification Outstandingly 

Remarkable 

Value

Description Of 

Outstandingly 

Remarkable Value

Elk 

Creek

El04 Bridge In Sec 25 To 

Klamath River

Recreational Fisheries Very Good Spawning 

Habitat For Salmonids.

Elk 

Creek

El04 Wildlife Siskiyou Mountain 

Salamander Has Been 

Located Along This 

Segment.

Grider 

Creek

Gr03 Rancheria Creek To 

Forest Road 

46n24x

Scenic Fisheries High Water Quality 

Supporting Coho, 

Chinook, And 

Steelhead. 

Grider 

Creek

Gr03 Vegetation Undisturbed "Old 

Growth" Mixed Conifer 

Forest Type.

Grider 

Creek

Gr03 Wildlife Bald Eagle (T And E) 

And Peregrine Falcon 

Known To Frequent 

This Segment.

South 

Russian 

Creek

Ru02 Wilderness 

Boundary To Forest 

Road 40n54

Recreational Vegetation Magnificent Stand Of 

"Old Growth" 

Engleman Spruce 

Along This Segment.

South 

Russian 

Creek

Ru02 Water Quality Watershed Is Largely 

Pristine. 

Source: 1995 Forest Plan 

Boundaries

Boundaries for Designated Wild and Scenic River corridors were established in the 

Forest Plan, with legal descriptions listed in Appendix J of the Forest Plan EIS. The 

corridor boundaries vary in width to include key river features, generally averaging about 

1⁄2 mile wide (including both sides of the river) for the length of the river. 

Boundaries for Recommended Wild and Scenic River corridors were identified in the 

Forest Plan. The corridor boundaries are a uniform 1⁄2 mile width - 1/4 mile wide on each 

side of the river for the length of the river. 

Management 

WSRs are managed under the Forest Plan as Management Areas 12 Designated and 

Recommended Recreational Rivers and 13 Designated and Recommended Scenic Rivers 

with appropriate Standards and Guidelines listed for management of the river areas. 

Environmental Consequences 

Alternative 1 

Under alternative 1, no salvage harvest, fuels treatments, or vegetation management 

would occur. Existing management direction would continue to guide management of the 

project area. A detailed description of the alternatives can be found in chapter 2 of the 

Westside Fire Recovery EIS.

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects 

288
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Because there would be no management actions under alternative 1, free flowing 

conditions and identified Outstandingly Remarkable Value(s) listed in Table 1 above 

would be maintained in this alternative.

The risk posed to water quality (sediment) from 950 identified legacy sediment sites is 

moderate to high over a ten-year period. Should a significant storm such as a 10-year 

event occur, there is a high risk of failure. Impacts would be similar to the channel scour, 

loss of stream shade, increased stream temperatures, and sedimentation that occurred in 

the 1997 flood as described by De La Fuente and Elder (1998). These impacts would 

adversely affect beneficial uses. 

The risk to water quality and beneficial uses from increased stream temperature related to 

burnt Riparian Reserve areas is low. Additionally Elk Creek has a high risk for 

landsliding and perhaps a moderate risk for resulting debris flows that remove vegetation 

and thus negatively affect stream shade and temperature. 

VQOs define acceptable levels of visual disturbance or contrast from management 

activities. Because there would be no management actions under the alternative 1, there 

would be no effect to scenery. 

Cumulative Effects

In considering current and reasonably foreseeable future projects, both the Johnny O’Neil 

and Thom-Seider projects propose activities in the Klamath WSR corridor. Their 

analyses determined no effect to WSR values. The additive effect from this project’s lack 

of action in this alternative is not anticipated to have any cumulative effects to the WSR 

Act’s “protect and enhance” standards. 

Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 

Because of minute differences between alternatives, the analysis for all four alternatives 

has been combined into one section. The four action alternatives would authorize salvage 

harvest, fuels treatments, roadside hazard treatments, and site prep/planting within the 

river corridors for Elk, Grider, and South Russian Creeks, and the Klamath, Scott, and 

North Fork Salmon Rivers (see table 3-37. For a detailed description of the alternatives, 

see chapter 2. 

Table 3-39: Acres of Proposed Treatments for Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 located within Wild and 

Scenic River corridors by River Classification and Segment

River/Segment 

Number 

(Classification)

Treatment Type Alt 2 Acres Alt 3 Acres Alt 4 Acres Alt 5 Acres

Klamath River/ Kl01 Fuels Treatments 371 371 371 371

(Recreational) Harvest 425 409 425 422

Roadside Hazard 379 379 379 379

Scott River/ Sc01 Fuels Treatments 252 252 252 252

(Recreational) Harvest 17 17 17 17

Roadside Hazard 364 364 364 364

Scott River/ Sc02 Fuels Treatments 62 62 62 62

(Scenic) Harvest 0 0 0 0

Roadside Hazard 127 127 109 127

289
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

River/Segment 

Number 

(Classification)

Treatment Type Alt 2 Acres Alt 3 Acres Alt 4 Acres Alt 5 Acres

North Fork Salmon 

River/Nf03 Fuels Treatments 1149 1149 1149 1149

(Recreational) Harvest 83 83 83 64

Roadside Hazard 250 250 250 250

Vegetation Management 8 8 8 8

Elk Creek/El03 Fuels Treatments 516 516 516 516

(Recreational) Roadside Hazard 438 438 438 438

Vegetation Management 4 4 4 4

Elk Creek/El04 Fuels Treatments 206 206 206 206

(Recreational) Roadside Hazard 161 161 161 161

Vegetation Management 11 11 11 11

Grider Creek/Gr03 Harvest 41 41 41 41

(Scenic) Roadside Hazard 7 7 7 7

South Russian 

Creek/Ru02 Fuels Treatments 84 84 84 84

(Recreational) Harvest 1 1 1 0

Roadside Hazard 122 122 122 122

Vegetation Management 29 29 29 29

Source: GIS data sort, dated 02/03/15, 02/04/15 

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects

The full scope of the WSR Act’s protections can be summarized as requiring Westside 

Fire Recovery project activities to protect:

1. free-flowing conditions, 

2. water quality, and

3. identified “outstandingly remarkable” river value(s). 

Free Flowing Conditions

As applied to any river or section of a river, means existing or flowing in natural 

condition without impoundment, diversion, straightening, rip-rapping, or other 

modification of the waterway. Although there are portions of harvest units proposed 

within the river corridor boundaries of the Klamath, Scott, and North Fork Salmon Rivers 

and Grider Creek, they are located several hundred feet upslope from the river and not 

proposed within the bed and banks of these WSRs. Therefore the Westside Fire Recovery 

project proposal would have no effect on the free flowing conditions of the Wild and 

Scenic Rivers, since no activities are proposed within the WSR’s bed or banks. 

Note: Section 7 of the WSR Act does not apply to this project, because it is only pertinent 

to a “water resource project” such as a dam, water conduit, reservoir, hydropower project, 

powerhouse or transmission line, and does not directly affect the bed and bank of a WSR. 

In 1984 the “water resource project” definition was evaluated for its use within the WSR 

Act, and the Forest Service clarified that timber harvesting or similar activities would not 

be subject to Section 7 review unless it resulted in an obstruction or modification of the 

free-flowing river characteristics (Federal Register Vol. 49, No. 10, 1/16/84, page 1901). 

Therefore all four alternatives will have no effect to free flowing conditions. 

290
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Water Quality

All four alternatives are not expected to have direct effect on beneficial uses but should 

help protect water quality for Elk Creek by fixing existing legacy sites. The alternatives 

are not expected to increase sediment or stream temperature regimes over alternative 1. A 

beneficial effect would be legacy site repair. (See Hydrology Report) 

Outstandingly Remarkable Value(s)

Each river shall be managed to protect and enhance the values for which the river was 

designated, while providing for public recreation and resource uses which do not 

adversely impact or degrade those values. Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 will have no direct 

effects to vegetation, geologic, or wildlife, values. 

Fisheries (Klamath, Scott, North Fork, Elk, Grider)

Minor and insignificant direct effects from water drafting. Over-all effects to sediment, 

stream shade, and temperature from project treatments are expected to be discountable 

and effects to aquatic species are expected to be minor under all action alternatives. 

Should a severe wildfire occur, could result in cumulative impacts to fish associated with 

increases in sediment supply, localized increases in water temperature, and reduced longterm large woody debris recruitment. Impacts are expected to minor to moderate 

depending on the spatial pattern of a high intensity wildfire. 

Geologic (Elk) 

There are no project activities proposed on the Malone landslide, hence no effect to 

geologic ORV.

Wildlife (Elk) 

There are no harvest treatments within the river corridor. Hence the risk to Siskiyou 

Mountain Salamander habitat is low. 

Vegetation (Grider)

A GIS data sort using (BARC data) identified one small stand of old growth (OS tree 

diameter Class 1 – large to giant 30” + QMD) within the roadside hazard treatment area.

This stand, which is located east of Grider Creek (across from the campground) is shown 

with 0 percent basal area mortality loss. It is likely only a few if any trees would be felled 

and left in place. Therefore, this will be a negligible effect to the old growth stands. 

Wildlife (Grider)

As there are no known Bald Eagle or Peregrine nesting sites within the Grider Creek 

drainage, there are no direct effects to Wildlife ORV.

Vegetation (South Russian)

There are no project treatments proposed in the Engleman Spruce stands. Hence there 

will be no direct effects to the Vegetation ORV.

Water Quality (South Russian)

The alternatives have a low risk to increase stream sedimentation and water temperature 

and are not expected to increase sediment or stream temperature regimes over alternative 

1. 

291
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Forest WSR Standards and Guidelines

The project treatments associated with the project must meet the Retention and Partial 

Retention Visual Quality Objectives (VQOs) from within the river corridor, in the 

foreground beyond the corridor, and in middleground areas visible from the river 

corridor. For management activities to meet the Retention VQO, the management activity 

must not be noticeable (see Scenery report). For management activities to meet the Partial 

Retention VQO, the management activity must remain visually subordinate to the 

characteristic landscape (see Scenery report). 

The noticeable visual disturbances within the Klamath and Scott Rivers, and Grider 

Creek corridors would likely not meet the assigned Retention Visual Quality Objectives 

(VQO) in the short term (3-5 years) when visible from the river corridors. Re-sprouting 

and growth of vegetation will green up disturbed areas to meet the Retention VQO in the 

long term. 

Not meeting a VQO in the three year timeframe inconsistent with Forest Plan Standards 

and Guidelines numbers MA12-7 and MA13-6. However an exception is allowed under 

Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines number 11-7 which states ”In the case of recovery 

activities after extreme catastrophic events such as intense wildland fires, time periods to 

achieve the VQOs stated in Forest-wide and Management Area Standards and Guidelines 

may be extended. This would be necessary where previously unnoticed scenery 

alterations are exposed to view due to loss of vegetative screening, or during timber 

salvage activities where recovery of forest vegetation is determined to be of greater 

importance than achievement of VQOs within the time periods established.” 

Cumulative Effects 

As there are no direct effects, there are no cumulative effects.

Comparison of Effects 

Wild and scenic river effects are displayed by alternative in Table 3-38 below:

292
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Table 3-40: Wild and Scenic River Comparison of Effects of Alternatives

River

(Segment #)

River Value Alternative 1 Description Of Effects Protected Or 

Maintained 

(Y/N) 

Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 Description 

Of Effects

Protected Or 

Maintained 

(Y/N) 

KLAMATH 

RIVER

(KL01)

Water Quality Moderate to high risk to water quality 

(sediment) if legacy sites failed. Low risk to 

water quality (temperature).

Y Low risk to stream sedimentation and 

water temperature

Y 

Fisheries ORV No direct effects. Should a severe wildfire 

occur, could result in cumulative impacts to 

fish associated with increases in sediment 

supply, localized increases in water 

temperature, and reduced long-term large 

woody debris recruitment. Impacts are 

expected to minor to moderate depending on 

the spatial pattern of a high intensity wildfire.

Y Minor and insignificant direct effects from 

water drafting. Over-all effects to 

sediment, stream shade, and temperature 

from project treatments are expected to be 

discountable and effects to aquatic 

species are expected to be minor under all 

action alternatives.

Y 

Retention VQO 

(river corridor)

No Effect Y VQO would likely not be met in short term 

(3-5 years)

Y (long term)

Partial Retention 

VQO (middle 

ground)

No Effect Y VQO would likely be met Y 

SCOTT 

RIVER

(SC01) 

Water Quality Moderate to high risk to water quality 

(sediment) if legacy sites failed. Low risk to 

water quality (temperature).

Y Low risk to stream sedimentation and 

water temperature

Y 

Fisheries ORV No direct effects. Should a severe wildfire 

occur, could result in cumulative impacts to 

fish associated with increases in sediment 

supply, localized increases in water 

temperature, and reduced long-term large 

woody debris recruitment. Impacts are 

expected to minor to moderate depending on 

the spatial pattern of a high intensity wildfire.

Y Minor and insignificant direct effects from 

water drafting. Over-all effects to 

sediment, stream shade, and temperature 

from project treatments are expected to be 

discountable and effects to aquatic 

species are expected to be minor under all 

action alternatives.

Y 

Partial Retention 

VQO (river 

corridor) 

No Effect Y VQO would likely be met Y 

293
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

River

(Segment #)

River Value Alternative 1 Description Of Effects Protected Or 

Maintained 

(Y/N) 

Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 Description 

Of Effects

Protected Or 

Maintained 

(Y/N) 

Partial Retention

VQO (middle 

ground)

No Effect Y VQO would likely be met Y 

SCOTT 

RIVER

(SC02) 

Water Quality Moderate to high risk to water quality 

(sediment) if legacy sites failed. Low risk to 

water quality (temperature).

Y Low risk to stream sedimentation and 

water temperature

Y 

Fisheries ORV No direct effects. Should a severe wildfire 

occur, could result in cumulative impacts to 

fish associated with increases in sediment 

supply, localized increases in water 

temperature, and reduced long-term large 

woody debris recruitment. Impacts are 

expected to minor to moderate depending on 

the spatial pattern of a high intensity wildfire.

Y Minor and insignificant direct effects from 

water drafting. Over-all effects to 

sediment, stream shade, and temperature 

from project treatments are expected to be 

discountable and effects to aquatic 

species are expected to be minor under all 

action alternatives.

Y 

Retention VQO 

(river corridor)

No Effect Y VQO would likely not be met in short term 

(3-5 years)

Y (long term)

Partial Retention 

VQO (foreground 

and middle 

ground beyond 

river corridor)

No Effect Y VQO would likely be met Y 

SCOTT 

RIVER

(SC03) 

Water Quality Moderate to high risk to water quality 

(sediment) if legacy sites failed. Low risk to 

water quality (temperature).

Y Low risk to stream sedimentation and 

water temperature

Y 

Fisheries ORV No direct effects. Should a severe wildfire 

occur, could result in cumulative impacts to 

fish associated with increases in sediment 

supply, localized increases in water 

temperature, and reduced long-term large 

woody debris recruitment. Impacts are 

expected to minor to moderate depending on 

the spatial pattern of a high intensity wildfire.

Y Minor and insignificant direct effects from 

water drafting. Over-all effects to 

sediment, stream shade, and temperature 

from project treatments are expected to be 

discountable and effects to aquatic 

species are expected to be minor under all 

action alternatives.

Y 

294
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

River

(Segment #)

River Value Alternative 1 Description Of Effects Protected Or 

Maintained 

(Y/N) 

Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 Description 

Of Effects

Protected Or 

Maintained 

(Y/N) 

Partial Retention 

VQO (river 

corridor) 

No Effect Y VQO would likely be met Y 

Partial Retention 

VQO (foreground 

and middle 

ground beyond 

river corridor)

No Effect Y VQO would likely be met Y 

NORTH 

FORK 

SALMON 

RIVER

(NF03)

Water Quality Moderate to high risk to water quality 

(sediment) if legacy sites failed. Low risk to 

water quality (temperature).

Y Low risk to stream sedimentation and 

water temperature

Y 

Fisheries ORV No direct effects. Should a severe wildfire 

occur, could result in cumulative impacts to 

fish associated with increases in sediment 

supply, localized increases in water 

temperature, and reduced long-term large 

woody debris recruitment. Impacts are 

expected to minor to moderate depending on 

the spatial pattern of a high intensity wildfire.

Y Minor and insignificant direct effects from 

water drafting. Over-all effects to 

sediment, stream shade, and temperature 

from project treatments are expected to be 

discountable and effects to aquatic 

species are expected to be minor under all 

action alternatives.

Y 

Partial Retention 

VQO (river 

corridor) 

No Effect Y VQO would likely be met Y 

Partial Retention 

VQO (foreground 

and middle 

ground beyond 

river corridor)

No Effect Y VQO would likely be met Y 

ELK CREEK

(EL03)

Water Quality Moderate to high risk to water quality 

(sediment) if legacy sites failed. Moderate 

risk to water quality from debris flows that 

affect shade and temperature.

Y High risk for sedimentation may be 

reduced by legacy site repairs. Moderate 

risk to water quality from debris flows that 

affect shade and temperature.

Y 

295
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

River

(Segment #)

River Value Alternative 1 Description Of Effects Protected Or 

Maintained 

(Y/N) 

Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 Description 

Of Effects

Protected Or 

Maintained 

(Y/N) 

Fisheries ORV No direct effects. Should a severe wildfire 

occur, could result in cumulative impacts to 

fish associated with increases in sediment 

supply, localized increases in water 

temperature, and reduced long-term large 

woody debris recruitment. Impacts are 

expected to minor to moderate depending on 

the spatial pattern of a high intensity wildfire.

Y Minor and insignificant direct effects from 

water drafting. Over-all effects to 

sediment, stream shade, and temperature 

from project treatments are expected to be 

discountable and effects to aquatic 

species are expected to be minor under all 

action alternatives.

Y 

Geologic ORV No Effect Y No Effect Y 

Partial Retention 

VQO (river 

corridor) 

No Effect Y VQO would likely be met Y 

Partial Retention 

VQO (foreground 

and middle 

ground beyond 

river corridor)

No Effect Y VQO would likely be met Y 

ELK CREEK

(EL04)

Water Quality Moderate to high risk to water quality 

(sediment) if legacy sites failed. Moderate 

risk to water quality from debris flows that 

affect shade and temperature.

Y High risk for sedimentation may be 

reduced by legacy site repairs. Moderate 

risk to water quality from debris flows that 

affect shade and temperature.

Y 

Fisheries ORV No direct effects. Should a severe wildfire 

occur, could result in cumulative impacts to 

fish associated with increases in sediment 

supply, localized increases in water 

temperature, and reduced long-term large 

woody debris recruitment. Impacts are 

expected to minor to moderate depending on 

the spatial pattern of a high intensity wildfire.

Y Minor and insignificant direct effects from 

water drafting. Over-all effects to 

sediment, stream shade, and temperature 

from project treatments are expected to be 

discountable and effects to aquatic 

species are expected to be minor under all 

action alternatives.

Y 

Wildlife ORV Low risk of habitat disturbance Y Low risk of habitat disturbance Y 

296
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

River

(Segment #)

River Value Alternative 1 Description Of Effects Protected Or 

Maintained 

(Y/N) 

Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 Description 

Of Effects

Protected Or 

Maintained 

(Y/N) 

Partial Retention 

VQO (river 

corridor) 

No Effect Y VQO would likely be met Y 

Partial Retention 

VQO (foreground 

and middle 

ground beyond 

river corridor)

No Effect Y VQO would likely be met Y 

GRIDER 

CREEK

(GR03)

Water Quality Moderate to high risk to water quality 

(sediment) if legacy sites failed. Low risk to 

water quality (temperature).

Y Low risk to stream sedimentation and 

water temperature

Y 

Fisheries ORV No direct effects. Should a severe wildfire 

occur, could result in cumulative impacts to 

fish associated with increases in sediment 

supply, localized increases in water 

temperature, and reduced long-term large 

woody debris recruitment. Impacts are 

expected to minor to moderate depending on 

the spatial pattern of a high intensity wildfire.

Y Minor and insignificant direct effects from 

water drafting. Over-all effects to 

sediment, stream shade, and temperature 

from project treatments are expected to be 

discountable and effects to aquatic 

species are expected to be minor under all 

action alternatives.

Y 

Vegetation ORV No Effect Y Negligible Effect – a small patch of old 

growth is within roadside hazard treatment 

area.

Y 

Wildlife ORV No Effect - No known nesting sites Y No Effect - No known nesting sites Y 

Retention VQO 

(river corridor)

No Effect Y VQO would likely not be met in short term 

(3-5 years)

Y (long term)

Partial Retention 

VQO (foreground 

and middle 

ground beyond 

river corridor)

No Effect Y VQO would likely be met Y 

297
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

River

(Segment #)

River Value Alternative 1 Description Of Effects Protected Or 

Maintained 

(Y/N) 

Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 Description 

Of Effects

Protected Or 

Maintained 

(Y/N) 

SOUTH 

RUSSIAN 

CREEK

(RU02)

Water Quality Moderate to high risk to water quality 

(sediment) if legacy sites failed. Low risk to 

water quality (temperature).

Y Low risk to stream sedimentation and 

water temperature

Y 

Vegetation ORV No Effect. Stands will regenerate naturally. Y No Effect. No project treatments proposed 

within Engleman Spruce stands.

Y 

Water Quality 

ORV

No direct effects to water quality (sediment 

and temperature regimes)

Y Low risk to stream sedimentation and 

water temperature

Y 

Partial Retention 

VQO (river 

corridor) 

No Effect Y VQO would likely be met Y 

Partial Retention 

VQO (foreground 

and middle 

ground beyond 

river corridor)

No Effect Y VQO would likely be met Y 

298
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Compliance with law, regulation, policy, and the Forest Plan 

All Wild and Scenic Rivers Act protection requirements will be met for this project. Free 

flowing conditions, water quality, and identified outstandingly remarkable value(s) will 

be protected. River classifications will be maintained. 

