United States Department of Agriculture

Horse Creek Community 

Protection and Forest 

Restoration Project

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Forest Service

Klamath

National Forest

Happy Camp/Oak 

Knoll

Ranger District

R5-MB-302

June 2017
In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights 

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

participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, 

color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual 

orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public 

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

program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies 

and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. 

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information 

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

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

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

available in languages other than English. 

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

Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any 

USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information 

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

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

Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-

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

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

El USDA es un proveedor, empleador y prestamista que ofrece igualdad de oportunidad.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

i

Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

Final Environmental Impact Statement

Siskiyou County, California

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service

Responsible Official: Patricia A. Grantham, Forest Supervisor

1711 S. Main Street Yreka, CA 96097-9549

For Information Contact: Lisa Bousfield, District Environmental Coordinator

63822 State Highway 96 Happy Camp, CA 96039

(530) 493-1766

Abstract: The Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project was 

developed in response to the Gap Fire that began on August 27, 2016 and burned 33,000 acres. 

The project will address the need for safety of the public, adjacent private landowners, forest 

workers, and firefighters. Depending on the management area, there is also a need to recover 

timber volume from fire killed trees, reduce the probability and extent of future high-severity 

fire, develop fire-resilient coniferous forests in severely burned stands, and reduce the risk of 

future large-scale high severity fire losses of habitat. The Proposed Action would treat roadside 

hazard trees adjacent to approximately 103 miles of roads and 7,325 acres of National Forest 

System land. Project treatments include: roadside hazard tree removal; roadside fuels treatments; 

fuels reduction adjacent to private property; developing and maintaining fuels management 

zones; salvage harvest with site preparation and planting; site preparation and planting (without 

salvage); and Horse Creek Special Interest Area focused treatments. In total, the agency 

considered eight alternatives, including the no action and others not considered in detail. 

Alternative 3 was developed in response to relevant information about the effects of salvage 

harvest along the Siskiyou Crest and temporary road construction and reconstruction. Alternative 

3 removes all treatment units on the Siskiyou Crest and all new and existing temporary roads. 

Alternative 4 was developed to further reduce the effects to the northern spotted owl. This 

alternative reduces salvage harvest, reduces roadside hazard along dead-end roads, reduces 

roadside fuels, and minimizes the fuel management zone footprint that occurs in high valued 

activity center core use areas. This alternative also reduces the amount of roadside fuels within 

suitable northern spotted owl habitat and removes salvage units from high valued core use areas.

Objections:

This FEIS and the proposed decision are subject to objection pursuant to 36 CFR 218, Subparts 

A and B. Objections will only be accepted from those who submitted project-specific written 

comments during scoping or another 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 notice of 

availability (NOA) in the Federal Register, which 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). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

ii

Objections may be submitted via mail, fax (707-562-9229) or delivered during business hours 

(M-F 8:00am to 4:00pm). Objections must be submitted to the reviewing officer: Randy Moore, 

Regional Forester, USDA Forest Service; Attn: Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest 

Restoration Project; 1323 Club Drive, Vallejo, CA 94592. Phone (707) 562-8737. Electronic 

objections, in common formats (.doc, .pdf, .rtf, .txt), may be submitted to: objectionspacificsouthwest-regional-office@fs.fed.us with Subject: Horse Creek Community Protection 

and Forest Restoration Project.

Objections must: 1) include name, address and telephone; 2) include signature or other 

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

name, Responsible Official name and title, and name of affected National Forest(s) and/or 

Ranger District(s); 5) include reasons for, and suggested remedies to resolve, your objections; 

and, 6) include a description of the connection between your objections and your prior comments 

(36 CFR 218.8(d)). Incorporate documents by reference only as provided for at 36 CFR 218.8(b).

For additional information about how to object, contact Lauren McChesney at 

laurendmcchesney@fs.fed.us or 530-841-4483.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

iii

Summary

The Forest Service prepared this final environmental impact statement (EIS) in compliance with 

the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant federal and state laws and 

regulations. In response to issues raised by the public during scoping and consultation efforts 

with tribes and regulatory agencies, the Forest Service refined the proposed action and developed 

two additional action alternatives analyzed in detail. Comments received on the draft EIS were 

considered in developing this final EIS. This final environmental impact statement discloses the 

environmental impacts that would result from the Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest 

Restoration Project proposed action or its alternatives.

Background

The project is located on National Forest System lands adjacent to the community of Horse 

Creek, California in Siskiyou County. The project is in response to conditions created by the Gap 

Fire, which began in the late afternoon of August 27, 2016 from an unknown cause. The Gap 

Fire continued for several days, impacting the nearby communities, private structures, national 

forest and private infrastructure, private timberlands, and natural resources. Despite initial attack 

efforts to suppress the fire, it burned over 33,000 acres. As a result of the Gap Fire, there is a 

mosaic of fire severity effects across the landscape. Within the Gap Fire perimeter, 21,580 acres 

of National Forest land burned –16,590 at low severity, 1,005 at low to moderate severity, 690 at 

moderate to high severity, and 3,295 at greater than high severity (see Chapter 1 for more 

details).

Purpose and Need

Over the coming decades, snags created by the Gap Fire will break or fall and become ground 

fuels. As snags continue to decay, break, and fall, surface fuel loading and the severity and 

intensity of future fires will increase. Increased fire intensities and fallen snags will inhibit the 

effective control of future fires and put fire suppression crews at increased risk. Fallen hazard 

trees will also impact road access along miles of roadways, impairing fire suppression efforts. 

Local communities and residential enclaves are nestled within and adjacent to forests that are 

part of a larger fire-adapted ecosystem. Hazardous trees and fuel conditions need to be abated 

where they exist within the wildland urban interface, especially within one-quarter mile of 

private property in burned areas, and areas identified as strategic. Strategic areas are where there 

is a greater likelihood that fires can be successfully contained or controlled in order to have 

better conditions for suppressing future fires. The goal is to protect the lives and properties of our 

local communities.

• Since the Gap Fire created unsafe conditions, the project will address the need for safety of 

the public, adjacent private landowners, forest workers, and firefighters.

• Within general forest and associated management areas, there is a need to recover timber 

volume from fire killed trees, reduce the probability and extent of future high-severity fire, 

and develop fire-resilient coniferous forests in severely burned areas.

• Within late-successional reserves and the Horse Creek Special Interest Area, there is a need 

for reduced fuels to reduce the risk of future large-scale high severity fire and loss of late 

successional habitat and for fire-resilient coniferous forest areas to meet the desired 

conditions described in the Forest Plan.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

iv

Proposed Action as Scoped

The proposed action would treat roadside hazard trees adjacent to approximately 103 miles of 

roads and 7,325 acres of other treatments within the 40,834-acre project boundary.

Actions in the Proposed Action as scoped are as follows:

1. Roadside Hazard Removal, 103 miles;

2. Roadside Fuels Reduction, 1,243 acres;

3. Fuel Reduction Adjacent to Private Lands, 1,684 acres;

4. Fuel Management Zones, 1,499 acres; 

5. Salvage Harvest with Site Preparation and Planting 2,257 acres;

6. Site Preparation and Planting without Salvage, 458 acres

7. Special Interest Area Restoration, 184 acres

Public Engagement

The Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS was published in the Federal Register on November 22, 

2016, beginning the 30-day public scoping period. The Forest Service held public meetings and 

field trips to engage interested parties. See Chapter 1 for details.

Results of Scoping

The Forest received 333 comments during the scoping period by means of 27 unique letters and 

945 form letters. In response to comments received, the Forest Service determined four topics to 

be relevant to alternative development or project design:

• Potential long-term effects of temporary road and landing construction and use;

• Potential effects of post-fire logging on the Siskiyou Crest near Condrey Mountain and 

Dry Lake Mountain;

• Potential effects of the Project on northern spotted owls or their habitat; and,

• Potential Project effects on amenity resources such as recreation and scenic values.

Other issues were also considered during the refinement of the proposed action or addressed in 

the disposition of scoping comments (see Scoping Outcome Summary on the project website).

Comment Period Notification

The Notice of Availability of the draft EIS was published in the Federal Register on April 28, 

2017, beginning the 45-day comment period on the draft EIS. A legal notice was published in the 

Siskiyou Daily News on the same date. 

Results from Comment Period Comments

The comment period for the draft EIS resulted in the receipt of 995 comment letters, including 

19 unique letters, 718 form letters, and 24 form letters that included additional information (234 

letters were duplicates). A report of the comments received, including a list of commenters, and 

responses to them is included as an appendix to the draft Record of Decision which is available 

in the project record on the project website.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

v

Ongoing Consultation Efforts

The Forest Service has engaged in government-to-government consultation with federally 

recognized local tribes and sought input from non-federally recognized tribes. Regarding 

Endangered Species Act consultation requirements, the Forest Service is consulting with 

National Marine Fisheries Service for the Coho salmon and its critical habitat and the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service for the northern spotted owl and its critical habitat.

Alternatives Considered in Detail

In total, the agency considered eight alternatives in the final environmental impact statement. In 

response to relevant issues, two alternatives (Alternative 3 and 4) to the proposed action were 

developed. As a result of government-to-government consultation, the Karuk Tribe submitted an 

alternative in response to the Horse Creek project’s scoping notice. Three other alternatives were 

considered but eliminated from detailed study. See Chapter 2 for a detailed description of each 

alternative.

Alternative 1 (No Action): There will be no treatment in response to conditions created by the 

Gap Fire with this alternative. The no action alternative provides reviewers a baseline to compare 

the magnitude of environmental effects of the action alternatives. Roadside hazards from firekilled trees would not be addressed. No fuels reduction adjacent to private lands would occur, 

and no fuel breaks would be constructed. Public safety issues would not be addressed, and no 

timber salvage or site preparation and reforestation would occur. The no action alternative also 

provides a picture of the results of allowing natural regeneration to take place across the project 

area.

Alternative 2 (Refined Proposed Action): This alternative is the proposed action as scoped, 

except refined in response to public scoping comments and the acquisition of field-verified 

information about the project area. The alternative was developed through interdisciplinary 

involvement and recommendations in order to meet the purpose and need of the project, while 

being consistent with the Forest Plan and other regulatory requirements.

Actions in the Refined Proposed Action are as follows:

1. Roadside Hazard Removal, 103 miles;

2. Roadside Fuels Reduction, 688 acres;

3. Fuel Reduction Adjacent to Private Lands, 1,412 acres;

4. Fuel Management Zones, 733 acres;

5. Salvage Harvest with Site Preparation and Planting 2,043 acres;

6. Site Preparation and Planting without Salvage, 458 acres

7. Special Interest Area Restoration, 184 acres

Alternative 3: This alternative was developed in response to relevant issues about the effects of 

salvage harvest within the Siskiyou Crest and temporary road construction and reconstruction. 

Alternative 3 removed all treatment units on the Siskiyou Crest and construction of new and 

existing temporary roads.

Actions in Alternative 3 are as follows:

1. Roadside Hazard Removal, 103 miles;

2. Roadside Fuels Reduction, 688 acres;
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

vi

3. Fuel Reduction Adjacent to Private Lands, 1,412 acres;

4. Fuel Management Zones, 733 acres;

5. Salvage Harvest with Site Preparation and Planting 1,192 acres;

6. Site Preparation and Planting without Salvage, 458 acres; and

7. Special Interest Area Restoration, 184 acres.

Alternative 4 (Preferred Alternative): This alternative was developed in response to relevant 

issues related to potential effects of project actions on northern spotted owls and their habitat.

Within high-valued activity center core use areas, this alternative reduces salvage harvest, 

reduces roadside hazard along dead-end roads, reduces roadside fuels, and minimizes the fuel 

management zone footprint. This alternative also reduces the amount of roadside fuels within 

suitable northern spotted owl habitat and removes salvage units from high valued core use areas. 

Actions in the Alternative 4, the Preferred Alternative, are as follows:

1. Roadside Hazard Removal, 87 miles with modified prescriptions;

2. Roadside Fuels Reduction, 315 acres with modified prescriptions;

3. Fuel Reduction Adjacent to Private Lands, 1,412 acres with modified prescriptions;

4. Fuel Management Zones, 702 acres with modified prescriptions;

5. Salvage Harvest with Site Preparation and Planting 1,679 acres;

6. Site Preparation and Planting without Salvage, 458 acres; and

7. Special Interest Area Restoration, 184 acres.

Alternative Developed as a Result of Tribal Consultation with the 

Karuk Tribe (Karuk Alternative)

As a result of government-to-government consultation, the Karuk Tribe submitted an alternative 

in response to the Horse Creek project’s scoping notice. The central theme in the Karuk 

alternative is taking action that facilitates returning low and moderate severity fire to the 

landscape, while providing for public safety. The Karuk alternative contains all of the elements 

of the proposed action except four salvage units in the Johnny O‘Neil Late Successional Reserve 

and reforestation of salvage units and burned plantations in the project.

Environmental Consequences

This section summarizes key environmental consequences of the project. The project is 

consistent with the management direction of the Forest Plan for all resources. See Chapter 3 and 

the Land and Resource Management Plan Checklist (located in project record or on the project 

website) for details.

Safety: Alternative 2 treatments will abate hazard trees along roadways and other infrastructure, 

improving safety conditions for the public and forest workers. Hazard tree treatments along 

roadways are critical for providing safe and effective access for the public and forest workers. 

Removal of fire-killed trees and other hazard trees from around local communities, key 

infrastructure, and roads would also provide fire managers with improved options for effectively

managing potential future wildfires. Since all action alternatives will address priority treatment 

areas for safety, effects to safety are only incrementally different among action alternatives, 

differing only by the miles of treatments proposed.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

vii

Fuels: Alternative 2 reduces snag densities and surface fuel loading in strategic fuels locations. 

