United States 

Department of 

Agriculture

ForestService 

R5-MB-309b

February 2018

Draft Record of Decision

Craggy Vegetation Management Project

Salmon/Scott River Ranger District, Klamath National Forest

Siskiyou County, California

Abstract: This Draft Record of Decision documents the Responsible Official’s 

proposed decision pertaining to the alternatives identified in the final EIS.

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service

Cooperating Agencies: None

Responsible Official: Patricia A. Grantham, Forest Supervisor, Klamath National Forest

For Information Contact: Danika Carlson, NEPA Planner, Salmon/Scott River Ranger 

District, Klamath National Forest, 11263 N. Hwy 3, Fort Jones, CA 96032

(530) 468-1225 or dcarlson02@fs.fed.us
In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights 

regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in 

or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, 

religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital 

status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or 

reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA 

(not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or 

incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program 

information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the 

responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA 

through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made 

available in languages other than English.

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, 

AD-3027, found onlineathttp://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or 

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

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

by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 

Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: 

program.intake@usda.gov.

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

El USDA es un proveedor, empleador y prestamista que ofrece igualdad de oportunidad.
1

Table of Contents

Background...................................................................................................................... 3

Decision ........................................................................................................................... 3

Decision Rationale........................................................................................................... 4

Purpose and Need.......................................................................................................................................4

Relevant Issues ...........................................................................................................................................5

Benefit and Harm.........................................................................................................................................6

Conclusion...................................................................................................................................................6

Other Alternatives Considered ....................................................................................... 7

Alternative 1.................................................................................................................................................7

Alternative 2.................................................................................................................................................7

Environmentally Preferable Alternative ......................................................................... 8

Public Involvement.......................................................................................................... 8

Scoping ........................................................................................................................................................8

Findings Required by Other Laws and Regulations ..................................................... 9

National Environmental PolicyAct .............................................................................................................9

National Forest ManagementAct................................................................................................................9

Prime Farmland, Rangeland and Forest Land ........................................................................................10

Clean Air Act..............................................................................................................................................10

Clean Water Act.........................................................................................................................................10

Endangered Species Act ..........................................................................................................................10

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation Management Act.................................................................11

Migratory Bird Treaty Act..........................................................................................................................11

National Historic Preservation Act...........................................................................................................11

Environmental Justice ..............................................................................................................................11

Invasive Species........................................................................................................................................12

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act ......................................................................................................................12

Administrative Review (Objection) Opportunities....................................................... 12

Implementation Date ..................................................................................................... 13

Contact Information ..................................................................................................................................13

Appendix A: Vicinity Map and Selected Alternative Treatment Map.......................... 15

Appendix B: Project Design Features.......................................................................... 21

Appendix C: Best Management Practices and Monitoring......................................... 35

Appendix D: Monitoring for the Selected Alternative.................................................. 39

Appendix E: Stand Treatment Table............................................................................. 41
2

List of Tables

Table 1: Acres and Treatment Types of the Draft Selected Alternative .................................................................................... 4

Table 2: Project Design Features................................................................................................................................................. 21

Table 3: Treatment Prescriptions by Unit for the Selected Alternative................................................................................... 41

List of Figures

Figure 1: Project Vicinity Map.................................................................................................................................................... 15

Figure 2: Alternative 3 Treatments Map Page 1 of 4................................................................................................................. 17

Figure 3: Alternative 3 Treatments Map Page 2 of 4................................................................................................................. 18

Figure 4: Alternative 3 Treatments Map Page 3 of 4................................................................................................................. 19

Figure 5: Alternative 3 Treatments Map Page 4 of 4................................................................................................................. 20
3

Background

The Craggy Vegetation Management Project (Craggy Project) was developed to improve fire 

resiliency on National Forest System lands by reducing fuels and stand density in strategic areas 

and within the wildland urban interface (WUI), to improve forest health, to improve habitat for 

various wildlife and botanical species of concern, and to improve watershed conditions in the 

project area. The project is located on the Salmon and Scott River Ranger District of the Klamath 

National Forest in Siskiyou County, California. Maps of the vicinity and treatments by unit for 

the selected alternative are displayed in Appendix A of this Record of Decision (ROD).

The purpose and need (final EIS, section 1.4) of this project is to:

• Improve defensibility and resiliency to wildfires;

• Improve forest health (reduce stand density and improve insect and disease resiliency);

• Improve early seral habitat for deer and other species that prefer early-successional 

habitat;

• Improve fire resiliency in habitat for late-successional dependent species (e.g., northern 

spotted owl, northern goshawk, North American wolverine, and fisher);

• Enhance habitat for the sensitive plant species Calochortus persistens (Siskiyou mariposa 

lily); and

• Improve watershed concerns caused by sediment sources to streams.

This draft ROD is based upon analysis documented in the Craggy Vegetation Management 

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

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

action alternatives, a no action alternative, and three alternatives considered but eliminated from 

detailed study (final EIS, Chapter 2).

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

https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=31770. The draft ROD and final EIS are also available 

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

the Klamath National Forest Headquarters (1711 South Main Street, Yreka, CA 96097; 530-842-

6131).

Decision

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

public and other agency input, I have decided to implement Alternative 3 as the draft selected

alternative. For a full description of this alternative and a detailed comparison with other 

alternatives considered, see Chapter 2 of the final EIS. The draft selected alternative incorporates 

the implementation of best management practices, project design features, and monitoring, all of

which are described in Appendices B, C and D of this draft ROD. Appendix E includes a 

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

Table 1 below summarizes the acres by treatment type of the draft selected alternative.
4

Table 1: Acres and Treatment Types of the Draft Selected Alternative

Treatments Acres

Total Area Proposed for Treatment (acres) 11,310

Fuel Breaks (acres) 2,190

Adjacent to private property 650

Roadside 810

Ridgetop 730

Prescribed Underburning (acres) 4,430

Mastication (acres) 760

Thinning Without Forest Product Removal (acres) 1,690

Thinning With Forest Product Removal (acres) 2,230

Legacy Sediment Site Treatment 78 sites

Project implementation is scheduled to begin in 2018 and will last about ten years. To facilitate 

treatment prescriptions, about 11 miles of temporary roads on existing roadbeds and about one 

mile of new temporary road, will be used for short-term access to the project; these will be 

hydrologically stabilized following project completion. Existing landings will be used to the 

extent possible, with up to 15 new landings constructed. A map depicting proposed locations for 

temporary roads and landings is included in Appendix A.

Decision Rationale

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

including how well the draft selected alternative meets the purpose and need (final EIS, Chapter 

2, summarized in Table 2-3); addresses relevant issues (final EIS, Chapter 2, summarized in 

Tables 2-4 and 2-5); and benefits or negatively affects the physical, biological, social and 

economic environment (final EIS, Chapter 2, summarized in Table 2-6 and disclosed in detail in 

Chapter 3). My decision to actively manage this area by approving the draft selected alternative 

is based upon the analysis presented in the final EIS, supporting documentation, and review of 

public and other agency feedback. My considerations also included relevant scientific 

information, opposing views, acknowledgement of incomplete or unavailable information, and a 

careful evaluation of both the benefits and harm of implementing the selected alternative. I 

believe the final EIS presents an objective and well-documented analysis of the environmental 

effects expected to result from implementation of the selected alternative. Direct, indirect, and 

cumulative effects were addressed for each resource area potentially affected by the project. 

Purpose and Need

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

degrees. Compared to the other action alternative, the draft selected alternative moves a larger

portion of the project area toward conditions that are more ecologically resilient to, and 

defensible against, high-intensity wildfire. Fuel loading and stand density will be decreased to 

achieve this need, with treatment areas strategically selected to facilitate prevention and

suppression of fires. Treatments in the draft selected alternative will also improve more acres of 

early seral and late successional habitat on a larger proportion of the project area than the other 

action alternative due to increased treatment acres of fuelbreaks, prescribed underburning, and 
5

thinning without forest product removal (final EIS, section 2.5). Habitat for the sensitive plant 

species, Calochortus persistens, will be improved similarly for either action alternative; water 

quality due to sediment will be improved by both action alternatives by the treatment of legacy 

sediment sites.

The differences between the two action alternatives are small; the draft selected alternative will 

aid in restoring ecological processes that build resiliency to high-intensity wildfire and insect and 

disease, while providing a broad range of ecosystem services, including wood products, rural 

economic health, community safety, and biodiversity. There will be less potential for water

quality impacts by crossing fewer streams than proposed in Alternative 2. With the selected 

alternative, stands will be more resilient to unexpected wildland fire occurrences, due to

increased treatment acres of fuel breaks, prescribed underburning, and thinning without forest 

product removal. More acres will be treated around private property within the project area, and 

safer access will be provided for firefighters and residents if wildfires occur.

Compared to Alternative 2, however, the draft selected alternative will improve forest health and 

heterogeneity on fewer total acres of forested stands (final EIS, section 2.5) due to having fewer 

acres of thinning with forest project removal. While the draft selected alternative includes

increased acres of fuel reduction activities, these acres are not all forested stands that would be 

included in effects analysis for silviculture as some are fields of brush with trees being a minor 

component. Therefore, this increase in treatment acres will not improve forest health and 

heterogeneity within these stands except where they are forested. Treatment prescriptions for 

fuel reduction activities are different from those for thinning activities and, furthermore, the 

prescriptions are different between thinning with removal of forest products and thinning without 

removal of forest products with the latter providing less overall improvement of forest health and 

heterogeneity (final EIS, section 3.3). Improvement of forest health is expected in forest product 

removal units compared to the other units due to decreases in density of trees and the allowance 

for increased spacing of the remaining trees with this treatment.

Relevant Issues

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

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

in Tables 2-4 and 2-5 of Chapter 2 in the final EIS. The selected alternative provides the best 

balance in addressing these issues while meeting the purpose and need.

In making this decision, I considered public comments including the following relevant issues:

Relevant Issue #1: There was a point of discussion about the effectiveness of the project for 

adequately protecting private landowners and private property.

Alternative 3, the draft selected alternative, was developed in response to this relevant issue. 

Compared to Alternative 2, it has an increased amount of fuelbreaks (2,190 acres as opposed to 

1,400 acres), and an increase in the amount of fuelbreak treatment adjacent to private property 

(650 acres as opposed to 60 acres). An alternative was considered (Alternative B) that included

additional hazardous fuel reduction activities adjacent to private lands but it was eliminated from 

detailed study because the new treatments were located in riparian reserves or were mid-slope 

and not conducive to wildfire suppression.

Relevant Issue #2: There was a point of discussion about the environmental effects of project 

activities such as temporary road construction, timber haul, landing establishment, and 

yarding activities on soils and aquatic resources.
6

Alternative 3, the draft selected alternative, was developed in response to this relevant issue. 

Compared to Alternative 2, it has a decreased level of thinning with product removal (2,230 

acres as opposed to 2,870), an increased level of thinning without product removal component

(1,690 acres as opposed to 1,270), and a decreased number of miles used of open roads (80 miles 

instead of 90). These activities will require fewer miles of temporary roads on existing roadbeds

(11 miles instead of 12), new temporary roads (one mile instead of two), new landings (15 rather 

than 16), and low-water stream crossings (one instead of two).

Benefit and Harm

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

implementation. However, as the responsible official, I am willing to accept short-term adverse

effects because of the anticipated long-term beneficial effects of project activities and the 

importance of achieving the project’s purpose and need. Neither of the action alternatives have 

adverse effects on human health or the environment that are significant, unacceptable, or above 

generally accepted norms. Project design features and best management practices are 

incorporated to minimize environmental harm and to address concerns raised by the 

interdisciplinary team, other agencies and governments, and the public.

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

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

in Chapter 3. Social and economic benefits include revenue and jobs provided for Siskiyou 

County. Social benefits also include improved safety of ingress and egress routes that may be 

used by the public and firefighters during fire suppression, and improved defensibility against

wildfire for the nearby communities of Yreka and Hawkinsville.

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

disease infestation, improved forest health, increased heterogeneity of trees species, improved 

habitat for the sensitive plant species Calochortus persistens, improved early seral and latesuccessional habitat for wildlife, improved long-term watershed conditions, and movement 

toward a more resilient ecosystem.