The desired future conditions for both scenic and recreational rivers will be met; scenic 

river areas and shorelines will remain largely primitive and undeveloped, and recreational 

river waterways will remain generally natural and riverine in appearance.

Inventoried Roadless Areas _______________________________ 

Information on six inventoried roadless areas (IRAs) within the Westside Fire Recovery 

project area is analyzed in this section, and the effects of the project on these IRAs are 

disclosed. The detailed history of IRAs and Forest Service direction for management in 

IRAs is included in the body and appendices of the Inventoried Roadless Area resource 

report, available on the project website.

Methodology

Geographic Information System (GIS) layers provide information for the location of 

IRAs and proposed activities that may affect IRAs. A synopsis of the conditions of IRAs 

at the time the Record of Decision for the Forest Plan was published (1995) is provided in 

appendix C of the Forest Plan final EIS.

Analysis indicators 

Acres of IRA where roadless characteristics potentially will be affected by treatments 

proposed in the project, and degree of effect, are analysis indicators. Factors used to 

determine whether or not roadless characteristics will be affected by treatments,

identified in the Roadless Area Conservation Rule of 2001 (36 CFR Part 294), are effects 

on: 

• High quality or undisturbed soil, water and air resources; 

• Sources of public drinking water; 

• Diversity of plant and animal communities;

• Habitat for Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, Candidate, and Sensitive species 

and species dependent on large undisturbed areas of land; 

• Primitive, semi-primitive non-motorized, and semi-primitive motorized classes 

of recreation;

• Reference landscapes for research study or interpretation;

• Natural appearing landscapes with high scenic quality;

• Traditional cultural properties and sacred sites; and

• Other locally identified unique characteristics.

The effects of the project on the currently roadless portions of IRAs and the portions that 

include roads are analyzed and disclosed separately because retaining roadless character 

is difficult, if not impossible, in areas of IRAs that already include roads. 

299
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Spatial and temporal bounding

The spatial boundary for analysis includes the IRAs within the project area boundary 

because only activities that occur within the IRAs affect the roadless characteristics of the 

IRAs.

The short-term temporal bounding is one to five years because effects will be realized 

during and shortly after project implementation. The long-term timeframe is 20 years 

because effects will fade by the end of that time.

Affected Environment

There are six IRAs within the Westside Fire Recovery project area. Four of these IRAs 

are totally or partially within the Happy Camp Fire area: Grider; Johnson; Kelsey; and 

Tom Martin. Two IRAs are partially within the Whites Fire area: Russian; and Snoozer. 

Only Grider and Snoozer IRAs retain a roadless character for the entire IRA; roads were 

constructed in portions of the other IRAs between 1984, when these IRAs were 

“released” for road construction and other activities by the California Wilderness Act, 

and 2001 when the Roadless Area Conservation Rule limiting road construction and 

associated activities in IRAs was published. The total number of acres in each IRA within 

the project area, the acres that are considered to retain their roadless character because no 

roads were constructed in them, and the acres that no longer retain roadless character are 

displayed in table 3-39.

Table 3-41: Acres within each IRA, and within the portions of each IRA that retain roadless character

IRA Total Acres of IRA within 

project area

Acres that retain roadless 

character

Acres that do not retain 

roadless character

Grider 10,640 10,640 0 

Johnson 4,900 3,970 930

Kelsey 3,230 510 2,720

Russian 13,540 11,910 1,630

Snoozer 9,250 9,250 0 

Tom Martin 9,050 5,650 3,400

TOTAL 50,610 41,930 8,680

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1

Direct and Indirect Effects

Since there are no management actions with this alternative, there will be no direct or 

indirect effects on IRAs. 

Cumulative Effects

Since there are no direct or indirect effects, there are no cumulative effects of adding the 

zero effects of alternative 1 to the past, ongoing or reasonable foreseeable future actions 

listed in appendix C that overlap IRAs in time or space. 

300
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Alternative 2

Direct and Indirect Effects

The direct or indirect effects on roadless characteristics in IRAs are based on the type and 

extent of activities within each IRA, especially within the roadless portions since the 

roadless characteristics of the roaded portions have already been affected. Acres of IRAs 

within the project boundary that retain roadless character and those that do not are 

displayed in table 3-40. 

Table 3-42: Alternative 2 proposed activities within each IRA, in portions that retain and do not retain 

roadless character

IRA Acres 

within 

IRA 

% of IRA 

with 

Activity

Acres 

within IRA 

retaining 

roadless 

character 

% of IRA 

with 

Activity 

retaining 

roadless 

character

Acres 

within IRA 

no longer 

retaining 

roadless 

character 

% of IRA 

with Activity 

no longer 

retaining 

roadless 

character

Grider 125 1 % 125 1 % 0 0 %

Fuels Treatment 43 <1 % 43 <1 % 0 0 %

Site prep./plant 82 1 % 82 1 % 0 0 %

Johnson 345 7 % 152 4 % 192 21 %

Fuels Treatment 160 3 % 114 3 % 47 5 %

Site prep./plant 184 4 % 39 1 % 146 16 %

Kelsey 44 1 % 0 0 % 44 2 %

Fuels Treatment 0 0 % 0 0 % 0 0 %

Site prep./plant 44 1 % 0 0 % 44 2 %

Russian 2,066 15 % 1,822 15 % 245 15 %

Fuels Treatment 1,935 14 % 1,782 15 % 153 9 %

Site prep./plant 131 1 % 39 <1 % 92 6 %

Snoozer 3,459 37 % 3,459 37 % 0 0 %

Fuels Treatment 3,459 37 % 3.459 37 % 0 0 %

Site prep./plant 0 0 % 0 0 % 0 0 %

Tom Martin 261 3 % 50 1 % 210 6 %

Fuels Treatment 213 2 % 50 1 % 163 5 %

Site prep./plant 47 <1 % 0 0 % 47 1 %

TOTAL 6,300 12 % 5,608 13 % 692 8 %

Fuels Treatment 5,811 11 % 5,448 13 % 363 4 %

Site prep./plant 489 1 % 160 <1 % 329 4 %

Cumulative Effects

Adding the effects of alternative 2 to the past, ongoing or reasonable foreseeable future 

actions listed in appendix C that overlap IRAs in time and space will produce negligible 

cumulative effects to roadless characteristics. Few if any proposed projects on the Forest 

include any treatments in IRAs and IRAs do not exist on private lands. 

301
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect Effects

The actions proposed in this alternative are the same as alternative 2; therefore, direct and 

indirect effects will be the same as for alternative 2.

Cumulative Effects

Adding the effects of alternative 3 to the past, ongoing or reasonable foreseeable future 

actions listed in appendix C will produce the same cumulative effects to roadless 

characteristics as for alternative 2.

Alternative 4

Direct and Indirect Effects

The actions proposed in this alternative are the same as alternative 2; therefore, direct and 

indirect effects will be the same as for alternative 2.

Cumulative Effects

Adding the effects of alternative 3 to the past, ongoing or reasonable foreseeable future 

actions listed in appendix C will produce the same cumulative effects to roadless 

characteristics as for alternative 2.

Alternative 5

Direct and Indirect Effects

No site preparation and planting actions are proposed in IRAs in this alternative as noted 

below in table 3-43. The direct and indirect effects on roadless characteristics are due to 

fuels treatments. 

Table 3-43: Alternative 5 proposed activities within each IRA, in portions that retain and do not retain 

roadless character

IRA Acres 

within 

IRA 

% of 

IRA 

with 

Activity

Acres 

within IRA 

retaining 

roadless 

character 

% of IRA 

with Activity 

retaining 

roadless 

character

Acres within 

IRA no 

longer 

retaining 

roadless 

character 

% of IRA with 

Activity no 

longer 

retaining 

roadless 

character

Grider 43 <1 % 43 <1 % 0 0 %

Fuels Treatment 43 <1 % 43 <1 % 0 0 %

Site prep./plant 0 0 % 0 0 % 0 0 %

Johnson 160 3 % 114 3 % 47 5 %

Fuels Treatment 160 3 % 114 3 % 47 5 %

Site prep./plant 0 0 % 0 0 % 0 0 %

Kelsey 0 0 % 0 0 % 0 0 %

Fuels Treatment 0 0 % 0 0 % 0 0 %

Site prep./plant 0 0 % 0 0 % 0 0 %

Russian 1,935 14 % 1,782 15 % 153 9 %

Fuels Treatment 1,935 14 % 1,782 15 % 153 9 %

Site prep./plant 0 0 % 0 0 % 0 0 %

302
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

IRA Acres 

within 

IRA 

% of 

IRA 

with 

Activity

Acres 

within IRA 

retaining 

roadless 

character 

% of IRA 

with Activity 

retaining 

roadless 

character

Acres within 

IRA no 

longer 

retaining 

roadless 

character 

% of IRA with 

Activity no 

longer 

retaining 

roadless 

character

Snoozer 3,459 37 % 3,459 37 % 0 0 %

Fuels Treatment 3,459 37 % 3,459 37 % 0 0 %

Site prep./plant 0 0 % 0 0 % 0 0 %

Tom Martin 213 2 % 50 1 % 163 5 %

Fuels Treatment 213 2 % 50 1 % 163 5 %

Site prep./plant 0 0 % 0 0 % 0 0 %

TOTAL 5,811 11 % 5,448 13 % 363 4 %

Fuels Treatment 5,811 11 % 5,448 13 % 363 4 %

Site prep./plant 0 0 % 0 0 % 0 0 %

Cumulative Effects

Adding the effects of alternative 3 to the past, ongoing or reasonable foreseeable future 

actions listed in appendix C that overlap IRAs in time and space will produce negligible 

cumulative effects to roadless characteristics.

Comparison of Effects 

There is little difference among alternatives in effects on roadless character of IRAs 

because the treatments proposed in any alternative have little effect on the roadless areas 

that retain roadless characteristics. Alternative 1 does not propose any treatments in 

IRAs; IRAs will renerate naturally as described in the vegetation section of this chapter . 

In action alternatives, only prescribed burning affects a sizeable number of acres; this 

action mimics the effects of low intensity wildfire and will not substantially affect 

roadless character. Construction and maintenance of shaded fuel breaks on a small 

number of acres that retain their roadless characteristic and removal of small fuels 

(generally less than 3 inches in diameter at breast height) will also not substantially affect 

roadless character. Site preparation and planting using hand tools and methods in 

alternatives 2, 3 and 4 (with implementation of project design feature IRA-1) will have a 

minor effect; this will occur on only 160 acres of areas that currently retain roadless 

character. No site preparation and planting will occur in alternative 5; effects of natural 

regeneration will be the same as for alternative 1. 

Compliance with law, policy, regulation and the Forest Plan 

All alternative will comply with the Roadless Area Conservation Rule and applicable 

Forest Plan standards as amended by this rule. 

Climate Change _________________________________________ 

Increasingly, the relationships between human-caused emissions, climate change, and the 

role of the forests as carbon sinks (carbon sequesters) are being documented (IPCC 

2007). Although uncertainty exists in quantifying the impact of emissions on climate, a 

global warming of 1.4 to 5.8 degrees centigrade is projected by 2100 (USDA Forest 

Service 2007b). Adapting to climate change and its potential impacts poses challenges 

303
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

and opportunities to managing resources. Forests and rangelands are seen as part of the 

solution to reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases due to their 

ability to sequester or store carbon. However, the magnitude of the opportunity for 

carbon storage is not well quantified or thoroughly understood, especially at the project 

level.

The use of future climate scenarios and ecological models suggests that the impact of 

climate change on ecosystems in the United States may include increases in ecosystem 

productivity in the short term and shifts in the distribution of plants and animals in the 

long term (Joyce and Birdsey 2000). As climate changes advance, there are some 

indications that there will be increases in disturbances such as wildfires, drought, and 

insects (USDA Forest Service 2007b). 

Although climate change simulations vary considerably in making future predictions of 

climate change, in most scenarios relatively little change in overall precipitation is 

projected. Most precipitation will continue to occur during winter storms. However, 

increased winter temperatures may mean that more of the winter precipitation falls as rain 

and less as snow. Snow accumulations may decrease and spring snow melt is projected to 

occur earlier. There is no local scientific information to suggest that storms may increase 

in size or frequency so no projections are made concerning the effects of storm events on 

the project area. Dry seasons may be drier, warmer and longer, with resulting increases in 

the frequency and size of wildfires as seen in 2014. This project may allow some 

adaptation to climate change effects on the local level.

Based on the best available science, it is still speculative to factor any specific ecological 

trends or substantial changes in climate into the analysis of environment impacts of 

individual projects. Currently, the best available science concerning climate change is not 

adequate to support reliable predictions about ecological interactions and trends at the 

local project level. Local information concerning precipitation and temperature in the 

vicinity of the Westside Fire Recovery project suggests that national predictions on 

increasing temperature may be reflected at the project level but precipitations trends are 

more variable (USDA Forest Service 2011b). Based on regional predictions of a warming 

climate and increases in disturbances such as wildfire and insect infestations, it is 

expected that treatments proposed in the action alternatives for this project will benefit 

forests through fuel-reduction treatments designed to promote species diversity, favor 

fire-resistant tree species, and reduce risk of loss due to wildfire. Specifically, the 

following may occur: 

• Increases in average temperatures, with earlier snowmelt, may lead to an increase 

in the size and frequency of wildfires with warmer and longer fire seasons as was 

evident in 2014 

• Harvest of burned areas can reduce fuels, especially those that are slow to ignite 

but burn at high intensities lead heated soils that damage soil productivity. 

• From our current state of understanding, climate change may bring about 

increases in insect and pathogen outbreaks. 

The contribution of this project to factors that may affect climate change such as 

greenhouse gas emissions is disclosed in the Air Quality section of this chapter and 

referenced Air Quality resource report. The contribution to carbon sequestration is 

disclosed in the Vegetation section of this chapter and referenced Vegetation resource 

304
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

report. Managing forests for carbon sequestration is a poorly understood science but 

active forest management is believed to be an effective method of carbon sequestration 

(IPCC 2007). Selecting trees for reforestation that are likely to survive if climate change 

predictions are fulfilled in the project area is also discussed in the discussion of site 

preparation and planting in the Vegetation section. Harvest, fuel breaks and other fuelreduction treatments will not eliminate wildfire from the project area but can help change 

fire behavior (as discussed in the Fire and Fuels section of this chapter and Fire and Fuels 

resource report, thereby likely reducing carbon dioxide emissions resulting from wildfire. 

Effects on future global climate change from this project are too small to measure.

Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity_________________ 

NEPA requires consideration of “the relationship between short-term uses of man’s 

environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity” (40 CFR 

1502.16). As declared by the Congress, this includes using all practicable means and 

measures, including financial and technical assistance, in a manner calculated to foster 

and promote the general welfare, to create and maintain conditions under which man and 

nature can exist in productive harmony, and fulfill the social, economic, and other 

requirements of present and future generations of Americans (NEPA Section 101). 

Short-term uses are those that occur within the first few years of project implementation. 

Long-term productivity refers to the capability of the land and resources to continue 

producing goods and services long after the project is complete. Harvesting or salvaging 

of standing trees can be considered a short-term use of a renewable resource. Trees can 

be reestablished and grow if the long-term productivity of the land is maintained. Longterm productivity is maintained through application of management requirements 

described in Chapter 2, in particular those applicable to soil and water resources. 

The action alternatives (2, 3, 4 and 5) all would provide for the long-term productivity of 

the project area through removal of biomass and other fuel reduction actions creating a 

resilient forest where areas can recover from future fire effects naturally. Harvesting or 

salvaging standing trees will generate short-term economic returns through the sale of 

salvage timber, as well as providing for worker and public safety in the most critical areas 

within a short timeframe.

Unavoidable Adverse Effects ______________________________ 

 Implementation of any of the alternatives would result in some unavoidable adverse 

environmental effects. Although formation of the alternatives included avoidance of 

some effects, other adverse effects could occur that cannot be completely mitigated. The 

environmental consequences section for each resource area discusses these effects.

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources ______ 

Irreversible commitments of resources are those that cannot be regained, such as the 

extinction of a species or the removal of a mined ore. No irreversible commitments of 

resources would result from implementation of any of the alternatives because no 

permanent, irreversible resource loss would occur. 

305
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Irretrievable commitments are those that are lost for a period of time such as the 

temporary loss of timber productivity in forested areas that are kept clear for use as a 

power line right-of-way or road. Irretrievable losses can be regained over time. 

Implementation of all action alternatives would not irretrievably commit resources, but 

help in the long-term recovery of the landscape. 

Legal and Regulatory Compliance _________________________ 

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) requires that all major federal 

actions significantly affecting the human environment be analyzed to determine the 

magnitude and intensity of those impacts and that the results be shared with the public 

and the public given opportunity to comment. The regulations implementing NEPA 

further require that to the fullest extent possible, agencies shall prepare EISs concurrently 

with and integrated with environmental analyses and related surveys and studies required 

by the Endangered Species Act of 1973, the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, 

and other environmental review laws and executive orders. Other laws and regulations 

that apply to this project are described below

Clean Air Act

The Clean Air Act of 1970 provides for the protection and enhancement of the nation’s 

air resources. No exceeding of the federal and state ambient air quality standards is 

expected to result from any of the alternatives. The Clean Air Act makes it the primary 

responsibility of States and local governments to prevent air pollution and control air 

pollution at its source. All alternatives are compliant with the Clean Air Act and the 

Conformity Rule. See the air quality section of chapter 3 for details.

Clean Water Act

The Clean Water Act of 1948 (as amended in 1972 and 1987) establishes federal policy 

for the control of point and non-point pollution, and assigns the states the primary 

responsibility for control of water pollution. The Clean Water Act regulates the dredging 

and filling of freshwater and coastal wetlands. Section 404 (33 USC 1344) prohibits the 

discharge of dredged or fill material into waters (including wetlands) of the United States 

without first obtaining a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Wetlands are 

regulated in accordance with federal Non-Tidal Wetlands Regulations (Sections 401 and 

404). No dredging or filling is part of this project and no permits are required. 

Legacy sediment sites were identified since scoping and will be scheduled for treatment 

in compliance with the Clean Water Act as a condition of the North Coast Regional 

Water Quality Control Board waiver of waste discharge requirements (Order No. R1-

2010-0029). Compliance of this project will be met through a waiver application and 

approval process with the board, following the decision. See the hydrology section of 

chapter 3 for more information about the Clean Water Act. 

Endangered Species Act 

Section 7 (d) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 requires that after initiation of 

consultation required under section 7(a)(2), a Federal agency “shall not make any 

irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources with respect to the agency action 

306
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

which has the effect of foreclosing the formulation or implementation of any reasonable 

and prudent alternative which would not violate subsection (a)(2).” The Forest Service is 

undergoing consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and NOAA Fisheries for 

this project and will comply with the Endangered Species Act.

National Historic Preservation Act 

The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as amended “requires federal agencies to 

take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties.” This is 

accomplished through a four-step process following 36 CFR Part 800, the implementing 

regulations for Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The regulations 

allow alternative procedures for meeting Section 106 to be developed through 

programmatic agreements. The Pacific Southwest Region of the Forest Service (Region 

5) which includes the Forest has entered into a programmatic agreement for complying 

with Section 106. Additionally, the Forest developed the Westside Fire Recovery PA to 

address project specific issues and concerns. The Westside Fire Recovery PA allows 

limited project activities to occur within certain historic properties without adverse 

effects, as long as project-specific Standard Resource Protection Measures (SRPMs) are 

applied. The Westside Fire Recovery PA--developed in consultation with the California 

State Historic Preservation Officer, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and 

local tribes--tiers to the Regional PA and meets the requirements for compliance under 

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. 

National Forest Management Act 

The National Forest Management Act of 1976 amends the Forest and Rangeland 

Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974 and sets forth the requirements for Land and 

Resource Management Plans for the National Forest System. Through consistency with 

the Forest Plan (as amended) this project is consistent with National Forest Management 

Act. A Forest Plan consistency checklist is available in the project record.

Executive Orders 

The project will be consistent with all applicable executive orders.

307

Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Chapter 4 Consultation and Coordination

Preparers and Contributors _______________________________ 

The Forest Service consulted the following individuals, Federal, State, and local 

agencies, tribes and non-Forest Service persons during the development of this 

environmental assessment:

ID Team Members:

IDT Members Roles

Mike Hupp

Andrew Skowlund (Interim)

Team Leader

Wendy Coats Environmental Coordinator, Co-Team Lead, Lead Planner/Writer/Editor

Leslie Taylor NEPA Planner and Writer/Editor

Brian Ebert (Clint Isbell) Fuels Planners

Jeff Paulo (Carl Varak, 

Marissa Jones)

Silviculturist, Silvicultural Prescriptions

Trish Johnson (Bryan Yost, 

Chad Bell)

Wildlife Biologist

Bobbie Miller Watershed Coordinator

Alice Berg (Bobbie Miller) Fisheries Biologist

Jason Coats (Jeanne Goetz) Archeologist

Angie Bell Geologist

Nikos Hunner (Joe 

Blanchard)

Soils Scientist

Zach Mondry (Greg Laurie) Hydrologist

Gregg Bousfield CWE Modelling and Hydrology Input

Erin Lonergan (Marla 

Knight)

Botanist

Bob Talley Landscape Architect, Recreation Input, and Wild and Scenic Rivers Input

Lori Jackson Engineering

Stephanie McMorris Range Specialist

Nick Dennis (Peg Boland) Economics

Peg Boland (Wendy Coats) Social Economics, Inventoried Roadless Areas, Climate Change, Writer/Editor

Melanie Hans

Sher Marantos

GIS Specialists 

Debra-Ann Brabazon Public Affairs

Travis Coughlin

Mike Barger

(Ben Haupt)

Logging Systems

Heather Mobley

Elizabeth Nielsen

NEPA Writer/Editors and NEPA Planners 

309
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Federal, State, and Local Agencies: 

Council on Environmental Quality 

Environmental Protection Agency 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

NOAA Fisheries

California State Historic Preservation Office

North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board of California

Siskiyou County 

Tribes:

Klamath Tribes

Quartz Valley Indian Reservation

Shasta Indian Reservation

Shasta Tribe Inc. 

Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde 

Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians 

Additional Organizations and Individuals: 

Citizens Advisory Committee

National Institute for the Elimination of Catastrophic Wildfire

310
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Literature Cited

Angwin, Peter A. et al. 2012. Hazard Tree Guidelines for Forest Service Facilities and Roads 

in the Pacific Southwest Region. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Forest 

Health Protection Report #RO-12-01 (April 2012). 

Bell, A. 2012. Cumulative watershed effects modeling: The abridged version, Klamath 

National Forest.

Ziemer, R. 1981. The role of vegetation in the stability of forested slopes. Pacific Southwest 

Research Station, Arcata, CA. 

Beschta, R.L. et al. 1995. Wildfire and salvage logging: recommendations for ecologically 

sound post-fire salvage logging and other post-fire treatments on federal lands in the 

west. Portland Oregon: Pacific Rivers Council. 

Bonnet, V.H., A.W. Schoettle, and W.D. Shepperd. 2005. Postfire environmental conditions 

influence the spatial patterns of regeneration for Pinus ponderosa. Canadian Journal 

of Forest Research 35: 37-47. 

Brown, James K.; Reinhardt, Elizabeth D.; Kramer, Kylie A. 2003. Coarse woody debris: 

managing benefits and fire hazard in the recovering forest. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-105. 

Odgen, UT; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station. 16 p. 

Byram, George M. 1959. Combustion of forest fuels. In Forest Fire: control and use (edited 

by KP Davis), pages 61-89. 

California Air Resources Board. 2009. Regional Haze Plan. Retrieved on April 4, 2014 from 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/planning/reghaze/rhplan.htm. 

California Air Resource Board. 2012. Almanac Emissions Projection Data – 2012 Estimated 

Annual Average Emissions: Northeast Plateau Air Basin. Retrieved on 16 April 2014 

from 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/app/emsinv/2013/emssumcat_query.php?F_YR=2012&F_DIV

=-4&F_SEASON=A&SP=2013&F_AREA=AB&F_AB=NEP#8 

California Board of Equalization. 2014. Modified harvest values schedule, effective October 

1, 2014 through December 31, 2014. Sacramento, CA. 

CEQ. 2014. Revised Draft Guidance for Federal Departments and Agencies on Consideration 

of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the Effects of Climate Change in NEPA Reviews. 

Federal Registry Vol. 79, No. 247. 

Connaughton, James L. 2005. Guidance on the Consideration of Past Actions in Cumulative 

Effects Analysis. Council on Environmental Quality. 

Cohen, J.D. and Butler, B.W. 1996. Modeling potential structure ignitions from flame 

radiation exposure with implications for wildland/urban interface fire management. 

Thirteenth conference on fire and forest meteorology, Lorne, Australia, pages 81-86. 

311
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

De la Fuente, J., and D. Elder. 1998. The flood of 1997, Klamath National Forest Phase I 

Final Report, Klamath National Forest, 76 pages. 

Dennis, N. 2012. The Siskiyou County Forest Sector Model. Prepared for Siskiyou County 

Board of Supervisors. Yreka, CA. 

FEMAT (Thomas, J. W. et al. 1993). 1993. Forest Ecosystem Management: An ecological, 

economic, and social assessment. Report of the Forest Ecosystem Management 

Assessment Team Washington, DC: U. S. Govt. Printing Office. Aka FEMAT. 1993. 

U.S.D.A. Forest Service. Portland, Oregon.

 http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/nwfpnepa/FEMAT-1993/1993_%20FEMATExecSum.pdf 

Headwaters Economics. 2012. Economic Profile System-Human Dimensions Toolkit. 2012. 

A Profile of Socioeconomic Measures, Selected Geographies: Siskiyou County, CA. 

(provides a compilation of individual talbes referenced below used for this report): 

http://headwaterseconomics.org/wphw/wp-content/eps-profiles/06093%20-

%20Siskiyou%20County%20CA%20Measures.pdf 

Hildebrandt, William R. and John R. Hayes. 2007 Settlement Pattern Change in the 

Mountains 

of Northwest California: A View from Pilot Ridge. In There Grows a Green Tree, Greg 

White, et. al., editors. Center for Archaeological Research, Davis, Publication 11. 

Holechek, J. L., R. D. Pieper, and C. H. Herbel. 1989. Range Management: Principles and 

Practices. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. pp 193-194. 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change: Fourth assessment report, climate change 2007. Synthesis Report. 

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-syr.htm. 

Jacobson, K. 2013. Interview by B. Ebert with K. Jacobson, Assistant District Fire 

Management Officer for Fuels on July 18, 2013. 

Jackson, M. and Roering, J. 2009. Post-fire geomorphic response in steep, forested 

landscapes: Oregon Coast Range, USA. Quaternary Geology. 

Johnson, M. 2013. Interview by B. Ebert with M. Johnson, Assistant District Fire 

Management Officer on July 20, 2013. 

Joyce, Linda A. and Richard Birdsey eds. 2000. The impact of climate change on America's 

forests: A technical document supporting the 2000 USDA Forest Service RPA 

Assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-59. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 

Kelly, M.B., Allen Diaz, B. & Kobzina, N. (2005) Digitization of a historic dataset: the 

Wieslander California Vegetation Type Mapping Project. Madroño, 52, 191-201. Data 

available at: http://vtm.berkeley.edu/

Lloyd, R.M. 1964. Ethnobotanical uses of California Pteridophytes by Western American 

Indians. American Fern Journal 54(2): 76-82. 

312
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Lowell, Eini;Willits, Susan; Krahmer, Robert (1992). Deterioration of Fire-Killed and FireDamaged Timber in the Western United States. PNW-GTR-292. 27pp.Rose, R. and 

D.L. Hasse. 2005. Rapid response reforestation: studies in fire reforestation. RMRSP-35. USDA Forest Service Proceedings. 

Mondry, Z. 2004. 1997 Flooding in Three Klamath Mountain Streams: Geomorphic 

effectiveness and Sediment and Large Wood Budgets. M.S. Thesis, Humboldt State 

University, Arcata, California. 81p. 

National Wildland Coordination Group. 2014. Glossary of Wildland Fire Terminology. 

Retrieved January 29, 2015, from the National Wildland Coordination Group: 

http://www.nwcg.gov/pms/pubs/glossary/pms205.pdf 

North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. 2011. Water Quality Control Plan for the 

North Coast Region. 

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

lan.shtml 

North Coast Region Water Quality Control Board. 2010. Problem statement and pollutant 

source analyses, Chapters 2.5.2.2 and 4.2.4 in: Final staff report for the Klamath 

River Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) addressing temperature, dissolved 

oxygen, nutrient, and microcystin impairment in California, the proposed site specific 

dissolved oxygen objectives for the Klamath River in California, and the Klamath 

River and Lost River implementation Plans. 

http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/northcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdls/klamath_river/100

927/staff_report/00_CoverPage_TableofContents.pdf 

North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (NCRWQCB). 2005. Salmon River, 

Siskiyou County, California Total Maximum Daily Load for Temperature and 

Implementation Plan Adopted June 22, 2005, NCRWQCB Resolution No. R1-2005-

0058 Prepared by North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board Total 

Maximum Daily Load Development Unit Staff. Accessed at 

http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/northcoast/water_issues/programs/tmdls/salmon_rive

r/062405/part_1_salmon_temperature_tmdl_report_adopted.pdf 

North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, 2005. Staff Report for the Action Plan 

for the Scott River Watershed Sediment and Temperature TMDLs.

Omi, P. N., & Kalabokidis, K. D. (1991). Fire damage on extensively vs. intensively 

managed forest stands within the North Fork Fire, 1988. Northwest Science, 65(4). 

Osborne, K. 2015. Interview by B. Ebert with K. Osborne, District Fuels Technician, Happy 

Camp/Oak Knoll Ranger District on January 22, 2015. 

Peterson, D.W., Agree, J.K., Aplet, G.H., Dykstra, D.P., Graham, R.T., Lehmkuhl, J.F., and 

others. 2009. Effects of Timber Harvest Following Wildfire in Western North 

America. Portland: USDA Forest Service. 

Peterson, D.W. and Harrod, R.J. 2010. Post-fire logging reduces surface woody fuels up to 

four decades following wildfire. Forest Ecology and Management, 84-91. 

313
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Peterson, D.W., E.K. Dodson, and R.J. Harrod. 2014. Post-fire logging reduces surface 

woody fuels up to four decades following wildfire. Forest Ecology and Management, 

338: 84-91. 

Rice, R. M, Rothacher, J., Megahan, M. 1972. Erosional consequences of Timber 

Harvesting: 

An Appraisal. National Symposium on Watersheds in Transition. 

Ritchie, M.W., Knapp, E.E., and Skinner, C.N. 2012. Snag longevity and surface fuel 

accumulation following post-fire logging in a ponderosa pine dominated forest. 

Forest Ecology and Management, 113-122. 

Robichaud, P.R. 2011. Evaluating post-fire salvage logging effects on erosion. Joint Fire 

Science Program Final Report 06-3-4-21 

Rose, R. and D.L. Hasse. 2005. Rapid response reforestation: studies in fire reforestation. 

RMRS-P-35. USDA Forest Service Proceedings. 

Russell, R.E., V.A. Saab, J.G. Dudley and J.J. Rotella. 2006. Snag longevity in relation to 

wildfire and postfire salvage logging. Forest Ecology and Management 232, p. 179-

187. 

Scott, J.H. and Reinhardt, E.D. 2001. Assessing crown fire potential by linking models of 

surface and crown fire behavior. Fort Collins: USDA Forest Service. 

Shatford, J.P.A., D.E. Hibbs, and K.J. Puettman. 2007. Conifer Regeneration after forest fire 

in the Klamath-Siskiyous: how much, how soon? Journal of Forestry. April/May 

2007: 139-146. 

Siskiyou County, CA. 1996. Siskiyou County Comprehensive Land and Resource 

Management Plan. Yreka, CA.

Skinner, Carl N.; Taylor, Alan H.; Agee, James K. 2006. Klamath Mountains Bioregion. in: 

N. G. 

Smith, S.L. and D.R. Cluck, 2011. Marking Guidelines for Fire-Injured Trees in California. 

Forest Service, Region 5, Forest Health Protection Report #RO-11-01 (May 2011). 

Stewart, J. H., and V. V. La Marche Jr. 1967. Erosion and deposition by the flood of 

December 1964 on Coffee Creek, Trinity County, California. USGS Professional 

Paper 422 – K, US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. 

Taylor, A.H. and Skinner, C. N. 1998. Fire history and landscape dynamics in a latesuccessional reserve, Klamath Mountains, California. Forest Ecology and 

Management, 285-301. 

Taylor, A.H., Skinner, C.N., and Agee, J.A. 2006. Klamath Mountains bioregion. In N. G. 

Sugihara, J. W. Van Wagtendonk, K. E. Shaffer, J. Fites-Kaufman, and A. E. Thode, 

Fire in California’s ecosystem. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California 

Press, pages 170-199. 

Thompson, J.R., T.A. Spies and L.M. Ganio. 2007. Reburn severity in managed and 

unmanaged 

314
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

vegetation in a large wildfire. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Volume 104, 

No.25: 10743-10748 

USDC NMFS. 2014. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2014. Final Recovery Plan for the 

Southern Oregon/Northern. California Coast Evolutionarily Significant Unit. 

Accessed at 

http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/protected_species/salmon_steelhead/recover

y_planning_and_implementation/southern_oregon_northern_california_coast/souther

n_oregon_northern_california_coast_recovery_plan_documents.html 

USDA Forest Service. 2015. Programmatic Agreement Among U.S.D.S Forest Service, 

Klamath National Forest; California State Historic Preservation Officer and the Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation Regarding the Westside Fire Recovery Project. 

USDA Forest Service. 2013. Programmatic Agreement Among U.S.D.A Forest Service, 

Pacific Southwest Region (Region 5), California State Historic Preservation Officer, Nevada 

State Historic Preservation Officer, and the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation Regarding the Processes for Compliance with Section 106 of the 

National Register of Historic Preservation Act for Management of Historic Properties 

by the National Forests of the Pacific Southwest Region. 

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. 2001. Sierra Nevada National Forest 

Environmental Impact Statement, Appendix K Rangeland Capability and Suitability. 

Forest Service.

USDA Forest Service. 2000. Landscape Aesthetics - A Handbook for Scenery Management. 

Agriculture Handbook Number 701. Page F-3. 

USDA Forest Service Natural Resource Manager National Visitor Use Monitoring Program. 

2012. Visitor Use Report, Region 5 Klamath National Forest 

http://apps.fs.usda.gov/nrm/nvum/results/A05005.aspx/Round2USDA, Forest 

Service. 2009. 

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management, January 2001. Record of 

Decision and Standards and Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, 

Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines in Forest 

Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents within the Range of 

the northern spotted owl.

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. 1995a (updated through 2010). Land and 

resource management plan: Klamath National Forest. Yreka, CA. 

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. 1995b. Final Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Land and resource management plan: Klamath National Forest. 

Yreka, CA. 

USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. 1995c. Record of decision for the final 

environmental impact statement for the Klamath National Forest.

USDA Forest Service. 2004. Cumulative Watershed Effects Analysis: Quantitative Models 

for Surface Erosion, Mass-wasting and ERA/TOC. Prepared by Don Elder and Mark 

Reichert, Klamath National Forest, Yreka, CA. 

315
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

USDA Forest Service 2013. Federally Listed and Sensitive Plant Species. July 2013. Klamath 

National Forest. Yreka, CA. 

USDA-USDOC-USDI. 2004. Analytical Process for Developing Biological Assessments for 

Federal Actions Affecting Fish Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area. Accessed at 

http://www.blm.gov/or/esa/reports/Analytical_Process_110504.doc 

USDA Forest Service. 2012. Road Sediment Source Inventory and Risk Assessment, 

Klamath National Forest, Forest-wide road inventory database. 

USDA Forest Service. 2007. Climate Change. Washington, D.C. 

USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land Management. 2001. Record of Decision and 

Standards and Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection 

Buffer, and other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines in Forest Service 

and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the 

Northern Spotted Owl. 

USDI-BLM; USDA-FS; USDA-NRCS, Cooperative Extension Service. 1999a. Sampling 

Vegetation Attributes. Interagency Technical Reference 1734-4. Bureau of Land 

Management. Available at http://www.blm.gov/nstc/library/pdf/samplveg.pdf. 

USDI-BLM; USDA-FS; USDA-NRCS, Cooperative Extension Service. 1999b. Utilization 

studies and residual measurements. Interagency Technical Reference 1734-3. Bureau 

of Land Management. Available at 

http://www.blm.gov/nstc/library/pdf/utilstudies.pdf. 

USDI FWS. 2013. 2008. Sensitive Species List for the KNF. Accessed at 

http://www.fws.gov/yreka/ES/KlamathNF_TEC_list_with_links.pdf 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Revised recovery plan for the Northern Spotted Owl 

(Strix occidentalis caurina). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1. Portland, OR. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Critical Habitat Units for the Northern Spotted Owl 

(Strix occidentalis caurina). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1. Portland, OR. 

Van Nieuwstadt, M., Sheil, D., Kartawinata, K. 2001. The Ecological Consequences of 

Logging 

in the Burned Forests of East Kalimantan, Indonesia. Conservation Biology Volume 15, No. 

4, August, 2001. 

Wagenbrenner, J.W., MacDonald, L.H., Coats, R.N., Robichaud. P.R. 2014. Effects of PostFire 

Salvage Logging and a Skid Trail Treatment on Ground Cover, Soils, and Sediment 

Production in the Interior Western United States. Forest Ecology and Management, 

335: 176-193. 

Weatherspoon, C.P. and C.N. Skinner. 1995. An assessment of factors associated with 

damage to tree crowns from the 1987 wildfires in northern California. Forest Science, 

Volume 41, No. 3: 430-451. 

Wieslander, A.E. 1935. A vegetation type map of California. Madroño, 3, 140-144. 

316
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Zhang, J., J. Webster, R.F. Powers, and J. Mills. 2008. Reforestation after the Fountain Fire in 

northern California: an untold success story. Journal of Forestry, December, 2008. 

425-430 pp. 

Berg, Neil H, Azuma, David L. 2010. Bare soil and rill formation following wildfires, fuel 

reduction treatments, and pine plantations in the southern Sierra Nevada, California, 

USA. International Journal of Wildland Fire 19:478-489. 

317
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

318
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix A: Vicinity and Alternative Treatment Maps

Map A-1: Westside Fire Recovery Vicinity Map

319
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

320
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Map A-2: RAVG Map – Happy Camp Complex

321
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

322
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Map A-3: Alternative 2 – northwest section of the Happy Camp Complex. Please note: Each alternative of the Happy Camp complex has been 

broken out into four sections to allow for clarity and readability

323
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

324
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Map A-4: Alternative 2 – northeast section of the Happy Camp Complex

325
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

326
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Map A-5: Alternative 2 – northeast section of the Happy Camp Complex

327
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

328
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Map A-6: Alternative 2 – southeast section of the Happy Camp Complex

329
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

330
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Map A-7: Alternative 3 – northwest section of the Happy Camp Complex

331
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

332
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Map A-8: Alternative 3--northeast section of the Happy Camp Complex

333
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

334
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Map A-9: Alternative 3 – southwest section of the Happy Camp Complex

335
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

336
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Map A-10: Alternative 3 – southeast section of the Happy Camp Complex

337
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

338
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Map A-11: Alternative 4--northwest section of the Happy Camp Complex

339
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

340
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Map A-12: Alternative 4 – northeast section of the Happy Camp Complex

341
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

342
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Map A-13: Alternative 4 – southwest section of the Happy Camp Complex

343
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

344
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Map A-14: Alternative 4 – southeast section of the Happy Camp Complex

345
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

346
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Map A-15: Alternative 5 – northwest section of the Happy Camp Complex

347
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

348
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Map A-16: Alternative 5 – northeast section of the Happy Camp Complex

349
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

350
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Map A-17: Alternative 5 – southwest section of the Happy Camp Complex

351
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

352
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Map A-18: Alternative 5 – southeast section of the Happy Camp Complex

353
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

354
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Map A-19: RAVG Map – Beaver Fire

355
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

356
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Map A-20: Alternative 2 – Beaver Fire

357
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

358
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Map A-21: Alternative 3 – Beaver Fire

359
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

360
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Map A-22: Alternative 4 – Beaver Fire

361
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

362
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Map A-23: Alternative 5 – Beaver Fire

363
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

364
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Map A-24: RAVG Map – Whites Fire

365
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

366
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Map A-25: Alternative 2--Whites Fire

367
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

368
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Map A-26: Alternative 3 – Whites Fire

369
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

370
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Map A-27: Alternative 4 – Whites Fire

371
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

372
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Map A-28: Alternative 5 – Whites Fire

373
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

374
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Map A-29: Legacy Map – Elk Creek Restoration

375
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

376
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix B: Public Scoping Comments 

Disposition and Open House Record 

The Forest Service received 749 unique comments by means of 98 unique letters, and 

1,556 form letters. Four issues were determined to be relevant to alternative development 

or modification. 

Methodology ___________________________________________ 

The Forest Service provided the proposal for public review and comment for scoping 

from October 15 to November 15, 2014. Comments received before scoping were 

reviewed and considered during the development of the proposal and are not included in 

this disposition. Comments received after the end of the scoping period are being 

considered in the decision but not towards issue or alternative development. 

Comments received during the scoping period were considered towards issue and 

alternative development. Comment documents were tracked upon receipt to assure all 

relevant comments were captured. All letters and attachments were logged in and 

scanned into an electronic file and made available in the project’s public reading room for 

public review. Individual comments from within each comment document were identified 

and highlighted. Due to the amount of comments received, comments were categorized 

by subject area and like comments were grouped together into concern statements, as 

provided in table B-1 below. 

Issues are defined as points of discussion, dispute, or debate about the environmental 

effects of proposed actions. Relevant issues were defined as being concerns about the 

directed or indirect effects of the implementing the proposed action. Relevant issues were 

resolved through alternative development. See chapter 1 for the issue statements and 

chapter 2 for alternatives resulting from concern statements that met the definition of an 

issue.

Other issues were not considered relevant for any of the following reasons: 

• The issue was outside the scope of the purpose and need and is not related to the 

decision to be made. 

• The issue was a procedural concern, which is already decided by law, regulation, 

policy, or direction (Forest Plan). 

• The issue was a procedural concern, which is addressed through analysis. 

• The issue is handled through project design. 

• The issue is not supported by scientific or factual evidence. 

• A general comment or question that did not meet the definition of an issue. 

Some public comments included references and attachments of various articles and 

publications. References were filtered from further consideration if they were: 

• cited but not provided by the commenter, including non-functioning hyperlinks; 

• cited and provided but were not related to the comments from the commenter; or 

• cited and provided but not a scientific study (e.g. opinion pieces). 

377
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

References of scientific literature that were cited, provided, and tied to comments were 

reviewed by the appropriate interdisciplinary team member in order to determine whether 

or not the comment and reference were relevant to the actions being proposed and their 

potential effects. Literature was incorporated into analysis as appropriate. The 

attachments and the full review of references cited are available in the project record. 