Within these strategic fuels locations, Alternative 2 shows a beneficial effect by reducing flame 

lengths, fireline intensity and resistance to control. Snag densities would be reduced across much 

of the landscape, including within the wildland urban interface. This would reduce future fuel 

loading and subsequent fire behavior potential. In addition, there would be less likelihood of 

problem fire behavior and spotting potential from snags and heavy fuel loading. There would be 

improved protection from future wildfire to the communities within and adjacent to the project 

area; including ingress and egress on road systems for alternative travel routes in case of 

emergency. Future fire management options would be increased. Conditions would be safer to 

contain a large fire in the future and would likely require less fire suppression resources. Roads, 

ridgetops, and the wildland urban interface defense zone would serve as firefighting holding 

features once treatments are complete. Since Alternative 3 removes 750 acres of treatment and 

Alternative 4 removes 850 acres of treatment and 16 miles of roadside hazard treatment, these 

alternatives improve fuels conditions to a lesser degree.

Silviculture: Since most of the fire-burned areas will be allowed to regenerate naturally (five 

percent will be salvage harvested and another one percent will be site prepared and planted 

outside salvage units), many acres of lands suitable for conifer growth will continue to be 

understocked or non-stocked by conifers, possibly for decades. Where burned areas are planted 

and fuels are effectively treated, the amount of time needed to restore the site to a sustainable 

coniferous forest may be reduced. Proposed acres of site preparation and planting are primarily 

in high severity burn areas that have very few seed-cone capable trees remaining to provide 

natural seedling capability. Units proposed for only reforestation without salvage were proposed 

within general forest management area, were existing or previously allocated as plantation, and 

burned at high severity. Proposed fuels treatments will help assure the sustainability of 

plantations. Effects are only incrementally different among the action alternatives, differing only 

by the acres of treatments proposed.

Economics: Alternative 2 will have an economic output of about $23 million, a labor income 

value of about $6.2 million, and will add about 156 jobs to the County. Timber revenues from 

implementing this alternative are estimated at about $1.9 million and returns to Siskiyou County 

at about $487,000. Required costs to restore the project landscape through site preparation, 

planting and fuels reduction are estimated as $4.5 million. Compared to Alternative 2, Economic 

outputs are 30 percent smaller under Alternative 3 and 19 percent smaller under Alternative 4.

Wildlife: For Alternative 2, all 22 northern spotted owl activity centers would have treatment in 

the home range with varying effects to activity centers. Of the seven activity centers that are 

currently “low risk”, three would change to “moderate risk” as a result of habitat being 

downgraded within the core areas. Risk level for the two “very low risk”, 11 “moderate risk”, 

and the two “high risk” activity center will be unchanged from project activities. In terms of 

critical habitat, 158 acres of nest/roosting habitat will be downgraded or removed. Compared to 

Alternative 2, Alternative 3 would change the risk level of the same three activity centers; effects 

to critical habitat would be the same as Alternative 2. Alternative 4 would not change the risk 

factor of any of the activity centers; 37 acres of nesting/roosting habitat would be downgraded.

For sensitive wildlife species, all action alternatives May impact individuals, but is not likely to 

result in a trend toward federal listing. For survey and manage species, Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 

will not cause significant negative impact on the species habitat or the persistence of the species 

in the project area.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

viii

Hydrology: For Alternative 1, the condition indicators in the watershed will not change from the 

existing condition. Alternatives 2, 3, or 4 will not change the risk to channel morphology for any

of the eleven 7th field watersheds. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 will result in localized, short-term 

effects to water quality from sedimentation. With the implementation of project design features 

and best management practices, water quality is expected to remain at existing levels for all 

action alternatives. Changes in the risk of stream temperature regime alteration are a result of the 

2016 Gap Fire. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 result in a low risk to stream temperature effects.

Aquatic Species: Ground disturbance associated with all action alternatives would slightly 

increase risk of adverse effects to aquatic habitat in mainstem Horse, Buckhorn, and Middle 

creeks in the short and long term because these watersheds are vulnerable to disturbance due to 

post-fire conditions and because aquatic habitats in these watersheds are currently degraded due

to high levels of watershed disturbance. As a result, the difference in risk ratio between 

alternatives is very small for all 7th field watersheds analyzed. Alternative 3 would pose the least 

risk to special status aquatic species.

Alternative 2 would pose the highest risk to special status aquatic species because this alternative 

proposes the most activity with high potential for ground disturbance and triggering landslides. 

Alternative 3 would pose the least risk compared to the other action alternatives. The no action 

determination for listed, sensitive and management indicator species is No Effect. The 

determination for threatened Coho salmon for all action alternatives is May Affect, Likely to 

Adversely Affect. The determination for sensitive species for all action alternatives is May Affect 

Likely to Adversely Affect, but not likely to lead to a trend towards listing. The determination for 

management indicator species for all action alternatives is May Affect Individuals, but is not 

Likely to Lead to a Decreasing Population Trend. The determination for Coho and Chinook 

salmon essential fish habitat is May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect.

Other Resource Areas: All action alternatives are consistent with the Forest Plan and other 

requirements. See the resource section of Chapter 3 for a detailed description of the affected 

environment and environmental consequences of each alternative in comparison format.

Individual specialist reports are available on the project website and in the project record.

Measures to Reduce Environmental Consequences

Several measures are incorporated into all of the action alternatives to reduce the environmental 

consequences of project implementation. These include:

• Completing pre-disturbance surveys for northern spotted owls to ensure that active nest sites or

activity centers are protected.

• Limiting operating seasons as necessary to protect northern spotted owls and their offspring.

• Restricting log haul during seasonal wet weather as necessary in accordance with the Klamath 

National Forest’s wet weather haul policy.

• Restricting rubber tired skidders or crawler tractors used to skid logs to designated skid trails and 

terrain that is generally less than 35 percent slope.

• Implementation of established Best Management Practices (BMPs) to protect water quality.

• Maintaining no harvest buffers 150 feet either side of non-fish bearing streams and 300 feet either 

side of fish bearing streams unless cutting fire-killed trees is necessary for safety along roads, or 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

ix

necessary to protect infrastructure. Logs from trees felled for safety purposes would only be 

removed from Riparian Reserves where the down logs create a fuel risk, pose a risk to 

infrastructure or prevent site recovery and removal would not prevent attainment of aquatic 

conservation strategy objectives in the Forest Plan. Some logs from hazard trees in the Horse 

Creek Special Interest Area may be used in stream restoration projects.

• Maintaining snags and down logs for wildlife and maintenance of biodiversity as specified in the 

Klamath Forest Plan.

Project Monitoring

Project monitoring will occur during and after implementation to ensure that the objectives of the project 

are achieved, and where necessary, additional actions are taken. Monitoring elements include:

• Continued protocol surveys for northern spotted owls known to be in the project area.

• Sample effectiveness monitoring of water quality BMPs. This determines whether the measures 

taken to protect water quality worked as designed.

• Project implementation and contract administration by Forest Service timber sale administrators 

to ensure that the terms of timber sale contracts are followed, project design features are 

implemented as planned, and water quality BMPs are adhered to.

• Follow-up surveys after tree planting is completed. This validates whether reforestation was 

successful. If necessary, sites will be replanted to meet stocking objectives.

• Follow-up surveys of new and known noxious weed populations. The Forest Noxious Weed 

Detection and Treatment Program will continue to monitor for new infestations of invasive plant 

species that may be introduced or spread throughout the project area and Forest lands.

• Follow-up surveys of planting of native species in the Horse Creek Special Interest Area.

• Surveys of at-risk historic properties and cultural resources during implementation to ensure the 

effectiveness of resource protection measures pursuant to the Regional Programmatic Agreement.

Decision Framework

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

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

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

alternatives; or (4) select the no action alternative, choosing not to authorize the project.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

x

This page intentionally left blank
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

xi

Table of Contents

Summary ..................................................................................................................................................... iii

Background ............................................................................................................................................. iii

Purpose and Need.................................................................................................................................... iii

Proposed Action as Scoped..................................................................................................................... iv

Public Engagement ................................................................................................................................. iv

Alternatives Considered in Detail.............................................................................................................v

Alternative Developed as a Result of Tribal Consultation with the Karuk Tribe (Karuk Alternative)... vi

Environmental Consequences................................................................................................................. vi

Measures to Reduce Environmental Consequences.............................................................................. viii

Project Monitoring .................................................................................................................................. ix

Decision Framework............................................................................................................................... ix

Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................................ xi

List of Tables ......................................................................................................................................... xii

List of Figures.........................................................................................................................................xv

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

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

Modifications or Clarifications between Draft and Final Document........................................................1

Background ...............................................................................................................................................4

Management Direction............................................................................................................................10

Purpose and Need for Action ..................................................................................................................14

Proposed Action as Scoped.....................................................................................................................18

Preferred Alternative...............................................................................................................................21

Decision Framework...............................................................................................................................21

Public Involvement .................................................................................................................................23

Issues from Scoping................................................................................................................................24

Comment Period on the Draft EIS ..........................................................................................................25

Results of the Draft EIS Comment Period ..............................................................................................26

Best Available Information, Data Quality, and Model Outputs..............................................................26

Chapter 2. Alternatives................................................................................................................................27

Introduction.............................................................................................................................................27

Alternatives Considered in Detail...........................................................................................................27

Alternative Developed as a Result of Tribal Consultation with the Karuk Tribe (Karuk Alternative)...61

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study................................................................68

Monitoring ..............................................................................................................................................71

Comparison of Alternatives....................................................................................................................73

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences ........................................................75

Introduction.............................................................................................................................................75

Air Quality ..............................................................................................................................................76

Aquatic Conservation Strategy ...............................................................................................................82

Botanical Resources and Non-Native Invasive Plants............................................................................88

Climate Change.....................................................................................................................................104

Fire and Fuels........................................................................................................................................106

Fisheries (Aquatic Resources)...............................................................................................................133

Geology.................................................................................................................................................169

Heritage Resources ...............................................................................................................................179

Hydrology .............................................................................................................................................184

Recreation .............................................................................................................................................195

Scenery..................................................................................................................................................200

Silviculture............................................................................................................................................212

Socio-Economics ..................................................................................................................................220
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

xii

Soils...................................................................................................................................................... 227

Wild and Scenic Rivers........................................................................................................................ 241

Wildlife Resources............................................................................................................................... 247

Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity ...................................................................................... 298

Unavoidable Adverse Effects............................................................................................................... 298

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources................................................................... 298

Legal and Regulatory Compliance....................................................................................................... 299

Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination ............................................................................................... 302

Preparers and Contributors................................................................................................................... 303

Distribution of the Environmental Impact Statement .......................................................................... 307

References................................................................................................................................................ 310

Literature Cited .................................................................................................................................... 310

Glossary ............................................................................................................................................... 319

Index..................................................................................................................................................... 331

Appendix A – Project Maps..................................................................................................................... 333

Appendix B – Actions Considered for Cumulative Effects...................................................................... 347

Ongoing Actions (Klamath National Forest)........................................................................................ 347

Ongoing Actions(Private).................................................................................................................... 349

Future Foreseeable Actions (Klamath NationalForest) ....................................................................... 352

Future Foreseeable Actions (Fruit Growers Supply Company)........................................................... 352

Past Projects – 10 years........................................................................................................................ 353

Appendix C – Best Management Practices .............................................................................................. 355

Appendix D – Response to Comments..........................................Available on the Project Website

List of Tables

Table 1. Burn Severity Acres by Land Ownership and RAVG Class.......................................................... 5

Table 2. Soil Burn Severity Acres by Land Ownership ............................................................................... 5

Table 3: Existing and Desired Conditions.................................................................................................... 8

Table 4: Management areas found within the project boundary. ............................................................... 11

Table 5: Public Meetings............................................................................................................................ 23

Table 6: Relevant new information identified for this project and associated responses........................... 25

Table 7: Summary of salvage units. ........................................................................................................... 31

Table 8: Treatment units removed in Alternative 3 in response to scoping concerns................................ 36

Table 9: Project design features. ................................................................................................................ 41

Table 10: Salvage in LSR by Alternative and RAVG Class, Acres and (Percent)..................................... 59

Table 11: Karuk Alternative compared to Forest Service action alternatives. ........................................... 62

Table 12: Comparison of Karuk and Forest Service salvage specifications............................................... 65

Table 13: Consideration of sensitive areas listed in the Beschta el al. report............................................. 70

Table 14: Comparison of treatment differences between alternatives........................................................ 73

Table 15: Acres of Prescribed Burning by Activity ................................................................................... 78

Table 16: Total and Annual Carbon Dioxide Equivalents by Alternative.................................................. 78

Table 17: Estimated Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Logging Equipment.................................... 80

Table 18: Comparison of greenhouse gas CO2 equivalents for all alternatives......................................... 82

Table 19. List of sensitive and survey and manage (SM) botanical species known or assumed to be 

present in the project area................................................................................................................... 90

Table 20: Requirements for survey and manage categories. ...................................................................... 91

Table 21: Known populations of non-native invasive species within the project area............................... 92

Table 22: Comparison of effects to Species of Concern and NNIS by Alternatives................................ 103

Table 23: Flame length potential and fireline intensity relationships with fire suppression activities..... 108

Table 24: Resistance to control rating (tons per acre). ............................................................................. 108

Table 25: Line production rates by fuel model type for initial actions and sustained line production rates.