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

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

negative effects include smoke and dust emissions, sediment from roads and other treatments, 

soil disturbance, impacts to certain threatened, endangered, and sensitive wildlife and plant 

species, spread of noxious weeds, impacts to dispersed recreational users and release of 

greenhouse gas emissions. All of these environmental impacts will be minimized by adherence to 

project design features and best management practices (Appendices B and C of this document); 

this adherence will be monitored to ensure effectiveness. These environmental effects will be 

short-term, occur primarily during the course of project implementation, and diminish over time.

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

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

then the risk of continued decline in forest health and increase in fire susceptibility will continue.

Conclusion

Overall, the draft selected alternative best meets the purpose and need for action and minimizes 

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

forest compared with the other action alternative. The draft selected alternative provides 

protection for natural and public resources in the project area within the framework of existing 
7

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

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

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

direction and the direction specific to several individual management areas. Consistency with 

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

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

Checklist table (available on the project website). The draft selected alternative is also consistent 

with applicable laws, regulations, and policies.

Other Alternatives Considered

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

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

not be feasible; therefore, these are not analyzed in detail (detailed descriptions of these 

alternatives and those considered in detail can be found in the final EIS, Chapter 2).

Reasons for not selecting one of the two other alternatives considered in detail are discussed 

below: 

Alternative 1

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

serves as a baseline for comparison of the effects for all action alternatives. Alternative 1, the 

alternative to take no action, was not selected because it failed to address the purpose and need of 

the project to improve defensibility to wildfire for the nearby communities of Yreka and 

Hawkinsville and reduce fire risk in the wildland urban interface and in the project area. This 

alternative would also not address the purpose and need to improve stand health, heterogeneity 

and resilience to insects and disease, and resilience to drought and wildfire; it would not improve 

sensitive plant species habitat nor address effects from wildfire suppression or vegetation 

encroachment; it would not improve the quality of early seral habitat to address forage needs for 

deer, nor address overstocked stands at risk of fire or insect and disease mortality within or 

adjacent to late-successional wildlife habitat or address watershed concerns. No jobs or revenue 

would be provided. For this reason, in my opinion this alternative is unacceptable.

Alternative 2

The treatments in Alternative 2 which differ from Alternative 3 are described below, and listed in 

Table 2-2 of section 2.5 of the final EIS.

• There are about 10,600 acres proposed for treatments (compared to about 11,310 acres in 

Alternative 3);

• Fuelbreaks total 1,400 acres with 60 acres adjacent to private property (compared to 

2,190 of fuelbreaks and 650 acres adjacent to private property in Alternative 3);

• Mastication would occur on 900 acres (compared to 760 in Alternative 3);

• Thinning without forest product removal would be 1,270 acres, and thinning with forest 

product removal would be 2,870 acres (compared to 1,690 and 2,230 respectively).

Alternative 2 would treat fewer acres that improve defensibility and resiliency to wildfires in the 

project area and in the wildland urban interface than Alternative 3, including the treatment of

only 60 acres adjacent to private property. It would improve less early seral habitat and forage 
8

for deer, and improve the fire resiliency of late-successional habitat to a lesser extent. Treatment 

of habitat for the sensitive plant species, Calochortus persistens, would be the same for either 

action alternative; the same is true for the treatment of legacy sediment sites.

Environmentally Preferable Alternative

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

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

1505.2 (b)). The environmentally preferable alternative is the alternative that will promote the 

goals of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Section 101. This is often interpreted as 

the alternative that causes the least damage to the biological and physical environment, or the 

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

definition can be generalized to mean the alternative that best balances benefits and potential 

negative impacts.

Alternative 2 would treat fewer acres and in a less strategic manner within the project area and 

adjacent to private property, there would be less reduced risk and resiliency from wildfire. Stands 

would remain at higher risk to higher flame lengths and more intense wildfire than they would 

for Alternative 3. Alternative 2 would improve less early seral and late-successional habitat and 

not meet the purpose and need for treatment within these areas to as much of an extent as 

Alternative 3 would. For these reasons, Alternative 2 is not the environmentally preferable 

alternative.

Alternative 1 would not meet any component of the purpose and need for the project. Alternative 

1 would not result in any direct environmental impacts but would do nothing to move the project 

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

reason, Alternative 1 is not the environmentally preferable alternative.

I believe the draft selected alternative is the environmentally preferable alternative and best 

meets NEPA Section 101 goals. It provides the widest range of beneficial uses of the 

environment without degradation of the environment and balances resource use and protection.

Public Involvement

Scoping

Planning for this project was initiated in 2010. The project was first published to the Schedule of 

Proposed Actions and the Forest website on April 1, 2010. 

Public involvement with the Yreka Area Fire Safe Council and Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands 

Center began in 2012. This outreach effort led to public field trips in 2012 and 2013. Comments 

were sought from a number of other organizations and tribes.

On December 30, 2015, a scoping letter was sent to interested and affected parties. A Notice of 

Intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement was published in the Federal Register on 

January 4, 2016, which requested public comment on the proposal for 30 days following 

publication in the Federal Register. On the same day, a legal notice of scoping was published in 

the newspaper of record for the Klamath National Forest, the Siskiyou Daily News, notifying the 

public that comments were being sought on the project and had to be received within 30 days of 

publication of the Notice of Intent in the Federal Register to ensure consideration in the analysis.

A letter that included the information in the Notice of Intent was sent to individuals who had 

expressed interest in the project, adjacent landowners and residents, federal, state, and local 
9

agencies, Siskiyou County government, tribes, and other individuals or organizations who may 

be interested in or affected by the proposed action.

Following publication of the Notice of Intent, the Forest and Yreka Area Fire Safe Council cosponsored an open house on January 13, 2016, to which local agency and community 

representatives, adjacent landowners, organizations, and private individuals were invited to 

attend. Subsequently on March 1, 2016, the project team leader and fire and fuels specialist met 

with CALFIRE to gather more details on CALFIRE’s suggestions.

The comments received as a result of public scoping are summarized in the Scoping Outcome 

Summary, available on the Project website. The interdisciplinary team identified two relevant 

issues and developed Alternative 3 based on them.

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

team developed a draft EIS that was distributed as noted in Chapter 4 of the final EIS. A legal 

Notice of Availability of the draft EIS was published in the Siskiyou Daily News on September 

21, 2017, beginning a 45-day comment period that ended on November 6, 2017. A Notice of 

Availability of the draft EIS was published in the Federal Register on September 22, 2017. 

Comments were received from private landowners and individuals, environmental organizations, 

federal agencies, and local agencies. Appendix G of the final EIS includes a summary of all 

comments received and the Forest response to comments. Changes between the draft EIS and 

final EIS (documented in the final EIS, section 1.2) were minor and a comment period on the 

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

supporting documents are available on the Project website.

Findings Required by Other Laws and Regulations

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

protection laws. As discussed throughout the final EIS and supporting documents, the draft 

selected alternative is consistent with applicable law, regulation, and policy. The selected 

alternative will be located entirely on National Forest System lands and is not in conflict with 

planning objectives for Siskiyou County as disclosed in section 3.14 of the final EIS.

National Environmental PolicyAct

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

of 1969. The final EIS fulfills the requirements for environmental analysis found in NEPA and in 

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

The draft selected alternative will not result in irreversible damage to soils or other watershed 

characteristics such as detrimental soil loss, blockage of waterways, or riparian habitat. 

Vegetation that is removed as a result of thinning with forest product removal will result in a loss 

of productivity of individual trees; however, there will be no loss of entire stands of trees. Over 

the long term, the treatments are expected to improve productivity by improving individual tree 

health and reducing the risk of damage from potential high intensity wildfire.

National Forest Management Act

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

Management Act (NFMA) of 1976, which sets forth the requirements for Land and Resource 

Management Plans for the National Forest System. The selected alternative was designed to 

conform to the Klamath National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) 

goals, to meet or move toward desired conditions, and to comply with standards and guidelines 

for forest-wide management direction and the direction specific to individual management areas
10

within the project area.

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

Plan, pp. 4-6 and 4-7). The Forest Plan requires that projects meet, or not prevent attainment of, 

the objectives of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy (Forest Plan, pp. 4-6, 4-106). To address this 

requirement in the Craggy Project, an Aquatic Conservation Strategy Report was prepared (final 

EIS, Appendix F). Based on this review, I find that the selected alternative for the Craggy Project 

would maintain or restore Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives found in the Forest Plan of 

the Klamath National Forest.

The Forest Plan Consistency Checklist, available on the project website, identifies the Forest 

Plan standards and guidelines applicable to this project and demonstrates compliance with the 

Forest Plan. Based on my review of that document and other information in the project record, I 

determined that the selected alternative is consistent with the Forest Plan and all other 

requirements of the National Forest Management Act.

Prime Farmland, Rangeland and Forest Land

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

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

farmland or rangeland. Prime forest land does not apply within the National Forest System lands.

Clean Air Act

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

compliance with the Siskiyou County Air Quality Management District and California Air 

Resource Board air programs and the Forest Plan standards and guidelines. The selected 

alternative is consistent with the Clean Air Act (final EIS, sections 3.10 and 3.19).

Clean Water Act

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

practices designed to minimize or prevent the discharge of both point and non-point source 

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

North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board Basin Plan and the mid-Klamath total 

maximum daily load (TMDL).

Compliance with the Clean Water Act is regulated by the North Coast Regional Water Quality 

Control Board through a Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements for Nonpoint Source 

Discharges Related to Certain Federal Land Managed Activities on National Forest System 

Lands (Order No. R1-2015-0021). Compliance with the conditions of the Waiver equals 

compliance with the Clean Water Act and related total maximum daily loads for each impaired 

watercourse (North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board 2015). The Forest intends to 

comply with the 2015 Waiver with an application for coverage under the Waiver that will be 

submitted immediately following the Record of Decision for the Craggy Project. Implementation 

will not begin until the Waiver application is approved.

Endangered Species Act

The selected alternative complies with the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (final EIS, sections

3.4, 3.5, and 3.6). Thorough analyses is complete for federally listed species and consultation is

ongoing with the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service, for 

Section 7 of Endangered Species Act consultation requirements (19 U.S.C. 1536 (c)). 
11

The Forest made a determination of “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” for the northern 

spotted owl and its designated or proposed critical habitat (CH); a determination of “no effect” to 

the gray wolf; and “not likely to result in jeopardy” to the North American wolverine as 

disclosed in section 3.5 of the final EIS. The Forest submitted a Biological Assessment to the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and awaits concurrence. There will be no effect to any threatened 

or endangered plants because they do not occur within the Craggy Project area (final EIS, section 

3.4). The Forest made a determination of “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” threatened 

or endangered fish as disclosed in the final EIS, section 3.6. A Biological Assessment for effects 

on threatened and endangered fish has been submitted to the National Marine Fisheries Service 

and the Forest awaits concurrence.

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation Management Act

An analysis for essential fish habitat is summarized in section 3.6 of the final EIS; more 

information on consistency with 305 (b) (4) (A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation 

Management Act is provided in the Aquatic Resources report, available on the project website. 

The Forest determined that the project would have no effect on essential fish habitat for Coho 

salmon or Chinook salmon based on the information provided in section 3.6 of the final EIS and 

the relevant resource report.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act

The selected alternative complies with Executive Order 1386 by compliance with the 

Memorandum of Understanding between the Forest Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service as 

disclosed in section 3.5 of the final EIS and the Migratory Bird Act Compliance report.

Migratory birds of management concern are identified as Forest Service sensitive or management 

indicator species; effects to these birds and their habitats are disclosed in section 3.5 of the final 

EIS and the Management Indicator Species and Wildlife Resource reports. All of these reports 

are available on the Project website.

National Historic Preservation Act

Consultation with federally-recognized tribes was initiated early in the project planning process

in accordance with the Region 5 Programmatic Agreement, National Historic Preservation Act, 

and other laws and regulations (final EIS, section 1.8). Scoping letters, the draft EIS, and the 

final EIS were sent to the tribes listed in the final EIS (section 4.2). No concerns were expressed 

regarding the proposed action. The selected alternative is in compliance with Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act (final EIS, section 3.13). An Archaeological Survey Report is 

currently being completed and will be approved by the Klamath National Forest Heritage 

Program Manager in accordance with the Region 5 Programmatic Agreement, prior to the 

implementation of the Craggy Project. The selected alternative will not result in any negative 

impacts to cultural resource sites (final EIS, section 3.13).

Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898 relating to Environmental Justice requires an assessment of whether 

implementation of this decision would have disproportionately high effects on minority or low 

income populations.

The socio-economic analysis evaluated economic impacts on local communities (final EIS, 

section 3.14; the relevant resource report; and the Forest Plan Consistency Checklist, all 

available on the Project website). There will be no adverse effects on human health or the 

environment that are significant, unacceptable, or above generally accepted norms; therefore,
12

there will be no disproportionately high adverse effects on minorities or low income populations 

(final EIS, Section 3.14).

Invasive Species

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

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

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

promote the introduction or spread of invasive species unless the agency has determined and 

made public its determination that the benefits of such actions clearly outweigh the potential 

harm caused by invasive species; and take all feasible and prudent measures to minimize the risk 

of harm in conjunction with the actions. The requirements of this executive order are met 

through project design features that minimize or eliminate negative environmental effects as 

disclosed in section 3.4 of the final EIS.

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act

The selected alternative complies with the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Because the Wild and 

Scenic River Corridor of the Klamath River occupies a very small portion of the project area, all 

on private land at the confluence with Humbug Creek, and that portion is located away from 

project activities, no wild and scenic river report was included in project analysis. The selected 

alternative would not adversely affect any portion of the Klamath Wild and Scenic River.

Administrative Review (Objection) Opportunities

This proposed decision is subject to objection pursuant to 36 CFR Part 218. Objections will only 

be accepted from those who submitted project-specific written comments during scoping or a 

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

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

Objections must be submitted within 45 days following the publication of the legal notice in the 

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

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

by any other source. It is the objector’s responsibility to ensure evidence of timely receipt (36 

CFR 218.9).

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

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

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

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

the Craggy Project.

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

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

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

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

between your objections and your prior comments. Incorporate documents by reference only as 

provided for at 36 CFR 218.8 (b).
13

Implementation Date

Timing of my decision is pursuant to 36 CFR 218.12:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

fifth business day following the end of the objection filing period.

Implementation of the Project will not begin until concurrence is received on the biological 

assessments for wildlife and fisheries from the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National 

Marine Fisheries Service and the Waiver is received from the Water Board. My intention is to 

implement this project through service contracts, timber sale contracts, and stewardship 

contracts.

Contact Information

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

Planner, Salmon/Scott River Ranger District, 11263 N. Hwy 3, Fort Jones, CA 96032; by phone 

at 530-468-1225, or by email at dcarlson02@fs.fed.us. For additional information concerning 

objections, please contact: Elsa Gustavson, Environmental Coordinator, 1711 South Main Street, 

Yreka, CA 96097; phone 530-841-4428; email: egustavson@fs.fed.us
14

This page intentionally left blank
15

Appendix A: Vicinity Map and Selected Alternative Treatment Map

Figure 1: Project Vicinity Map.
16

This page intentionally left blank.
17

Figure 2: Alternative 3 Treatments Map Page 1 of 4
18

Figure 3: Alternative 3 Treatments Map Page 2 of 4
19

Figure 4: Alternative 3 Treatments Map Page 3 of 4
20

Figure 5: Alternative 3 Treatments Map Page 4 of 4
21

Appendix B: Project Design Features

Table 2: Project Design Features

Design 

Feature Description

Applicable Action 

Alternatives/

Areas or Units

Rationale or Applicable 

Standard and Guideline

Air Quality-1 Haul routes will be watered to suppress dust when 

needed.

All Alternatives: All Forest 

Service Roads in project 

area 

National Core BMP 

Road-4 (R5 BMP 2.4);

required for Water Board 

Waiver

Botany-1

Within Calochortus persistens habitat (in the 

Calochortus persistens management area, ground 

disturbance will only occur within designated unit 

boundaries; all equipment and project related 

disturbance will not operate or occur outside those 

boundaries except on designated road systems. No 

new landings will be constructed within this 

management area. Use of existing landings will be 

coordinated with the district botanist.

All Alternatives: Units 134-

47S, 138-155S, 138-46E, 

138-56S, 138-71S, 544-17S, 

544-19S, 544-20E, 544-

222S

USFWS / USFS / USDI 

Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM) 

Conservation Agreement

Botany-2

Within Calochortus persistens populations in the 

Calochortus persistens management area, all subpopulations within the project area will be flagged. 

No equipment/vehicle activity, tree skidding, or 

any other form of ground disturbance will occur 

within these flagged boundaries. Burn piles will not 

be constructed within flagged areas.

All Alternatives: Units 134-

47S, 138-155S, 138-46E, 

138-56S, 138-71S, 544-17S, 

544-19S, 544-20E, 544-

222S, 134-70P, 138-102P, 

138-56P, 138-70P, FBP1, 

FBR2, FBS1, FBS2

USFWS / USFS / BLM 

Conservation Agreement

Botany-3

Two sub-populations of Calochortus persistens

will be included for fuels removal treatment and 

underburn prescriptions. This work will be 

implemented with the district botanist and the 

following design features will be implemented: 1) 

Prescribed fire, and removal of brush and small 

diameter conifers within the sub-population 

boundary will only occur outside of the active 

growing season (April through August); 2) Burn 

piles will not be constructed within the flagged 

population boundaries; 3) Monitoring will occur 

after implementation and will include monitoring 

non-native invasive plant species.

All Alternatives: Units UB5, 

FBR2, and FBS1

USFWS / USFS / BLM 

Conservation Agreement

Botany-4

All populations of Eriogonum ursinum var. 

erubescens within the project area will be excluded 

from all project activities. These locations will be 

flagged with yellow and black flagging prior to 

project implementation.

All Alternatives: Units UB1, 

UB5, FBR2, FBS1, 138-

155S

USFWS / USFS / BLM 

Conservation Agreement

Fuels-1

All prescribed fire operations will be conducted 

subject to an administratively approved burn plan 

which includes the objectives of the burn, desired 

fire behavior and intensity, an emergency 

contingency plan and specified level of response to 

a fire escape.

All Alternatives: Units UB1, 

UB2, UB3, UB4, UB5

Forest Plan S&G 22-10; 

Response to Comments
22

Design 

Feature Description

Applicable Action 

Alternatives/

Areas or Units

Rationale or Applicable 

Standard and Guideline

Fuels-2

The prescribed burn plan will include a smoke 

management plan with the following features:

* Burning will be implemented when smoke is 

likely to be transported away from sensitive 

locations, when possible.

* Residents and landowners likely to be affected by 

smoke will be notified, as appropriate, prior to 

ignition.

* Ignition will only take place on permissive burn 

days as determined by the Siskiyou County Air 

Pollution Control District.

*Forecasts of weather in the project area will be 

used to ensure favorable “within prescription” 

weather conditions for the burn and smoke 

transport. Contingency plans will be developed to 

minimize smoke impacts if meteorological 

conditions change.

All Alternatives: All 

underburn, fuel break, and 

thinning units

Forest-wide S&G 22-21

Heritage-1

All heritage 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 Alternatives: All Units Forest Plan S&G 24-7

Heritage-2

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 

immediate vicinity of the resource shall cease until 

site evaluation is completed.

All Alternatives: All Units Forest Plan S&G 24-7

Invasive 

Species-1

Equipment and vehicles that leave established road 

surfaces will be cleaned of soil, seeds, vegetative 

matter, and other debris that could contain noxious 

weeds seeds or propagative material prior to 

entering the project area and before leaving 

infested areas. Areas appropriate for cleaning 

equipment will be designated as appropriate.

All Alternatives: All 

Thinning with Removal and 

Mastication Units

Forest Plan S&G 21-53

Invasive 

Species-2

High priority non-native invasive species sites will 

be flagged prior to project implementation with 

orange/black flagging labeled with “invasive 

species.” Equipment, vehicles, and personnel will 

avoid working within these flagged high priority 

areas. Mastication, equipment piling, and pile 

burning will not occur within these high priority 

areas.

All Alternatives: 136-145G, 

137-8S, 138-11S, 138-11G, 

138-46E, 138-56S, 138-56P, 

138-71S, 138-74M, 138-

151G, 138-155S,138-501P, 

544-17S, 544-19S, 544-20E, 

544-222S, UB1, UB2, UB4, 

FBR2, FBR3, FBR4, FBS2, 

138-MAST-1, 138-MAST-4 

Forest Plan S&G 21-53

Invasive 

Species-3

If potential landing sites are infested with noxious 

weeds, consult with the district botanist to 

determine appropriate methods for containing 

and/or managing the infestation. Methods may 

include blading infested soil away from activity 

zones and covering this soil; or adding a barrier to 

the landing so seed banks cannot be transported.

All Alternatives: All 

Thinning with Removal 

Units

Forest Plan S&G 21-53

Invasive 

Species-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 Alternatives: All Units Forest Plan S&G 21-53
23

Design 

Feature Description

Applicable Action 

Alternatives/

Areas or Units

Rationale or Applicable 

Standard and Guideline

Invasive 

Species-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 Alternatives: All Units Forest Plan S&G 21-53

Scenery-1

Where feasible, along ridgetops that are visible 

from the Yreka community, minimize landing size, 

number and width of cable corridors, and use 

parallel cable sets for skyline and endline units.

All Alternatives: 138-102G, 

135-56S, 138-155S, 544-

17S, 544-19S, 544-222S, 

138-46E, 544-20E

Forest Plan S&G 11-1, 

11-3, 11-4, 11-6.

Scenery-2

For all treatments that are visible from the Yreka 

community, avoid straight line appearances in the 

landscape along treatment edges. Vary the width of 

all ridgeline and roadside fuels treatments, or 

respond to existing vegetation density outside of all 

treatments to minimize line contrasts.

All Alternatives: Units 138-

11G, 138-11S, 138-102G, 

135-56S, 138-155S, 544-

17S, 544-19S, 544-222S, 

138-46E, 544-20E, 137-

MAST, 138-MAST, 544-

MAST, FBP-1, FBP-4, 

FBR-1, FBR-2, FBR-4, 

FBS-1, FBS-4

Forest Plan S&G 11-1, 

11-3, 11-4, 11-6.

Scenery-3

Treat slash within 100 feet of dispersed recreation

sites identified by Motor Vehicle Use Map access 

roads and designated recreational trails, and along 

Forest Plan identified moderately sensitive 

(visually) road segments. Additionally, treat slash 

within all landings along Forest Plan identified 

moderate sensitive Forest Routes (roads and trails). 

Treatment methods may vary as practical, with the 

desired future condition perpetuating a natural 

appearance. Ensure slash is abated as soon as 

practical, but no later than three years’ time postproject completion in order to meet Retention, 

Partial Retention, and Modification Visual Quality 

Objectives.

All Alternatives: Forest 

Route (Moderate 

Sensitivity): 45N28;

Siskiyou County 7G-01 

(Greenhorn Road).

Access Roads to Dispersed 

Sites: 51D027, 51D025, 

51D028

Trails: 5594, 5596, 55109

Treatment Units: 133-89G, 

134-55G, 134-58G, 134-

242G, 134-240G, 138-11G, 

138-11S, 138-46S, 38-56S, 

138-102P, 138-155S, 138-

70P, 544-17S, 544-19S, 544-

20E, 544-222S, UB1, UB5, 

FBP1, FBR1, FBR2, FBR3, 

FBS1, FBS3

Forest Plan S&G 11-1, 

11-3, 11-4.

Scenery-4

For all treatment units along moderate sensitive 

Forest Routes (roads and trails), and adjacent to 

dispersed recreation sites identified by Motor 

Vehicle Use Map access roads in the project area, 

low-stump (6-8” or less) all higher concentrations 

of cut trees that are visible on uphill and downhill 

slopes from the roadside viewing area.

All Alternatives: Forest 

Route (Moderate 

Sensitivity): 45N28;

Siskiyou County 7G-01 

(Greenhorn Road).