Results ________________________________________________ 

In response to public scoping comment, the Forest Service developed four relevant 

issues, four new action alternatives analyzed in detail, and ten alternatives considered but 

eliminated from detailed study. See chapters 1 and 2 for details. Other issues were raised 

by the public that are being addressed by alternative 1 (no action), alternative 2 (the 

refined proposed action), and/or are being handled through responses to public comment 

(table B-1).

378
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Table B-1: Concern statements and responses

Concerns Concern Text Response Text

1 There is a concern that salvage logging 

should be avoided in low to moderate fire 

severity areas and in areas where fires 

were ignited from below.

Criteria and rationale for determining the locations for proposed salvage harvest is clarified in chapter 

2 under the description of the refined proposed action. Salvage harvest is not proposed in low fire 

severity areas, and is largely proposed in high severity area. Also see project design features, 

especially for wildlife, in chapter 2.

2 There is a concern that we will allow for the 

logging of trees that shouldn't be removed, 

especially green trees and large trees, and 

that this will result in the loss of a natural 

seed source and desertification in the long 

term. 

None of the alternatives in this project propose green-tree removal. Green trees are defined as those 

with a 70% or better chance of surviving as discussed in chapter 2 of the DEIS. Some of the trees to 

be removed in all action alternatives include some green needles or leaves; however, the trees have 

a 70% or greater chance of dying and becoming part of the fuel accumulation on the ground in the 

short term. Criteria and rationale for determining the locations for proposed salvage harvest is 

clarified in chapter 2 under the description of the refined proposed action. Effects of logging on 

natural seed sources, and large and green trees are disclosed in chapter 3 of the EIS under the 

vegetation section.

3 There is a concern that salvage logging in 

burned areas will inhibit natural growth and 

recovery of plants and will negatively 

impact fragile post-fire soils.

Effects of logging on natural growth and recovery of plants, and post-fire soils, is disclosed in chapter 

3 under the vegetation and soils sections.

5 There is a concern that salvage logging or 

planting within Inventoried Roadless Areas 

(IRA) fails to preserve Roadless qualities 

within the IRA.

No salvage logging is proposed in any IRA under any alternative. Effects of planting on Roadless 

characteristics within IRAs are disclosed in chapter 3 under the IRA section.

6 There are concerns that salvage logging, 

especially by helicopter, will result in too 

much activity fuel, higher risk of fire, and 

the removal of biological legacies.

The effects of salvage logging on fuel loading and fire risks are disclosed in chapter 3 of the EIS 

under the fuels section.

7 There are concerns that salvage logging on 

both private and federal lands, especially in 

the Beaver Fire area, would create 

unacceptable cumulative impacts.

Cumulative effects of salvage logging on private and federal lands are disclosed throughout chapter 

3.

8 There is a concern that not enough road 

access will be provided to facilitate salvage 

efforts.

Road access for project implementation is discussed in chapter 2 under the proposed action and 

alternatives to the proposed action. Areas determined appropriate for salvage harvest are also 

discussed in chapter 2.

9 There is a concern that salvage logging and 

site preparation for planting should occur 

only on "matrix" lands and areas along 

existing roads.

Alternative 5, described in chapter 2, was developed in response to this relevant issue (chapter 1).

379
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Concerns Concern Text Response Text

10 There is a concern that the salvage of 

trees, outside of what is required for public 

safety and the protection of 

infrastructure, especially at high elevations, 

is not necessary and is detrimental to the 

natural recovery process and the forest will 

recover more slowly than if left unsalvaged.

There are three relevant issues related to the disagreement about the effects of salvage harvest on 

resources (see chapter 1). The Forest Service developed three alternatives to the proposed action in 

response to this overarching concern. The no action also responds to this concern. Effects of the 

salvage of trees on the likelihood and speed of recovery of the forest will be disclosed in chapter 3.

11 There is a concern that Westside Fire 

Recovery Project efforts are not designed in 

a way that will incorporate cultural burning 

practices, promote the preservation of 

culturally significant plants and encourage 

the restoration of a natural fire regime to the 

project area.

Consultation with the Karuk tribe is ongoing and the proposed action has been refined since scoping 

to incorporate the concept of cultural burning as a project design feature (chapter 2 of the EIS). 

Effects of alternatives on the preservation of culturally significant plants and restoration of a natural 

fire regime will be disclosed in chapter 3 in the botany, heritage, and fuels sections.

12 There is a concern that there are not 

enough fuel treatments, including fuel 

breaks proposed in this project, especially 

around the wildland urban interface and 

private land but also along roadsides, along 

strategic ridgelines and around 

infrastructure. 

In response to public scoping comments, fuels treatments have been added to the refined proposed 

action (alternative 2) and a new alternative (alternative 5) has been developed to address additional 

fuels treatments around private property in the Beaver Fire area. All alternatives in the EIS specify 

the number, size and location of the fuels treatments being proposed, including strategically placed 

fuel breaks and other hazardous fuels reduction treatments to address the need for safe conditions 

and access for fire suppression for firefighters and communities and enclaves within the wildland 

urban interface. See chapter two and appendix A (maps) for a description of fuels treatments by 

alternative. See chapter 3 under fuels for a discussion of the effects of the proposed treatments.

13 There is a concern that the forest is not 

facilitating the restoration of historic fire 

adapted communities or trying to restore a 

natural fire regime.

The purpose and need has been clarified in response to scoping concerns (chapter 1). The Forest 

Service recognizes the need for restored and fire-resilient forested ecosystems for this project. See 

chapter 2 for the proposed actions, including salvage harvest and hazardous fuels treatments that 

address this need. Effects of alternatives on the restoration of fire-adapted communities and a 

natural fire regime are disclosed in chapter 3 under the fuels section.

14 There is a concern that fire killed fuels and 

activity fuels pose a fire risk, especially for 

green trees, if not treated.

Effects of alternatives on fire risk is disclosed in chapter 3, primarily under fuels but also see other 

resources, including vegetation and wildlife.

15 There is a concern that the forest is in need 

of a new and improved safety/fire 

management plan.

The development of a new and improved safety/fire management plan is beyond the scope of this 

project. However, the effects of alternatives on safety and future fire suppression efforts are 

disclosed in the EIS.

16 There is a concern that the Forest will not 

salvage enough trees to take full advantage 

of the economic opportunity available.

The proposed action was refined to include more salvage units, which was based upon field-verified 

information and information provided by the public during scoping comments. The effects of salvage 

harvest and roadside hazard treatments on economic opportunities are disclosed in chapter 3 the 

EIS under the social-economic section.

380
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Concerns Concern Text Response Text

17 There is a concern that Limited Operating 

Periods will limit economic opportunity.

The limiting operating periods included as project design features in chapter 2. The Forest Service 

recognizes that limiting operating periods may affect economics, but they are required in order to 

meet other legal requirements, including Forest Plan direction.

18 There is a concern that the forest will not 

allow public access to the fire area for free 

firewood.

In response to public comments, alternative 2 of the proposed action addresses this concern 

(chapter 2). Following roadside hazard treatments, non-merchantable trees will be cut and left when 

it is not along a strategic road for fuel treatments. Per agency policy already in place, the public may 

obtain a fuelwood permit to remove felled trees for firewood in accordance with permit requirements. 

The agency anticipates that the local public will remove firewood along roadways, especially near 

communities.

19 There is a concern that not enough hazard 

trees will be removed from roadsides.

Hazard trees along all county, state, and Forest roads (maintenance levels 1-5) will have all identified 

hazard trees identified and felled, including burned and unburned. Hazard trees will also be removed, 

where it meets Forest Plan direction and other legal requirements. Hazards trees will be felled and 

left in certain places such as riparian reserves. For a detailed description of what is proposed, the 

description of the proposed action and project design features in chapter 2.

20 There are concerns that salvage logging or 

planting in a Late Successional Reserve 

(LSR) will cause us to fail to meet the goals 

to protect and enhance conditions of LSRs, 

old growth ecosystems and habitat for latesuccessional associated species.

The proposed action, within LSRs, is designed to protect and promote LSR habitat. In response to 

public comments and relevant issues 1 and 3 (chapter 1), alternatives 3 and 5 were developed that 

have reduced treatments in LSRs compared to the proposed action. Alternative 3 addresses 

concerns related to the effects of salvage harvest on late successional and northern spotted owl 

habitat. Alternative 5 eliminates salvage harvest and planting from LSRs. Effects of the varying 

amounts of salvage harvest and planting by alternatives on LSR is disclosed in chapter under the 

wildlife section.

21 There is a concern that salvage logging will 

harm wildlife and wildlife habitat, especially 

for snag-associated species.

Effects of alternatives on wildlife and habitat, including the snag associated species, are disclosed in 

chapter 3 under the wildlife section.

22 There is a concern that the guidelines used 

for determination of trees to be salvaged 

are not restrictive enough and will result in 

the loss of biological legacies crucial to 

wildlife.

The Forest Service has been consulting with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service throughout the 

development of the proposed action and alternatives to the proposed action. The proposed action 

was designed to protect and promote LSR habitat and to meet the recovery plan for the northern 

spotted owl. By meeting these requirements, the project design provides for legacy components and 

other wildlife habitat needs. See the project design features in chapter 2 for specific wildlife design 

criteria to retain legacy components. In response to scoping comments, the Forest Service 

recognized this as a relevant issue (chapter 1) and subsequently developed alternative 3 (chapter 2). 

Also see the wildlife section in chapter 3 for a discussion of the effects of salvage harvest on wildlife 

by alternative.

381
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Concerns Concern Text Response Text

23 There is a concern that treatment in riparian 

areas will cause negative impacts to the 

watershed and specific activities to avoid 

this are recommended.

As scoped, no salvage harvest is proposed within riparian reserves. However, other treatments, 

including site preparation and planting are proposed within riparian reserves, as developed by the 

interdisciplinary team for the benefit of riparian reserves. Roadside hazard treatments are proposed 

within riparian reserves to address safety and access needs; however, project design features are 

incorporated into the proposed action and its alternatives, including leaving felled hazard trees within 

riparian reserves for large woody debris recruitment. See chapter 2 for a detailed description of 

project design features to mitigate effects of proposed treatments on riparian reserves. As a result of 

scoping, the Forest Service recognized relevant issues no. 2 and 3 related to this comment. In 

response to the relevant issues from scoping, the Forest Service developed alternatives 3, 4, and 5. 

In response to scoping comments, the Forest Service also refined the proposed action by modifying 

and adding project design features to the project. See chapter 2 for a description of the proposed 

action, its alternatives, and associated project design features. Effects of treatments in riparian areas 

in the refined proposed action are disclosed in the DEIS. Project design features have been 

incorporated into the action alternatives to mitigate the project's effects on watershed resources.

24 There is a concern that the construction of 

new temporary or permanent roads as a 

part of this project will create unnecessary 

negative impacts on watersheds, and road 

maintenance and improvement actions will 

not be part of this project.

The Forest Service incorporated concern into relevant issue no. 2 (see chapter 1) and developed 

alternative 4, which responds to this issue. See chapter 2 for a description of alternative 4. Project 

design features have been developed and modified since scoping to mitigate negative effects on 

watershed as a result of temporary road access (chapter 2). Proposed road access needed for 

implementation, including road maintenance, is described in chapter 2 under each action alternative. 

Additionally, legacy site treatments, including road improvement actions, are described under the 

proposed action and apply to all action alternatives (chapter 2). Effects of road access related action 

on watershed conditions are described in the hydrology section of chapter 3.

25 There are concerns that salvage logging or 

fuels treatment activities may result in 

erosion, landslides, and sediment delivery 

to riparian areas or may result in the 

destruction of flora that provides watershed 

protection.

In response to concerns about salvage harvest and watershed impacts (relevant issue no. 2 in 

chapter 1), the Forest Service developed alternative 4. Project design features have been developed 

and modified since scoping to mitigate negative effects on watershed and botany resources as a 

result of salvage harvest or fuels treatments (chapter 2). Effects of salvage harvest and fuels 

treatments on flora and on erosion, landslide, and sediment delivery to riparian areas are described 

in chapter 3 under the botany, vegetation, soils, geology, and hydrology sections.

26 There is a concern that we are not including 

more vegetation cover in our stocking 

estimates.

Action alternatives (2 through 5) propose replanting with a mix of conifer species suitable to the area 

to increase vegetative diversity, and encourage the natural regeneration of hardwoods where they 

exist, as specified in Chapter 2. Types of vegetation to be included in stocking estimates vary by the 

objectives of each unit and include hardwoods where they exist, as described under planting in the 

proposed action description in chapter 2.

27 There is a concern that planting, especially 

conifer-centric planting, within low or 

moderate severity burn sites will increase 

the likelihood of catastrophic wildfire and is 

unnecessary for forest recovery because a 

natural seed source is still available.

The criteria used to determine areas proposed for planting and how areas is clarified under the 

refined proposed action in chapter 2. The effects of such planting on the likelihood of catastrophic 

wildfire are addressed in chapter 3 under the fuels section. Concerns about planting were also 

captured under relevant issue 3 (chapter 1); the Forest Service developed alternative 5 with less 

proposed planting in response to this issue.

382
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Concerns Concern Text Response Text

28 There is a concern that plantings and fuels 

treatments are not strategically designed for 

future fire management or for planted 

seedling success.

The criteria used to determine areas proposed for planting and how areas is clarified under the 

refined proposed action in chapter 2. The effects of such planting on planting success and fire 

management are addressed in chapter 3 under the vegetation and fuels section.

29 There is a concern that logging trucks “Jake 

brakes” will create a noise disturbance to 

certain homeowners along their route.

A project design feature was added to the refined proposed action and its alternatives in response to 

this concern near Walker Bridge (see chapter 2). Implementation direction will address noise 

disturbance to homeowners from “Jake brakes”.

30 There is a concern that the forest is planting 

conifers where they were not historically 

established or with wide-enough spacing, 

especially in LSRs.

The criteria used to determine areas proposed for planting and how areas is clarified under the 

refined proposed action in chapter 2. No planting is proposed where conifers were not historically 

found. Effects of planting on LSR habitat is disclosed in chapter 3 under the wildlife section.

31 There is a concern that salvage logging 

along a Scenic River will have negative 

impacts on its functionality and viewshed.

Forest Plan MA12-18 directs that “A wide range of silvicultural treatments may be used to meet 

Scenic River objectives.” Forest Plan direction for Scenic Rivers and its viewsheds is being met with 

the proposed action and its alternatives. Effects of salvage logging along Scenic Rivers on 

functionality and viewsheds are disclosed in chapter 3 under the scenery section.

32 There is a concern that the scope of the 

Westside Fire Recovery Project is too large.

The responsible official determines the scope of the project. The scope of the project was based 

upon the disturbance footprint of the 2014 fires. The project boundaries were extended slightly 

beyond the fire perimeter in order to incorporate fuels reduction treatments within 1/4 mile of private 

property structures and strategic fuel breaks for the local communities. The scope of the project also 

includes the effects of the proposed action and its alternatives, which is disclosed in the chapter 3.

383
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Concerns Concern Text Response Text

33 There is a concern that restoring 

recreational features is not a part of this 

recovery project.

Beyond addressing hazard trees, as appropriate, the restoration of recreational features is outside 

the scope of the project. Fuels treatments are proposed adjacent to some recreational features in 

order to address needs from a hazardous fuels perspective. Both Grider Creek and Idlewild 

Campgrounds will reopen on May 16, 2015 upon termination of Forest Order #14-05-761; this will 

allow for an increase in use at these sites. Recreational features affected by the fires were reviewed 

and addressed during BAER activities, including the bridge replacements (Grider 2 and 3) for the 

Pacific Crest Trail. Special funding will be sought for recreation facilities damaged from the fires and 

trail signs will be replaced. As downed trees fall across the Forest trails, they will be cut to open up 

the trail during normal trail maintenance activities. Individual hazard trees will be removed at 

developed recreation sites as needed. Such treatments are considered maintenance of existing 

facilities and, when proposed, would likely be categorically excluded from documentation in NEPA 

pursuant 36 CFR 220.6(d)(3) or (4).

34 There is a concern that the 

specifications/project design features 

approved for the project will not end up on 

the stand prescription cards.

Following decision, applicable project specifications and project design features of the decision will 

be implemented. Appropriate means, including stand prescription cards, will be used.

35 There is a concern that an Emergency 

Situation Determination or Alternative 

Arrangements will not allow adequate time 

for analysis or provide for sufficient public 

involvement opportunities.

The Forest is applying for an emergency situation determination that may be approved by the Chief 

of the Forest Service. If approved, the emergency situation determination would result the FEIS and 

ROD being released at the same time, eliminating the requirement of an objection period, pursuant 

to 36 CFR 218.21. The Forest Service is also seeking alternative arrangements through the Council 

on Environmental Quality pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.11. If the alternative arrangements being sought 

are approved, the DEIS comment period would be reduced from 45 days to 30 days, the 90-day wait 

period between the release of the DEIS and FEIS would be eliminated, and FEIS and ROD would be 

released at the same time.

384
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Concerns Concern Text Response Text

36 There is a concern that, without an 

Emergency Situation Determination or 

Alternative Arrangements, the forest will 

miss the opportunity to maximize profits 

from salvage.

In response to this public scoping concern and in order to meet the project’s purpose and need, the 

Forest is seeking is seeking emergency situation determination (36 CFR 218.21), and the Forest 

Service is seeking alternative arrangements with the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR 

1506.11).

37 Comments received that indicate general 

support for the project as proposed.

Comments will be considered by the responsible official when making a decision.

38 Comments received that provide general 

information, including literature references.

Available, relevant scientific literature was considered in the EIS per the methodology in this 

appendix. See table B-2 for results of the literature review.

39 Comments received that are beyond the 

scope of the project.

Some comments made were beyond the scope of this project but will be considered by the Forest in 

other projects or plans, as appropriate.

40 Comments received that showed concern 

about trust or credibility issues.

Although these comments are not directly related to the proposed action, efforts will be made to 

establish trust and credibility through public engagement efforts and implementation of the project 

and other projects.

41 Comments received that suggest a new 

complex alternative or a combination of 

things.

Suggested alternatives were either considered as a whole or parts and were incorporated into as 

appropriate. See the action alternatives and the alternatives considered but eliminated from detailed 

study in chapter 2.

42 Comments received that requested 

consultation, coordination, and continued 

involvement.

Continued consultation and coordination will be fostered through the development and 

implementation of the proposed project.

43 Comments received that identify laws, 

regulations and policies pertinent to the 

project.

The project will comply with law, regulation, policy and the Forest Plan.

44 Comments received that suggest 

something already addressed in a PDF or 

alternative or something that will be 

addressed in analysis.

This is a procedural concern. See chapter 2 for a description of the proposed action, including project 

design features. See chapter 3 for analysis of effects of proposed activities on relevant resources.

45 Concerns with the effects of the proposed 

action as scoped on air quality.

Effects of the refined proposed action and alternatives on air quality are disclosed in chapter 3 under 

air quality. Smoke Management Plans intended to incorporate best available control techniques for 

prescribed burning will be developed and implemented per the State Implementation Plan. See also 

the response to concern 46.

385
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Concerns Concern Text Response Text

46 Concerns with the effects of the proposed 

action as scoped on climate change and 

the effects of climate change on project 

activities.

Effects of the refined proposed action and alternatives on climate change factors (e.g. greenhouse 

gases) are disclosed in chapter 3 and are based on the best available information that is relevant to 

the project.

47 Concerns with the effects of the proposed 

action as scoped on cultural resources.

Consultation with tribes is ongoing. Effects of the refined proposed action and its alternatives on 

cultural resources are disclosed in chapter 3 under heritage resources. See chapter 2 for project 

design features to minimize negative effects to resources and encourage cultural practices such as 

cultural burning.

48 Concern with the effects of the proposed 

action as scoped on economics.

Effects of the refined proposed action and alternatives on economics is disclosed in the social and 

economic section of chapter 3. See also response to concern statements 16 and 17.

49 Concern with the effects of the proposed 

action as scoped on forest Health.

Effects of the refined proposed action and alternatives on forest health is disclosed in the vegetation 

section of chapter. See also response to concerns 2, 3, 10, 13 and 20.

50 Concern with the effects of the proposed 

action as scoped on fire and fuels.

Effects of the refined proposed action and alternatives on fire and fuels will be disclosed in the fuels 

section of chapter 3. See also response to concerns 6, 11, 13 and 14.

51 Concern with the effects of the proposed 

action on recreation and scenery.

Effects of the refined proposed action and alternatives on recreation and scenery in chapter 3. See 

also response to concerns 31 and 33.

52 Concern with the effects of the proposed 

action on Aquatic Conservation Strategy 

objectives and flooding and sediment in 

streams, especially in relation to safety and 

community protection.

Effects of the refined proposed action and alternatives on the Aquatic Conservation Strategy, safety 

and community protection related to flooding, landslide risk, and sediment will be disclosed in 

hydrology, geology and soils sections of chapter 3. Also see the aquatic conservation strategy report 

in project record.

53 Concerns with the effects of the proposed 

action as scoped on soils, geology and 

watershed protection.

Effects of the refined proposed action and alternatives on soils, geology (landslides, unstable lands) 

and watershed protection are disclosed in chapter 3. Project design features have been incorporated 

into all action alternatives to mitigate effects of the project on watershed resources. See also

response to concerns 3 and 25.

54 Concern with the effects of the proposed 

action as scoped on vegetation, especially 

timber resources.

Effects of the refined proposed action and alternatives on vegetation are disclosed in chapter 3.

55 Concern with the effects of the proposal as 

scoped on invasive vegetative species 

(noxious weeds).