.......................................................................................................................................................... 108
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

xiii

Table 26: Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) acres within the project boundary by WUI Zone.................110

Table 27: Average number of fires per century and the fire return interval (years) representative of the 

project area (Taylor and Skinner 1998).............................................................................................111

Table 28: Wildfire ignition by cause and total acreage burned (1911 to 2015). .......................................111

Table 29: Fire severity based on basal area loss within the Gap Fire perimeter across all ownerships. ...114

Table 30: Alternative 1 flame length potential by acres and as a percent of treatment area.* ..................117

Table 31: Alternative 1 flame length potential within the wildland urban interface by acres and as a 

percent of treatment area.* ................................................................................................................117

Table 32: Alternative 1 projected fuel loading, fireline intensity and resistance to control for areas 

experiencing low severity fire effects during the Gap Fire. ..............................................................119

Table 33: Alternative 1 projected fuel loading, fireline intensity and resistance to control for areas 

experiencing moderate to high severity fire effects during the Gap Fire. .........................................120

Table 34: Alternative 1 projected fuel loading, fireline intensity and resistance to control for areas 

experiencing high severity fire effects during the Gap Fire. .............................................................121

Table 35: Alternative 2 flame length potential, under 90th percentile weather conditions, by acres and as a 

percent of project area.* ....................................................................................................................125

Table 36: Flame length potential, under 90th percentile weather conditions, within the proposed treatment 

area footprint of Alternative 2 over a 20-year period, by acres and as a percent of project area.* ...126

Table 37: Alternative 2 flame length potential, under 90th percentile weather conditions, within the 

wildland urban interface over a 20-year period, by acres and as a percent of project area.* ............126

Table 38: Projected fuel loading, fireline intensity and resistance to control for treatment areas proposed 

within Alternative 2...........................................................................................................................127

Table 39: Alternative 3 flame length potential for the Horse Creek Project Area, by acres and as a percent 

of the project area.* ...........................................................................................................................129

Table 40: Alternative 3 flame length potential for the treatment area proposed within Alternative 3, by 

acres and as a percent of the project area.* .......................................................................................129

Table 41: Alternative 3 flame length potential for the private property buffer for the proposed treatments 

within Alternative 3, by acres and as a percent of the project area.* ................................................129

Table 42: Alternative 4 flame length potential for the Horse Creek Project Area, by acres and as a percent 

of the project area.* ...........................................................................................................................130

Table 43: Alternative 4 flame length potential for the treatment area proposed within Alternative 4, by 

acres and as a percent of the project area.* .......................................................................................130

Table 44: Alternative 4 flame length potential for the private property buffer for proposed treatments 

within Alternative 4, by acres and as a percent of the project area.* ................................................131

Table 45: Long-term flame length potential for each alternative by acres and percent of project area. ...131

Table 46: Long-term flame length potential for each alternative by acres and percent of treatment area.131

Table 47: Long-term flame length potential for each alternative by acres and percent of treatment area 

within the 500 foot private property buffer. ......................................................................................131

Table 48: Special status species in project area.........................................................................................135

Table 49: Measurement indicators for fisheries habitat quality (from the Klamath National Forest 

tributaries matrix: Table of Population and Habitat Indicators for Use on the Klamath National 

Forest)................................................................................................................................................143

Table 50: The Gap Fire 5th, 6th, and 7th field watersheds and miles of anadromous and fish-bearing 

stream. All of the Horse Creek 7th field watersheds are included even if not in project area...........148

Table 51: Acres and percentage of riparian areas affected by moderate and high burn intensity in the 2016 

Gap Fire in Horse Creek by 7th field watershed. ..............................................................................153

Table 52: Increases in modeled cumulative watershed effects over existing condition for Alternatives 2, 3, 

and 4. .................................................................................................................................................161

Table 53: Summary of comparison of effects of alternatives for aquatic resource analysis indicators and 

special status aquatic species.............................................................................................................168

Table 54: Comparison of risk ratio, likelihood, and consequences of a landslide event under Alternatives 

1 through 4.........................................................................................................................................176
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

xiv

Table 55: Summary of effects by analysis indicators for Alternative 1. .................................................. 183

Table 56: Summary of effects by analysis indicator for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4..................................... 184

Table 57: Cumulative Watershed Effects models current conditions (risk ratios) by watershed............. 187

Table 58: ERA model results comparing Alternatives 1 and 2 for project 7th field watersheds. ............ 190

Table 59: Summary comparison of environmental effects to hydrology-related resources. .................... 194

Table 60: Recreation Features.................................................................................................................. 197

Table 61: Compatibility of visual quality objectives and recreation opportunity spectrum Classes in the 

Project area. ...................................................................................................................................... 199

Table 62: Comparison of Alternatives for Recreation.............................................................................. 200

Table 63: Forest Plan viewpoints, recreation points with extended viewing times, roads, trails, visual 

importance level, and viewing distance zone. .................................................................................. 204

Table 64: Comparison of alternatives by analysis indicators................................................................... 212

Table 65: Comparison of analysis indicators for each alternative............................................................ 219

Table 66: Comparison of Social and Economic Effects of Alternatives.................................................. 226

Table 67: Indicator Condition Assessment............................................................................................... 228

Table 68: Compaction Risk Rating. ......................................................................................................... 229

Table 69: Soil Cover Guidelines for Vegetation and Fuels Management Projects................................... 230

Table 70: Estimated acres not meeting desired conditions for soil indicators and activity...................... 240

Table 71: Comparison of Alternatives...................................................................................................... 246

Table 72: Forest Service Sensitive Species and northern spotted owl analyzed for this project and the 

corresponding analysis indicator. ..................................................................................................... 249

Table 73: Criteria used for NSO risk to reproduction analysis indicator. ................................................ 252

Table 74: Criteria for eagle disturbance analysis indicator. ..................................................................... 254

Table 75: Criteria for risk to future nest trees for known eagle nests analysis indicator.......................... 255

Table 76: Criteria for goshawk disturbance analysis indicator. ............................................................... 256

Table 77: Criteria for risk to goshawk reproduction analysis indicator. .................................................. 257

Table 78: Habitat characteristics for fisher, marten, and wolverine habitat types.................................... 258

Table 79: Criteria for fisher, marten, and wolverine connectivity analysis.............................................. 259

Table 80: Criteria for fisher home range. ................................................................................................. 260

Table 81: Risk of disturbance to bat hibernaculum or maternity. ............................................................ 260

Table 82: Level of habitat alteration for willow flycatcher habitat.......................................................... 263

Table 83: Level of Risk to Siskiyou Mountain salamander habitat.......................................................... 264

Table 84: Likelihood of dispersal for Tehama chaparral snail................................................................. 265

Table 85: Level of disturbance for western bumble bee........................................................................... 266

Table 86: The level of risk to NSO reproduction given the current condition of the core and home range 

for known activity centers. ............................................................................................................... 269

Table 87: Current number of NSO Critical Habitat acres for Analysis Indicator 2. ................................ 269

Table 88: Threatened, endangered, or proposed ESA species, sensitive species, and survey and manage 

species in that likely occur within the project area, based on known occurrences or presence of 

suitable habitat.................................................................................................................................. 273

Table 89: Management Indicator Species (MIS) relevant to the Project.................................................. 275

Table 90: Change in Critical Habitat Acres for Alternative 2 (Analysis Indicator 2). ............................. 278

Table 91: Change in Critical Habitat Acres for Alternative 3 (Analysis Indicator 2). ............................. 278

Table 92: Change in Critical Habitat Acres for Alternative 4 (Analysis Indicator 2). ............................. 279

Table 93: Level of risk to goshawk reproduction for Alternative 1. ........................................................ 280

Table 94: Current level of fisher, marten, and wolverine habitat connectivity (analysis indicator 1)...... 282

Table 95: Comparison of all alternatives for risk to NSO reproduction (Analysis Indicator 1)............... 296

Table 96: Comparison of all alternatives for change NSO critical habitat (Analysis Indicator 2)........... 296

Table 97: Comparison of management indicator species associations for each alternative..................... 296

Table 98: Summary of action alternatives effects on each sensitive species............................................ 296

Table 99: Determination for survey and manage species that may occur within the project area ........... 297
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

xv

List of Figures

Figure 1: Vicinity Map..................................................................................................................................7

Figure 2: Salvage in LSR by Alternative and RAVG Class........................................................................60

Figure 3: Alternative 2 and 3 LSR Salvage by RAVG Class......................................................................61

Figure 4: Alternative 4 LSR Salvage by RAVG Class................................................................................61

Figure 5: Energy Release Component as determined by the National Fire Danger Rating System for 

Collins Baldy Remote Automated Weather Station..........................................................................113

Figure 6: Fire severity based on vegetation change of basal area loss from the Gap Fire. .......................115

Figure 7: Comparison of estimated fuel loading of surface fuels less than 3 inches in diameter for 

Alternative 1 (No Action) and action alternatives for plots representing the project area. ...............132

Figure 8: Comparison of estimated fuel loading of surface fuels greater than 3 inches in diameter for 

Alternative 1 (No Action) and action alternatives for plots representing the project area. ...............133

Figure 9: Risk Ratio by Alternative and 7th Field Watershed ..................................................................178

Figure 10: Change in Risk Ratio Associated with Proposed Activities....................................................178

Figure 11: Alternative 2 Proposed Treatments Map. ................................................................................333

Figure 12: Alternative 3 Proposed Treatments Map. ................................................................................334

Figure 13: Alternative 4 Proposed Treatments Map. ................................................................................335

Figure 14: Karuk Alternative Proposed Treatments Map..........................................................................336

Figure 15: Wildland urban interface - defense, home ignition, and threat zones......................................337

Figure 16. Alternative 2 proposed actions with management areas. .........................................................338

Figure 17. Alternative 3 proposed actions with management areas..........................................................339

Figure 18: Alternative 4 proposed actions with management areas..........................................................340

Figure 19: Karuk Alternative proposed actions with management areas..................................................341

Figure 20: 2017 Storm damage sites within project area. .........................................................................342

Figure 21: Alternative 2 proposed action fish ranges................................................................................343

Figure 22: Alternative 3 proposed action fish ranges................................................................................344

Figure 23: Alternative 4 fish ranges. .........................................................................................................345

Figure 24: Fuel management zones comparison. ......................................................................................346
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

xvi

This page intentionally left blank.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

1

Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action

Document Structure

The Forest Service has prepared this final environmental impact statement in compliance with 

the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and State laws and 

regulations. This final environmental impact statement discloses the direct, indirect, and 

cumulative environmental impacts that would result from the proposed action and alternatives.

This document is organized into four chapters:

• Chapter 1. Purpose and Need for Action: This chapter briefly describes the proposed 

action (as presented in public scoping), the existing and desired conditions that drive the 

need for change, and other purposes to be achieved by the proposal. This section 

summarizes how the Forest Service informed the public of the proposed action and how 

the public responded.

• Chapter 2. Alternatives, including the proposed action: This chapter provides a detailed 

description of the agency’s modified proposed action as well as alternative actions that 

were developed in response to comments raised during scoping.

• Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences: This chapter 

describes the affected environment and environmental impacts of the proposed action and 

alternatives.

• Chapter 4. Preparers, Consultation, Distribution, Glossary, References and Index: This 

chapter provides a list of preparers and agencies consulted during the development of the 

environmental impact statement. Included are a list of acronyms and glossary of terms 

used, literature cited, and an index of page numbers by document topic.

• Appendices: The appendices provide more detailed information to support the analyses 

presented in the environmental impact statement.

The draft and final environmental impact statements and supporting documents including maps 

and resource reports are available on the project website at

https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=50586.

Modifications or Clarifications between Draft and Final Document 

Language throughout the EIS was edited for grammar and clarity. Draft resource reports have 

been updated and final reports are available in the project record and on the project website. In 

addition to minor corrections and clarifications, the following specific changes were made. 

Chapter 1

• The project area was updated from 41,000 acres to 40,834 acres to reflect more accurate 

information.

• The project background information was expanded to include more detailed information 

on the Gap fire severity measures.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

2

• Public involvement section and table was updated with information regarding field trips 

that occurred since publication of the draft EIS and the status of consultation with 

regulatory agencies.

• Comment period on the draft environmental impact statement and results of the draft 

environmental impact statement comments section was added.

• Best available information, data quality, and model outputs section was added.

• Language was updated throughout the final EIS to reflect current status of the project.

Chapter 2

Language was clarified or modified between draft and final EIS to describe the action 

alternatives and project design features. These changes are summarized below.

Changes to Individual Action Alternatives

• Alternative 2:

- The process for determining which roadside hazard trees within stream course 

riparian reserves would be left on site and which would be removed was clarified.

- A 90% probability of mortality standard was applied to hazard trees equal to or

greater than 40 inches diameter at breast height.

- List of specific prescriptions for Roadside Hazard Tree Removal was added for 

clarity.

- Treatment of vegetation contributing to shade in riparian reserves was clarified in the 

treatment descriptions for roadside fuels, fuels reduction adjacent to private property, 

and developing and maintaining fuels management zones.

- Text descriptions of treatments for roadside fuels, fuels reduction adjacent to private 

property, and developing and maintaining fuels management zones and their 

associated specific prescriptions lists were updated to be consistent with each other 

and provide clarity regarding the treatment of hardwoods.

- A description of the retention of snags for wildlife was added to the Salvage Harvest 

with Site Preparation and Planting treatment description.

- Temporary roads were updated as follows: (1) temporary roads in the Horse Creek 

Special Interest Area and a portion of a temporary road in unit 118.03 were removed, 

and (2) temporary roads were added to units 117.16 and 118.58 for a total change of 

0.43 miles of added temporary roads.

• Alternative 3: no changes were made.

• Alternative 4:

- Alternative 4 was chosen as the preferred alternative.

- The reason for the development of Alternative 4 was clarified.

- The retention standard for the Roadside Hazard 2 prescription was clarified.