Access Roads to Dispersed 

Sites: 51D027, 51D025, 

51D028

Trails: 5594, 5596, 55109 

Treatment Units: 133-89G, 

134-33S, 134-34G, 134-

55G, 134-58G, 134-107S, 

134-242G, 134-240G, 138-

11G, 138-11S, 138-46E,

138-102P, 138-155S, 138-

70P, 544-17S, 544-19S, 544-

20E, 544-222S FBP1, FBR1, 

FBR2, FBR3, FBS1, FBS3, 

FBS-4

Forest Plan S&G 11-1, 

11-3, 11-4.
24

Design 

Feature Description

Applicable Action 

Alternatives/

Areas or Units

Rationale or Applicable 

Standard and Guideline

Scenery-5

Minimize visible paint in those treatment units 

along all moderate sensitive Forest Routes (roads 

and trails) in the project area, and in or near any

dispersed recreation sites identified by Motor 

Vehicle Use Map access roads.

All Alternatives: Forest 

Route (Moderate 

Sensitivity): 45N28;

Siskiyou County 7G-01 

(Greenhorn Road).

Access Roads to Dispersed 

Sites: 51D027, 51D025, 

51D028

Trails: 5594, 5596, 55109 

Treatment Units: 133-89G, 

134-33S, 134-34G, 134-

55G, 134-58G, 134-107S, 

134-242G, 134-240G, 138-

11G, 138-11S, 138-46E,

138-102P, 138-155S, 138-

70P, 544-17S, 544-19S, 544-

20E, 544-222S FBP1, FBR1, 

FBR2, FBR3, FBS1, FBS3, 

FBS-4

Forest Plan S&G 11-1, 

11-3, 11-4.

Recreation-1

For all dispersed recreation sites (designated by 

Motor Vehicle Use Map access roads) that are used 

as landings or for other purposes during harvest 

operations:

• Maintain the existing area footprint 

wherever practical (avoid enlarging the 

area).

• Clear slash, logs, or other activitygenerated debris as soon as practical at 

the close of operations for that area.

All Alternatives: Access 

Roads to Dispersed Sites: 

51D027, 51D025, 51D028

Forest Plan S&G 12-9

Recreation-2

Repair or replace recreational signing or other 

facilities and trail settings if damaged during 

project implementation.

All Alternatives: All Units 

Where Applicable Forest Plan S&G 12-3

Recreation-3

Provide safety signing along trails, roads, or for 

temporary road or trail closures in active project 

areas for public safety.

All Alternatives: All Units 

Where Applicable Forest Plan S&G 12-3

Recreation-4

Provide visitor information about area/road/trail 

closures, or other recreation setting changes, in 

news releases, on-site, and on the Forest website.

All Alternatives: All Units 

Where Applicable Forest Plan S&G 12-3

Recreation-5

No ground-based logging equipment shall cross 

any designated trail in the project area unless the 

Landscape Architect and/or District Recreation 

Officer is consulted for mitigation measures.

All Alternatives:

Trails: 5594, 5596, 55109

Units: 134-240G, 134-55G, 

134-245G, 134-58G, 133-

89G

Forest Plan S&G 12-14

Recreation-6

No hauling on Forest Service roads shall occur on 

the following holiday weekends during the 

recreation season: Memorial Day weekend, July 4th

weekend, and Labor Day weekend.

All Alternatives:

All thinning with forest 

product removal units.

Forest Plan S&G 12-8

Recreation-7

When possible, schedule burning to minimize 

impacts to those recreating. This may involve 

burning on low visitor use days in the spring and 

avoiding burning on high use weekends.

All Alternatives: All Pile 

Burning and Underburn 

Units

Forest Plan S&G 12-9
25

Design 

Feature Description

Applicable Action 

Alternatives/

Areas or Units

Rationale or Applicable 

Standard and Guideline

Watershed-1

Ground-disturbing activities are proposed to take 

place during the normal operating season (NOS) 

that is defined as May 1 to October 31 and in dry 

periods outside the NOS, adhering to the Forest’s 

wet weather operation standards (USDA 2002), as 

approved by the Forest Service representative.

* When working in hydrologic riparian reserves: 

When there is a 30 percent chance of rain in the 

next 24 hours, a Forest Service representative will 

be on site to insure that winterization or erosion

control procedures are implemented in a timely 

fashion and to initiate shutdown or resume 

operations.

*Operations will not resume until suitable weather, 

soil, and forecast conditions exist.

All Alternatives: All 

Thinning with Removal and 

Mastication Units

(R5 BMP 1.5, 5.6)

Watershed-2

Post-treatment soil cover will range from 50 to 80 

percent depending on slope steepness, soil texture, 

and fuel reduction treatments.

All Alternatives: All 

Thinning and Mastication 

Units

(R5 BMP 5.5), Forest 

Plan S&G 3-2

Watershed-3

Maintain existing coarse woody debris by having 

ground-based equipment avoid the larger diameter

woody debris as much as practical.

All Alternatives: All 

Thinning with Removal and 

Mastication Units

(R5 BMP 5.5), Forest 

Plan S&G 6-16

Watershed-4

Mechanized equipment will be restricted to:

1. If soil texture is Loam or finer: Slopes 

less than 45 percent

2. If soil texture is Sandy Loam or coarser: 

Slopes less than 35 percent

3. Mechanized equipment will be restricted 

to travelling generally in straight up and 

down patterns on slopes 35 to 45 percent 

and on steeper slopes for short portions 

(100 feet or less) regardless of texture 

when necessary

4. Where equipment will be operating on 

>45% slopes for more than just short 

stretches a cable-assist tether will be 

required.

5. In stands where tractor skidding is used 

and, where practical, logs should be 

placed in bundles on slopes less than 35 

percent.

6. Skid trails that connect benches separated 

by short steep slopes (broken ground) can 

have minor portions (100 feet or less) of 

the skid trail on slopes greater than 35 

percent.

Soil texture will be determined by the project soil 

scientist.

All Alternatives: All 

Thinning with Removal and 

Mastication Units

National Core BMP Veg4 (R5 BMP 1.9)

Watershed-5

Skidding equipment can operate in terraced 

plantations with slopes greater than 35 percent with 

the following restrictions: terraces will be used that 

are generally wide enough to accommodate 

harvesting and skidding equipment to limit 

increasing the cut and fill slopes on terraces. 

Skidding between terraces will be limited and 

locations of these skid trails will be flagged by the 

timber sale administrator with input from the 

project soil scientist.

All Alternatives: All 

Thinning with Removal 

Units

(R5 BMP 1.10)
26

Design 

Feature Description

Applicable Action 

Alternatives/

Areas or Units

Rationale or Applicable 

Standard and Guideline

Watershed-6

No full bench skid trails will be constructed except 

in terraced plantations and then only on existing 

terraces. (Full bench skid trails have the entire skid 

trail cut into the hill slope).

All Alternatives: All 

Thinning with Removal 

Units

(R5 BMP 1.10)

Watershed-7

Existing skyline corridors and ground-based skid 

trails will be reused whenever possible. 

Designation of new skid trails will be approved by 

a Timber Sale Administrator. Use existing skid and 

swing trails instead of building new skid trails 

unless using existing skid trails will have greater 

negative effects than building new. Use no skid 

trails in areas (1) in which ground-based 

mechanical equipment is excluded; and (2) on 

highly erosive soils, unstable areas, wetlands, or 

wet meadows (excluding small springs and seeps).

All Alternatives: All 

Thinning with Removal 

Units

(R5 BMP 1.10)

Watershed-8

Ground-based skidding and skyline cable yarding 

will require front-end suspension of logs on skid 

trails and corridors.

All Alternatives: All 

Thinning with Removal 

Units

(R5 BMP 1.10)

Watershed-9

Tractors and mechanical harvesters will be 

excluded from active landslides, toe zones of 

dormant landslides and inner gorges unless 

reviewed and recommended by a geologist.

All Alternatives: All 

Thinning with Removal 

Units

(R5 BMP 1.6)

Watershed-10

Limit equipment disturbance within 20 feet on 

either side of swales by minimizing equipment 

crossings and avoiding running trails up the axis of 

swales. Swales are shallow ephemeral channels that 

do not meet the definition of a riparian reserve

because they lack annual channel scour.

All Alternatives: All 

Thinning and Mastication 

Units

National Core BMP 

AqEco-1, AqEco-2 and 

Veg-3 (R5 BMP 1.19)

Watershed-11

Place corridors for skyline-yarding outside 

hydrologic riparian reserves parallel to the stream 

channel unless field assessment by soil scientist 

and sale administrator determines that placing them 

within the riparian reserve will not substantially 

damage residual trees, soil, or fish. Full suspension 

will be required for any yarding across or over 

perennial and intermittent streams to avoid damage 

to stream banks.

All Alternatives: All 

Thinning with Removal 

Units

National Core BMP Veg5 (R5 BMP 1.8, 1.11)

Watershed-12

Cable corridors will be placed on the landscape as 

to minimize disturbance to unstable lands (such as 

inner gorges, active landslides and toe zones). The 

layout will avoid yarding logs up the axis of the 

features.

All Alternatives: All 

Thinning with Removal 

Units

(R5 BMP 1.6)

Watershed-13

Trees may be removed from riparian reserves if

i. Trees must be removed to provide safe road 

passage or campground access and function; OR

ii. Those trees would pose a substantial risk to the 

forest road drainage system integrity; OR

iii. A fish biologist ensures that removal of these 

trees within riparian reserves is consistent with the 

Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives.

All Alternatives: All 

Thinning with Removal 

Units

National Core BMP Plan3 (R5 BMP 1.8)

Watershed-14

Trees directly rooted into the banks or otherwise 

and obviously integral to the stability of the 

channel bank will not be removed. Trees in the 

upland areas directly affecting streams will be 

directionally felled to protect stream banks.

All Alternatives: All 

Thinning Units

National Core BMP 

AqEco-1, AqEco-2 and 

Veg-3 (R5 BMP 1.19)
27

Design 

Feature Description

Applicable Action 

Alternatives/

Areas or Units

Rationale or Applicable 

Standard and Guideline

Watershed-15

To minimize the concentration of surface runoff, 

slash or water bars will be applied to corridors, skid 

and swing trails where the ground cover is below 

50 percent and where necessary to prevent runoff 

from entering the swing trails and stream channels. 

At project completion, permanent operating 

waterbars will be installed and/or repaired as 

necessary.

All Alternatives: All 

Thinning with Removal 

Units

(R5 BMP 1.10, 1.17)

Watershed-16

Perennial streams, even if dry, will not be crossed 

by skid trails. Intermittent channels may be crossed 

when dry and at locations designated by the Forest 

Service.

All Alternatives: All 

Thinning with Removal 

Units

National Core BMP 

AqEco-1, AqEco-2 and 

Veg-3 (R5 BMP 1.19)

Watershed-17

Skid trails that cross intermittent streams or dry 

swales (i.e. depressions in the landscape that do not 

meet the definition for a designation as riparian 

reserve) will be restored before any storm (with 

reasonable chance of causing offsite sediment 

movement), or after use is complete. This generally 

consists of removing excess soil, reshaping and 

waterbarring former approaches, and spreading 

slash on the former crossing.

All Alternatives: All 

Thinning with Removal 

Units

National Core BMP 

AqEco-1, AqEco-2 and 

Veg-3 (R5 BMP 1.19)

Watershed-18

Dry intermittent streams may be crossed by a 

masticator at designated sites only after field 

review and approval by a Forest Service 

hydrologist. No perennial streams, even when dry, 

will be crossed.

All Alternatives: All 

Mastication Units

National Core BMP 

AqEco-1, AqEco-2 and 

Veg-3 (R5 BMP 1.19)

Watershed-19

Masticators will not operate within 150 feet of 

slope distance on perennial streams and 100 feet of

slope distance on each side of intermittent streams, 

or the site potential tree height distance on each 

side of the stream, whichever is greatest (per 

Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objective 8). A 

masticator will not operate beyond the break in 

slope of any inner gorge. Consultation with the 

project fish biologist or hydrologist will occur to 

determine if any additional buffer width for 

masticator equipment is needed for a particular 

riparian reserve.

All Alternatives: All 

Mastication Units

National Core BMP 

AqEco-1, AqEco-2 and 

Veg-3 (R5 BMP 1.19)

Watershed-20

Existing landings will be used to the extent 

possible. Construct new landings outside both 

hydrologic and unstable-land riparian reserves and 

away from locations where sediment is likely to 

enter streams (areas that have a hydrologic 

connection to streams). If the existing landings are 

within 50 feet of slope distance to a stream channel 

or inner gorge they will not be used without 

consultation with the project hydrologist.