Effects of the refined proposed action and alternatives on invasive plant species will be disclosed in 

chapter 3.

386
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Concerns Concern Text Response Text

56 Concerns with the effects of the proposed 

action as scoped on roadless 

characteristics of Inventoried Roadless 

Areas. 

Effects of the refined proposed action and alternatives on the Roadless character of IRAs are 

disclosed in chapter 3. See also response to Concern 5.

57 Concerns with the effects of the proposed 

action as scoped on wildlife species and 

habitat.

Effects of the refined proposed action and alternatives on wildlife species and habitat are disclosed in 

chapter 3. See also response to Concerns 20, 21 and 22.

58 Comments received that indicate no 

support for the project as proposed.

Comments will be considered by the responsible official in making the decision.

387
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Public Open House Summary Input ________________________ 

The Forest Service sponsored public open houses prior to the release of the draft EIS: 

Table B-2: Open houses offered prior to the release of the draft EIS

Date Time Location

Friday, January 30, 2015 1800-2000 hours Klamath National Forest Headquarters, Yreka, CA

Saturday. January 31, 2015 1200-1400 hours Fort Jones Community Center, Ft. Jones, CA

Tuesday, February 3, 2015, 1800-2000 hours Klamath River Community Center, Klamath River, CA

Wednesday, February 4, 2015 1800-2000 hours Karuk Senior Nutrition Center, Happy Camp, CA

Friday. February 6, 2015, 1530- 1730 hours Salmon River Restoration Building, Sawyers Bar, CA

Friday, February 13, 2015, 1800-2000 hours Seiad Valley Volunteer Fire Department, Seiad, CA

Input from the public was captured in flipchart notes and comments. These notes are 

verbatim except for minor corrections for abbreviations etc. Where no notes are provided, 

it is because no comments were made by the public on provided flip charts at the meeting 

in question. Also included is a follow-up comment the Forest Service received from 

interested parties about the public open houses. 

January 31, 2015 (Fort Jones Community Center, Ft. Jones, CA): 

• “I want the most aggressive Harvest project available. None of the plans are 

aggressive enough!” Local resident, Horse Creek, CA

• “Salmon River wants ‘Ground-based’ especially in light of all previous rds (roads) 

built for such.” 

• “I like ASAP salvage + ongoing tree planting + summer use of major roads.” 

• “I want fuels treatment as regular daily FS work and salvage after fires to keep 

forests healthy to avoid lg. fires.” 

• “Read Ernest Hayden’s stories of old firefighting in Trinity circa century change 

plus retired Oak Knoll F.S. or residents to see how handfuls of men could put out 

the most egregious (quicker than modern workers can back fire).” 

• “In 40 years here: saw most “backfires” get out of control and burn more.” 

• “Comments made that private roads are listed as F.S. roads = contention” 

A local group of ranchers had gathered and shared their comments on logging, fire 

suppression and special interest group input into projects such as these as well as their 

own opinions of the positon of the agency and their past practices. They became very 

passionate about their viewpoints and at times had volume and conviction behind their 

inflection and tone. 

February 4, 2015 (Karuk Senior Nutrition Center, Happy Camp, CA): 

• “Our watersheds have way more than monetary value.” 

• “Much of the project is Karuk Ancestral Territory.”

• “Nearly 1⁄2 of the project area is in LSR (must protect and enhance.)”

• “The rest of the majority would affect W&S Rivers, & other sensitive viewsheds 

(VQO); salvage logging scars the landscape for decades.”

388
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

• “200 miles of dozer line from 2014 fires. How many in the project area? Are they 

being considered?”

• “How many owls affected by the fire? How many in the project area? How are you 

treating NSO home range?” 

• “How are you following the NSO recovery plan? Most of the project area is in 

critical habitat.”

• “How are you considering wildlife connectivity? The project are would affect two 

of four main corridors.” 

• “What survey and manage species are being considered?”

• “How many endemic species plant and animal would be affected? Like the 

Siskiyou Mtn Salamander.” 

• “There is a duty to restore and protect endangered, threatened, listed (Candidate) 

and sensitive species.”

• “Must consider the ecological & social costs!”

• “What you do on the landscape directly affects the people.” 

• “Must follow CWA for impaired rivers COHO.” 

• “What about the shred values with partners?” 

• “Green trees should be retained.” 

• “Moderate Severity areas will re-seed.”

• “How much $ has been spent on planning?”

• “”Alt 4 – concern about lop and scatter fuels treatment in RR for <16” Trees & 

fuel levels that will create.”

• “ – agree that it is prudent to not plant if the fuels cannot be treated 1st.” 

• “ – would like to see some broadcast burning where appropriate to provide the 

most effective fuels treatment after harvest on other fuel treatment.”

• “Restoration should include prescribed fire burn plans for the reintroduction of fire 

on the landscape.” 

• “ – Forest transportation system should be reduced rates than increased.”

• “ – USFS should collaborate with stakeholders to ID areas of agreement & 

priorities for treatment.”

• “ - Address legacy sites.”

• “Honestly Consider NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE & concentrate on main roads 

only fuels a & hazards.” 

• “ How are existing NEPA projects being considered?” 

Additional Comments supplied by Kimberly Baker of Klamath Forest Alliance in a 

handout:

• Real Recovery= Natural Recovery

• Collaborate with CA Dept. of Fish and Wildlife

• Incorporate CA State Wildlife Action Plan and CA Climate Strategy -Habitat

and Biodiversity 

• Follow recommendations in the National Fish,Wildlife and Plant Climate

Adaption Strategy

• Consider peak flows, especially because of agency/science climate predictions

for extreme weather events e.g. Floods

• How much volume is being proposed for extraction?

389
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

• Don't turn our forests into waste lands- like Salmon Salvage, Panther and

Caribou. Salmon Salvage is a mess, thick slash throughout most units, ground

and soils are disturbed, any natural regeneration is being hindered and creeks

are running brown. Panther is still an eyesore from the Pacific Crest Trail.

• Have you completed monitoring requirements for Caribou Salvage? River

communities and our watersheds need restoration

• Please work with affected river communities on a reasonable alternative

• Why have one Alt. for owls and one for fish? Agency has a duty to restore 

multiple species, particularly Coho, Northern spotted owls and Pacific Fishers.

• Maintain fire with fire Consider replanting dozerlines.

• There is a need to update sediment source inventories and use these in

analysis for DEIS.

• How have past fire increased sediment? How much?

• Consider regional demographic studies and annual reports for Northern

Spotted Owl.

• Roads are running sediment into Whites Gulch, as well as Salmon Salvage area.

Is the agency surveying for fungi?

February 4, 2014 (Karuk Senior Nutrition Center, Happy Camp, CA)- Notes by 

Gregg Bousfield 

• Kimberly Baker asked Tom Mutz a question about Coho Salmon that he deferred 

to Gregg for an answer. 

• “Regarding the effects to Coho,” Gregg communicated, “water quality was the 

topic of discussion, bringing up the fact that we meet the TMDL (Total maximum 

daily load) on the Klamath, Scott and Salmon Rivers. We use our water quality 

waiver to meet those criteria.”

• He explained how a big piece of the waiver is about treating legacy sites;

inventory, prioritize and schedule those legacy sites to meet the waiver. He stated

that due to the large scale of the project, an alternative agreement was made with

the water board to only address legacy sites within USFS watershed condition 

framework focus watersheds where they overlap the project area.

• For instance, since Elk Creek is the next focus watershed for the Klamath River 

TMDL, the only NEPA coverage needed under WFR is Elk Creek. This appeared 

to be an issue for them. To meet the Scott and Salmon River TMDLs, the forest 

will schedule out legacy site treatments where they overlap the WFR project area 

using existing NEPA: the Lower Scott and North Fork Salmon Rivers road 

projects

• Susan and Kimberley’s responses were: Why Elk Creek? Grider Creek should be 

considered due to it being more impacted (in their opinion) by the fire than Elk

Creek. The projects connected actions (temp roads, landings, etc.) will cause

additional impacts on top of the wildfire impacts. The Forest appears to not be 

doing enough in the Grider Creek watershed to offset the projects impacts.

• The feedback from Gregg is that the Forest can’t shotgun our treatments across the 

landscape and that we need to follow the USFS watershed condition framework 

because that is where appropriated funds go. A legacy site inventory in Elk Creek 

had been completed and appropriated dollars for planning was on the program of 

work prior to the fire. 

390
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

• They were still concerned that activities in the Grider creek area will cause more 

erosion and impact the watershed even more. 

• Gregg stated that Alternative 4 addresses this by dropping temp roads and landings 

where they would have the most impact to water quality and that Lop and Scatter 

treatments in salvage units within Riparian Reserves would aid in minimizing 

these impacts.

• Additional concerns were voiced in respect to Alternatives 3 and 4 stating that they 

should be combined. Gregg explained that effects to NSO are bound by a larger 

analysis area. Hence Alternative 3 requires much more changes to show a 

measurable difference in effects. Whereas the watershed alternative focuses on site 

specific project design features that may not be as wide spread.

• Some general comments on road decommissioning, design features, workload 

capability and that implementation monitoring is needed to ensure that project 

design features are being carried out. Gregg added that sometimes you have to 

train the crews on how to layout and identify riparian reserves, adding that 

supervising these crews would be paramount. 

• Implementation was a great concern, oversight being paramount as well as 

workforce. 

February 6, 2015 (Salmon River Restoration Building, Sawyers Bar, CA) 

• “There’s broad consensus on post fire work on 1.) roadside safety along main and 

important travel ways; 2.) Defensible space around private property; 3.) Strategic 

ridgetop fuel breaks.” 

• “Salvage logging shouldn’t be used to Rush timber production at the expense of 

cultural & wildlife values.”

• “Focus on protecting private and access routes by implementing fuels treatments.” 

• “Replanting burn plantations except in very specific areas is a waste of time & 

resources, could preclude future prescribed burns within the fire footprints.” 

• “Roadside hazard(s) should focus on main roads, not seasonally closed or 

decommissioned roads; use the newly finished MVUM.” 

• “It’s critical to get the fire back into the recent fire footprints, within 5 to 10 years 

of the original burn. The only way we will get our forest back into a healthy fire 

regime is to use prescribed burns while recent fire footprints for landscape level 

prescribed burns while the fuels are still manageable.

• If we put plantations in the footprint, it makes it a lot more difficult to plan and 

implement RX burns on this ground in the future. 

• Our traditional plantation.

• “Focus on the fuel breaks we will have after the project is implemented. Think 

about the fire next time. Get out of cutblock mentality. Start around private and 

strategic road & Ridgetop fuel breaks. Not just hazard trees, but creating 

defensible fuel breaks and anchors to light RX burns and stop wildfires.” 

• “If you helilog, clean up the slash” 

• “These burn footprints need RX fire in the next 3 to 5 years. Site prep and planting 

precludes burning. If you are going to plant, do it after you burn, and only in areas 

where conifers were growing prefire exclusion. Look at the (19)44 aerial photos & 

Wieslander maps.” 

391
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

• “Until landowners feel safe, they will not support large scale burning or support 

the use of wildfires to achieve resource objectives.” 

• “Why are fish and wildlife alternatives separate? Combine them.”

• “Keep the soil on the hillside. Minimize ground disturbance,” 

• “Treat all the severely burned area by removing those trees so there is no fuel 

loading. Suggest helilog areas that are roadless. (Hickey Gulch, Both side of the 

road.) 

• “Maintain fuel breaks, + (plus) fire plan on landscape level and this will drive 

where projects will be in place in the future. Such as RX burning, thinning, and 

other ways to reduce fuels.” 

Representatives of the Klamath Forest Alliance of Orleans, CA and the 

Environmental Protection Information Center in Arcata, CA provided the following 

email comments concerning open houses.

RE: Westside Public Meeting Evaluation

Dear Westside Planners,

Thank you for visiting our Klamath, Salmon and Scott River communities on the recent 

Westside Open House Meeting tour. Please consider this Westside Public Meeting 

evaluation on behalf of Klamath Forest Alliance and EPIC-Environmental Protection 

Information Center. We believe it was appropriate to have at least seven meetings, given 

that the Westside post-fire project as proposed would affect so many significant values 

and comprises a very large landscape.

Although there was short notice, less than two-weeks, of the meeting announcement, 

locations and times, I was able to attend in Happy Camp on February 4th. After arriving, I 

was dismayed that the Open House structure did not allow for formal introductions, a 

presentation or group question, answers or discussions. Introductions with the multiple 

Klamath National Forest staff and contractors and a brief presentation on the five agency 

alternatives would have been greatly appreciated. People who are less familiar with the 

staff, significant issues and the National Environmental Policy Act process would have a 

difficult time navigating and learning through this type of structure.

Since there were so many different Klamath National Forest staff and contractors at the 

meetings, how will the information and the concerns of the public going to be relayed to 

the planning team, especially if they were not captured on paper? How will the comments 

and concerns captured during the public meetings be incorporated or considered in 

project planning? Is the agency planning any follow up to the meetings? Where and how 

where Public Meetings Advertised? 

Thank you for your attention.

Regards,

Kimberly Baker, Executive Director

Klamath Forest Alliance

PO Box 21 

Orleans, CA 95556 

Natalynne Delapp, Executive Director

EPIC-Environmental Protection 

Information Center 

145 G. St., Suite A 

Arcata, CA 9552 

392
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Appendix C: Actions Considered for Cumulative 

Effects 

Current and future foreseeable actions considered for analysis within the twenty-nine 6th

field watersheds (Table C-1) that intersect the Westside Fire Recovery Project boundary 

are listed below. Actions considered for cumulative effects can vary by resource. See 

chapter 3 for details. Ongoing and future foreseeable actions are discussed in separate 

sections. The stage of each project is listed in parenthesis. For the purpose of this project, 

it is assumed that private Timber Harvest Plans (THPs) submitted between 2010 and the 

present are still on-going and will be analyzed under cumulative effects; THPs submitted 

prior to 2010 are considered past actions. Additionally, to account for current year 

salvage projects on private property under cumulative effects analyses, it is assumed that 

all private lands burned at moderate to high severities are or will be salvage logged. 

Table C-1: The twenty-nine 6th field watersheds that intersect the Westside Fire Recovery Project 

boundary separated by fire area subpart.

Subpart 6th Field Watershed

A - Beaver McKinney Creek – Klamath River Hungry Creek – Beaver Creek

Horse Creek West Fork Beaver Creek

Kohl Creek – Klamath River Little Humbug Creek – Klamath River

Empire Creek – Klamath River Dutch Creek – Beaver Creek

B – Happy Camp 

Complex

Scott Bar – Scott River Lower Indian Creek

Bittenbender Creek – Klamath River Grider Creek

Canyon Creek Upper Elk Creek

Kelsey Creek Lower Elk Creek

East Fork Elk Creek Oak Flat Creek – Klamath River

Kohl Creek – Klamath River Tompkins Creek – Scott River

Seiad Creek China Creek – Klamath River

C - Whites Whites Gulch – North Fork Salmon River South Russian Creek

Little North Fork Salmon River Sugar Creek – Scott River

French Creek North Russian Creek

Main East Fork South Fork Salmon River Yellow Dog Creek – North Fork Salmon 

River

On-going Actions (Klamath National Forest) _________________ 

Eddy Late Successional Reserve Project (Implementation):

The Eddy LSR project is located in Siskiyou County, California within various sections 

of Townships 38, 39, 40, and 41 North, Ranges, 10, 11, and 12 West, Mount Diablo 

Meridian. 

The purpose of this project is to protect late-successional habitat used by the Northern 

Spotted Owl and other late-successional dependent species, to protect communities, and 

to create safer emergency access routes. Two objectives were developed for the project 

based on current conditions (1) habitat protection and (2) community protection. The 

selected alternative will treat 25, 969 acres in order to protect late-successional habitat 

and communities. Within those acres, 16 Fuel Reduction Zones (FRZs), totaling 8,291 

393
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

acres, will be constructed to increase resistance to the spread of wildfires, 17,524 acres of 

Prescribed Burn treatments will occur to increase resiliency to wildfires and protect 

habitat, and 60 miles of Roadside (RS) treatments along emergency access routes will be 

conducted. 

Elk Thin Project: 

This project is located in the Happy Camp Ranger District of the Klamath National 

Forest, in Siskiyou County, California. The legal location is various sections in T15-16N, 

R7-8E, Humboldt Meridian. The purpose and need is to : 1) provide a programmed, nondeclining flow of timber products, sustainable through time; 2) Maintain conifer stocking 

levels and high growth rates commensurate with the capability of the site to produce 

wood fiber; 3) Manage stands to maintain vigor and resilience to disturbances such as 

wildfire, insects and disease; and 4) Provide for defense of life and property, maintain 

water quality in the Happy Camp municipal watershed, and protect suitable habitat for 

federally listed threatened and endangered species. 

Treatments include light thinning and under-burning on 910 acres, and roadside hazard 

tree removal along two miles of National Forest System Roads.

Fish Meadow Restoration Project: 

This project is located in Siskiyou County, California, within Township 47 North, Range 

10 West, Sections 32-33, Mount Diablo Meridian. 

The purpose of this project is to promote growth and vigor of oaks, reduce conifer 

encroachment on fish meadow, improve wildlife habitat, and reduce the likelihood of 

future high intensity wildfire and pine mortality from pine beetle outbreaks. Treatments 

include thinning of small, understory trees, piling, and pile burning. Additionally, the 

project area will be under-burned. 

Glassups Timber Sale (Implementation): This project is located in Siskiyou County, 

California within Township 40 North, Range 12 West, Sections 25, 35, 36; Township 40 

North, Range 11 West, Sections 18 and 19; Township 39 North, Range 12 West, Sections 

11 and 12; Township 40 North, Range 11 West, Sections 29-33, Mount Diablo Meridian. 

In the project, 206 acres of under burning remain to be completed. These treatments are 

follow-up activity fuels treatments from the Glassups Timber Sale in 2000. 

Goff Fire Fuels Reduction Project (Implementation): This project is located near the 

community of Seiad Valley, in Siskiyou County, California, within Township 46, Range 

12 West Section 1-4, 10-11; Township 47 North, Range 11 West, Section 20, 28-29, 31-

33; Township 47 North, Range 12 West, Section 32-36, Mount Diablo Meridian. 

The purpose of this project is to reduce fuels within the wildland urban interface affected 

by the Goff fire. Proposed treatments include the removal of fire damaged trees, noncommercial thinning, chipping, mastication, piling and pile burning. 

Happy Camp Fire Protection Project, Phase 2: 

This project is located within the Happy Camp Community “defense zone” (within 1⁄4 

mile of private property) and the “threat zone” (within approximately 11⁄2 mile of private 

property), in Siskiyou County, California. 

394
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

The purpose of this project is to reduce the threat of catastrophic wildfire to the 

community of Happy Camp by reducing hazardous fuels adjacent to or within 11⁄2 miles 

of improved private land, and also provide a fuel-break along a strategic ridge that would 

connect to the road system surrounding the community. Treatments include 221 acres of 

commercial thinning, 101 acres of pre-commercial thinning, 748 acres of under-burning, 

and the creation of a 54 acre fuel break from Highway 96 toward Cade Mountain. 

Johnny O’Neil Late Successional Reserve Habitat Restoration and Fuels Reduction 

Project: This project is located north of Horse Creek, Hamburg, and Seiad Valley, in 

Siskiyou County, California, within Township 47 North, Range 11 West, Sections 15, 22-

27; Township 47 North, Range 10 West, Sections 20 and 30; Township 46 North, Range 

11 West, Sections 1-3 and 10-15; and Township 46 North, Range 10 West, Sections 6 

and 18, Mt. Diablo Meridian. 

This project proposes to retain and promote the development of late-successional habitat 

and reduce the risk of large, high severity wildfires to move toward more ecologically 

resilient conditions on approximately 7,280 acres of the Johnny O’Neil Late Successional 

Reserve. Proposed treatments include a combination of under-burning, mastication and 

thinning of small trees, and thinning of larger trees using variable density thinning 

techniques. 

Lake Mountain Foxtail Pine Botanical Special Interest Area: This project is located near 

the community of Hamburg, in Siskiyou County, California, within Township 45 North, 

Range 11 West, Section 17, Mount Diablo Meridian. The project includes pile burning, 

which is complete, and foxtail pine planting planned for spring 2015.

The purpose of this project is to restore the existing stand of Foxtail pine and promote the 

continued growth of Foxtail pine within the Lake Mountain Botanical Special Interest 

Area. Treatments include the hand-thinning , piling and pile burning of conifers (mostly 

red fire and Doug fir) less than 10 inches DBH on approximately 37 acres within the 

Lake Mountain Botanical Special Interest Area. 

Lower Scott Roads Maintenance and Stormproofing Project: 

This project is located throughout the Lower Scott River Watershed (5th field), in 

Siskiyou County, California 

The purpose of this project is to stormproof 40.4 miles of road in the lower Scott river 5th

field watershed. Storm-proofing consists of improving road drainage to protect the road 

surface and upgrading stream crossings to reduce the maintenance needs and protect 

riparian and stream ecosystems. About 2.05 miles of road will be placed in hydrologic 

storage, and about 56.95 miles of road will undergo road maintenance work including 

improving drainage and upgrading road surfaces to reduce sediment delivery to stream 

systems. The project also added 26 miles of non-system roads to the road system to 

provide better maintenance of the road in the future. 

Lower Scott Roads Project: This project is located throughout the Lower Scott River 

Watershed (5th field), in Siskiyou County, California

The purpose of this project is to decommission 26 road segments totaling approximately 

12 miles. Decommissioning work includes complete removal of all stream crossing fills 

and culverts, crushing and burying inlets (and/or removal) of cross-drain culverts, partial 

395
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

removal of fill material from swales, outslope road surface, excavate and/or stabilize road 

cut and fill failures, seed and mulch disturbed areas, and obliterate take-off. 