- Salvage harvest under Alternative 4 was updated to describe how much harvest would 

be removed from the project under this alternative.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

3

- As in Alternative 2, temporary roads were updated as follows: (1) temporary roads in 

the Horse Creek Special Interest Area and a portion of a temporary road in unit 

118.03 were removed, and (2) temporary roads were added to units 117.16 and 

118.58 for a total change of 0.57 miles of added temporary roads.

Changes to Project Design Features

• Wildlife 1, 2, 6 language updated.

• Geology 3 and 4 language updated.

• Geology 5 added. 

• Watershed 9, 10, 12, 15, 25 language updated.

• Watershed 25 deleted and moved to Geology 5. 

• Botany 6 and 8 added.

• NNIS 3 language updated.

• NNIS 6 added.

• Recreation and Scenic Resources 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 11, and 12 language updated.

Changes to Salvage Treatments in Late Successional Reserve section

• Figures 2, 3, and 4 were replaced with clearer visualizations of the data presented.

Changes to Alternative Developed as a Result of Tribal Consultation with the Karuk Tribe

• Clarifications were made regarding how the Karuk Alternative was considered by the 

Forest Service.

• Rationale for why treatments proposed by the Karuk Alternative were not analyzed in 

further detail were added to the descriptions of all proposed treatments.

• Preliminary analysis of effects to northern spotted owl habitat and activity centers was 

added to the description of Roadside Fuels Treatments.

• Consideration for the effectiveness of fuels treatments in the project with the proposed 

reduction in salvage harvest was added to the description of Salvage Harvest with 

Ground Based and Skyline Systems followed by Site Preparation and Planting.

• A Summary of Consideration of the Karuk Alternative was added.

Chapter 3

• Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) section was revised. 

- Additionally, the ACS report was corrected due to a mapping error of an incorrect 

road buffer of 300 on each side of the road, rather than 150 feet as is described in the 

proposed action. The project treats about 630 acres of potential roadside hazard 

within riparian reserves, rather than 1,575 acres as was incorrectly stated in the draft 

ACS report. The final number of acres treated will be even less, as this represents the 

maximum, rather than on-the-ground realities for hazard trees.

• Fire and Fuels section:
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

4

• Fire severity based on basal area loss within the Gap Fire perimeter acreage numbers 

were updated according to GIS layer corrections (Table 29). Fisheries (Aquatic 

Resources)

- Section was revised.

- Upon further consideration, the determination of effects for Coho salmon and their 

critical habitat was changed to May Affect Likely to Adversely Affect from May Affect 

Not Likely to Adversely Affect due to adverse existing condition.

• Hydrology section:

- Cumulative watershed effects model was updated to include information from new 

private timber harvest plans received since publication of the DEIS. Numbers were 

updated in the hydrology section and adjustments were made to fisheries and geology 

sections.

- Revisions were made to clarify how treatments may affect stream shade.

- Clarifications regarding the project compliance with the Clean Water Act was added.

Appendix A - Maps

• Updated Alternative 2, 3, and 4 proposed action maps – deleted temporary roads from 

special interest area.

• Added map showing the wildland urban interface – defense, home ignition, and threat 

zone – for the project area.

• Added maps showing management areas for each of the proposed alternatives and the 

Karuk alternative.

• Added map showing the 2017 storm damage.

• Added a map showing a comparison between NEPA approved Westside/Beaver fuels 

management zones compared to the Horse Creek Project proposed fuels management 

zones. This was used to compare the Karuk Alternative to the proposed actions.

• Added maps showing fish ranges for the action alternatives.

Appendix B – Actions Considered for Cumulative Effects

• Timber harvest plans received between draft environmental impact statement and final 

environmental impact statement were added.

Background

The project is in response to conditions created by the Gap Fire, which began in the late 

afternoon of August 27, 2016 from an unknown cause. The Gap Fire continued for several days, 

impacting the nearby communities, structures, infrastructure, private timberlands, and natural 

resources. Despite initial attack efforts to suppress the fire, it burned over 33,000 acres. As a 

result of the Gap Fire, there is a mosaic of fire severity effects across the landscape. Within the 

Gap Fire perimeter, 21,580 acres of National Forest land burned –16,590 at low severity, 1,005 

at low to moderate severity, 690 at moderate to high severity, and 3,295 at greater than high 

severity. There are two measures of fire severity used for the project. They have different metrics 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

5

and are not directly comparable but are used in resource assessments for different purposes. The 

first measure of fire severity used above, Rapid Assessment of Vegetation Conditions after 

wildfire (RAVG), is based on vegetation mortality, what you would see in burn patterns on the 

landscape, and is generically referred to as “fire severity.” The following table shows the Gap 

fire severity according to these RAVG classes. 

Table 1. Burn Severity Acres by Land Ownership and RAVG Class

Land Owner

Low: less than 

25 percent 

severity

Low to 

Moderate: 25 to 

50 percent 

severity

Moderate to 

High: 50 to 75 

percent severity

Greater than 

High: greater 

than 75 percent 

severity

Total*

Klamath National 

Forest (acres) 16,590 1,005 690 3,295 21,580

Klamath National 

Forest (percent) 77 5 3 15 100

Private Lands 

(acres) 10,050 485 350 1,565 12,450

Private Lands 

(percent) 81 4 3 12 100

All Ownership 

acres 26,640 1,490 1,040 4,860 34,030

All Ownership 

percent 78 4 3 15 100

The second measure of fire severity, soil burn severity, is based on fire effects to soil and loss of 

ground cover. The following table shows the Gap fire severity according to soil burn severity.

Table 2. Soil Burn Severity Acres by Land Ownership

Land Owner

UnburnedVery Low 

(Acres)

Low 

Severity 

(Acres)

Moderate 

Severity 

(Acres)

High 

Severity 

(Acres)

Total 

Burned 

(Acres)*

Klamath National Forest 4,150 9,811 5,457 1,410 21,114

Fruit Growers Supply 1,646 4,144 1,459 218 7,467

Other Private 529 1,722 1,601 550 4,403

Total 6,325 15,678 8,517 2,463 32,983

Total (percent) 19 48 26 7

* Differences in total acres burned are a result of incomplete data on private land and rounding errors.

The project is located on National Forest System lands adjacent to the community of Horse 

Creek, California in Siskiyou County: Township 45 North, Range 10 West, Sections 5 and 6; 

Township 45 North, Range 11 West, Section 2; Township 46 North, Range 10 West, Sections 2 

to 11, 14 to 22, and 28 to 33; Township 46 North, Range 11 West, Sections 1 to 4, 9 to 16, 21 to 

28, and 35 to 36; Township 47 North, Range 9 West, Sections 18 to 19 and 30; Township 47 

North, Range 10 West Sections 9 to 17, 19 to 36; and Township 47 North, Range 11 West, 

Sections 26, 27 and 33 to 36; Mount Diablo Meridian. Private land accounts for about 15,238 

acres within the project boundary, leaving about 25,596 acres that may be considered for 

treatment on National Forest System lands. Elevation ranges from 1,600 to 6,400 feet. It is 

located within the East Fork Horse Creek, Middle Horse Creek, Salt Gulch, Middle Creek, 

Buckhorn Creek, Lower Horse Creek, Kohl Creek, Collins Creek-Klamath River, Sambo GulchKlamath River, Middle Seiad Creek, Tom Martin Creek-Klamath River, Negro Creek, and 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

6

Schutts Gulch-Klamath River 7th field watersheds. See Figure 1 for a vicinity map and 

Appendix A for project maps.

The proposed action would treat roadside hazard trees adjacent to approximately 103 miles of 

roads and 7,325 acres of other treatments within the 40,834 acre project boundary.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

7

Figure 1: Vicinity Map.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

8

Existing and Desired Conditions

Table 3: Existing and Desired Conditions.

Resource Area or 

Statement of Need Existing Conditions Desired Conditions Need for Change

There is a need to 

improve public 

safety because the 

Gap Fire created 

unsafe conditions 

for the public and 

adjacent private 

landowners.

Unsafe conditions due to 

hazards from fire-killed 

trees along public roads 

and adjacent to private 

property.

Public safety is a part of 

several standards and 

guidelines in the Forest 

Plan (e.g., 12-820-9, 22-

1, 22-2, 22-8).

The existing situation is 

not safe; improvement of 

safety will help to meet 

local public needs and 

demand as expressed by 

community leaders, 

concerned and interested 

groups and potentially 

affected interests (Forest 

Plan, Standard 25-3, 

page 4-64).

There is a need for 

recovered timber 

volume from fire 

killed trees in the 

General Forest and 

Partial Retention 

Management Area 

because these 

areas contribute to 

the timber base of 

the Forest.

General Forest: Capable 

lands are unstocked and 

will remain below site 

carrying capacity.

Partial Retention: 

Overstocked stands with 

fire-killed or injured trees 

will contribute to 

excessive fuel loading 

above pre-suppression 

era levels. Future high 

severity fire is likely.

General Forest: The 

desired condition is a 

fire-resilient, multi-aged, 

regulated coniferous 

forest that provides 

timber and other 

resources values.

Partial Retention: The 

desired condition is 

coniferous forest that is 

resilient to fire, where 

management actions are 

subordinate to the visual 

character of the 

landscape.

General Forest: There is 

a need for fire-resilient 

coniferous forests in 

severely burned areas to 

meet Forest Plan 

Objectives.

Partial Retention: There 

is a need for reduced fuel 

loads to reduce the 

probability and extent of 

future high severity fire.

There is a need for 

reduced fuel loads 

to reduce the 

probability and 

extent of future 

high-severity fire.

General Forest: Capable 

lands are unstocked and 

will remain below site 

carrying capacity.

Partial Retention: 

Overstocked stands with 

fire-killed or injured trees 

will contribute to 

excessive fuel loading 

above pre-suppression 

era levels. Future high 

severity fire is likely.

General Forest: The 

desired condition is a 

fire-resilient, multi-aged, 

regulated coniferous 

forest that provides 

timber and other 

resources values.

Partial Retention: The 

desired condition is 

coniferous forest that is 

resilient to fire, where 

management actions are 

subordinate to the visual 

character of the 

landscape.

General Forest: There is 

a need for fire-resilient 

coniferous forests in 

severely burned areas to 

meet Forest Plan 

Objectives.

Partial Retention: There 

is a need for reduced fuel 

loads to reduce the 

probability and extent of 

future high severity fire.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

9

Resource Area or 

Statement of Need Existing Conditions Desired Conditions Need for Change

There is a need for 

fire-resilient 

coniferous forests 

in severely burned 

areas to meet 

Forest Plan 

Objectives.

General Forest: Capable 

lands are unstocked and 

will remain below site 

carrying capacity.

Partial Retention: 

Overstocked stands with 

fire-killed or injured trees 

will contribute to 

excessive fuel loading 

above pre-suppression 

era levels. Future high 

severity fire is likely.

General Forest: The 

desired condition is a 

fire-resilient, multi-aged, 

regulated coniferous 

forest that provides 

timber and other 

resources values.

Partial Retention: The 

desired condition is 

coniferous forest that is 

resilient to fire, where 

management actions are 

subordinate to the visual 

character of the 

landscape.

General Forest: There is 

a need for fire-resilient 

coniferous forests in 

severely burned areas to 

meet Forest Plan 

Objectives.

Partial Retention: There 

is a need for reduced fuel 

loads to reduce the 

probability and extent of 

future high severity fire.

There is a need for 

reduced fuels to 

reduce the risk of 

future large-scale 

high severity fire 

losses of late 

successional 

habitat.

About 2,100 acres of late 

successional reserve

where 50 percent or 

greater of the basal area 

in a patch or stand was 

killed by the Gap Fire.

Late Successional 

Reserve: The desired 

condition is mature 

coniferous forest with 

openings and pockets of 

snags, down logs and 

hardwoods that is 

resilient to large scale 

stand replacement fire.

Late Successional 

Reserve: There is a need 

for fire-resilient 

coniferous forests in 

severely burned areas to 

meet Forest Plan 

Objectives.

There is a need for 

a fire-resilient 

coniferous forest in 

severely burned 

areas to meet the 

desired conditions 

for late 

successional 

reserves.

Limited Nesting and 

Roosting and Foraging 

habitats due to past 

harvesting, historic and 

recent wildfire, and land 

management on private 

land.

Late Successional 

Reserve: The desired 

condition is mature 

coniferous forest with 

openings and pockets of 

snags, down logs and 

hardwoods that is 

resilient to large scale 

stand replacement fire.

Late Successional 

Reserve: Areas proposed 

for treatment 

experienced a loss in 

habitat condition due to 

high severity burn. 

Promote habitat 

conditions in areas 

resulting in stand 

replacement from the 

recent wildfire and 

reduce fuels to reduce 

future large scale, high 

severity fire.

There is a need to 

reduce fuels to 

reduce the risk of 

future high severity 

fire in Riparian 

Reserves.

About 550 acres of 

riparian reserve where 50 

percent or greater of the 

basal area in a patch or 

stand was killed by the 

Gap Fire.

Riparian Reserves: The 

desired condition is a 

fire-resilient coniferous 

and hardwood forest with 

large trees and a high 

proportion of effective 

shade.

Riparian Reserves: 

Restore stream shade 

provided by a conifer 

overstory and secondary 

hardwood mid-story 

canopy.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

10

Resource Area or 

Statement of Need Existing Conditions Desired Conditions Need for Change

There is a need to 

restore ecological 

functions to reflect 

the unique 

characteristics for 

which the Horse 

Creek Botanical 

area was 

designated.

Wildfire and suppression 

activities degraded the 

old-growth nature and 

biodiversity for which this 

area was classified as a 

Special Interest Area. 

Some areas are severely 

burned, with a large 

amount of the canopy 

compromised or killed. 

Many burned trees pose 

a hazard to the Horse 

Creek Road. Understory 

was completely killed in 

some areas and may not 

naturally regenerate in 

time to prevent invasion 

by non-native plant 

species.