All Alternatives: All 

Thinning with Removal 

Units

National Core BMP Veg6 (R5 BMP 1.12)

Watershed-21

Once project activities are completed, re-establish 

natural runoff patterns on those landings used for 

the project (hydrologic stabilization) to protect 

water quality. Minimize sidecasting of material 

during maintenance, construction or reconstruction 

of landings. Use slash or straw to stabilize 

disturbed soil on fill slopes.

All Alternatives: All 

Thinning with Removal 

Units

National Core BMP Veg6 (R5 BMP 1.16)
28

Design 

Feature Description

Applicable Action 

Alternatives/

Areas or Units

Rationale or Applicable 

Standard and Guideline

Watershed-22

Fueling and servicing of vehicles used for proposed 

activities will be done outside of hydrologic

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. Report spills 

and initiate appropriate clean-up action in 

accordance with applicable state and federal laws, 

rules and regulations. The forest hazardous 

materials coordinator’s name and phone number 

shall be available to Forest Service personnel who 

administer or manage activities utilizing petroleumpowered equipment.

In the occurrence of a spill which may affect listed 

aquatic species, NOAA Fisheries will be notified 

for emergency consultation.

All Alternatives: All 

Applicable Units

National Core BMP 

Road-10 (R5 BMP 2.11)

Watershed-23

Use temporary roads on existing roadbeds instead 

of constructing new temporary roads except: (1) 

when temporary roads on existing roadbeds are 

located within stream-course riparian reserves

(unless the only way to access the unit will be to 

use a stream crossing on an existing roadbed); or 

(2) when temporary roads on existing roadbeds are 

located on highly erosive soils, active landslides, 

wetlands or meadows (excluding small springs and 

seeps).

All Alternatives: All 

Temporary Roads

National Core BMP 

Road-3 (R5 BMP 2.3)

Watershed-24

Improvements to existing roads in the project area 

will not over-steepen road cuts, will minimize 

sidecasting, and maintain the ditches and cross 

drains or any outslope of the roadway.

All Alternatives: All 

Applicable Roads

National Core BMP 

Road-3 (R5 BMP 2.3)

Watershed-25

Spot rocking will be used as necessary if small and 

isolated portions of the road system do not 

adequately dry to allow haul when most of the road 

is capable of haul. Ensure haul over the newly 

rocked areas will not create adverse impacts, such 

as sediment moving offsite towards channels.

All Alternatives: All 

Applicable Roads

National Core BMP 

Road-4 (R5 BMP 2.4)

Watershed-26

Existing low water crossings where forest 

transportation system roads cross perennial or 

intermittent streams will have temporary stream 

crossings installed for forest product removal, as 

approved by the project fisheries biologist. 

Installation and removal will be seasonally 

restricted as crossing will be installed during the 

operating season only and removed prior to end of 

the operating season of use. No project related nonpassenger vehicles will cross the stream at these 

locations when/if the temporary stream crossing is 

not in place. Project-related passenger vehicle use 

will be monitored and suspended if resource 

damage is likely to occur from continued use.

Alternative 2: Forest Road 

45N53 and 45N88

Alternative 3: Forest Road 

45N53

National Core BMP 

Road-7 (R5 BMP 2.8)

Watershed-27

Take-offs of temporary roads, skid and swing trails 

that intersect roads will be obliterated or effectively 

blocked to vehicle access following unit treatment.

All Alternatives: All 

Thinning with Removal 

Units

(R5 BMP 1.10)
29

Design 

Feature Description

Applicable Action 

Alternatives/

Areas or Units

Rationale or Applicable 

Standard and Guideline

Watershed-28

Temporary roads on existing road beds and new 

temporary roads will be blocked at the end of the 

normal or extended operating season when project 

activities cease due to wet weather conditions. All 

temporary roads will be hydrologically restored at 

project completion, which may include removal of 

culverts and fills at stream crossings, out-sloping of 

road surfaces, obliteration of road segments, and 

water barring or covering with slash.

All Alternatives: All 

Temporary Roads

National Core BMP 

Road-3 (R5 BMP 2.3)

Watershed-29

On roads treated for dust abatement, use erosion

control methods such as watering only when 

necessary and applying non-excessive volumes to 

prevent any sedimentation of streams.

All Alternatives: All 

Applicable Roads

National Core BMP 

AqEco-1, AqEco-2 and 

Veg-3 (R5 BMP 1.19)

Watershed-30

• Water drafting by more than one truck shall not 

occur simultaneously.

• Pumping will be terminated before tank 

overflows occur.

• 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.

All Alternatives: All Water 

Drafting Sites

National Core BMP 

WatUses-3 (R5 BMP 2.5)

Watershed-31

Drafting from fish-bearing (anadromous) waters

Use NOAA Fisheries Water Drafting 

Specifications:

• When in habitat potentially occupied by Coho 

Salmon, intakes will be screened with 3/32” mesh 

for rounded or square openings, or 1/16 inch 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 per second.

Use of a NOAA approved fish screen will ensure 

the above specifications are met.

• Pumping rate will not exceed 350 gallons-perminute (gpm) or 10 percent of the flow of the 

anadromous stream drafted from.

All Alternatives: All Water 

Drafting Sites

National Core BMP 

WatUses-3 (R5 BMP 2.5)

Watershed-32

Drafting from fish-bearing (non-anadromous) 

waters

• Drafting rate should not exceed 350 gpm for 

streamflow greater than or equal to 4.0 cubic-feetper-second (cfs).

• Below 4.0 cfs, drafting rates should not exceed 20 

percent of surface flows.

• Drafting should cease when bypass surface flows 

drop below 1.5 cfs.

• Use screen sizes described by NOAA 

specifications for steelhead (1/8 inch mesh size) for 

rainbow trout.

All Alternatives: All Water 

Drafting Sites

National Core BMP

WatUses-3 (R5 BMP 2.5)
30

Design 

Feature Description

Applicable Action 

Alternatives/

Areas or Units

Rationale or Applicable 

Standard and Guideline

Watershed-33

Drafting from non-fish-bearing waters

• Drafting rate should not exceed 350 gallons per 

minute for stream flow greater than or equal to 2.0 

cfs.

• Drafting rate should not exceed 50 percent of

surface flow.

• Drafting should cease from when bypass surface 

flow drops below 10 gallons per minute.

All Alternatives: All Water 

Drafting Sites

National Core BMP 

WatUses-3 (R5 BMP 2.5)

Watershed-34

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, at the discretion of 

the project fish biologist or hydrologist. All boards 

and plastic will be removed after use. Approaches 

may be rocked.

Water drafting sites located within fish-bearing 

stream segments may not be modified, except 

rocking the approach to prevent sedimentation.

All Alternatives: All Water 

Drafting Sites

National Core BMP 

WatUses-3 (R5 BMP 2.5)

Watershed-35

Ignition of underburns will generally not occur in 

riparian reserves, except to minimize the potential 

for burning material to roll down into a riparian 

reserve that would increase the potential for 

moderate or high intensity burns. Ignition will 

generally occur outside of riparian reserves (in 

upland areas) to avoid possibility of drip torch fuel 

entering stream courses. Fire will be allowed to 

back into riparian reserves to allow for a low 

intensity fire.

All Alternatives: All 

Underburn Units (R5 BMP 6.3)

Watershed-36

Restrictions for hand pile construction

• Place in a checkerboard pattern whenever 

possible (not one pile directly above another).

• Hand piles must be small in size, 6 feet or less in 

diameter.

• No hand piles within 15 feet of any perennial or 

intermittent stream channel.

• Between 15 and 30 feet, hand piles may be 

constructed if the following conditions exist: (1) 

not granitic soils, (2) slope is less than 35 percent, 

or (3) ground cover is greater than 50 percent. If 

the condition cannot be met, then slash should be 

lopped and scattered.

All Alternatives: All Fuel 

Break and Thinning Units

National Core BMP Fire2 (R5 BMP 6.3)

Watershed-37

Burning hand piles within riparian reserves

• See Watershed-36 for hand pile construction 

description.

If perennial streams are greater than 1 foot in width

• Only hand piles greater than 30 feet from the 

channel may be burned. 

If intermittent and small (less than 1 foot in width) 

perennial streams

• Hand piles greater than 15 feet from the channel 

may be burned.

All Alternatives: All Fuel 

Break and Thinning Units

National Core BMP Fire2 (R5 BMP 6.3)
31

Design 

Feature Description

Applicable Action 

Alternatives/

Areas or Units

Rationale or Applicable 

Standard and Guideline

Watershed-38

For underburning, construction of handlines in 

riparian reserves closer than 25 feet to a 

watercourse shall be avoided where practical. 

Handline construction in riparian vegetation shall 

be avoided where practical. Handlines will be 

mitigated (waterbarred and covered with organic 

material) immediately following prescribed 

burning, when safe to do so.

All Alternatives: All 

Underburn Units

National Core BMP Fire2 (R5 BMP 6.3)

Watershed-39

When underburning in riparian reserves, at least 90 

percent of the large woody debris will not be 

consumed, both standing and on the ground.

All Alternatives: All 

Underburn Units

National Core BMP Fire2 (R5 BMP 6.3)

Wildlife-1

Retain at a minimum two to five snags per acre on 

average where available, assessed on a landscape 

level. Snag retention may not be met equally on 

every acre but will be met at a landscape scale. 

Retain snags in clumps or groups, situated around 

the largest and live trees where possible. Select 

snags with broken tops as first priority.

All Alternatives: All 

Applicable Units Forest Plan S&G 8-22

Wildlife-2

Maintain existing snag and coarse woody debris

levels across the landscape where fuel loading is 

not excessive; average five to 20 pieces, greater 

than 12 inches in diameter, per acre.

All Alternatives: All 

Applicable Units Forest-wide S&G 6-16

Wildlife-3

A seasonal restriction of February 1st to September 

15th will apply to all activities that modify suitable 

nesting, roosting, or foraging habitat (including 

activities that degrade or are beneficial) within 0.25 

miles of an NSO activity center or within unsurveyed nesting/roosting/foraging habitat. This 

seasonal restriction may be lifted if protocol 

surveys determine NSOs are not nesting in the year 

of action.

All Alternatives: 134-31G, 

134-107S, 134-33S, 134-

34S, 134-39S, 138-53S, 138-

54S, 138-53P, 136-61P, 134-

131P, FBP1, FBS3, FBR1, 

FBR3

Forest Plan S&G 8-1, 8-2

Wildlife-4

A seasonal restriction of February 1st through July 

9th will apply to all activities that are not in suitable 

habitat but will potentially produce noise above 

ambient noise levels within 0.25 miles of an NSO 

activity center or un-surveyed nesting, roosting, or 

foraging habitat. This seasonal restriction may be 

lifted if protocol surveys determine NSOs are not 

nesting in the year of action.

All Alternatives: 134-31G, 

134-107S, 134-33S, 134-

34S, 134-39S, 138-53S, 138-

54S, 138-53P, 136-61P, 134-

131P, FBP1, FBS3, FBR1, 

FBR3

Forest Plan S&G 8-1, 8-2

Wildlife-5

When spring burning between February 1st and July 

31st, smoke is managed so that light to moderate, 

dispersed smoke may be present with a canyon or 

drainage but dissipates or lifts within 24 hours. 

When such burning is conducted within 0.25 miles 

and uphill of a known NSO activity center or 

within 0.25 miles of an NSO activity center or unsurveyed nesting, roosting, or foraging habitat that 

is not clearly separated by a topographic feature, 

smoke is managed as described above and, ignition 

will be discontinued if heavy, concentrated smoke 

begins to inundate suitable habitat late in the 

afternoon.

All Alternatives: 134-31G, 

134-107S, 134-33S, 134-

34S, 134-39S, 138-53S, 138-

54S, 138-53P, 136-61P, 134-

131P, UB1, UB2, FBP1, 

FBS3, FBR1, FBR3

Forest Plan S&G 8-1, 8-2

Wildlife-6

No known bald eagle nest trees, perch trees, or 

roost trees within winter roost areas will be 

removed or destroyed as a result of project 

activities if discovered.