Mill Luther Watershed Restoration Project: 

This Project is located on roads throughout the Indian Creek 5th –field watershed, north of 

Happy Camp, in Siskiyou Country, California. 

The projects purpose and need is to protect water quality and fish habitat in the Indian 

Creek watershed by: 1) reducing the risk of channel/road crossings failing during large 

storm events; 2) reducing the amount of fine sediment within the road prism, if a failure 

should occur and 3) reduce the miles of Forest Service system roads to match projected 

declining road maintenance dollars.

The project would decommission a total of 9.5 miles of NFTS roads, stormproof a total 

of 90.3 miles of NFTS roads, put 6 miles of NFTS roads into self-maintaining storage 

and convert 1.8 miles of road into a Forest trail. 

North Fork Roads Storm-proofing Project (Implementation): 

This project is located in Siskiyou County, California within Township (T) 39N, Range 

(R) 10W, Sections 4, 5, and 8 Mount Diablo Meridian (MDM); T39N, R11W, Sections 

3-6, 10, 11, 14, 15, and 16 MDM; T39N, R12W, Sections 7-12, and 16 MDM; T40N, 

R10W, Sections 8, 9, 14-16, 18-23, 29-30 MDM; T40N, R11W, Sections 7, 12-13, 18-

19, 26, 29, 31-36, MDM; T40N, R12W, Sections 11-17, 24-26, and 34-36 MDM; T41N, 

R10W, Sections 20-21, and 28-29 MDM; T41N, R11W, Sections 31, and 35 MDM; 

T41N, R12W, Sections 26-27, and 35 MDM; T10N, R8E, Sections 6, and 16 Humboldt 

Meridian (HM); T11N, R8E, Sections 28, and 31 HM. 

The purpose of this project is to reduce stream sedimentation originating from roads. 

Approximately 90.8 miles of roads (32 roads total), within the North Fork Salmon River 

watershed, were identified for storm-proofing. Storm-proofing may entail any or all of 

the following treatments: outslope road surface (3-5 percent), minimize road width, apply 

rock aggregate, add rolling dips, stabilize road prism landslides, upgrade stream crossing 

culverts, treat stream crossings to reduce fill, eliminate in-board ditches, and spot 

rocking. 

Oak Flat Thin Project: 

This project is located in Siskiyou County, California within Township 17 North, range 6 

east, Section 2, 11; Township 16 North, Range 6 East, Section 25, 36; Township 16 

North, Range 7 east, Section 19, 28-32; Township 15 North, Range 7 East, Sections 5, 6, 

Humboldt Meridian. 

The purpose of this project is maintain stand health and resilience, provide a flow of 

timber products, restore fire to its natural role, and to protect and enhance conditions of 

late-successional reserves. Treatments include commercial thinning and subsequent fuels 

treatment on approximately 438 acres, and under-burning on an additional 570 acres 

outside of commercial thinning units. 

Petersburg Pine Restoration Project: 

This project is located near the community of Cecilville, in Siskiyou County, California, 

within Township 37 North, range 11 West, Section 3-12, 14-18; Township 38 North, 

Range 25 West, Section 25, Mount Diablo Meridian. 

396
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

The purpose of this project is to reduce hazardous fuels in the Cecilville area, retain and 

reestablish forest ecological resilience, and improve wildlife habitat by implementing the 

Forest Elk management Strategy and meet the big game objectives of the Forest Plan. 

Proposed treatments include thinning, fuel reduction (fuels-breaks, roadside, and WUI), 

and under-burning activities on 7,350 acres. 

Salmon Reforestation Project (Implementation): 

This project is located near Sawyers Bar and Forks of the Salmon, in Siskiyou County, 

California, within Township 40 North, Range 11 West, Section 7-10, 15-21, and 30; 

Township 41 North, Range 12 West, Section 35; Township 40 North, Range 12 West, 

Section 10-24 and 27-31, Mount Diablo Meridian; Township 10 North, Range 8 East, 

Section 4-6 and 8-9; Township 11 North, Range 8 East Section 28 and 32-33, Humboldt 

Meridian. 

The purpose of this project is to promote reforestation and reduce fuel loading in areas to 

be planted on National Forest System lands burned during the Salmon Complex (part of 

the Forks Complex). The proposed treatment is needed to facilitate establishment of 

forest cover and diversity within the burned plantations and natural stands and reduce the 

amount of hazardous fuels created by fire-related tree mortality. This project will 

maintain, protect and eventually restore conditions of late-successional and old growth 

forest ecosystems, which serve as habitat for associated organisms. Proposed treatments 

include approximately 395 acres of site preparation and planting and approximately 510 

acres of planting only (including 340 acres of Salmon Salvage Project units and 170 acres 

of Inventoried Roadless Areas) for a total of 905 treated acres. The Salmon Salvage 

Project units are proposed to be planted regardless of the salvage harvest. 

Salmon Salvage Project: 

This project is located at T40N R11W S7-10, 15-21, 30; T41N R12W S35; T40N, R12W 

S 10-24 and 27-31, Mount Diablo Meridian; T10N R8E S 4-6 and 8-9; T11N R8E S28 

and 32-33, Humboldt. The 14,779-acre project area is within the area burned by the 

Salmon Complex in 2014. The project is intended to abate hazard trees along the roads, 

salvage fire-damaged trees and to aid in reforestation of the area. The project will meet 

the purpose and need on about 1,240 acres by salvage logging (on about 270 acres) and 

removing roadside hazard trees (on about 973 acres along 23 miles of road). 

Seiad Creek Legacy Roadbed Rehabilitation Project: This project is located north of 

Seiad Valley, in Siskiyou County, California, within T 46N, R 11W, Sections 5, 7, and 8; 

T 47N, R 11W, Sections 18, 20, 27, 28, 32-34; and T 47N, R 12W, Sections 13, Mt 

Diablo Meridian. 

The projects purpose and need is to: 1) improve the condition of the Seiad Creek 

watershed as defined in the USFS Watershed Condition Framework; 2) Repair legacy 

sediment sites to address sediment load allocations of the Klamath Stream Temperature 

TMDL and conditions of the water board waiver and 3) maintain and restore the 

condition of Riparian Reserves and in steam aquatic habitat 

Treatments include hydrologic stabilization of about 6 miles of existing roadbeds and 

maintenance of about 5 miles of NFTS roads needed to access the existing roadbeds. 

397
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Singleton Project: 

This project is located near Scott Bar, in Siskiyou County, California, within Township 

45 North, Range 9 west, Section 10, 16, 18, 20, 32; Township 45 North, Range 10 West, 

Section 24, 26, Mount Diablo Meridian. 

The purpose of this project is to promote late-successional and old-growth habitat, 

increase the resiliency of mid-seral vegetation, and to promote connectivity between latesuccessional reserves. Proposed treatments include commercial thinning, non-commercial 

thinning, under-burning, roadside fuels reduction, maintenance of existing fuels breaks, 

and creation of new fuel breaks. 

South Taylor Roadside Hazard Project: 

This project is located southwest of Callahan, in Siskiyou County, California within 

Township 38 North, Range 11 West, Sections 11-14, and 25 and Township 38 North, 

Range 10 West, Sections 2-4, 6-10, 15-17, 19, Mount Diablo Meridian. 

The purpose of this project tis reduce threats to public safety along National Forest 

Transportation System roads open to public use within the Taylor late-successional 

reserve. Roadside hazard trees will be mitigated on approximately 23 miles of road along 

system roads 38N03, 38N04, 38N07, 38N10, and 38N14. Merchantable hazard trees will 

be felled and removed while non-merchantable trees will be felled and left on-site. 

Sugar Creek Watershed Improvement Project: 

This project is located in Township 40 North, Range 8 West, Section 4 and Township 40 

North, Range 9 West, Section 1-3, 9-11, 14-17, 20-21, 24, 26, 28-29, 32-34, Mount 

Diablo Meridian.

The purpose of this project is improve watershed condition and restore vegetative cover 

and natural stream shade in areas where shade has been reduced by roads, mines, and 

other human disturbances. Treatments include road work (storm-proofing, storage, and 

hydrological stabilization), rehabilitation of three mine sites, meadow rehabilitation, and 

gully stabilization. 

Thom-Seider Vegetation Management and Fuel Reduction Project: 

This project is located in between Hamburg and Happy Camp, in Siskiyou County, 

California within Township (T)16N, Range (R) 7E, Sections 1, 2, 11-14 and 24; T17N, 

R7 E., Sections 1, 2, 11-13, 24, 25, 35, and 36; T18N, R7E, Sections 1-3, 10-15, 22-26, 

35 and 36; T19N, R7E, Sections 33-36; T16N, R8E, Sections 4-6, 7-9, 15-18, 19-20 and 

28-30; T17N, R8E, Sections 4-6, 7-9, 16-21, and 28-33; T18N, R8E, Sections 7-9, 16-21, 

and 28-33; Humboldt Meridian. T45N, R10W, Sections 6 and 7; T46N, R10W, Sections 

19, 29,and 30-32; T45N, R11W, Sections 1-18; T46N, R11W, Sections 3-10 and 13-36; 

T47N, R11W, Sections 7-10, 15-22, and 27-34; T45N, R12W, Sections 1-21; T46N, 

R12W, Sections 1-36; T47N, R12W, Section 7, 8, and 13-36; Mount Diablo Meridian. 

The project is intended to reduce the potential for high-severity wildland fires to harm 

people private and public land, and older forest habitats by responding to the increasing 

density and fuels hazard evident along the Klamath River between Hamburg and Happy 

Camp, California. Treatments include thinning and understory burning on 29,300 acres 

within and adjacent to the wildland urban interface. 

398
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Two Bit Vegetation Management Project: 

This project is located in Siskiyou County, California within Township 16 North, Range 

6 East, Section 1-4, 10-11; Township 16 North, Range 7 East, Sections 5-6; Township 17 

North, Range 6 East, Sections 1-4, 9-16, 21-28, 33-36; Township 17 North, Range 7 East, 

Sections 2-36, Township 18 North, Range 6 east, Sections 1-5, 8-17, 19-30, 32-36; 

Township 18 North, Range 7 East, Sections 3-20, 15-22, 26-35; Township 19 North, 

Range 6 East, Sections 32-36, Township 19 North, Range 7 East, Sections 31-33, 

Humboldt Meridian; and Township 41 South Range 6 West, Sections 7-9, 15-18; 

Township 41 South, Range 7 West, Sections 12-15, Willamette Meridian. 

The purpose of this project is to sustain diverse, fire-resilient ecosystems and a 

functioning forest and watershed while providing a flow of timber products on about 

9,530 acres of National Forest System land. Treatments include 1, 980 acres of thinning, 

140 acres of specialized treatments (pole harvest, sanitation thinning, and hardwood 

release), 160 acres of meadow enhancement treatments, and prescribed under-burns on 7, 

250 acres. . In addition, this project will decommission approximately 4.1 miles of 

National Forest Transportation Systems roads. 

Burned Area Emergency Response Work (On-going): 

Burned Area Emergency Response (BAER) is currently underway. Implementation of 

BAER treatments for the Beaver, Happy Camp Complex, and Whites incidents must be 

completed within one year of their respective containment dates. For the Beaver fire, 

approved treatments include protection of cultural sites, noxious weed detection and 

removal, and about road drainage treatments. For the Happy Camp Complex and Whites 

fire, approved treatments include protection of cultural sites, noxious weed detection and 

removal, trail safety and drainage treatments, and road drainage treatments. The Happy 

Camp Complex, Beaver Fire and Whites Fire BAER road packages include road drainage 

treatments on about 94 miles, 27 miles and 32 miles, respectively. 

Livestock Grazing Allotment: 

There are nine active livestock grazing allotments within the Westside Fire Recovery 

Project area. Allotments are managed using an Adaptive Management Strategy intended 

to move or maintain Forest resources toward desired condition and Forest plan 

objectives. Table C-2 provides the name, status, use period, and permitted number of 

cattle for each active livestock grazing allotment within the Project area. 

Table C-2: Active Livestock Grazing Allotments within the Westside Fire Recovery Project area.

Allotment 

Name

Status Use Period Permitted 

Cattle 

(Pairs)

Notes

East 

Beaver

Active April 1 - June 15 44 Includes number of animals permitted on 

June 16 – Oct. 30 250 private

Dry Lake Active April 15 - June 9 116 Includes number of animals permitted on 

June 10 – Oct. 15 170 private

Horse 

Creek

Active April 15 – Oct. 15 101 Includes number of animals permitted on 

private

Lake 

Mountain

Active July 15 – Oct. 15 25 Part of Lake Mountain Middle Tompkins Ongoing Project

399
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Allotment 

Name

Status Use Period Permitted 

Cattle 

(Pairs)

Notes

Middle 

Tompkins

Vacant NA NA Part of Lake Mountain Middle Tompkins Ongoing Project

Big Ridge Active July 15 – Oct. 15 120 Allotment is in Wilderness = No Project 

Activity Units

Marble 

Valley

Active July 15 – Oct. 15 35 

Etna 

Creek

Active July 15 – Oct.15 54 Includes number of animals permitted on 

private

South 

Russian

Active July 15 – Oct. 15 40 

On-going Actions (Private)________________________________ 

Non-industrial Timber Harvest Management Plans: Grider Creek Land Company:

This Company has two non-industrial harvest management plans located within subpart 

B of the Westside Fire Recovery Project area. One unit is 37 acres and is located in 

Township 46 North, Range 12 West, Section 10, 11, 14, 15, Mount Diablo Meridian. The 

second unit is 60.2 acres and is located in Township 46 North, Range 12 West, Section 

11, 14, Mount Diablo Meridian 

Timber Harvest Plans (THP): 

Since 2010, 12 THP’s have been submitted within the twenty-nine 6th field watersheds 

intersecting the Westside Fire Recovery Project area. Table C-3 lists the year the THP 

was submitted, the THP number, timber owner, the acreage for which they have THP’s in 

place and the 6th field watershed that they are located in. 

Table C-3: Active Timber Harvest Plans within the Westside Fire Recovery Project area.

THP Year THP # 6th Field Watershed Timber Owner Acres

2010 50 Hungry Creek-Beaver Creek

Fruit Growers Supply Co.

291.02

68 Scott Bar-Scott River 928.95

2011

11 Scott Bar-Scott River 19.32

21 French Creek Donna and Arleigh Reynolds 99.63

27 Dutch Creek-Beaver Creek Fruit Growers Supply Co. 550.37

85 Kohl Creek-Klamath River Michigan California Timber Co 231.7

Mckinney Creek-Klamath River 122.12

2012 87 Little Humbug Creek-Klamath RiverMichigan California Timber Co

30.22

Mckinney Creek-Klamath River 917.97

90 Mckinney Creek-Klamath River 8.12

2013

41

Dutch Creek-Beaver Creek

Fruit Growers Supply Co.

600.89

Little Humbug Creek-Klamath River 163.03

Mckinney Creek-Klamath River 2473.69

75 French Creek Michigan California Timber Co 1505.43

2014

17 Lower Indian Creek Northwest Skyline Logging 19.39

Oak Flat Creek-Klamath River 70.35

28 Scott Bar-Scott River Dan Larivee 0.05

400
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Emergency Timber Harvest Plans: 

In order to account for current year salvage projects on private property, it is assumed 

that all private lands burned at moderate to high severities are being salvage logged. 

Future Foreseeable Actions (Klamath National Forest)_________ 

Craggy Vegetation Management Project (In Development):

This Project is located in the Humbug Creek and Yreka Creek 6th field watersheds in 

Siskiyou County, California, within Township 46 North, Range 8 West, Sections 12, 23-

28, 32-35; Township 45 North Range 8 West, Sections 1-17, 21-24; Township 46 North, 

Range 7 West, Sections 16-18, 20, 22, 28, 30, 32-34; and Township 45 North, Range 7 

West, Sections 3-5, 8-9, 17-20, Mount Diablo Meridian.

The purpose of this project is to protect communities and promote forest health on 

approximately 5,000 acres. Planned treatments include fuels reduction, vegetation 

management, and improvement to deer winter range habitat.

East End Vegetation Management Project (Planning-On Hold ): 

This project is located in the Beaver Creek watershed, Siskiyou County, California, in 

Township 48 North, Range 8 West, Sections 22, 23, 26, and 27, Mount Diablo Meridian. 

The purpose of the project is to reduce stand density, promote structural and species 

diversity, and promote resiliency to large-scale disturbances. Treatments are proposed on 

approximately 1,200 acres and consist of commercial and non-commercial thinning with 

subsequent fuels treatments. A Proposal for this project is currently being developed, and 

an EIS is expected. 

Elk Creek Watershed Condition Framework Project (In Development): 

This project is located within the Elk Creek 5th –field watershed south of Happy Camp in 

Siskiyou County, California. The purpose and need and proposed actions are currently 

being developed. The Elk Creek watershed was recently selected as the Happy Camp Oak 

Knoll Districts priority watershed under the USFS Watershed Condition Framework. The 

project will be an integrated resource management project likely including fuels 

treatments, commercial and non-commercial thinning, meadow restoration and 

transportation management actions.

McCollins Late Successional Reserve Enhancement Project (Planning): 

The McCollins LSR Enhancement project is located east of Horse Creek, in Siskiyou 

County, California in Township 46 North, Range 9 West, Sections 9, 10, 15-22, 27-33; 

and Township 46 North, Range 10 West, Sections 13, 21-28, and 32-36, Mount Diablo 

Meridian. 

The purpose of the project is to (1) promote the continued development and retention of 

Late Successional Old Growth conditions; (2) promote resilience of early-and mid- seral 

vegetation to large-scale disturbance events such as wildfire or insects and disease; (3) 

restore and maintain pine/oak forest type, oak woodlands, and wildlife habitat; and (4) 

reduce wildfire threat and potential fire intensity within the WUI, especially surrounding 

private residences and structures. Treatments are proposed on approximately 2,700 acres 

and consist of commercial and non-commercial thinning, and the subsequent pilling and 

burning of activity generated fuels. 

401
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Jess Project (Planning): 

This project is located in Township 40 North, Range 12 West, Sections 23, 24, 26-28, and 

34-36; Township 40 North, Range 11 West, Sections 28-33; Township 39 North, Range 

12 West, Sections 1-4, and 9-12; and Township 39 North, Range 11 West, Sections 4-6, 

Mount Diablo Meridian. 

The purpose of the project is to (1) manage fuel loadings to reduce the risk of wildfires 

affecting nearby communities; (2) improve compositional, structural, and functional, 

attributes of biological diverse forest ecosystems by restoring ecological processes that 

build resiliency to high-intensity wildfire and insect and disease infestation; and (3) 

provide a broad range of ecosystem services including wood products, rural economic 

health, biodiversity, and beneficial use of water. The preferred alternative will treat 

approximately 1, 960 acres including 810 acres of commercial timber harvest 140 acres 

of non-commercial treatments to increase growth and vigor in young plantations 

(includes 70 acres of hand piling of small diameter trees <9inches diameter at breast 

height and burning the piles, 60 acres of mastication, and 10 acres of meadow 

treatments), 185 acres of non-commercial ridgetop treatments to reduce fuels and 

improve defensibility of the area against wildfire(includes 85 acres of hand piling of 

small diameter trees < 9inches diameter at breast height and burning the piles, 70 acres of 

mastication intended to rearrange the fuels and reduce ladder fuels, and 30 acres in two 

fuel breaks that will be treated to remove small diameter trees and hazard trees), and 250 

acres of under-burning. 

Lake Mountain and Middle Tompkins Grazing Allotment Management Plan Project (Under 

Analysis):

 This project is located near Lake Mountain and Tom Martin Peak, in Siskiyou County, 

California, within Township 44 North, Range 11 West, Sections 3-10, and 16-18; 

Township 44 North, Range 12 West, Sections 1, 12, and 13; Township 45 North, Range 

11 West, Sections 2-5, 8-11, 14-18, 19-23, and 26-34; Township 45 North, Range 12 

West, Section 25 and 36; and Township 46 North, Range 11 West, Section 17, 20, 21, 26-

29, and 32-36, Mount Diablo Meridian. 

The proposed project authorizes grazing permits for 10 years under an Adaptive 

Management Strategy and updates Allotment Management Plans (AMPs) for the Lake 

Mountain and Middle Tompkins allotments. The project includes redevelopment of 

Lookout Spring in the Lake Mountain Allotment with construction of a half-acre exclosure around the springhead and seep, and the placement of a fence around the 

Faulkstein head-cut to prevent cattle from accessing unstable ground. Additionally, the 

project includes altering the Lake Mountain Allotment boundary by removing 4,697 

acres, most of which are areas where suitable forage is severely limited and to increase 

Middle Tompkins Allotment by 2,034 acres, correcting a known boundary issue to 

include areas of historically utilized forage. 

Lovers Canyon Project (Under Analysis): This project is located west of Fort Jones, in 

Siskiyou County, California, within Township 44 North, Range 12 West, Section 25 and 

36; Township 44 North, Range 11 West, Section 19, 21, 25-35; Township 43 North, 

Range 12 West, Section 1; Township 43 North, Range 11 West, Section 2-8, Mount 

Diablo Meridian. 

402 
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

The purposed of this project is to improve forest health and diversity, improve threatened 

and endangered species habitat, implement objectives of the Lower Scott River Fire Safe 

Council Community Wildfire Protection Plan, and provide commodity outputs. The 

project will treat approximately 2,700 acres within the 11,810 acre project boundary. 