Special Interest Area:

The desired condition is 

to emphasize the unique 

resource for which the 

area was designated. 

Few signs of 

management activities 

are present, other than to 

provide public access 

and accommodations.

Re-vegetate severely 

burned portions of the 

special interest area in 

order to prevent the 

introduction of non-native 

and invasive plant 

species and to restore 

the unique features for 

which the special interest 

area was designated -

namely old-growth 

riparian vegetation. Place 

woody debris on the 

ground and in the creek 

in areas where existing 

debris was burned away, 

both for soil health and 

habitat. Retain some 

snags and damaged live 

trees for habitat as well 

as seed-source. Minimize 

evidence of management 

activities.

Management Direction

Direction for this project comes from the Klamath National Forest Land and Resource 

Management Plan (Forest Plan) of 1995, as amended (USDA 1995a). Direction in the Forest 

Plan is provided for the Forest as a whole in forest-wide management goals, standards and 

guidelines and specifically for management areas (MAs). Management areas within the project 

area are: MA 5 – Special Habitat – Late Successional Reserves (10,153 acres), MA 7 – Special 

Interest Areas (Horse Creek Botanical Area and Condrey Mountain Blueschist Geologic Area) 

(362 acres), MA 10 – Riparian Reserves (6,492 acres), MA 11 – Retention visual quality 

objectives (1,536 acres), MA 13 – Designated and Recommend Recreational Rivers (1,220 

acres), MA 15 – Partial Retention visual quality objectives (4,939 acres), and MA 17 – General 

Forest (3,442 acres). Of these land allocations, all except for riparian reserves are mutually 

exclusive; riparian reserves may overlap other management areas so the total number of acres in 

the project area is less than the sum of the acres in various land allocations.

Most of the land allocations within the project area include a goal to provide a programmed, 

sustained harvest of wood products. Goals for each management area in the project area are 

listed on Table 4.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

11

Table 4: Management areas found within the project boundary.

Management 

Area

Acres 

(percent) 

of Project 

Area

Approximate 

Proposed 

for 

Treatment

Pages 

in 

Forest 

Plan

Goals Pertinent to This Proposal

Management Area 

5 – Special 

Habitat – Late 

Successional 

Reserves

10,153 

(40)

2,029 acres 

39.4 miles

4-82 to 

4-89

The objective of late successional 

reserves is to protect and enhance 

conditions of late-successional and “old 

growth” forest ecosystems, which serve 

as habitat for late-successional and “old 

growth”-related species including the 

northern spotted owl. These reserves are 

designed to maintain a functional, 

interacting, late-successional and “old 

growth” forest ecosystem.

Management Area 

7 – Special 

Interest Areas

(Horse Creek 

Botanical Area 

and Condrey 

Mountain 

Blueschist 

Geologic Area)

362 (1) 196 acres

3.9 miles

4-97 to 

4-100

Manage for ecological processes and the 

unique features for which the area was 

designated.

Promote public use, education, 

interpretation, and enjoyment of the 

special interest values of the area when 

such activities do not harm the values for 

which the area was designated.

Develop partnerships with local or 

regional groups to foster public education 

and enjoyment of these special resources 

and research opportunities where 

possible.

Management Area 

10 – Riparian 

Reserves

6,492 (25) 1,527 acres

18.8 miles

4-106 

to 4-

114

Maintain and restore riparian-dependent 

structures and functions of intermittent 

streams.

Provide benefits to riparian-dependent 

and associated species other than fish, 

enhance habitat conservation for 

organisms that are dependent on the 

transition zone between upslope and 

riparian areas, improve travel and 

dispersal corridors for many terrestrial 

animals and plants and provide for 

greater connectivity of the watershed. 

Provide connectivity corridors among the 

late successional reserves.

Be consistent with Aquatic Conservation 

Strategy goals.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

12

Management 

Area

Acres 

(percent) 

of Project 

Area

Approximate 

Proposed 

for 

Treatment

Pages 

in 

Forest 

Plan

Goals Pertinent to This Proposal

Management Area 

11 – Retention 

Visual Quality 

Objective

1,536 (6) 215 acres

5.1 miles

4-115 

to 4-

116

Provide a level of attractive, forested 

scenery by maintaining the areas in a 

natural or natural-appearing condition. 

Manage human activities so they are 

subordinate to the characteristic 

landscape. Also manage human activities 

so they are not evident to the casual 

Forest visitor.

Manage for a programmed, sustained 

harvest of wood products in areas that are 

capable, available, and suitable for timber 

management.

Maintain stand health, as well as 

resilience to wildland fire, insect, disease, 

and other damage.

Management Area 

13 – Designated 

and Recommend 

Recreational 

Rivers

1,220 (5) 241 acres

2.3 miles

4-120 

to 4-

122

Preserve the Recreational Rivers in a 

free-flowing condition. Protect the rivers 

and their immediate environments for the 

benefit and enjoyment of present and 

future generations.

Protect and enhance the outstandingly 

remarkable value(s) for which the river(s) 

are or would be designated, while 

providing for public recreation and 

resource uses that do not adversely 

impact or degrade those values.

Management recreation activities to 

assure that the character and quality of 

recreation use would not cause adverse 

impacts on the resource values for which 

the rivers were designated or 

recommended.

Management Area 

15 – Partial 

Retention Visual 

Quality Objective

4,939 (19) 2,154 acres

17.7 miles

4-126 

to 4-

127

Provide an attractive, forested landscape 

where management activities remain 

visually subordinate to the character of 

the landscape. Manage human activities 

so they are subordinate to the character 

of the landscape.

Manage for a sustained yield of wood 

products in areas capable, available, and 

suitable for timber production.

Maintain stand health as well as resilience 

to wildland fire, insect, disease, and other 

damage.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

13

Management 

Area

Acres 

(percent) 

of Project 

Area

Approximate 

Proposed 

for 

Treatment

Pages 

in 

Forest 

Plan

Goals Pertinent to This Proposal

Management Area 

17 – General 

Forest

3,442 (14) 954 acres

15.9 miles

4-131 

to 4-

132

Provide a programmed, non-declining 

flow of timber products, sustainable 

through time. These levels may vary year 

to year, based on ecological processes. 

Maintain conifer stocking levels and high 

growth rates commensurate with the 

capability of the site to produce wood 

fiber. Intensively manage young 

regenerated stands to maximize growth 

potential.

Maintain stand health, as well as 

resilience to wildland fire, insect, disease, 

and other damage. Emphasize salvage 

and restoration from catastrophic events. 

Reforest capable, but currently nonstocked, lands.

Emulate ecological processes and stand 

and landscape patterns where possible. 

Within harvest units, maintain appropriate 

structure, composition, and ecological 

functioning of the area.

Provide for snags and hardwood habitat 

to help maintain viable populations of 

wildlife species that require these 

structural components.

Meet the visual quality objectives. 

Achieve less modified visual conditions 

when possible.

Develop a transportation system to 

transport Forest commodities efficiently to 

available markets.

Where possible, adjust planting levels to 

reduce pre-commercial thinning and fuel 

hazard costs in the future.

The project area also includes 17 acres in the Condrey Mountain Inventoried Roadless Area (no 

treatment proposed) which overlays various management areas; direction for inventoried 

roadless areas is provided on page 4-38 of the Forest Plan (USDA 1995a) and at 36 CFR 294.

Forest-wide standards and guidelines that are pertinent to this project, and the ways in which the 

project is consistent with this direction, are included in the Forest Plan Consistency Checklist, 

available on the project website. For further information pertaining to the Forest Plan, please 

visit the Forest website: http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/klamath/landmanagement/planning.

The project is in compliance with the Forest Plan. No site-specific amendments to the Forest 

Plan are required. All salvage harvest in this project is considered to reduce the risk of future 

high severity fire in accordance with the goals of the Forest Plan for fire management (4-8) 

which state: “Reduce unacceptable fuel buildups and potential acreage of future high intensity 

wildfires.” The Forest Plan of the Klamath National Forest clearly anticipated that risk reduction 

salvage may be necessary in the late successional reserve land allocation, and provided project 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

14

guidelines (Forest Plan p. 4-86; MA5-27 to 29) to ensure that the objectives of the Forest Plan 

were achieved. The Forest Plan also provides general guidelines for salvage in late successional 

reserves when it is not specific to risk reduction (MA5-30-1 to MA5-30-11). These general 

salvage guidelines were considered in project design, however, the Forest Plan allows for some 

salvage operations that do not meet guidelines MA5-30 1 through 4 when the salvage is essential 

to reduce the risk of future risk of fire (MA5-30-5), as is the case in the Horse Creek Project.

Assessments that provide background information for this project include the Horse Creek 

Ecosystem Analysis (USDA 2002), and the Forest-wide Late Successional Reserve Assessment 

(USDA 1999). Assessment documents are available at: 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/klamath/landmanagement/planning/?cid=STELPRDB5109804.

In addition to Forest Plan direction, the interdisciplinary team considered guidance from the 

following documents: Johnny O’Neil Late Successional Reserve Habitat Restoration and Fuel 

Reduction Project (USDA 2012a), Horse Heli Environmental Impact Statement (USDA 2007),

and the Record of Decision and Standards and Guidelines for Management of Habitat for LateSuccessional and Old-Growth Forest Related Species Within the Range of the Northern Spotted 

Owl (also known as the Northwest Forest Plan) (USDA USDI 1994) (https://reo.gov/). The 

project includes approximately 22,786 acres of wildland urban interface within the 40,834 acre 

project area. The Pacific Crest Trail runs in and out of the northeast portion of the project area; 

no treatments are proposed along the trail.

The interdisciplinary team designed the project to be consistent with all applicable law, 

regulation, policy, and direction.

Purpose and Need for Action

In addition to meeting the objectives of the Forest Plan, the purpose and need for this project is 

driven by a concern for public safety and the protection of the Horse Creek community from 

future high-severity wildfire.

Purpose and need is driven by the desired conditions for the landscape or management area in the 

Forest Plan. Where the forest is in the desired condition described in the Forest Plan, there is no 

need to act – meaning the existing condition is consistent with the Forest Plan. Where the 

existing condition of the landscape does not represent the desired conditions described in the 

Forest Plan, there is a need to act to accomplish the goals and objectives or purposes described in 

the Forest Plan.

Management areas are grouped into various land allocations for vegetation management 

purposes. The following paragraphs details the purpose and need for the project in all land 

allocations and separately for different groups of land allocations. Also discussed are ways in 

which the project can meet the purpose and need.

All Land Allocations

As snags continue to decay, break, and fall as a result of the Gap Fire, surface fuel loading and 

the severity and intensity of future fires will increase. Increased fire intensities and fallen snags 

will inhibit the effective control of future fires and put fire suppression crews at increased risk. 

Fallen hazard trees will also impact road access along miles of roadways, impairing fire 

suppression efforts. Local communities and residential enclaves are nestled within and adjacent 

to forests that are part of a larger fire-adapted ecosystem. Hazardous trees and fuel conditions 

need to be abated where they exist within the wildland urban interface, especially within one-
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

15

quarter mile of private property in burned areas, and areas identified as strategic. Strategic areas 

are areas where there is a greater likelihood that fires can be successfully contained or controlled 

in order to have better conditions for suppressing future fires. The goal for all land allocations is 

to protect lives and properties of local communities.

• There is a need for public safety because the Gap Fire created unsafe conditions for the 

public and for adjacent private landowners. Ways to meet the need to provide for public 

safety include:

o Removing hazards created by fire-killed and damaged trees along public roads.

o Reducing fuels on National Forest System lands adjacent to private property by 

salvaging merchantable trees.

o Creating fuel breaks adjacent to private property by disposing of unmerchantable 

fuels.

o Reintroducing fire after mechanically reducing fuels to low burn severity levels.

• There is a need for safe conditions for forest workers, firefighters, tree planters, and 

recreationists. Ways to provide for safety include:

o Salvage harvesting merchantable fire-killed trees along ingress and egress routes, 

in fuelbreaks and in burned plantations that would be replanted.

o Falling and disposing of unmerchantable fuels by piling and burning, 

mastication/mechanical piling, and underburning within the wildland urban 

interface and other strategic areas.

Regulated (Matrix) Lands (Management Areas 13, 15 and 17)

Harvests would be carried out for the following purposes: 1) to reforest stands to meet 

regeneration acreage allocations to provide planned future yields; 2) to salvage dead and dying 

trees; 3) to meet local and national demand for wood fiber; 4) to achieve a stable vegetative 

condition as a part of a desired condition for a landscape; and 5) to recruit conditions associated 

with a young forest (early seral stage) such as wildlife habitats, resistance to insect and disease 

epidemics, enhance horizontal structural diversity, fuel reduction and scenic variety.

General Forest (Management Area 17 - Regulation Class 2)

In the General Forest, the desired condition is a fire-resilient, multi-aged, regulated coniferous 

forest that provides timber and other resource values. The management area contributes to the 

forest timber base on a sustainable basis.

• There is a need for recovered timber volume from fire killed trees in the general forest

management area because these areas contribute to the timber base of the Forest. The 

Forest proposes to:

o Salvage harvest stands of merchantable timber that have been damaged by fire. 

Within salvage logged stands the Forest proposes to reduce post-harvest activity 

fuels and residual fuels that are not merchantable by the use of prescribed fire.

• There is a need for reduced fuel loads to reduce the probability and extent of future highseverity fire. In order to reduce fuels, the Forest proposes to:
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

16

o Salvage harvest selected stands of merchantable timber to reduce heavy fuels. 

Within salvage logged stands the Forest proposes to reduce post-harvest activity 

fuels and residual fuels that are not merchantable by the use of prescribed fire.

o Reintroduce low severity fire to reduce activity fuels and maintain acceptable fuel 

loads.

o Use primary road ingress and egress routes and strategic ridgetop roads to create 

fuel breaks.