All Alternatives: All 

Applicable Units

Bald and Golden Eagle 

Act
32

Design 

Feature Description

Applicable Action 

Alternatives/

Areas or Units

Rationale or Applicable 

Standard and Guideline

Wildlife-7

To minimize effects on bald eagles, prescribed 

burning will not occur in or within 0.5 miles of a 

known or suspected nest territory from January 1st 

to August 31st. Activities that create noise above 

ambient levels within 0.25 miles of active or 

suspected bald eagle nests if discovered, or occur 

within 0.5 miles of line-of-sight of such nests, will 

be seasonally restricted from January to August 31. 

If surveys demonstrate that nest sites are not active, 

no seasonal restrictions are required.

All Alternatives: All 

Applicable Units

Bald and Golden Eagle 

Act

Wildlife-9

In known occupied northern goshawk nest sites and 

management areas, no burning or use of heavy 

equipment will occur within 0.25 miles of the nest 

site between March 1st and August 31st. If protocol 

surveys are conducted and the site is found to be 

unoccupied, proposed actions may proceed.

All Alternatives: All 

Applicable Units Forest Plan S&G 8-20

Wildlife-10

In order to avoid direct harm to individual Siskiyou 

Mountain salamanders, in occupied sites or areas 

modeled as having moderate or high likelihood of 

occupancy; implement burning when salamanders 

have low likelihood of being surface active (midsummer and mid-winter months). Consult with the 

district wildlife biologist to determine when there is 

a low likelihood of surface activity.

All Alternatives: All 

Applicable Units Forest Plan S&G 8-18

Wildlife-11

Avoid use of heavy equipment on known Siskiyou 

Mountain salamander sites, or on suitable talus that 

has a moderate or high likelihood of occupancy for 

the Siskiyou Mountain and Scott Bar salamander 

and for the Tehama chaparral and blue gray tail 

dropper.

All Alternatives: All 

Applicable Units

Forest Plan S&G 8-18, 

ROD for Survey and 

Manage species

Wildlife-12

Treatment units containing suitable Siskiyou 

Mountain salamander habitat or known sites will be 

flagged and avoided or surveyed prior to ground 

disturbing activities; flagged areas will be utilized 

as "skips" considered in variable density thinning 

prescriptions.

All Alternatives: All 

Applicable Units

Forest Plan S&G 8-18, 

ROD for Survey and 

Manage species

Wildlife-13

Greater than 60 percent of the existing canopy

cover of the larger mature trees, large down woody 

debris, and sufficient forest floor litter will be 

retained within and adjacent to known sites of 

Tehama chaparral and blue gray tail dropper.

All Alternatives: All 

Applicable Units

Forest Plan S&G 8-18, 

ROD for Survey and 

Manage species

Wildlife-14

Pre-disturbance surveys for Category A survey and 

manage species will be completed to protocol prior 

to ground-disturbing activities where suitable 

habitat exists. Known mollusk sites will be flagged

and buffered by one site tree height by the District 

biologist prior to implementation. No treatments 

will occur within this buffer; flagged areas will be 

used as "skips" considered in variable density 

thinning prescriptions.

All Alternatives: All 

Applicable Units

Forest Plan S&G 8-18, 

ROD for Survey and 

Manage species

Wildlife-15

Minimize potential logging damage and negative 

effects to retained hardwoods and sensitive 

meadow habitats by using techniques such as 

directional felling away from these trees and 

meadows, and restricting equipment use in 

meadows. For hardwoods in tree form, retain 

except where removal is required for operability or 

fuel break function. Include in leave tree spacing.

All Alternatives: All 

Thinning, Fuel Break and 

Mastication Units

Forest Plan S&G 8-31, 8-

42. 8-43
33

Design 

Feature Description

Applicable Action 

Alternatives/

Areas or Units

Rationale or Applicable 

Standard and Guideline

Wildlife-16

Retain up to 25% of area in planned fuel break and 

mastication treatments as untreated islands and 

irregular edge to retain diversity for wildlife habitat 

needs where fuel break effectiveness would not be 

compromised. Residual hardwood trees and 

conifers count towards untreated area.

All Alternatives: Units: 137-

Mast, 138-Mast-1, and 544-

Mast

Forest Plan S&G 6-2

Wildlife-17

In order to minimize potentials impacts to gray 

wolf:

If a den site is detected in or near the project area 

during the project implementation timeframes, a 

seasonal restriction from April 1 through June 30 

will be applied to restrict noise- and smokegenerating activities that are above ambient 

standards within one mile of the den.

While the provision for the seasonal restriction for 

the den site is expected to provide protection from 

any prolonged or substantial project-related 

disturbance during the critical pup-rearing period at 

early rendezvous site(s), a similar seasonal 

restriction for activities within one mile of any 

discovered active rendezvous sites from April 1 

through August 31 will be implemented. Further 

discussions and coordination with U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service may result in modified distances 

or more flexible dates for this specific protection 

measure.

These seasonal restrictions will be implemented 

unless there are topographic features or terrain that 

clearly separates the noise- or smoke- generating 

activity from the den or rendezvous site(s).

While there are no known den or rendezvous site(s) 

associated with the Craggy Project area at this time, 

this project design feature will be implemented and 

coordination with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

will take place if den or rendezvous sites are 

confirmed.

All Alternatives: All 

Applicable Units Forest Plan S&G 8-1, 8-2
34

This page intentionally left blank.
35

Appendix C: Best Management Practices and Monitoring

The following list of best management practices (BMPs) apply to the Craggy Project; 

the objective of each project specific BMP, and the prescriptions and project design 

features developed to implement each, are identified below. For additional 

information on the BMPs and their objectives, see Water Quality Management on 

National Forest System Lands in California (USDA 2000) and R-5 Water Quality 

Management Handbook (FSH 2509.22, Chapter 10). National Core BMPs are 

identified where appropriate and will also be implemented (USDA 2012c).

BMP 1.1 – Timber Sale Planning Process (National Core BMP Veg-1 

Vegetation Management Planning): Objective: To incorporate water-quality and 

hydrologic considerations into the timber sale planning process. Implementation:

A hydrologist, geologist, soil scientist, and fisheries biologist participated in the 

environmental analysis and documentation process and prescribed site-specific 

actions to avoid adverse effects to water quality.

BMP 1.2 – Timber Harvest Unit Design: Objective: To ensure that timber 

harvest unit design will secure favorable conditions of water quality and quantity, 

while maintaining desirable stream channel characteristics and watershed 

conditions. Implementation: The Interdisciplinary Team reviewed all units to 

select harvest methods appropriate to site conditions. Additionally, units were 

adjusted or removed to meet water quality protection goals.

BMP 1.3 – Determination of Surface Erosion Hazard for Timber Harvest 

Unit Design (National Core BMP Veg-2 Erosion Prevention and Control): 

Objective: To identify high-erosion hazard areas to adjust treatment measures and 

prevent downstream water-quality degradation. Implementation: 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. Selected management activities were designed to achieve predominately 

low erosion hazard ratings for Project implementation in treatment units.

BMP 1.4 – Use of Sale Area Maps and/or Project Maps for Designating 

Water Quality Protection Needs: Objective: To ensure recognition and 

protection of areas related to water-quality protection delineated on a sale-area 

map or a Project map. Implementation: Sale area maps or project maps will 

include stream-courses, water drafting sites, legacy sediment sites and logging 

systems for units.

BMP 1.5 – Limiting the Operating Period of Timber Sale Activities: 

Objective: To ensure that the purchasers conduct their operations, including, 

erosion-control work, road maintenance, and so forth, in a timely manner, within 

the time specified in the timber sale contract. Implementation: Project design 

features developed to minimize negative effects include: Watershed-1.

BMP 1.6 – Protecting Unstable Lands: Objective: To provide special treatment 

of unstable areas to avoid triggering mass slope failure with resultant erosion and 

sedimentation. Implementation: Project watershed personnel conducted field 

reviews of all proposed harvest units and identified and documented unstable 
36

areas. Project design features developed to minimize negative effects include: 

Watershed-9 and Watershed-12.

BMP 1.8 – Streamside Management Zone Designation (National Core BMPs 

Veg-3 Aquatic Management Zones and Plan-3 Aquatic Management 

Planning): Objective: To designate a zone along riparian areas, streams, and 

wetlands that will minimize potential for adverse effects from adjacent 

management activities. Management activities within these zones are designed to 

improve riparian values. Implementation: The Forest Plan designated riparian 

reserves and identified standards for activities within these designated areas that 

will be followed. Project design features developed to minimize negative effects 

include: Watershed-11 and Watershed-13.

BMP 1.9 – Determining Tractor Loggable Ground (National Core BMP Veg4 Ground-Based Skidding and Yarding Operations): Objective: To minimize 

erosion and sedimentation resulting from ground disturbance of tractor logging 

systems. Implementation: Project design feature developed to minimize negative 

effects include: Watershed-4.

BMP 1.10 – Tractor Skidding Design: Objective: By designing skidding 

patterns to best fit the terrain, the volume, velocity, concentration, and direction of 

runoff water can be controlled in a manner that will minimize erosion and 

sedimentation. Implementation: Project design features developed to minimize 

negative effects include: Watershed-5, Watershed-6, Watershed-7, Watershed-8, 

Watershed-15, and Watershed-27.

BMP 1.11 - Suspended Log Yarding in Timber Harvesting (National Core 

BMP Veg-5 Cable and Aerial Yarding Operations): Objective: To protect the 

soil mantle from excessive disturbance; to maintain the integrity of the streamside 

management zone (SMZ) and other sensitive watershed areas, and to control 

erosion on cable corridors. Implementation: Project design features developed to 

minimize negative effects include: Watershed-11.

BMP 1.12 – Log Landing Location (National Core BMP Veg-6 Landings): 

Objective: To locate new landings or reuse old landings in such a way as to avoid 

watershed impacts and associated water-quality degradation. Implementation:

Project design features developed to minimize negative effects include: 

Watershed-20.

BMP 1.16 – Log Landing Erosion Control (National Core BMP Veg-6 

Landings): Objective: To reduce the impacts of erosion and subsequent 

sedimentation associated with log landings by use of mitigating measures.

Implementation: Project design features developed to minimize negative effects 

include: Watershed-21.

BMP 1.17 – Erosion Control on Skid Trails: Objective: To protect water quality 

by minimizing erosion and sedimentation derived from skid trails.

Implementation: Project design features developed to minimize negative effects 

include: Watershed-15.

BMP 1.19 – Stream Course and Aquatic Protection (National Core BMPs 

Veg-3 Aquatic Management Zones, AqEco-1 Aquatic Ecosystem 
37

Improvement and Restoration Planning, and AqEco-2 Operations in Aquatic 

Ecosystems): Objective: To conduct management actions within these areas in a 

manner that maintains or improves riparian and aquatic values; to provide 

unobstructed passage of stormflows; to control sediment and other pollutants 

entering streamcourses; and to restore the natural course of any stream as soon as 

practicable, where diversion of the stream has resulted from timber management 

activities. Implementation: Project design features developed to minimize negative 

effects include: Watershed-10, Watershed-14, Watershed-16, Watershed-17, 

Watershed-18, Watershed-19, and Watershed-29.

BMP 1.20 – Erosion Control Structure Maintenance: Objective: To ensure that 

constructed erosion-control structures are stabilized and working. Implementation:

Erosion control measures will be maintained by the contractor for up to one year 

post-installation.

BMP 1.21 – Acceptance of Timber Sale Erosion Control Measures before 

Sale Closure: Objective: To ensure the adequacy of required erosion-control work 

on timber sales. Implementation: The timber sale administrator will inspect the 

erosion control measures for compliance with contract.

BMP 2.3 – Road Construction and Reconstruction (National Core BMP 

Road-3 Road Construction and Reconstruction): Objective: Minimize erosion 

and sediment delivery from roads during road construction or reconstruction, and 

their related activities. Implementation: Project design features developed to 

minimize negative effects include: Watershed-23, Watershed-24, and Watershed28.

BMP 2.4 – Road Maintenance and Operations (National Core BMP Road-4 

Road Operations and Maintenance): Objective: To ensure water-quality 

protection by providing adequate and appropriate maintenance and by controlling 

road use and operations. Implementation: Project design features developed to 

minimize negative effects include: Air Quality-1 and Watershed-25.