Proposed treatments include 2,400 acres of thinning; 190 acres of created fuel breaks; 

removal of hazard trees along National Forest System roads, county roads, campgrounds, 

and other high use recreation areas within the project boundary; and prescribed burning. 

Scott Bar Mountain Underburn and Habitat Improvement Project (Under Analysis): 

This project is located west of Fort Jones, in Siskiyou County, California, within 

Township 44 North, Range 11 West, Sections 14, 15, 22-27, Mount Diablo Meridian. 

The purpose of this project is to reduce hazardous fuel loading, maintain currently 

acceptable fuel loadings, improve wildfire defensibility, enhance foraging habitat for deer 

and turkey, and protect Scott Mountain salamander habitat. The proposed action will treat 

approximately 1,660 acres within the 1,960 acre project boundary. Treatments include 

1,660 acres of under-burning to reduce encroachment in openings and meadows, and the 

creation of a 1.5 mile shaded fuel break along lower portions of western and eastern 

private boundary flanks and southern private land boundaries. 

Sawyers Bar Fuels Reduction Project: 

Located at T40N R11W S20-22, 27-30. The project is a 2,600 acre underburn intended to 

reduce fuels near the community of Sawyers Bar, California. 

Forest Service Funded Projects on Private Land

One Forest Service funded project on private land will be implemented within the 

Westside Fire Recovery project area in 2015-2016 with fuel reduction units of about 100 

acres within the Happy Camp Fire Area in T46N, R10W, Section 31, and T46N, R12W, 

Sections 10, 11, 13, 14, and15 nearby the communities of Hamburg, CA and Seiad 

Valley, CA. Another Forest Service funded project on private land will be implemented 

within the Westside Fire Recovery project area in 2016-2017 to reduce fuels on about 80 

acres around the community of Scott Bar, CA. 

 

403
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Appendix D: Best Management Practices

Best Management Practices (BMPs) were developed to comply with Section 208 of the 

Clean Water Act. BMPs 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 (Forest). 

Specifically, effective application of the Region 5 Forest Service BMPs 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 BMPs 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 BMPs on randomly selected 

projects each year. From 2000 to 2012, BMP implementation requirement were met on 

78-100 percent (91 percent average) of sites sampled, and BMP effectiveness 

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

(USDA Forest Service, 2013c). The critical BMP evaluation is effectiveness which is a 

field evaluation to determine how well the BMP 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 BMPs have been revised over the 

years, and are currently similar to those listed in the 2012 Region 5 BMP update in 

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

narrative and objective of each (USDA USFS 2011); and where there are differences, 

direction is to employ the newer BMP list. The following ‘on-the-ground’ prescriptions 

below are incorporated into the project (see chapter 2 of draft EIS). 

BMP 1.1 – Timber Sale Planning Process: 

Requires the Interdisciplinary Team (interdisciplinary team) to consider methods of 

reducing water quality impacts during the planning phase of a project. This is 

accomplished during the planning process of the Timber Sale project. 

• An interdisciplinary team review was completed and project design features have 

been incorporated into the project design (See Chapter 2 of the DEIS).

BMP 1.2 – Timber Harvest Unit Design: 

Requires the interdisciplinary team to consider methods of reducing water quality 

impacts due to changes in unit design. This is accomplished during the planning phase of 

a project. Examples of design changes are restricting timing of tree removal and utilizing 

less impacting yarding systems.

404
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

• An interdisciplinary team review was completed and project design features have 

been incorporated into the project design (See Chapter 2 of the DEIS). 

BMP 1.3 – Use of Erosion Hazard Rating for Unit Design:

Identifies high or very high erosion hazard areas and adjust management activities to 

prevent downstream water quality impacts; and to increase soil cover for those areas that 

have a high risk of contributing sediment into streams. This is done during the planning 

and layout phase of the project. 

• Based on field review and site data ( percent slope distribution, soil texture), the 

Forest Soil Scientist determined the surface erosion hazard rating for each 

treatment unit and prescribed logging systems and soil cover needs based on the 

erosion hazard rating. 

BMP 1.4 – Use of Sale Area Maps for Designating Water Quality Protection:

Identifies sensitive areas and water uses as part of the Timber Sale contract to assist 

operators in locating water concerns and applying protection methods. This is 

accomplished during contract preparation and implemented during layout of the sale. 

• The Sale Area Map will include all protected stream-courses, unstable land 

features, springs, wetlands, meadows, water drafting sites, landings, temporary 

roads, and logging system for each unit. 

BMP 1.5 – Limiting Operating Period of Timber Sale:

To prevent soil compaction and erosion from operations during wet weather; and to 

ensure placement of erosion control structures prior to the onset of winter to reduce water 

quality impacts. This is accomplished during the timber sale operations. 

• The project is proposed to take place during the normal operating season (NOS) 

that is defined as May 1 to October 31. All ground disturbing activities, whether 

inside or outside of the NOS, will be implemented according to the Forest’s Wet 

Weather Operation Standards (Klamath National Forest, 2002). 

• Areas where soil has been disturbed by project activities within Riparian Reserves 

must be stabilized prior to the end of the normal operating season, prior to sunset if 

the National Weather Service forecast is a “chance” (30 percent) of rain within the 

next 24 hours, or at the conclusion of the operations, whichever is sooner. This 

includes skid trails that cross swales (i.e. linear depressions perpendicular to the 

slope contour that do not meet definition for designation as a Riparian Reserve). 

Restoration generally consists of removing excess sediment, reshaping and 

waterbarring former approaches, and spreading slash on the former crossing. 

BMP 1.6 – Protection of Unstable Lands:

Provides for special treatment of unstable areas to avoid triggering mass slope failure 

with resultant erosion and sedimentation.

• Tractors and mechanical harvesters will be excluded from all Riparian Reserves 

associated with stream channels, active landslides, inner gorges, and toe zones of 

dormant landslide deposits. Hazard tree removal units are the exception. In Hazard 

tree units the equipment will be excluded from the inner 50 feet of the non-fish 

bearing Riparian Reserve, one site tree for fish bearing streams and in the 

perimeter of all active landslides and toe zones of dormant landslides. 

405
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

• To limit slope disturbance, inner gorge terrain (greater than 65 percent slope) that 

extends beyond Riparian Reserves will be buffered by 20-foot slope distance and 

excluded from mechanical equipment activities. In areas where treatments may 

conflict, a hydrologist will be consulted.

• There will be no salvage logging on active landslides. 

• Limit equipment disturbance within 20 feet on either side of swales by minimizing 

equipment crossings and avoiding running trails up the axis of swales, except at 

designated crossings.

BMP 1.8 – Streamside Management Zone Designation: 

Designates zones adjacent to water and/or riparian areas as zones of special management. 

This is accomplished during the planning and layout phase of the project. 

• Project Riparian Reserves are established in the following manner per the Forest 

Plan (site tree for Salmon and Happy Camp districts is 170 feet, site tree for Scott

and Oak Knoll districts is 150 feet): 

o For fish-bearing streams, it is the area on each side of the stream extending 

from the edges of the active stream channel to the top of the inner gorge,

or to the outer edges of the 100-year floodplain, or to a distance equal to

the height of two site-potential trees, or 300 feet slope distance (600 feet

total, including both sides of the stream), whichever is greatest. For

Salmon and Happy Camp ranger districts, this will be 340 feet (680 feet

total).

o For permanently flowing nonfish-bearing streams, it is the area on each

side of the stream extending from the edges of the active stream channel to

the top of the inner gorge, or to the outer edges of the 100-year floodplain, 

or to a distance equal to the height of one site-potential tree, or 150 feet

slope distance (300 feet total, including both sides of the stream),

whichever is greatest. For Salmon and Happy Camp ranger districts, this

will be 170 feet (340 feet total) and 150 feet for the Oak Knoll and Scott

River Ranger District.

o For intermittent streams, , the stream channel and extending to the top of 

the inner gorge, or extension from the edges of the stream channel to a 

distance equal to the height of one site potential tree, or 100 feet slope 

distance, whichever is greatest. For unstable lands, it is the extent of 

unstable and potentially unstable areas. 

o Consistent with Forest Plan direction, Riparian Reserves for wetlands and 

springs will be defined by the edge of the feature out to a distance equal to 

1 site potential tree. These RRs will be flagged and avoided during salvage 

harvest.

BMP 1.9 – Determining Tractor Loggable Ground: 

Minimize erosion and sedimentation resulting from ground disturbance of tractor logging 

systems.

• Ground-based harvest equipment will be limited to 35 percent slopes, except when 

moving from one bench to another on dormant landslide terrain. In addition, 

ground-based equipment can travel up to 100 feet on slopes 35 to 45 percent. 

406
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

• Site preparation treatments would be designed to meet soils management direction 

in the KNF Forest Plan. This may include use of low ground pressure equipment, 

retaining slash and large woody material and implementing hand treatments 

instead of mechanical.

BMP 1.10 – Tractor Skidding Design: 

Designates a tractor skid pattern over steepened areas, designates tractor crossings, and 

reduces skid patterns in sensitive areas to reduce erosion and compaction. This is 

accomplished during the sale layout and operations phase of the project. 

• In salvage units and subsequent site preparation, 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. 

• In site preparation units (where no salvage will occur) felling and skidding 

equipment will be restricted to slopes less than 45 percent in non-granitic and nonschist soil types (see soils report for locations).

• Use existing skid trails instead of building new skid trails unless using existing 

skid trails will have greater negative effects. Space skid trails at least 75 feet apart, 

except near landings and where trails converge. Use no skid trails in areas in which 

ground-based mechanical equipment is excluded (Designation of new skid trails 

will be approved by a Timber Sale Administrator. Erosion and sedimentation 

control structure will be maintained and repaired per the guidance in the Forest 

Service Handbook 2409.15 R5 Supplement. 

• No full bench skid trails will be constructed. Full bench skid trails have the entire 

skid trail cut into the hillslope.

• Locations where skid trails intersect roads will be obliterated or effectively 

blocked to vehicle access.

BMP 1.11 – Suspended Log Yarding in Timber Harvesting: 

Protect the soil mantle from excessive disturbance; maintain the integrity of the 

Streamside Management Zone and other sensitive watershed areas, and to control erosion 

on cable corridors. 

• Skyline corridors will be placed on the landscape as to minimize disturbance to 

active landslides, inner gorges and toe zones of dormant landslide deposits. All 

skyline and ground-based yarding will require one-end suspension in corridors and 

on skid trails. Corridors for skyline yarding that are parallel to the stream channel 

will be placed outside of the Riparian Reserve. The corridor may cross the stream 

channel with full suspension of logs within ten feet from the stream bank. Apply 

erosion control measures as necessary in cable corridors to control erosion and 

runoff. This could include hand construction of water bars and /or spreading slash 

from adjacent areas.

BMP 1.12 – Log Landing Location: 

Locate new landings or reuse existing landings in such a way as to avoid watershed 

impacts and associated water quality degradation.

• See BMP 2.4

407
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

• Existing landings will be used to the extent possible. Existing landings in streamcourse Riparian Reserves will not be expanded towards stream channels, or on to 

active landslides, or where vegetation that provides shade to a stream would need 

to be cut. Existing landings in Riparian Reserves will be shaped and treated for 

erosion control at the end of each season of use, and hydrologically restored at 

project completion (including subsoiling and covering with slash/mulch as 

needed). Reused landings in Riparian Reserves will have site specific erosion 

control measures to reduce risk of sediment delivery into streams.

• During opening or construction of any landings, material will not be sidecast into 

intermittent or perennial stream channels.

• At project conclusion, landings will be configured for long-term drainage and 

stability by reestablishing natural runoff patterns. All landings will be covered 

with at least 50 percent effective soil cover. Use of certified weed free materials 

including straw, wood chips, or mulch may be used where on-site material is 

insufficient.

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

Ensures that Purchasers operations shall be conducted reasonably to minimize soil 

erosion. This is accomplished during the pre-operations meeting with the purchaser, and 

throughout the operations phase of the timber sale. 

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

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

phase of the timber sale. 

• The Klamath Wet Weather Operation Standards (USDA Forest Service 2002) will 

be used for all project activities (harvest, hauling, planting).

BMP 1.16 – Log Landing Erosion Prevention and Control: 

Works to reduce erosion and subsequent impacts sedimentation from log landings. 

Timber Sale Contract provide for erosion prevention and control measures on all 

landings. This is best done by design of landing drainage measures during the planning 

phase of the project, and implemented during the operations phase. 

• See BMP 1.12. 

BMP 1.17 – Erosion Control on Skid Trails: 

Employs preventive measures such as drainage structures to reduce water concentration 

and erosion. This is accomplished during the operations phase of the project. Because of 

the timing of this project, pre-staging of straw bales for timely construction of water bars 

will be called for.

• Where skidding occurs through units with less than 50 percent soil cover, mulch 

skid trails of greater than 15 percent slope, to achieve at least 50 percent effective 

soil cover on skid trails (approximately 40 acres across the project area may 

require this). Effective soil cover could include plant litter, woody material in 

contact with the soil, living vegetation, and rock fragments with a diameter of 1⁄2 to 

3 inches. Use of certified weed free materials including straw, wood chips, or 

mulch may be used where on-site material is insufficient.

BMP 1.18- Meadow Protection during Timber Harvest: 

408
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

The objective is to avoid damage to ground cover, soil and hydrologic function of 

meadows. 

• Equipment will be excluded from wetlands or wet meadows (excluding small 

springs and seeps). 

BMP 1.19 – Streamcourse Protection: 

Protects the natural flow of streams and reduces the entry of sediment and any other 

pollutants into streams. The location of stream crossings must be agreed to by the Sale 

Administrator and the Hydrologist. The accomplishment of the objective of this measure 

is during the operations phase of the project. 

• Tractors and mechanical harvesters will be excluded from all Riparian Reserves 

associated with stream channels, active landslides, inner gorges, and toe zones of 

dormant landslide deposits. Hazard tree removal units are the exception. In Hazard 

tree units the equipment will be excluded from the inner 50 feet of the non-fish 

bearing Riparian Reserve, one site tree for fish bearing streams and in the 

perimeter of all active landslides and toe zones of dormant landslides. 

• To limit slope disturbance, inner gorge terrain (greater than 65 percent slope) that 

extends beyond Riparian Reserves will be buffered by 20-foot slope distance and 

excluded from mechanical equipment activities. In areas where treatments may 

conflict, a hydrologist will be consulted. 

• All hazard trees cut within 25 feet of a stream channel will be left on site unless it 

continues to pose a threat to safety or accessibility (See watershed-4 for equipment 

exclusion restrictions). Along fish-bearing stream reaches, all hazard trees greater 

than 26 inches in diameter at breast height within the first site tree (150-170 feet) 

will be left on site unless after felling, it continues to pose a threat to safety, 

infrastructure, forest road drainage system integrity or accessibility.

• Live trees directly rooted into the banks or otherwise integral to the stability of the 

channel bank will not be felled unless they pose an overhead hazard and, if felled, 

will be left on site unless this poses a hazard on the ground per Forest Service 

safety requirements.

• Directional felling will be used to protect streambanks where hazard trees need to 

be mitigated for public or employee safety.

BMP 1.20 – Erosion Control Structure Maintenance: 

Requires periodic inspection of erosion control structures to assess maintenance needs 

and effectiveness. This is accomplished during the operations and post-operations phase 

of the project; this ensures the adequacy of erosion control measures.

• Skid trail erosion control work will be kept current during implementation. 

Erosion control and drainage of skid trails will be complete prior to shutting down 

operations due to wet weather or at project completion. 

BMP 1.21 – Acceptance of Erosion Control Measures Before Timber Sale Closure:

Erosion control measures are inspected for adequacy to ensure erosion control as 

planned. This is accomplished during the post-operations phase of the project during the 

contract final inspection. 

409
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

• At project completion, permanent operating water bars will be installed and/or 

repaired as necessary on all skid trails, and slash scattered on all skid trails if 

necessary.

• The Timber Sale Administrator will inspect the Erosion Control Measures for 

compliance with contract. 

BMP 2.4 – Road Maintenance and Operations (Temporary Roads): 

The objective is to improve road slope stabilization by applying mechanical and 

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

• New temporary roads or landings will not be constructed in any Riparian Reserve 

associated with stream channels, on toe zones of landslides, active landslides or 

inner gorges. Exceptions for this project design feature for Alternative 2: Landings 

# DZ03, DZ10, DZ23, L042, L043, L044, and L090. Further exceptions may be 

approved if they meet the criteria described in the hydrology effects analysis.

• Following harvest activities achieve at least 50 percent effective soil cover on new 

temporary roads and block them after the harvest season (prior to the first winter 

after use). New temporary roads will also be sub-soiled (or tilled) after use. 

• All temporary roads (new, existing or re-opened decommissioned roads) will have 

the takeoffs from system road obliterated or blocked to avoid unauthorized use. All 

temporary roads will be hydrologically stabilized including removal of culverts 

and fills at stream crossings, out-sloping of road surfaces, and proper construction 

of water bars. Erosion and sedimentation control structures (water bars) will be 

maintained and repaired per the guidance in the Forest Service Handbook 2409.15 

R5 Supplement. 

BMP 2.4 – Road Maintenance and Operations (System Roads)

• Improvements to existing system roads in the project area will avoid oversteepened road cuts where possible, minimize sidecasting, and maintain ditches, 

cross drains, and any outsloped road segments. 

• Roads will be watered as appropriate to maintain road fines on site. Other 

materials may be used for dust abatement as approved by the Forest Service.

• Upgrades or improvements to stream crossings will be built to Forest Plan 

standards. 

• Activities which require culvert replacement or removal will occur during the least 

critical periods for water and aquatic resources: when streams are dry or during 

low-water conditions; and in compliance with spawning and breeding season 

restrictions.

• Legacy sediment site treatments within or adjacent to streams will have erosionprevention techniques applied such as silt fences, straw waddles, or mulch to 

minimize the risk of discharge.

All project-related temporary structures, materials and project-related debris will be 

removed from riparian areas and stream channels prior to winter shutdown. 

For legacy sediment site repairs, fill materials generated will be reincorporated back into 

subgrade to the extent possible; all excess fill materials will be spoiled at a site reviewed 

and approved by Forest Service botanist, watershed, and heritage specialists. 

BMP 2.5 - Water Source Development Consistent with Water Quality Protection:

410
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

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

planning of impoundments and withdrawals. 

Draft water only at sites designated by the Forest Service.

• When drafting from waters designated as coho salmon Critical Habitat: NOAA 

Fisheries Water Drafting Specifications (2001) apply

• 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.

1. Use of a NOAA approved fish screen will ensure the above specifications are 

met. 

2. Fish screen will be placed parallel to flow.

3. Pumping rate will not exceed 350 gallons-per-minute or 10 percent of the 

flow of the anadromous stream drafted from. 

4. Pumping will be terminated when tank is full.

5. Additional applicable specifications:

6. There will be no modification/improvement of drafting sites in Coho Critical 

Habitat.

• Water drafting by more than one truck shall not occur simultaneously. 

• When drafting from waters that are not coho salmon Critical Habitat, but do 

contain fish: 

1. For fish-bearing streams, the water drafting rate should not exceed 350 gallons 

per minute for streamflow greater than or equal to 4.0 cubic feet per second 

(cfs).

2. Below 4.0 cfs, drafting rates should not exceed 20 percent of surface flows. 

3. Water drafting should cease when bypass surface flows drop below 1.5 cfs. 

4. Intakes, for trucks and tanks, shall be placed parallel to the flow of water and 

screened, with opening size consistent with the protection of aquatic species 

of interest.

5. Fish-bearing streams that are temporarily dammed to create a drafting pool 

shall provide fish passage for all life stages of fish.

6. When drafting from non-fish-bearing waters: 

7. Drafting rate should not exceed 350 gallons per minute for stream flow greater 

than or equal to 2.0 cubic feet/second. 

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

9. Drafting should cease when bypass surface flow drops below ten gallons per 

minute.

10. Drafting by more than one truck shall not occur simultaneously. 

• Rock and gravel will be applied to drafting sites if it is needed to prevent stream 

sedimentation.

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

instream modification, such as fine sediment removal and building of board/plastic 

dams. All boards and plastic will be removed after use. 

411
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

• Water drafting sites located within fish-bearing stream segments may not be 

modified, except rocking the approach to prevent sedimentation. 

BMP 2.11 - Servicing and Refueling of Equipment: 

Prevent fuels, lubricants, cleaners, and other harmful materials from discharging into 

nearby surface waters or infiltrating through soils to contaminate groundwater resources.

• Refueling will not take place within Riparian Reserves except at designated 

landings in locations where most disconnected from water resources. A spill 

containment kit will be in place where refueling and servicing take place.

BMP 2.13 – Erosion Control Plan: 

Effectively limit and mitigate erosion and sedimentation from any ground-disturbing 

activities, through planning prior to commencement of project activity, and through 

project management and administration during project implementation.

• An Erosion Control Plan will be completed prior to project implementation. 

• The Forest's Wet Weather Operations Standards are included in the Erosion 

Control Plan. 

BMP 5.2 – Slope Limitations for Mechanized Equipment Operations: 

The objective is to reduce gully and sheet erosion and associated sediment production by 

limiting tractor use.

• See BMP 1.9 and 1.10. 

BMP 5.5 – Disposal of Organic Debris: 

The objective is to prevent gully and surface erosion with associated reduction if 

sediment production and turbidity during and after treatment. 

• During site preparation, material greater than 8’’ inches in diameter would not be 

removed unless needed to reduce 1,000 hour fuel loading to 7 tons per acre, retain 

as close to 7 tons per acre as possible. 

BMP 5.6 – Soil Moisture Limitations for Mechanical Equipment Operations: 

The objective is to prevent soil compaction, rutting, and gulling that may result in 

increased sedimentation and turbidity. 