• There is a need for fire-resilient coniferous forests in severely burned areas to meet Forest 

Plan objectives.

o Replant salvage harvest units after fuel reduction (site preparation) is completed.

o In severely burned plantations, reduce residual fuels and replant.

Partial Retention Visual Quality Objective (Management Area 15 - Regulated Class 

2)

In the Partial Retention Visual Quality Objective Management Area, the desired condition is 

coniferous forest that is resilient to fire, where management actions are subordinate to the visual 

character of the landscape. The management area contributes to the forest timber base on a 

sustainable basis but low intensity basis.

• There is a need for recovered timber volume from fire killed trees on partial retention 

lands because these areas contribute to the timber base of the Forest. The Forest proposes 

to:

o Salvage harvest stands of merchantable timber that have been damaged by fire to 

recover the merchantable volume.

• There is a need for reduced fuel loads to reduce the probability and extent of future high 

severity fire. In order to reduce fuels, the Forest proposes to:

o Salvage harvest selected stands of merchantable timber to reduce heavy fuels. 

Visual quality objectives would be met where possible. Within salvage harvested 

stands the Forest proposes to reduce post-harvest activity fuels and residual fuels 

that are not merchantable by the use of prescribed fire.

o Reintroduce low severity fire to reduce fuels and maintain fuel loads.

• There is a need for fire-resilient coniferous forests in severely burned areas to meet Forest 

Plan objectives for partial retention.

o Replant salvage harvest units after fuel reduction is completed.

o In severely burned plantations, reduce fuels and replant.

Designated and Recommended Recreational Rivers (Management Area 13 -

Regulated Class 2)

In the Designated and Recommended Recreational Rivers Management Area, the desired 

condition is the waterway remains generally natural and riverine in appearance. The land in the 

river area corridor may be developed for the full range of agricultural and forestry practices, 

show evidence of past and ongoing timber harvest, or include some residential, commercial, or 

similar development.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

17

Regulation Class 3 or Unregulated (Management Areas 5, 7, 10 and 11)

Timber yields are realized by managing for resource objectives such as ecosystem health or 

wildlife management. Examples are: 1) to reduce the amount of standing dead trees so the risk of 

intense stand-destroying future wildfires is reduced; 2) to reduce stocking levels so residual trees 

will be healthy, vigorous, and resilient; and 3) to create habitat conditions more favorable to 

threatened, endangered, and sensitive species.

Retention Visual Quality Objective (Management Area 11 - Regulated Class 3)

In the Retention Visual Quality Objective Management Area, the desired condition is to limit 

signs of management activities so they are not apparent. Views from visually important roads 

and trails appear forested and provide a natural or natural appearing forest.

Late Successional Reserves (Management Area 5 – Unregulated)

In the Late Successional Reserves (LSR), the desired condition is mature coniferous forest with 

openings and pockets of snags, down logs, and hardwoods that is resilient to large scale stand 

replacement fire.

• There is a need for reduced fuels to reduce the risk of future large-scale high severity fire 

losses of late successional habitat. In order to reduce fuels and create fuel breaks, the 

Forest proposes to:

o Salvage harvest high concentrations of heavy fuels in larger patches of high 

severity burns to create fuel breaks with an emphasis on areas adjacent to private 

lands, upper slopes, and ridgetops; other aspects are included but with less 

treatment. Retain levels of coarse wood consistent with historic fuel levels for 

given slope and aspect. Treat activity and residual fuels after harvest.

o Use salvage harvest and fuels treatments along strategic ingress and egress routes.

• There is a need for a fire-resilient coniferous forest in severely burned areas to meet the 

desired conditions for late successional reserves.

o Replant salvage harvest areas with variable densities to create highly textured 

stands with clumps and small openings.

o Replant only the most severely burned, larger stands where natural regeneration is 

unlikely.

Riparian Reserves (Management Area 10 – Unregulated)

In riparian reserves, the desired condition is a fire-resilient coniferous and hardwood forest with 

large trees and a high proportion of effective shade.

• There is a need to reduce fuels to reduce the risk of future high severity fire. In order to 

reduce fuels, the Forest proposes to:

o Hand cut and pile brush of small fuels on the upper reaches of riparian reserves

with emphasis on south and west aspects.

o Replant riparian reserves where fuels have been reduced in existing plantations 

and other areas, with emphasis on areas where there is no shade –producing 

vegetative cover.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

18

Special Interest Areas (Management Area 7 – Unregulated)

In Special Interest Areas, the desired condition is to emphasize the unique resource for which the 

area was designated. Few signs of management activities are present, other than to provide 

public access and accommodations. Special Interest Areas within the project area include the 

Horse Creek Botanical Area and Condrey Mountain Blueschist Geologic Area. In addition to the 

needs described for all land allocations, the following need was recognized specifically for the 

Horse Creek Botanical Area:

• There is a need to restore ecological functions to reflect the unique characteristics for 

which the Horse Creek Botanical area was designated:

o Replant the Horse Creek Botanical Special Interest Area with upland and riparian 

vegetation, as well as trees, where appropriate.

o Place some of the hazard trees, with or without rootwads attached, into reaches of 

Horse Creek that support Coho Salmon and Coho Salmon fish habitat.

Proposed Action as Scoped

The proposed action was designed to meet the purpose and need of the project. The proposed 

action will treat roadside hazard trees adjacent to approximately 103 miles of roads and 7,325 

acres of other treatments within the 40,834 acre project boundary. Acres by treatment type are 

described below and do not account for the overlap in treatment types. Treatment acreages are 

approximate, riparian reserves have not been field validated, and may be adjusted and refined 

following scoping.

This project includes the following seven types of treatments: (1) roadside hazard tree removal; 

(2) roadside fuels treatments; (3) fuels reduction adjacent to private property; (4) developing and 

maintaining fuels management zones; (5) salvage harvest with site preparation and planting; (6) 

site preparation and planting (without salvage); and (7) Horse Creek Special Interest Area. 

Map(s) of the proposed treatments are enclosed (Appendix A) and available on the project 

website.

1) Roadside Hazard Tree Removal (103 miles)

Trees adjacent to National Forest System roads or along county roads adjacent to National Forest 

System lands within the project area will be evaluated for hazard tree removal. Two different 

assessments will be made to determine roadside hazard trees. First, to identify fire-injured or 

fire-killed trees that have a 70 percent or greater chance of dying within three to five years, the 

following guidelines will be used: Report #RO-11-01 “Marking Guidelines for Fire-Injured 

Trees in California” (Smith and Cluck 2011). This guideline only looks at a tree that has been 

fire killed or fire-injured; it does not give it a rating towards being a hazard to the road. These 

fire-injured or fire-killed trees must have a 70 percent or greater chance of dying within three to 

five years in order to be considered a hazard tree. This guideline will also be used in the salvage 

harvest proposed action below.

Second, for trees that do not have a 70 percent or greater chance of dying within three to five 

years due to fire-injury, Report #RO-12-01 “Hazard Tree Guidelines for Forest Service Facilities 

and Roads in the Pacific Southwest Region” (Angwin et al. 2012) will be used to identify if these 

trees are moderate or high potential hazards to the roadway. This report provides guidance on 

whether or not the tree is a hazard to a road. The tree can be fire-killed, green with a high hazard 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

19

potential, or not fire affected but dead with a high hazard potential. Trees identified as having 

high hazard potential would be removed or abated and left on site where necessary to meet the 

requirements of the Forest Plan. Trees identified as having a moderate hazard would be 

monitored and evaluated for possible future removal.

Removal of merchantable roadside hazard trees would include the use of ground-based and 

skyline logging systems. Non-merchantable trees would be piled and burned where the treatment 

is along a strategic road for roadside fuels treatments, described below. Non-merchantable trees 

would be cut and left when they are not along a road defined as strategic for fire suppression and 

needing fuels treatment. Per agency policy, the public may obtain a permit to remove felled trees 

for firewood in accordance with permit requirements. The agency anticipates the local public 

would remove firewood along roadways, especially near the communities of Horse Creek and 

Seiad Valley, California.

No roadside hazard tree removal is proposed within inventoried roadless areas.

2) Roadside Fuels Treatment (1,243 acres)

The National Forest System Roads 12, 46N60, and 46N50 would receive treatment within 150 

feet on either side of the road. To maintain strategic ingress and egress roads and to decrease the 

amount of activity-generated fuels in hazard tree removal areas, we propose to remove dead 

vegetation and live understory vegetation along with live conifer trees less than 12 inches at 

breast height. Pruning retained conifers up to seven feet high within these zones would increase 

canopy base height and reduce the potential for crown fire initiation. Activity-generated fuels 

would be disposed of by a variety of methods, including manual and mechanical treatments, to 

meet desired conditions. Every piece of ground will be different, but in general the fuels 

reduction would use a spacing of 15 feet, keeping the larger, healthier trees in place.

3) Fuels Reduction Adjacent to Private Property (1,684 acres)

Fuels reduction treatments are proposed within the 500 feet of National Forest System lands 

adjacent to private property with an existing structure or that had a structure that was affected by 

the fire. Treatment would include removing dead vegetation and live understory vegetation 

including conifer trees less than 12 inches in diameter at breast height to reduce fire behavior 

activity, specifically reduced flame length, crown fire potential and intensity to meet desired 

conditions. Pruning retained conifers up to seven feet high within this zone would increase 

canopy base height and reduce the potential for crown fire initiation. Activity-generated fuels 

would be disposed of by a variety of methods to meet the desired conditions. Every piece of 

ground will be different, but in general the fuels reduction would use a spacing of 15 feet, 

keeping the larger healthier trees in place.

4) Developing and Maintaining Fuels Management Zones (1,499 acres)

During the Gap Fire, strategic dozer lines built during the Beaver Fire in 2014 or from past 

wildfires were reopened. Strategic ridge systems, many containing historic firelines already in 

place, would be maintained by removing dead vegetation and live understory vegetation along 

with live conifer trees less than 12 inches at breast height. Pruning retained conifers up to seven 

feet high within these zones would increase canopy base height and reduce the potential for 

crown fire initiation. Activity-generated fuels would be disposed of by a variety of methods, 

including manual and mechanical treatments, to meet desired conditions.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

20

5) Salvage Harvest with Site Preparation and Planting (Ground-based 

1,262 acres and Skyline (Cable) 995 acres)

Standing dead trees 14 inches in diameter at breast height or greater would be considered for 

salvage using the guidelines in Report #RO-11-01 “Marking Guidelines for Fire-Injured Trees in 

California” (Smith and Cluck 2011). Fire-killed and fire-injured trees with a 70 percent or 

greater chance of dying within the next three to five years would be considered for salvage 

harvest.

Salvage logging treatments would be accomplished by a combination of ground-based and 

skyline logging systems. All salvage units would be reforested as described in the sitepreparation and planting section below.

No salvage harvest is proposed within wilderness, backcountry, research natural areas, 

designated or recommended wild rivers, inventoried roadless areas, or riparian reserves

associated with stream channels (hydrologic riparian reserves).

6) Site Preparation and Planting (without salvage) (458 acres)

Forest stands selected for site preparation and tree planting are predominately plantations 

composed of standing dead trees generally under 16 inches in diameter at breast height. Both 

manual and mechanical methods would be used to cut or masticate standing dead trees 

depending on slope steepness, accessibility and feasibility. Activity-generated fuels would be 

treated using a variety of methods including piling and burning, underburning, or lop and 

scattering. Reforestation would be accomplished by directly planting nursery-grown seedlings or 

by allowing natural regeneration. Tree species and spacing would depend on a variety of 

environmental factors, including considerations of climate change, elevation, slope steepness, 

slope position, aspect, and soil productivity. Reforestation would avoid creation of densely 

stocked plantations that would prevent the reintroduction of low intensity prescribed fire at a 

later date. Seedling survival rates and competition from brush species will create a natural 

mosaic of species and stocking densities. Hardwoods would be considered when determining 

whether desired stocking objectives have been met.

7) Horse Creek Special Interest Area (SIA) (184 acres)

Treatment within the Horse Creek SIA includes: hazard tree removal, placing trees with 

rootwads attached into the riparian reserve, and planting hardwood and conifers within the 

riparian reserves.

Modifications to Alternative 2 (previously the proposed action) between

Scoping and DEIS

To address public scoping comments and correct errors, the proposed action was modified. The

modified proposed action was analyzed as Alternative 2 in the draft environmental impact 

statement and includes the following changes since scoping:

• Total acres proposed for treatment changed from 7,325 acres in the scoping proposal to 

5,517 acres. These reductions in acres are further described below.

• Roadside fuels treatment was reduced from 1,243 acres to 688 acres, a difference of 555 

acres. This was due to geographic information system (GIS) drawn width; the 150 feet 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

21

proposed on each side of the road is correct but was drawn to 300 feet on each side on the 

map.

• Developing and maintaining fuels management zones was reduced from 1,499 acres to 

733 acres, a difference of 766 acres. This was due to GIS-drawn width; the 150 feet on 

each side of the ridge is correct but was drawn as 600 feet on each side on the map.

• Fuels reduction adjacent to private property was reduced from 1,684 acres to 1,412 acres, 

a difference of 272 acres. Sections were identified after scoping as not being private 

properties with structures, units already covered by other NEPA documents, or under 

contract for work.

• Salvage harvest with site preparation and planting changed due to field reconnaissance 

after scoping, watershed or geological concern with unit 117.24, and removal of salvage 

harvest from the special interest area. Ground-based logging went from 1,262 acres to 

1,137 acres and skyline logging was reduced from 995 acres to 906 acres. New gross 

acres of salvage harvest with site preparation and planting is now 2,043 acres. This 

includes the no harvest areas within unit boundaries. 