BMP 2.5 – Water Source Development and Utilization (National Core BMP 

WatUses-3 Administrative Water Developments): Objective: To supply water 

for road construction, maintenance, dust abatement, fire protection, and other 

management activities, while protecting and maintaining water quality.

Implementation: Project design features developed to minimize negative effects 

include: Watershed-30, Watershed-31, Watershed-32, Watershed-33, and

Watershed-34.

BMP 2.8 – (National Core BMP Road-7 Stream Crossings): Objective: Avoid, 

minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian resources 

when constructing, reconstructing, or maintaining temporary and permanent 

waterbody crossings. Implementation: Project design features developed to 

minimize negative effects include: Watershed-26.

BMP 2.11 – Equipment Refueling and Servicing BMP 2.8 – (National Core 

BMP Road-10 Equipment Refueling and Servicing): Objective: Prevent fuels, 

lubricants, cleaners, and other harmful materials from discharging into nearby 

surface waters or infiltrating through soils to contaminate groundwater resources.
38

Implementation: Project design features developed to minimize negative effects 

include: Watershed 22.

BMP 2.13 – Erosion Control Plan (National Core BMPs Fac-2 Facility 

Construction and Stormwater Control, Road-3 Road Construction and 

Reconstruction, Road-4 Road Operations and Maintenance, and Road-7 

Stream Crossings): Objective: 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. Implementation: An erosion control 

plan will be followed.

BMP 5.2 - Slope Limitations for Mechanical Equipment Operation (National 

Core BMPs Veg-2 Erosion Prevention and Control, Veg-4 Grand-Based 

Skidding and Yarding Operations, and Veg-8 Mechanical Site Treatment): 

Objective: To reduce gully and sheet erosion and associated sediment production 

by limiting tractor use. Implementation: See BMP 1.9 (Project Design Feature 

Watershed-4) for slope limitations on mechanical equipment.

BMP 5.5 - Disposal of Organic Debris: Objective: To prevent gully and surface 

erosion with associated reduction in sediment production and turbidity during and 

after treatment. Implementation: Project design features developed to minimize 

negative effects include: Watershed-2 and Watershed-3.

BMP 5.6 - Soil Moisture Limitations for Mechanical Equipment Operations: 

Objective: To prevent compaction, rutting, and gullying, with resultant sediment 

production and turbidity. Implementation: See BMP 1.5 (Project Design Feature 

Watershed-1) for wet weather operating standards.

BMP 6.1 – Fire and Fuel Management Activities (National Core BMP Fire-1 

Wildland Fire Management Planning): Objective: To reduce public and private 

losses and environmental impacts which result from wildfires and/or subsequent 

flooding and erosion by reducing or managing the frequency, intensity, and extent 

of wildfire. Implementation: The District Fuel/Fire department helped determined 

acceptable levels of slash to retain on the site following harvest activities and also 

to identify areas and methods to remove standing slash of a sub merchantable size, 

that otherwise would create an unacceptable fire risk.

BMP 6.2 – Consideration of Water Quality in Formulating Fire Prescriptions 

(National Core BMP Fre-2 Use of Prescribed Fire): Objective: To provide for 

water-quality protection while achieving the management objectives through the 

use of prescribed fire. Implementation: See BMP 5.5 (Project Design Feature 

Watershed-2).

BMP 6.3 – Protection of Water Quality from Prescribed Burning Effects 

(National Core BMP Fre-2 Use of Prescribed Fire): Objective: To maintain soil 

productivity; minimize erosion; and minimize ash, sediment, nutrients, and debris 

from entering water bodies. Implementation: Project design features developed to 

minimize negative effects include: Watershed-35, Watershed-36, Watershed-37,

Watershed-38, and Watershed-39.
39

Appendix D: Monitoring for the Selected Alternative

As project actions are implemented, they are monitored by Forest Service personnel as part of 

normal operating procedures.

As thinning of larger trees (thinning with forest product removal, generally commercially 

marketable trees greater than 10 inches in diameter at breast height) and thinning of smaller trees 

(thinning without forest product removal or non-commercial) is implemented, projects are 

monitored by Forest Service personnel as part of normal operating procedures. Forest Service 

employees monitor timber marking of harvest units to ensure that prescriptions and marking 

guides are being followed. Forest Service sale administrators monitor the harvest to assure that 

Forest Plan standards and guidelines, best management practices, and project design features are 

being implemented. Forest Service personnel monitor thinning without forest product removal as 

it is being accomplished to determine if objectives are being achieved and to make sure thinning 

specifications are being followed.

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

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

require monitoring of the burning to ensure that project objectives are being achieved. Postproject fuels will be assess and evaluated on a unit by unit basis, for fuels units (including 

thinning without product removal and mastication units), to determine if project objectives were 

met.

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

implementation and effectiveness monitoring. Assumptions made pertaining to effects to species 

are validated.

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

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

monitoring reports.

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

best management practices appropriate for this project which are listed earlier in this appendix. 

Since many project activities do not occur within the same year, they will be included in Best 

Management Practices Evaluation Program monitoring pool of random sampling for up to a 

decade as needed. The Forest sediment and temperature monitoring plan and quality assurance 

project plan (USDA 2010) will be implemented for Total Maximum Daily Load compliance as 

displayed in the North Coast Region Basin Plan (North Coast Water Board 2011).

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

standards and guidelines in the Forest Plan may occur in the Craggy Project. Field investigations 

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

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

be selected randomly from all activity areas across the Forest where soil-disturbing activities 

take place; the Craggy Project will be included in the sampling pool for soil monitoring. Results 