• All ground based equipment will follow the Wet Weather Operation Standards. 

BMP 6.3 Protection of Water Quality from Prescribed Burning Effects: 

The objective is to maintain soil productivity; minimize erosion; minimize ash, sediment, 

nutrients, and debris from entering water bodies. 

• Prescribed fire effects in Riparian Reserves will mimic a low intensity backing 

fire, except for handpiles where higher intensity may occur to consume pile 

material. Ignition of underburns will generally not occur in Riparian Reserves. 

Approval by the District Fish Biologist is needed for underburn Riparian Reserve 

ignitions.

• Handpiles and windrows in Riparian Reserves will be placed in a checkerboard 

pattern whenever possible (not piled directly above another). Handpiles will be 

less than 6 feet in diameter and will be more than 15 feet away from intermittent 

streams and 30 feet away from perennial streams.

412
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

• For underburning, hand-line construction in riparian vegetation shall be avoided 

and in general should be farther than 25 feet from stream channels. Handlines will 

be mitigated (waterbarred and covered with organic material) immediately 

following prescribed burning, when safe to do so. 

References for Best Management Practices__________________ 

USDA Forest Service. 2013c. Klamath National Forest Best Management Practices 

Evaluation Program: Water Quality Monitoring Report 2013. Klamath National 

Forest, Yreka, CA. Retrieved 

from http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/klamath/landmanagement/resourcemanagement/?

cid=stelprdb5312713 on June 6, 2014. 

USDA Forest Service. 2011. Soil and Water Conservation Handbook. Chapter 10 – Water 

Quality Management Handbook. 

USFS. 2002. Wet Weather Operating Standards. Klamath National Forest, Region 5. US 

Forest Service. 

413
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Appendix E: Photo Journal 

Photo E-1: NASA imagery on September 7, 2014, showing the smoke plume from the Happy Camp 

Complex fires.

Photo E-2: Example of air quality issues during the 2014 fires within the Westside Fire Recovery 

Project area. Residents within northern California and southern Oregon experienced continued 

weeks of heavy smoke accumulation and low air quality during the 2014 fire

414
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Photo E-3: A smoke column generated by high intensity fire on the Happy Camp Complex. Pre-fire 

heavy fuel loading conditions contributed to the stand-replacing nature of the fire and its large 

smoke column. The smoke column carried burning embers aloft, spotting fires 1⁄4 to 1⁄2 mile 

downwind of the fire and accelerating fire spread. 

415
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Photo E-4: A fuel break constructed within the Happy Camp Fire, which was used by firefighters for 

fire suppression. This is an example of moderate to high intensity fire that resulted in nearly total 

stand mortality. Photo taken on September 4, 2014.

416
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Photo E-5 Low to moderate intensity surface fire activity occurred when the weather conditions and 

terrain created air inversion layers, which trapped smoke above the fire and reduced fire behavior. 

Air inversions have reduced fire behavior because of decreased solar radiation, decreased 

temperatures, and increased fuel moisture at the ground surface. Air inversions were most frequent 

in the mornings and early afternoons. 

Photo E-6: An illustration of fire activity after the air inversion lifted, resulting in extreme fire 

behaviors. Moderate to high severity fires (>50% tree mortality) occurred within 33% of the project 

area.

417
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Photo E-7: Example of a mixed severity area within the Westside Fire Recovery project. Along the 

bottom of the photo, low severity burns can be seen, along with moderate severity in the middle of 

the photo and high severity along the hillside ridgeline.

Photo E-8: Photo of a large high severity patch within the East Fork of the Walker Creek drainage. 

Areas like these are proposed for salvage harvest within the Westside Fire Recovery project.

418
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Photo E-9: A high severity burned area above the Scott River Road near Scott Bar, California. 

Although fire-killed trees still bear needles immediately following the fire, most trees within high 

severity burn areas are expected to die. Insects (primarily beetles), stain and decay fungi, and 

weather all act as deterioration agents in fire-killed timber.

419
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Photo E-10: Example of 100% mortality of trees within the Beaver Fire area. Note the lack of 

groundcover and burned out stumps, which is an indication of a high intensity burned area.

Photo E-11: A high severity burned area within the Beaver Fire area. Note the lack of groundcover 

and burned out stumps, which is an indication of a high intensity burned area.

420
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Photo E-12: An area of high severity burn within the Westside Fire Recovery project with Tanners 

Peak in the background. Tanners peak is within an Inventoried Roadless Area where no salvage 

harvest is proposed.

Photo E-13: Example of a mixed severity patch. Areas within patches that experienced high severity 

burns are proposed for salvage harvest under alternative 2 of the Westside Fire Recovery project.

421
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Photo E-14: A plantation that experienced low severity burns and has been excluded from site 

preparation and reforestation due to the presence of green seed trees, its upper slope position, and 

the existing vegetation.

Photo E-15: Stand that burned at high severity and is proposed for fuels treatment in order to reduce 

standing fuels and to promote oak regeneration.

422
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Photo E-16: High severity fire effects on the Happy Camp Complex. The fire consumed duff and 

needle cast, small branches, and large downed woody material, resulting in low surface fuel loading 

in the existing condition. Within the canopy, full consumption of leaf and needle foliage occurred, 

leaving standing dead trees and barren soils. As snags continue to decay, break, and fall, surface 

fuel loading and the severity and intensity of future fires will increase. Increased fire intensities and 

fallen snags will inhibit the effective control of future fires and/or put fire suppression crews at 

increased risk.

Photo E-17: Canopy view of a high fire severity patch within the Whites Fire. Most of the needles are 

gone.

423
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Photo E-18: Moderate to high severity fire areas within surface and mid-story canopy fuels. Surface 

fuel loadings were primarily fully consumed during the fires. Pockets of larger downed fuels remain 

visible on the surface.

Photo E-19: Moderate to high severity fire within canopy fuels. The crown fuel profile varies with 

some trees being consumed by the fire and other trees retaining needles in the tree canopy.

424
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Photo E-20: A typical area where roadside hazard treatment is proposed with the Westside Fire 

Recovery project (chapter 2). Patches of green trees can be seen along with patches of trees that 

experienced high burn severity. 

Photo E-21: A roadway that experienced high burn severity during the 2014 fires. Areas such as this 

will receive roadside hazard treatment under the action alternatives of the Westside Fire Recovery 

project (see chapter 2).

425
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Photo E-22: Example of an area that would be treated using salvage harvest and preparation and 

planting, above and below the roadway.

Photo E-23: An example of a fallen fire-killed tree along a roadway, affecting the safety and access of 

forest workers and the public.

426
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Photo E-24: Example of an area that would receive site preparation and planting under alternative 2 

of the Westside Fire Recovery project. High severity burns can be seen in the foreground of the 

photo.

Photo E-25: Example of a high severity burned area in the foreground with mixed severity in the 

background.

427
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Photo E-26: A mixed severity area in the background with a high severity area in the foreground with 

little to no ground cover. The high severity area is an example of the type of area proposed for 

treatment.

Photo E-27: Stand with a mixture of hardwood components and remnant large tree stumps. The area 

on the east facing aspect on a middle one-third slope is proposed for hand-cutting, piling and 

burning, and planting.

428
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Photo E-28: Unit within the Beaver Fire area proposed for site preparation using mastication and 

planting. Mastication was chosen due to favorable machine access, gentle slope percent, the 

diameter of material on site, and the low levels of existing ground fuel.

Photo E-29: An example of an untreated area in 2012, ten years after the 2002 Stanza Fire, which was 

located adjacent to the Happy Camp Complex on the Klamath National Forest. Note the volume of 

standing and felled snags intermixed with brush. Without treatment (alternative 1), areas within the 

Westside Fire Recovery project can be expected to have similar fuels loading conditions ten years 

from now, increasing their susceptibility to high severity fire.

429
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Photo E-30: Firefighters survey multiple burning snags and employ tactics to safely build line to 

control the fire. The weakened trees pose a risk to firefighters, both from falling and producing spot 

fires ahead of the main fire. Without treatment within the Westside Fire Recovery project area, it will 

be difficult to suppress large fires in the future.

430
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Photo E-31: Photos displaying a pre-and-post fire condition from the 2012 Chips Fire on the Plumas 

and Lassen National Forests in northern California. These photos highlight the reburn potential 

within a 12 year old fire scar of the 2000 Storrie Fire. Shrub regrowth among standing snags created 

high severity fire effects within the footprint of the 2000 Storrie Fire. Heavy consumption of shrub, 

herb, grass, snag and downed fuels is evident. The Chips Fire, also subjected to daily thermal 

inversions like the 2014 fires in this project, started and burned for a long period of time within steep 

drainages of the Feather River Canyon. 

Photo E-32: Salvage and site preparation activities on the Klamath National Forest Salmon Salvage 

project, adjacent to the Whites Fire. Trees are cut and removed from the site, with follow-up hand 

piling to meet surface fuel loading criteria sufficient for low intensity fire. Similar activities are 

proposed in the Westside Fire Recovery project (chapter 2).

431
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Photo E-33: A masticated fuel bed. Brush and small trees have been mulched to reduce surface fuel 

bed depth to less than two inches.

Photo E-34: Without action, fire-killed trees will fall over time in “jack-strawed” patterns, increasing 

fuel bed height above the ground surface. Higher surface fuel beds are subject to wind and 

preheating of fuels lower in the surface fuel profile, increasing fire behavior potential. Under 

alternative 2 of the Westside Fire Recovery project, where mastication is identified as a treatment 

option, chipped material will create a compact fuel bed. Masticated material would also decay faster 

due to its proximity to the ground and increased fuel moisture conditions. Under the action 

alternatives, fire-killed trees will be removed before they fall and become “jack-strawed,” improving 

fuel conditions as well as foot travel and safety conditions for forest workers and firefighters during 

suppression efforts.

432
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Photo E-35: Walker Creek in the Happy Camp Complex area. While significant portions of the 

watershed burned at moderate and high severity in 2014 (as can be seen in the photo), the main 

stem valley bottom was left mostly unburned.

Photo E-36: An example of an existing legacy site within the project area where erosion has been an 

issue. The treatment of this legacy site is proposed for this project in all action alternatives. If this 

legacy site is not treated, then future erosion and subsequent negative impacts to watershed 

conditions are likely.

433
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Appendix F: Treatment by Prescription by Project 

Area and Alternative 

Table F-1: Treatment by Prescription within the Beaver Project Area by Alternative

Treatment by Prescription (Beaver Project Area)

Fuels Treatment by Prescription Alternative 

2

Alternative 

3

Alternative 

4

Alternative 

5

Fuels

Fuels Management Zone

Establish/Maintain Fuel Break w/ 

Mechanical or Hand Thin, Pile, & Burn

428 428 428 428

Hand Thin, Pile, Burn or Chip or Leave 

for Firewood

135 135 135 456

Machine Pile & Burn 206

Mastication or other Mechanical Thin 219 219 219 219

Ridgetop 84 84 84 84

Roadside 146

Underburn 540

Fuels Management Zone Total Acres 866 866 866 2,078

Roadside

Roadside 612 612 612 612

Roadside Total Acres 612 612 612 612

Understory Prescribed Fire

Underburn

Understory Thin, Pile, Burn or Chip

Understory Prescribed Fire Total Acres

WUI

Establish/Maintain Fuel Break w/ 

Mechanical or Hand Thin, Pile, & Burn

10 10 10 10

Hand Thin, Pile, Burn or Chip or Leave 

for Firewood

108 108 108 108

Machine Pile & Burn

Mastication or other Mechanical Thin 415 415 415 415

Roadside 47 47 47 47

Underburn 33 33 33 33

Understory Thin, Pile, Burn or Chip

WUI Total Acres 613 613 613 613

Total Fuels Acres 2,091 2,091 2,091 3,304

Salvage Harvest by System Alternative 

2

Alternative 

3

Alternative 

4

Alternative 

5

Ground Based 663 596 663

Helicopter

Skyline 196 156 165

Total Acres 859 752 828

Site Prep and Plant Alternative Alternative Alternative Alternative 

434
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

2 3 4 5

Vegetation Management 1,782 1,782 1,782

Cable yard, Plant 57 57 57 57

Fuel Treatment 111 111 111 111

Handcut and pile 188 188 188 188

Handcut and pile, Plant 102 102 102 102

Handcut and pile, Plant *IRA

Lop & Scatter, Plant

Masticate 76 76 76 66

Masticate and subsoil, Plant 251 251 251 251

Masticate, Plant 105 105 105 105

Mechanical thin and pile, Plant 663 663 663 663

Mechanical thin and pile, subsoil 180 180 180 180

Natural regeneration

Plant as is 49 49 49 49

Total Site Prep and Plant Acres 1,782 1,782 1,782 1,771

Roadside Hazard Salvage Alternative 

2

Alternative 

3

Alternative 

4

Alternative 

5

Total Roadside Hazard Salvage Acres 3,109 3,109 2,836 3,109

Table F-2: Treatment by Prescription within the Happy Camp Project Area by Alternative

Treatment by Prescription (Happy Camp Project Area)

Fuels Treatment by Prescription Alternative 

2

Alternative 

3

Alternative 

4

Alternative 

5

Fuels

Fuels Management Zone

Establish/Maintain Fuel Break w/ 

Mechanical or Hand Thin, Pile, & Burn 2,038 2,038 2,038 2,038

Hand Thin, Pile, Burn or Chip or Leave 

for Firewood 645 645 645 645

Machine Pile & Burn 252 252 252 252

Mastication or other Mechanical Thin 15 15 15 15

Ridgetop

Roadside 73 73 73 73

Underburn

Fuels Management Zone Total Acres 3,024 3,024 3,024 3,024

Roadside

Roadside 3,012 3,012 3,012 3,012

Roadside Total Acres 3,012 3,012 3,012 3,012

Understory Prescribed Fire 1,556

Underburn 1,219 1,219 1,219 1,219

Understory Thin, Pile, Burn or Chip 337 337 337 337

Understory Prescribed Fire Total Acres 1,556 1,556 1,556 1,556

WUI

Establish/Maintain Fuel Break w/ 

Mechanical or Hand Thin, Pile, & Burn 104 104 104 104

Hand Thin, Pile, Burn or Chip or Leave 

for Firewood 482 482 482 482

Machine Pile & Burn

435
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Mastication or other Mechanical Thin 19 19 19 19

Roadside 260 260 260 260

Underburn 244 244 244 244

Understory Thin, Pile, Burn or Chip 88 88 88 88

WUI Total Acres 1,197 1,197 1,197 1,197

Total Fuels Acres 8,788 8,788 8,788 8,788

Salvage Harvest by System Alternative 

2 

Alternative 

3 

Alternative 

4 

Alternative 

5 

Ground Based 689 571 624 228

Helicopter 4,393 3,908 4,535 1,459

Skyline 4,896 4,406 3,456 822

Total Acres 9,978 8,885 8,615 2,509

Site Prep and Plant Alternative 

2

Alternative 

3

Alternative 

4

Alternative 

5

Vegetation Management 5,470 5,470 5,470

Cable yard, Plant

Fuel Treatment

Handcut and pile 85 85 85

Handcut and pile, Plant 2,576 2,576 2,576 600

Handcut and pile, Plant *IRA 82 82 82

Lop & Scatter, Plant 8 8 8

Masticate

Masticate and subsoil, Plant

Masticate, Plant 55 55 55

Mechanical thin and pile, Plant 689 689 689 198

Mechanical thin and pile, subsoil

Natural regeneration 6 6 6 6

Plant as is 1,970 1,970 1,970 1,290

Total Site Prep and Plant Acres 5,470 5,470 5,470 2,093

Roadside Hazard Salvage Alternative 

2

Alternative 

3

Alternative 

4

Alternative 

5

Total Roadside Hazard Salvage Acres 14,673 14,673 14,102 14,673

Table F-3: Treatment by Prescription within the Whites Project Area by Alternative 

Treatment by Prescription (Whites Project Areas)

Fuels Treatment by Prescription Alternative 

2 

Alternative 

3 

Alternative 

4 

Alternative 

5 

Fuels

Fuels Management Zone

Establish/Maintain Fuel Break w/ 

Mechanical or Hand Thin, Pile, & Burn 648 648 648 648

Hand Thin, Pile, Burn or Chip or Leave 

for Firewood 268 268 268 268

Machine Pile & Burn

Mastication or other Mechanical Thin

Ridgetop

Roadside

Underburn

436
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Fuels Management Zone Total Acres 917 917 917 917

Roadside

Roadside 807 807 807 807

Roadside Total Acres 807 807 807 807

Understory Prescribed Fire 9,870

Underburn 9,863 9,863 9,863 9,863

Understory Thin, Pile, Burn or Chip 7 7 7 7

Understory Prescribed Fire Total Acres 9,870 9,870 9,870 9,870

WUI

Establish/Maintain Fuel Break w/ 

Mechanical or Hand Thin, Pile, & Burn 12 12 12 12

Hand Thin, Pile, Burn or Chip or Leave 

for Firewood 120 120 120 120

Machine Pile & Burn 26 26 26 26

Mastication or other Mechanical Thin

Roadside 24 24 24 24

Underburn 198 198 198 198

Understory Thin, Pile, Burn or Chip 34 34 34 34

WUI Total Acres 413 413 413 413

Total Fuels Acres 12,007 12,007 12,007 12,007

Salvage Harvest by System Alternative 

2 

Alternative 

3 

Alternative 

4 

Alternative 

5 

Ground Based 41 41 41 15

Helicopter 542 423 542 57

Skyline 279 232 270

Total Acres 862 696 853 72

Site Prep and Plant Alternative 

2

Alternative 

3

Alternative 

4

Alternative 

5

Vegetation Management 654 654 654

Cable yard, Plant

Fuel Treatment

Handcut and pile 62 62 62

Handcut and pile, Plant 517 517 517

Handcut and pile, Plant *IRA

Lop & Scatter, Plant

Masticate

Masticate and subsoil, Plant

Masticate, Plant 9 9 9

Mechanical thin and pile, Plant 41 41 41

Mechanical thin and pile, subsoil

Natural regeneration

Plant as is 26 26 26

Total Site Prep and Plant Acres 654 654 654

Roadside Hazard Salvage Alternative 

2 

Alternative 

3 

Alternative 

4 

Alternative 

5 

Total Roadside Hazard Salvage Acres 2,717 2,717 2,645 2,717

Table F-4: Treatment by Prescription within the Total of all Project Areas by Alternative

437
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Treatment by Prescription (Total For All Project Areas)

Fuels Treatment by Prescription Alternative 

2

Alternative 

3

Alternative 

4

Alternative 

5

Fuels

Fuels Management Zone

Establish/Maintain Fuel Break w/ 

Mechanical or Hand Thin, Pile, & Burn

3,114 3,114 3,114 3,114

Hand Thin, Pile, Burn or Chip or Leave 

for Firewood

1,049 1,049 1,049 1,370

Machine Pile & Burn 252 252 252 458

Mastication or other Mechanical Thin 234 234 234 234

Ridgetop 84 84 84 84

Roadside 73 73 73 218

Underburn 540

Fuels Management Zone Total Acres 4,806 4,806 4,806 6,019

Roadside

Roadside 4,431 4,431 4,431 4,431

Roadside Total Acres 4,431 4,431 4,431 4,431

Understory Prescribed Fire 11,426

Underburn 11,082 11,082 11,082 11,082

Understory Thin, Pile, Burn or Chip 344 344 344 344

Understory Prescribed Fire Total Acres 11,426 11,426 11,426 11,426

WUI

Establish/Maintain Fuel Break w/ 

Mechanical or Hand Thin, Pile, & Burn

126 126 126 126

Hand Thin, Pile, Burn or Chip or Leave 

for Firewood

710 710 710 710

Machine Pile & Burn 26 26 26 26

Mastication or other Mechanical Thin 434 434 434 434

Roadside 331 331 331 331

Underburn 475 475 475 475

Understory Thin, Pile, Burn or Chip 122 122 122 122

WUI Total Acres 2,223 2,223 2,223 2,223

Total Fuels Acres 22,886 22,886 22,886 24,099

Salvage Harvest by System Alternative 

2

Alternative 

3

Alternative 

4

Alternative 

5

Ground Based 1,394 612 1,261 906

Helicopter 4,934 4,331 5,077 1,516

Skyline 5,371 4,638 3,882 987

Total Acres 11,699 9,581 10,221 3,409

Site Prep and Plant Treatments by 

Prescription

Alternative 

2

Alternative 

3

Alternative 

4

Alternative 

5

Vegetation Management 654 654 654

Cable yard, Plant 7,907 7,907 7,907

Fuel Treatment 57 57 57 57

Handcut and pile 111 111 111 111

Handcut and pile, Plant 335 335 335 188

Handcut and pile, Plant *IRA 3,194 3,194 3,194 701

Lop & Scatter, Plant 82 82 82

438
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Masticate 8 8 8

Masticate and subsoil, Plant 76 76 76 66

Masticate, Plant 251 251 251 251

Mechanical thin and pile, Plant 169 169 169 105

Mechanical thin and pile, subsoil 1,393 1,393 1,393 861

Natural regeneration 180 180 180 180

Plant as is 6 6 6 6

Total Site Prep and Plant Acres 2,045 2,045 2,045 1,339

Roadside Hazard Salvage Alternative 

2 

Alternative 

3 

Alternative 

4 

Alternative 

5 

Total Roadside Hazard Salvage Acres 20,499 20,499 19,584 20,499

439
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

Appendix G: Alternative Sent by the Karuk Tribe

440
Westside Fire Recovery Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

441
Draft Environmental Impact Statement Westside Fire Recovery Project

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

442
Westside Fire Recovery Project 

443

Westside Fire Recovery Project 

445

Westside Fire Recovery Project 

447