• Snag retention areas have been identified that include all riparian reserves with addition 

areas to enhance wildlife connectivity totaling 272 acres inside salvage harvest units 

resulting in a net salvage harvest area equal to 1,771 acres (Table 7).

The following clarifications were made:

• Alternative 2 as scoped did not have clear prescriptions for the three different fuels 

treatments (roadside fuels treatments, fuels reduction adjacent to private property, and 

developing and maintaining fuels management zones). Those were added within the 

descriptions of each (see Chapter 2)

• Alternative 2 as scoped did not have clear prescriptions for the Horse Creek Special 

Interest Area. That was added within the descriptions for Alternative 2 (see Chapter 2).

• Alternative 2 as scoped did not discuss the miles of new or existing temporary roads. This 

has been added to the descriptions for Alternative 2 (see Chapter 2).

Preferred Alternative

Following further analysis and consideration of public comments in the scoping and comment 

periods, Alternative 4 was selected as the preferred alternative. Alternative 4 is described in 

detail in Chapter 2.

Decision Framework

The Forest Supervisor is the responsible official for the Horse Creek Community Protection and 

Forest Restoration Project. This environmental impact statement is not a decision document; it 

discloses the environmental consequences of implementing the no action alternative or an action 

alternative. The environmental impact statement also aids the responsible official in determining 

whether the effects disclosed will have a significant effect on the environment. After analyzing 

and responding to public comment, the responsible official will make a decision and issue a 

Record of Decision.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

22

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

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

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

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

Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project. In making the decision, the Forest 

Supervisor will consider:

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

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

conditions established in the Forest Plan?

• Does the selected alternative mitigate potential adverse effects?

The final decision will be based on consideration of the questions above, the information in this 

document and the supporting information contained in the project record, consideration of public 

comments, and whether the selected alternative complies with applicable state and federal laws, 

Forest Plan direction, and agency policy. 

Alternative 4 is considered the preferred alternative at this time.

Objections:

This FEIS and the proposed decision are subject to objection pursuant to 36 CFR 218, Subparts 

A and B. Objections will only be accepted from those who submitted project-specific written 

comments during scoping or another 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 notice of 

availability (NOA) in the Federal Register, which 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 may be submitted via mail, fax (707-562-9229) or delivered during business hours 

(M-F 8:00am to 4:00pm). Objections must be submitted to the reviewing officer: Randy Moore, 

Regional Forester, USDA Forest Service; Attn: Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest 

Restoration Project; 1323 Club Drive, Vallejo, CA 94592. Phone (707) 562-8737. Electronic 

objections, in common formats (.doc, .pdf, .rtf, .txt), may be submitted to: objectionspacificsouthwest-regional-office@fs.fed.us with Subject: Horse Creek Community Protection 

and Forest Restoration Project.

Objections must: 1) include name, address and telephone; 2) include signature or other 

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

name, Responsible Official name and title, and name of affected National Forest(s) and/or 

Ranger District(s); 5) include reasons for, and suggested remedies to resolve, your objections; 

and, 6) include a description of the connection between your objections and your prior comments 

(36 CFR 218.8(d)). Incorporate documents by reference only as provided for at 36 CFR 218.8(b).

For additional information about how to object, contact Lauren McChesney at 

laurendmcchesney@fs.fed.us or 530-841-4483.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

23

Public Involvement

The Happy Camp/Oak Knoll Ranger District (District) held meetings with individual groups 

before, during, and after scoping and comment periods. On April 28, 2017, the district hosted a 

public meeting including a field trip. Several members of the Horse Creek community and fire 

safe council came, along with Fish and Wildlife, California Water Board, and a member from the 

neighboring forest. On May 17, 2017, Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Center (KS Wild), 

Environmental Protection Information Center (EPIC), and the Karuk Tribe joined the District on 

a field trip of the project area. On June 1, 2017, American Forest Resource Council (AFRC)

joined the District on a field trip of the project area. Due to snow levels, the District plans to host 

a field trip out to the Siskiyou Crest and Buckhorn areas of the project in July 2017 for anyone 

involved or interested in the project. A field trip with the Pacific Crest Trail Association is also 

planned for late June or early July, to discuss the different proposed actions with the group.

The District has had the opportunity to speak with the Karuk Tribe and Karuk Resource 

Advisory Board, Horse Creek Fire Safe Council, Seiad Fire Safe Council, KS Wild, Shasta Tribe 

Inc., and Shasta Nation. This has allowed the Forest to present the project and for these groups to 

share their individual concerns.

On November 18 and 22, 2016 a scoping letter was sent to interested and affected parties, 

including other public agencies, tribes, adjacent property owners, and interested groups and 

individuals. On November 22, 2016 a legal notice of scoping was published in the Siskiyou 

Daily Newspaper and the Notice of the Intent was published in the Federal Register on 

November 23, 2016 beginning the formal scoping process that guides the development of the 

DEIS. The project was first published to the Forest website in mid-December 2016 and to the 

Schedule of Proposed Actions on January 1, 2017. The Forest Service met individually with the 

groups identified in Table 5.

Table 5: Public Meetings.

Date Group/Organization Attendees Topic

November 14, 2016 Karuk Tribe Earl Crosby, Alex Watts-Tobin Presented the 

project to the Karuk 

Tribe.

November 29, 2016 Horse Creek Fire Safe 

Council

20+ individuals from the local 

community of Horse Creek, 

CA. 

Presented the 

project to the Horse 

Creek Fire Safe 

Council.

December 6, 2016 Karuk Resource Advisory 

Board (KRAB) Meeting

Leaf Hillman, Earl Crosby, 

Sandi Tripp, and FS 

employees from neighboring 

Forests.

Presented the 

project to the KRAB.

December 13, 2016 Seiad Fire Safe Council George Jennings, Patrick 

Ayres, Glen Briggs, Ed 

Prather

Presented the 

project to the Seiad 

Fire Safe Council.

December 15, 2016 Klamath Siskiyou 

Wildland Center (KS 

Wild)

George Sexton, Joseph Vale, 

Will Tripp

Presented the 

project to KS Wild.

December 20, 2016 Shasta Indian Nation James Sarmento Presented the 

project to the Shasta 

Indian Nation
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

24

Date Group/Organization Attendees Topic

March 7, 2017 Fruit Growers Supply, 

Inc.

Terry Silvestro and 4+ 

foresters.

Presented the 

project and 

discussed their 

future activities 

within the Gap Fire

perimeter.

April 27, 2017 Public Meeting Horse Creek Fire Safe 

Council, Horse Creek, 

California residence, Fish and 

Wildlife, Waterboard.

Presented the 

different proposed 

actions to the group.

May 17, 2017 Klamath Siskiyou 

Wildland Center (KS 

Wild)

Members from KS Wild, EPIC 

and the Karuk Tribe.

Presented the 

different proposed 

actions to the group.

June 1, 2017 American Forest 

Resource Council 

(AFRC)

Private industry members of 

AFRC.

Presented the 

different proposed 

actions to the group.

The Forest Service has engaged in government-to-government consultation with federally 

recognized local tribes and sought input from non-federally recognized tribes. The following 

tribes were sent scoping and comment period letters: Karuk Tribe, Quartz Valley Indian 

Reservation, Shasta Indian Nation, Shasta Nation Inc., and the Confederated Tribes of the Siletz. 

Regarding Endangered Species Act consultation requirements, the Forest Service is consulting 

with National Marine Fisheries Service for the Coho salmon and its critical habitat and the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service for the northern spotted owl and its critical habitat. While consultation 

is progressing, all endangered species information relevant to the choice between alternatives has 

been incorporated directly into the FEIS and supporting wildlife resource reports are available in 

the project record on the project website. Biological assessments and other consultation 

documents will be shared on the project website as they become available.

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

Summary available on the project website. Responses to comments received on the draft 

environmental impact statement are summarized in Appendix D, available on the project 

website.

Issues from Scoping

Comments were categorized as either relevant new information for alternative or project design 

feature development, or concerns. Relevant new information led to alternative or project design 

feature development by bringing to our attention points of discussion, dispute, or debate about 

the environmental effects that may directly or indirectly be caused by implementing the proposed 

action, or by suggesting a new alternative or project design feature that could meet the purpose 

and need of the project. Concerns are general comments or questions that did not lead to any 

changes to proposed actions or project design. Concerns may not have been relevant for 

alternative or project design feature development for any of the following reasons:

1. The issue is outside the scope of the proposed action, and is not related to the decision to 

be made.

2. The issue is a procedural concern, which is already decided by law, regulation, policy, or 

direction (Forest Plan).
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

25

3. The issue is a procedural concern, which was addressed through project design or was 

addressed through analysis.

4. The issue is not supported by scientific (or factual) evidence.

The Forest received 333 comments during the scoping period by means of 27 unique letters and 

945 form letters. Scoping comments are addressed in the Scoping Outcome Summary available 

on the project website. Four topics were identified during scoping that were determined to be 

relevant to alternative or new project design features development. An additional alternative was 

proposed by the Karuk Tribe after scoping, as discussed in the Alternative Developed as a Result 

of Tribal Consultation with the Karuk Tribe section below. Relevant new information is 

discussed in Table 6 below.

Table 6: Relevant new information identified for this project and associated responses.

Relevant New 

Information #1:

There is a disagreement about the long-term impacts of use, construction, and 

reconstruction of logging roads and landings on wildlife, soil health, and hydrology.

Response: Alternative 3 responds to this issue by eliminating the creation of all new and 

existing temporary roads originally proposed in the project.

Relevant New 

Information #2:

There is disagreement about the appropriateness of post fire logging in the 

Siskiyou Crest near Condrey Mountain and Dry Lake Mountain because of its 

important role as a biological connectivity corridor in the region.

Response: Alternative 3 was developed in response to this concern and eliminates all 

treatments and new and existing temporary roads within the Siskiyou Crest.

Relevant New 

Information #3:

There is concern about the impacts of the project on northern spotted owls and 

their habitat.

Response: Alternative 4 responds to this issue by removing salvage harvest and roadside 

hazard along dead end roads that occur in high valued northern spotted owl

activity center cores. In addition, this alternative reduces salvage harvest in the 

portion of the drainages that are more likely to be used by northern spotted owls. 

The salvage harvest units in this alternative that are located at lower elevations are 

planned to contain patches in the units that will not be harvested. Project design 

features Wildlife 1 and Wildlife 2 were developed to respond to this issue.

Relevant New 

Information #4:

There is an issue identified with the effects project activities may have on amenity 

resources such as recreation opportunities and visual quality characteristics of 

scenery, particularly for the Pacific Crest Trail, the Siskiyou Crest, Buckhorn 

Springs Camp, Windy Camp, the Condrey Mountain Blue Schist Geologic Area, 

and the Condrey Mountain Backcountry Area.

Response: These suggestions were considered and appropriate measures were incorporated 

into project design features Recreation and Scenery Resources 1 to 12. The 

Forest Plan allows for different levels of management activities dependent on the 

management allocation. Appropriate project design features will respond to the 

variety of proposed management activities and current conditions to ensure 

ongoing sustainability and restoration within the recreation, aesthetic, and 

ecological frameworks. Effects to recreation and scenery will be analyzed by 

specialists and included in Chapter 3 of the EIS.

Comment Period on the Draft EIS

On April 28, 2017, the draft EIS and supporting documents were posted to the project’s 

webpage. Email notifications and letters for the draft EIS comment period were sent to interested 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

26

and affected parties, including other public agencies, tribes, adjacent property owners, and 

interested groups and individuals. On April 28, 2017, a Notice of Availability was published in 

the Federal Register and a legal notice was published in the Siskiyou Daily News, beginning the 

45-day comment period. Comments received by June 13, 2017, were considered timely and 

addressed in Appendix D, Response to Comments (posted on the project webpage).

Results of the Draft EIS Comment Period

The comment period for the draft EIS resulted in the receipt of 995 comment letters, including 

19 unique letters, 718 form letters, and 24 form letters that included additional information (234 

letters were duplicates). Comments were identified in these letters regarding issues and concerns 

raised by the author. These comments were then categorized according to the primary topics of 

their content. Within these topics areas, comments were grouped together and summarized 

together with similar comments. The interdisciplinary team then responded to these summary 

statements to address the issue or concern identified, or clarify where more information was 

requested. If a comment was unique in its subject from any other comments, it was addressed 

individually. Any comments that provided substantive new information were considered and 

necessary revisions made to the final EIS and supporting documents or addressed in the draft 

Record of Decision. Responsible scientific literature provided that was not previously considered 

was reviewed by resource specialists and considered in their final analysis where applicable. A 

report of the comments received, including a list of commenters, and responses to them is 

included as Appendix D, which is available in the project record and on the project website.

Best Available Information, Data Quality, and Model Outputs

The draft and final EISs were prepared using a combination of remote sensing analysis tools 

such as the Rapid Assessment of Vegetation Condition after Wildfire (RAVG), soil burn severity 

assessments, standard Geographic Information System (GIS) spatial data, forest vegetation and 

transportation databases, and field verification of on-the-ground conditions. Areas proposed for 

treatment were field-verified by resource specialists when possible in order to make the final EIS 

as accurate as possible. Mapping of proposed salvage units and site preparation and planting 

units are based on RAVG assessments of fire severity, Forest GIS databases, and field 

verification. Minor differences in numbers typically reflect an updated data set or differences in 

rounding and rarely change estimates of project effects. For example, there are minor differences

in the area of the fire on Forest Service lands when using the RAVG data set (21,580 acres) and 

the soil burn severity data set (21,114 acres). In any computer model output, whether it be 

economics or watershed effects, the relative differences between alternatives or options and the 

assumptions made in the models are generally more meaningful than the absolute value of the 

model output.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

27

Chapter 2. Alternatives 

Introduction

This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered for the Horse Creek Community 

Protection and Forest Restoration Project. It includes a description and map of each alternative 

considered. This section also presents the alternatives in comparative form, sharply defining the 

differences between each alternative and providing a clear basis for choice among options by the

decision maker and the public.