will be documented in the Forest Plan annual monitoring reports.
40

This page intentionally left blank
41

Appendix E: Stand Treatment Table

Table 3: Treatment Prescriptions by Unit for the Selected Alternative

Unit 

Number

Type of 

Treatment Primary Treatment Removal Method Follow-up Treatment Acres

133-

89G

Thinning w/ 

Removal

Thin from Below, Remove 

Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment Underburn 14

134-2S Thinning w/ 

Removal

Thin from Below, Remove 

Cut Trees

Skyline or Tethered 

Equipment Underburn 42

134-21S Thinning w/ 

Removal

Thin from Below, Remove 

Cut Trees

Skyline or Tethered 

Equipment

Manual Thin Trees 

<10", Scatter or Pile 

and Burn

30

134-23P

Thinning 

w/o 

Removal

Manual Thin Brush and 

Trees <10 in N/A Scatter or Manual Pile 

& Burn Piles 110

134-27S Thinning w/ 

Removal

Thin from Below, Remove 

Cut Trees

Skyline or Tethered 

Equipment Underburn 10

134-28S Thinning w/ 

Removal

Thin from Below, Remove 

Cut Trees

Skyline or Tethered 

Equipment Underburn 7

134-

29G

Thinning w/ 

Removal

Thin from Below, Remove 

Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment Underburn 16

134-29P

Thinning 

w/o 

Removal

Manual Thin Brush and 

Trees <10 in N/A Scatter or Manual Pile& Burn Piles 19

134-

31G

Thinning w/ 

Removal

Thin from Below, Remove 

Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment Underburn 9

134-

32G

Thinning w/ 

Removal

Thin from Below, Remove 

Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment Underburn 11

134-32P

Thinning 

w/o 

Removal

Manual Thin Brush and 

Trees <10 in N/A Scatter or Manual Pile 

& Burn Piles 19

134-32S Thinning w/ 

Removal

Thin from Below, Remove 

Cut Trees

Skyline or Tethered 

Equipment Underburn 16

134-

33G

Thinning w/ 

Removal

Thin from Below, Remove 

Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment Underburn 11

134-33S Thinning w/ 

Removal

Thin from Below, Remove 

Cut Trees

Skyline or Tethered 

Equipment Underburn 52

134-

34G

Thinning w/ 

Removal

Thin from Below, Remove 

Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment Underburn 50

134-34S Thinning w/ 

Removal

Thin from Below, Remove 

Cut Trees

Skyline or Tethered 

Equipment Underburn 27

134-36S Thinning w/ 

Removal

Thin from Below, Remove 

Cut Trees

Skyline or Tethered 

Equipment

Manual Thin Trees 

<10", Scatter or Pile 

and Burn

32

134-38S Thinning w/ 

Removal

Thin from Below, Remove 

Cut Trees

Skyline or Tethered 

Equipment Underburn 14

134-

39G

Thinning w/ 

Removal

Thin from Below, Remove 

Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment Underburn 7

134-39S Thinning w/ 

Removal

Thin from Below, Remove 

Cut Trees

Skyline or Tethered 

Equipment Underburn 54

134-

40G

Thinning w/ 

Removal

Thin from Below, Remove 

Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment Underburn 16

134-

41G

Thinning w/ 

Removal

Thin from Below, Remove 

Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment Underburn 24

134-41S Thinning w/ 

Removal

Thin from Below, Remove 

Cut Trees

Skyline or Tethered 

Equipment Underburn 18
42

Unit 

Number

Type of 

Treatment Primary Treatment Removal Method Follow-up Treatment Acres

134-

42G

Thinning w/ 

Removal

Thin from Below, Remove 

Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment

Manual Thin Trees 

<10", Scatter or Pile 

and Burn

12

134-42S Thinning w/ 

Removal

Thin from Below, Remove 

Cut Trees

Skyline or Tethered 

Equipment

Manual Thin Trees 

<10", Scatter or Pile 

and Burn

7

134-

44G

Thinning w/ 

Removal

Thin from Below, Remove 

Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment

Manual Thin Trees 

<10", Scatter or Pile 

and Burn

20

134-44S Thinning w/

Removal

Thin from Below, Remove 

Cut Trees

Skyline or Tethered 

Equipment

Manual Thin Trees 

<10", Scatter or Pile 

and Burn

18

134-47S Thinning w/ 

Removal

Thin from Below, Remove 

Cut Trees

Skyline or Tethered 

Equipment Underburn 19

134-55E Thinning w/ 

Removal

Thin from Below, Remove 

Cut Trees Endline Underburn 4

134-

55G

Thinning w/ 

Removal

Thin from Below, Remove 

Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment Underburn 28

134-

58G

Thinning w/ 

Removal

Thin from Below, Remove 

Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment Underburn 12

134-58S Thinning w/ 

Removal

Thin from Below, Remove 

Cut Trees

Skyline or Tethered 

Equipment Underburn 6

134-

59G

Thinning w/ 

Removal

Thin from Below, Remove 

Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment Underburn 97

134-70E Thinning w/ 

Removal

Thin from Below, Remove 

Cut Trees Endline

Manual Thin Trees 

<10", Scatter or Pile 

and Burn

13

134-

70G

Thinning w/ 

Removal

Thin from Below, Remove 

Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment

Manual Thin Trees 

<10", Scatter or Pile 

and Burn

7

134-70P

Thinning 

w/o 

Removal

Manual Thin Brush and 

Trees <10 in N/A Scatter or Manual Pile 

& Burn Piles 78

134-

83G

Thinning w/ 

Removal

Thin from Below, Remove 

Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment Underburn 13

134-83S Thinning w/ 

Removal

Thin from Below, Remove 

Cut Trees

Skyline or Tethered 

Equipment Underburn 68

134-

107S

Thinning w/ 

Removal

Thin from Below, Remove 

Cut Trees

Skyline or Tethered 

Equipment Underburn 80

134-

131P

Thinning 

w/o 

Removal

Manual Thin Brush and 

Trees <10 in N/A Scatter or Manual Pile 

& Burn Piles 22

134-

240G

Thinning w/ 

Removal

Thin from Below, Remove 

Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment Underburn 12

134-

240P

Thinning 

w/o 

Removal

Manual Thin Brush and 

Trees <10 in N/A Scatter or Manual Pile 

& Burn Piles 145

134-

242G

Thinning w/ 

Removal

Thin from Below, Remove 

Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment Underburn 33

134-

242P

Thinning 

w/o 

Removal

Manual Thin Brush and 

Trees <10 in N/A Scatter or Manual Pile 

& Burn Piles 26

134-

242S

Thinning w/ 

Removal

Thin from Below, Remove 

Cut Trees

Skyline or Tethered 

Equipment Underburn 15

134-

244P

Thinning 

w/o 

Removal

Manual Thin Brush and 

Trees <10 in N/A Scatter or Manual Pile 

& Burn Piles 20
43

Unit 

Number

Type of 

Treatment Primary Treatment Removal Method Follow-up Treatment Acres

134-

244S

Thinning w/ 

Removal

Thin from Below, Remove 

Cut Trees

Skyline or Tethered 

Equipment Underburn 8

134-

245G

Thinning w/ 

Removal

Thin from Below, Remove 

Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment Underburn 12

134-

246P

Thinning 

w/o 

Removal

Manual Thin Brush and 

Trees <10 in N/A Scatter or Manual Pile 

& Burn Piles 68

134-

247G

Thinning w/ 

Removal

Thin from Below, Remove 

Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment Underburn 29

134-

247S

Thinning w/ 

Removal

Thin from Below, Remove 

Cut Trees

Skyline or Tethered 

Equipment Underburn 7

134-

248E

Thinning w/ 

Removal

Thin from Below, Remove 

Cut Trees Endline Underburn 1

134-

248G

Thinning w/ 

Removal

Thin from Below, Remove 

Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment Underburn 77

134-

248S

Thinning w/ 

Removal

Thin from Below, Remove 

Cut Trees

Skyline or Tethered 

Equipment Underburn 55

134-

249G

Thinning w/ 

Removal

Thin from Below, Remove 

Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment Underburn 27

134-

250G

Thinning w/ 

Removal

Thin from Below, Remove 

Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment Underburn 57

134-

250P

Thinning 

w/o 

Removal

Manual Thin Brush and 

Trees <10 in N/A Scatter or Manual Pile 

& Burn Piles 20

134-

251P

Thinning 

w/o 

Removal

Manual Thin Brush and 

Trees <10 in N/A Scatter or Manual Pile 

& Burn Piles 37

134-

299G

Thinning w/ 

Removal

Thin from Below, Remove 

Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment Underburn 13

134-

299S

Thinning w/ 

Removal

Thin from Below, Remove 

Cut Trees

Skyline or Tethered 

Equipment Underburn 24

136-2P

Thinning 

w/o 

Removal

Manual Thin Brush and 

Trees <10 in N/A Scatter or Manual Pile & Burn Piles 45

136-

18G

Thinning w/ 

Removal

Thin from Below, Remove 

Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment Underburn 63

136-

21G

Thinning w/ 

Removal

Thin from Below, Remove 

Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment

Manual Thin Trees 

<10", Scatter or Pile 

and Burn

30

136-21P

Thinning 

w/o 

Removal

Manual Thin Brush and 

Trees <10 in N/A Scatter or Manual Pile & Burn Piles 24

136-

22G

Thinning w/ 

Removal

Thin from Below, Remove 

Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment Underburn 103

136-

24G

Thinning w/ 

Removal

Thin from Below, Remove 

Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment Underburn 38

136-25P

Thinning 

w/o 

Removal

Manual Thin Brush and 

Trees <10 in N/A Scatter or Manual Pile 

& Burn Piles 38

136-

26G

Thinning w/ 

Removal

Thin from Below, Remove 

Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment Underburn 4

136-26P

Thinning 

w/o 

Removal

Manual Thin Brush and 

Trees <10 in N/A Scatter or Manual Pile 

& Burn Piles 29

136-

47G

Thinning w/ 

Removal

Thin from Below, Remove 

Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment Underburn 14

136-

57G

Thinning w/ 

Removal

Thin from Below, Remove 

Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment Underburn 135
44

Unit 

Number

Type of 

Treatment Primary Treatment Removal Method Follow-up Treatment Acres

136-61P

Thinning 

w/o 

Removal

Manual Thin Brush and 

Trees <10 in N/A Scatter or Manual Pile & Burn Piles 57

136-

145G

Thinning w/ 

Removal

Thin from Below, Remove 

Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment Underburn 9

136-

146G

Thinning w/ 

Removal

Thin from Below, Remove 

Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment Underburn 8

136-

147G

Thinning w/ 

Removal

Thin from Below, Remove 

Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment Underburn 41

136-

302P

Thinning 

w/o 

Removal

Manual Thin Brush and 

Trees <10 in N/A Scatter or Manual Pile 

& Burn Piles 44

136-

400M Mastication Masticate Brush, Thin Trees <10 in N/A Masticate 19

136-

401M Mastication Masticate Brush, Thin Trees <10 in N/A Masticate 31

136-

402M Mastication Masticate Brush, Thin Trees <10 in N/A Masticate 13

136-

917M Mastication Masticate Brush, Thin Trees <10 in N/A Masticate 43

136-

926P

Thinning 

w/o 

Removal

Manual Thin Brush and 

Trees <10 in N/A Scatter or Manual Pile 

& Burn Piles 75

137-5S Thinning w/ 

Removal

Thin from Below, Remove 

Cut Trees

Skyline or Tethered 

Equipment Underburn 28

137-6S Thinning w/ 

Removal

Thin from Below, Remove 

Cut Trees

Skyline or Tethered 

Equipment Underburn 40

137-8S Thinning w/ 

Removal

Thin from Below, Remove 

Cut Trees

Skyline or Tethered 

Equipment Underburn 33

137-

Mast Mastication Masticate Brush, Thin Trees <10 in N/A Masticate 140

138-1G Thinning w/ 

Removal

Thin from Below, Remove 

Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment Underburn 45

138-3S Thinning w/ 

Removal

Thin from Below, Remove 

Cut Trees

Skyline or Tethered 

Equipment Underburn 12

138-

11G

Thinning w/ 

Removal

Thin from Below, Remove 

Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment Underburn 33

138-11S Thinning w/ 

Removal

Thin from Below, Remove 

Cut Trees

Skyline or Tethered 

Equipment Underburn 20

138-

12G

Thinning w/ 

Removal

Thin from Below, Remove 

Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment Underburn 7

138-13S Thinning w/ 

Removal

Thin from Below, Remove 

Cut Trees

Skyline or Tethered 

Equipment Underburn 41

138-23P

Thinning 

w/o 

Removal

Manual Thin Brush and 

Trees <10 in N/A Scatter or Manual Pile & Burn Piles 45

138-46E Thinning w/ 

Removal

Thin from Below, Remove 

Cut Trees Endline Underburn 19

138-53P

Thinning 

w/o 

Removal

Manual Thin Brush and 

Trees <10 in N/A Scatter or Manual Pile 

& Burn Piles 73

138-53S Thinning w/ 

Removal

Thin from Below, Remove 

Cut Trees

Skyline or Tethered 

Equipment

Manual Thin Trees

<10", Scatter or Pile 

and Burn

23

138-54S Thinning w/ 

Removal

Thin from Below, Remove 

Cut Trees

Skyline or Tethered 

Equipment

Manual Thin Trees 

<10”, Scatter or Pile 

and Burn

20
45

Unit 

Number

Type of 

Treatment Primary Treatment Removal Method Follow-up Treatment Acres

138-56P

Thinning 

w/o 

Removal

Manual Thin Brush and 

Trees <10 in N/A Scatter or Manual Pile & Burn Piles 289

138-56S Thinning w/ 

Removal

Thin from Below, Remove 

Cut Trees

Skyline or Tethered 

Equipment

Manual Thin Trees 

<10", Scatter or Pile 

and Burn

37

138-70P

Thinning 

w/o 

Removal

Manual Thin Brush and 

Trees <10 in N/A Scatter or Manual Pile & Burn Piles 99

138-71S Thinning w/ 

Removal

Thin from Below, Remove 

Cut Trees

Skyline or Tethered 

Equipment Underburn 38

138-

74M Mastication Masticate Brush, Thin Trees <10 in N/A Masticate 33

138-91S Thinning w/ 

Removal

Thin from Below, Remove 

Cut Trees

Skyline or Tethered 

Equipment Underburn 16

138-

102P

Thinning 

w/o 

Removal

Manual Thin Brush and 

Trees <10 in N/A Scatter or Manual Pile 

& Burn Piles 225

138-

151G

Thinning w/ 

Removal

Thin from Below, Remove 

Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment

Manual Thin Trees 

<10", Scatter or Pile 

and Burn

22

138-

155S

Thinning w/ 

Removal

Thin from Below, Remove 

Cut Trees

Skyline or Tethered 

Equipment

Manual Thin Trees 

<10", Scatter or Pile 

and Burn

13

138-

501P

Thinning 

w/o 

Removal

Manual Thin Brush and 

Trees <10 in N/A Scatter or Manual Pile 

& Burn Piles 86

138-

532G

Thinning w/ 

Removal

Thin from Below, Remove 

Cut Trees

Ground Based 

Equipment Underburn 10

138-

Mast-1 Mastication Masticate Brush, Thin Trees <10 in N/A Masticate 80

138-

Mast-4 Mastication Masticate Brush, Thin Trees <10 in N/A Masticate 24

544-17S Thinning w/ 

Removal

Thin from Below, Remove 

Cut Trees

Skyline or Tethered 

Equipment

Manual Thin Trees 

<10", Scatter or Pile 

and Burn

19

544-19S Thinning w/ 

Removal

Thin from Below, Remove 

Cut Trees

Skyline or Tethered 

Equipment Underburn 46

544-20E Thinning w/ 

Removal

Thin from Below, Remove 

Cut Trees Endline Underburn 26

544-

222S

Thinning w/ 

Removal

Thin from Below, Remove 

Cut Trees

Skyline or Tethered 

Equipment Underburn 5

544-

Mast Mastication Masticate Brush, Thin Trees <10 in N/A Masticate 382

FBP1

Fuel BreakAdjacent to 

Private 

Land

Manual Thin Brush and 

Trees <10 in N/A Scatter or Manual Pile 

& Burn Piles 295

FBP2

Fuel BreakAdjacent to 

Private 

Land

Manual Thin Brush and 

Trees <10 in N/A Scatter or Manual Pile & Burn Piles 115

FBP3

Fuel BreakAdjacent to 

Private 

Land

Manual Thin Brush and 

Trees <10 in N/A Scatter or Manual Pile 

& Burn Piles 170
46

Unit 

Number

Type of 

Treatment Primary Treatment Removal Method Follow-up Treatment Acres

FBP4

Fuel BreakAdjacent to 

Private 

Land

Manual Thin Brush and 

Trees <10 in N/A Scatter or Manual Pile & Burn Piles 72

FBR1 Fuel BreakRoadside

Manual Thin Brush and 

Trees <10 in N/A Manual Pile & Burn Piles 33

FBR2 Fuel BreakRoadside

Manual Thin Brush and 

Trees <10 in N/A Manual Pile & Burn Piles 204

FBR3 Fuel BreakRoadside

Manual Thin Brush and 

Trees <10 in N/A Manual Pile & Burn Piles 203

FBR4 Fuel BreakRoadside

Manual Thin Brush and 

Trees <10 in N/A Manual Pile & Burn Piles 303

FBR5 Fuel BreakRoadside

Manual Thin Brush and 

Trees <10 in N/A Manual Pile & Burn Piles 71

FBS1 Fuel BreakRidge

Manual Thin Brush and 

Trees <10 in N/A Manual Pile & Burn Piles 197

FBS2 Fuel BreakRidge

Manual Thin Brush and 

Trees <10 in N/A Manual Pile & Burn Piles 166

FBS3 Fuel BreakRidge

Manual Thin Brush and 

Trees <10 in N/A Manual Pile & Burn Piles 190

FBS4 Fuel BreakRidge

Manual Thin Brush and 

Trees <10 in N/A Manual Pile & Burn Piles 104

FBS5 Fuel BreakRidge

Manual Thin Brush and 

Trees <10 in N/A Manual Pile & Burn Piles 71

UB1

Prescribed 

Fire 

Underburn

Low Intensity Prescribed 

Fire N/A Underburn 2279

UB2

Prescribed 

Fire 

Underburn

Low Intensity Prescribed 

Fire N/A Underburn 901

UB3

Prescribed 

Fire 

Underburn

Low Intensity Prescribed 

Fire N/A Underburn 215

UB4

Prescribed 

Fire 

Underburn

Low Intensity Prescribed 

Fire N/A Underburn 897

UB5

Prescribed 

Fire 

Underburn

Low Intensity Prescribed 

Fire N/A Underburn 137