Alternatives Considered in Detail

The Forest Service developed four alternatives, including the No Action and Proposed Action 

alternatives, in response to issues raised by the public.

Alternative 1 (No Action)

This alternative reflects the environmental effects of not implementing any treatments in this 

project. The environmental condition described in the analysis of this alternative will reflect the 

result of natural processes and the cumulative environmental effects of past and ongoing 

activities. Hazard trees would not be abated from roads, fuels would not be treated along 

roadways and boundaries with private property containing structures (or that had a structure 

before the Gap Fire), and fuel management zones would not be developed or maintained. 

Salvage harvest, site preparation, and planting would not occur. Finally, restoration treatments 

would not occur in the Horse Creek Special Interest Area.

Alternative 2 (previously Refined Proposed Action)

Alternative 2, the original Proposed Action as refined after scoping, was designed to meet the 

purpose and need of the project. The proposed action would treat roadside hazard trees adjacent 

to approximately 103 miles of roads and 5,517 acres of other treatments within the 40,834 acre 

project area. Acres by treatment type are described below and do not account for the overlap in 

treatment types.

The proposed action (as scoped) includes the following seven types of treatments: (1) roadside 

hazard tree removal; (2) roadside fuels treatments; (3) fuels reduction adjacent to private 

property; (4) developing and maintaining fuels management zones; (5) salvage harvest with site 

preparation and planting; (6) site preparation and planting (without salvage); and (7) restoration 

activities in the Horse Creek Special Interest Area. Maps of the proposed treatments are included 

in Appendix A. Individual actions are described in detail below.

1) Roadside Hazard Tree Removal (103 miles)

Trees adjacent to National Forest System roads or along county roads adjacent to National Forest 

System lands within the project area will be evaluated for hazards. Three different assessments 

will be made to determine roadside hazard trees, and within riparian reserves, identified hazard 

trees will be further evaluated to determine if they are removed or felled and left on site, as 

described below.

First, we will identify any existing trees that pose a moderate or high risk hazard to the roadway 

using the criteria Report #RO-12-01 “Hazard Tree Guidelines for Forest Service Facilities and 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

28

Roads in the Pacific Southwest Region” (Angwin et al. 2012). This report provides guidance on 

whether or not the tree is a hazard to a road. A tree can be fire-killed, green with a high hazard 

potential, or not fire affected but dead with a high hazard potential. Trees identified as having 

high hazard potential would be marked for cutting, and either removed or abated and left on site 

where necessary to meet the requirements of the Forest Plan. Trees identified as having a 

moderate hazard would be monitored and evaluated for possible future removal.

Second, for trees under 40 inches in diameter, we will identify any fire-injured trees that have a 

70 percent probability of dying in the next three to five years using the criteria in Report #RO11-01 “Marking Guidelines for Fire-Injured Trees in California” (Smith and Cluck, 2011). Those 

fire-injured trees that have 70 percent or greater probability of mortality would be considered 

potential hazards and would be marked for cutting, and either removed or abated and left on site 

if necessary to meet the requirements of the Forest Plan (e.g., for hazard trees within riparian 

reserves, as described below).

Third, for trees equal to or greater than 40 inches in diameter, we will identify any fire-injured 

trees that have a 90 percent probability of dying in the next three to five years using the criteria 

in Report #RO-11-01 “Marking Guidelines for Fire-Injured Trees in California” (Smith and 

Cluck, 2011). Those fire-injured trees that have 90 percent or greater probability of mortality 

would be considered potential hazards and would be marked for cutting, and either removed or 

left on site if necessary to meet the requirements of the Forest Plan (e.g., for hazard trees within

riparian reserves, as described below).

Roadside hazard trees in riparian reserves

In stream course riparian reserves, all hazard trees will be felled according to the hazard 

evaluation described above; the difference is in what happens to a hazard tree once it has been 

felled. Within stream course riparian reserves, roadside hazard trees equal to or greater than 24 

inches diameter at breast height will be felled and left on site if the following criteria are met: 1) 

the faller can safely fell the hazard tree away from the road without causing excessive damage to 

residual tree crowns or boles; 2) removal would cause excessive soil disturbance such as 

gouging; 3) the tree does not lean towards the road; 4) once fallen the tree would not disrupt flow 

through a drainage structure; 5) where leaving the felled tree would not contribute to or cause 

excessive fuel loading (this threshold may be met sooner in areas identified for fuels reduction); 

and 6) felled trees that are the furthest from the road, below the road, and on steeper slopes 

below the road will be favored for leaving. Hazard trees in stream course riparian reserves where 

these criteria are not met, or that are less than 24 inches in diameter at breast height, will be 

felled and removed.

Removal of merchantable roadside hazard trees would include the use of ground-based and 

skyline logging systems. Non-merchantable trees would be cut and left when they are not along a 

road defined as strategic for fire suppression and needing fuels treatment. These nonmerchantable trees would be piled and burned where the treatment is along a strategic road for 

roadside fuels treatments, described below. Per agency policy, the public may obtain a permit to 

remove felled trees for firewood in accordance with permit requirements. The agency anticipates 

the local public would remove firewood along roadways, especially near the communities of 

Horse Creek and Seiad Valley, California.

See the discussion of roadside hazard abatement in the Special Interest Area for additional 

criteria that apply to roadside hazard only in that land allocation. No roadside hazard tree

removal is proposed within inventoried roadless areas.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

29

2) Roadside Fuels Treatment (688 acres)

The National Forest System Roads 12, 46N60, and 46N50 would receive treatment within 150 

feet on either side of the road in addition to roadside hazard tree removal. To maintain strategic 

ingress and egress roads and to decrease the amount of activity-generated fuels in hazard tree

removal areas, we propose to remove dead vegetation up to 18 inches diameter at breast height 

as well as small diameter live understory vegetation including live conifer trees up to 8 inches

diameter at breast height and live hardwoods up 6 inches in diameter. Pruning retained conifers 

up to seven feet high within these zones would increase canopy base height and reduce the 

potential for crown fire initiation. Activity-generated fuels would be disposed of by a variety of 

methods, including manual and mechanical treatments, to meet desired conditions. Every piece 

of ground will be different, but in general the fuels reduction would use a spacing of 15 feet, 

keeping the larger, healthier trees in place. Where roadside fuels treatment crosses riparian 

reserves, no vegetation that provides effective shade to the stream channel or floodplain will be 

cut.

Specific prescriptions:

Roadside Fuels 1:

• 150 feet on either side of the road;

• Cut dead trees up to 18 inches diameter at breast height and pile and burn fuels up to the 

size class that is possible given implementation methods;

• Cut live conifer trees up to 8 inches diameter at breast height with 15 foot spacing and 

pile and burn fuels;

• Cut hardwoods up to 6 inches diameter at breast height; maintaining 20 to 25 foot 

spacing between cut trees; and

• Prune retained conifer trees up to seven feet high.

3) Fuels Reduction Adjacent to Private Property (1,412 acres)

Fuels reduction treatments are proposed within the 500 feet of National Forest System lands 

adjacent to private property with an existing structure or that had a structure that was affected by 

the fire. Treatment would include removing dead vegetation up to 14 inches in diameter at breast 

height and live understory vegetation, including conifer trees up to 12 inches in diameter at 

breast height, and live hardwoods up to 6 inches in diameter, to reduce fire behavior activity, 

specifically reduced flame length and crown fire potential and intensity, to meet desired 

conditions. Pruning retained conifers up to seven feet high within this zone is proposed to 

increase canopy base height and reduce the potential for crown fire initiation. Activity-generated 

fuels would be disposed of by a variety of methods, including manual and mechanical 

treatments, to meet the desired conditions. Every piece of ground will be different, but in general 

the fuels reduction would use a spacing of 20 to 25 feet, keeping the larger, healthier trees in 

place. Where fuel reduction adjacent to private property prescriptions cross riparian reserves, no 

vegetation that provides effective shade to the stream channel or floodplain will be cut.

Specific prescriptions:

Private Property 1:

• 500 foot buffer adjacent to private land, treatment on Forest Service land;
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

30

• Cut dead trees up to 14 inches diameter at breast height, pile and burn fuels up to the size 

class that is possible given implementation methods;

• Cut live conifer trees up to 12 inches diameter at breast height with 20 to 25 foot spacing,

pile and burn fuels;

• Cut live hardwoods up to 6 inches diameter at breast height; maintaining 20 to 25 foot 

spacing between cut trees; and

• Prune retained conifer trees up to seven feet high.

4) Developing and Maintaining Fuels Management Zones (733 acres)

During the Gap Fire, strategic dozer lines built during the Beaver Fire in 2014 or from past 

wildfires were reopened. Strategic ridge systems, many containing historic firelines already in 

place, would be maintained by removing dead vegetation up to 18 inches diameter at breast 

height and small diameter live understory vegetation including live conifer trees up to 12 inches 

diameter at breast height, and live hardwoods up to 6 inches in diameter. Pruning retained 

conifers up to seven feet high within these zones is proposed to increase canopy base height and 

reduce the potential for crown fire initiation. Activity-generated fuels would be disposed of by a 

variety of methods, including manual and mechanical treatments, to meet desired conditions.

These treatments are located on ridgetops and should not intersect with riparian reserves, 

however, if fuel management zones cross riparian reserves, no vegetation that provides effective

shade to the stream channel or floodplain will be cut.

Specific prescriptions:

Fuels Zone 1:

• 150 foot width on either side of the ridge;

• Cut dead trees up to 18 inches diameter at breast height, pile and burn fuels up to the size 

class that is possible given implementation methods;

• Cut live conifer trees up to 12 inches diameter at breast height with 20 to 25 foot spacing, 

pile and burn fuels;

• Cut live hardwoods up to 6 inches diameter at breast height; maintaining 20 to 25 foot 

spacing between cut trees; and

• Prune retained conifer trees up to seven feet high.

5) Salvage Harvest with Site Preparation and Planting (2,043 acres) (1,137 acres Ground-based 

and 906 acres Skyline (Cable))

Standing dead trees 14 inches in diameter at breast height or greater would be considered for 

salvage using the guidelines in Report #RO-11-01 “Marking Guidelines for Fire-Injured Trees in 

California” (Smith and Cluck 2011). Fire-killed and fire-injured trees with a 70 percent or 

greater probability of dying within the next three to five years would be considered for salvage 

harvest. The “Marking Guidelines for Fire-Injured Trees in California” also addresses the 

evaluation of trees with signs of insect activity. Trees with this evidence will be removed as 

described by the guidelines.

Trees identified as hazards using the “Hazard Tree Guidelines for Forest Service Facilities and 

Roads in the Pacific Southwest Region” along roads within salvage units will be felled to abate 

the hazard. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

31

Snags for wildlife will be retained based on 100-acre landscape areas according to numerical and 

diameter standards in the Forest Plan (p. 4-26). In any 100-acre area, snags within and outside 

salvage harvest units may contribute to these standards. Within harvest units, snags will be 

retained in all riparian reserves (stream and inner gorges) and in clumps in designated snag 

retention areas as necessary to meet these standards. Individual snags within harvest units will 

not be retained unless they have high quality habitat characteristics such as signs of decay and 

defect, cavities, broken or multiple tops, very large lateral branches and flattened canopy. In 

order to contribute to Recovery Action 12, very large snags that have these characteristics and 

are likely to persist until the next stand is capable of producing large snags should be retained 

wherever they occur, provided safety considerations can be addressed. If a wildlife snag must be 

felled for safety reasons, the entire tree will be left in place and shall not be bucked into smaller 

logs.

Salvage logging treatments would be accomplished by a combination of ground-based and 

skyline logging systems. Seventeen temporary roads (ten new (2.18 miles) and seven existing

(2.44 miles)) will be needed to access salvage units. All salvage units would be reforested as 

described in the site-preparation and planting section below.

No salvage harvest is proposed within wilderness, backcountry, research natural areas, 

designated or recommended wild rivers, inventoried roadless areas, or riparian reserves. 

Proposed salvage units are shown in Table 7. Additional information about the logging systems 

used, please refer to the supplementary report on logging systems available in the project record.

Table 7: Summary of salvage units.

Unit # Logging 

System

Temporary 

Roads Management Areas

Gross 

Area 

(acres)

Snag

Retention 

(acres)1

Net Area 

(acres)

115.31 Tractor N/A LSR 47 0 47

115.32 Cable N/A LSR, Riparian Reserve2 64 5 59

115.33 Cable N/A LSR, Riparian Reserve2 117 25 92

115.34 Tractor N/A LSR, Riparian Reserve2 130 9 121

115.35 Cable N/A LSR 85 1 84

115.36 Cable N/A LSR, Riparian Reserve2 52 5 47

116.49 Cable N/A

Partial Retention VQO, 

Recreational River, 

Retention VQO, Riparian 

Reserve2

144 12 132

116.50 Tractor N/A

General Forest, Partial 

Retention VQO, Riparian 

Reserve2

86 34 52

117.14 Tractor N/A General Forest, Retention 

VQO 25 0 25

117.15 Cable New

General Forest, Partial 

Retention VQO, Retention 

VQO, Riparian Reserve2

57 1 56

117.16 Tractor New

General Forest, Partial 

Retention VQO, Retention 

VQO

34 0 34

117.17 Tractor N/A General Forest 39 0 39
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

32

Unit # Logging 

System

Temporary 

Roads Management Areas

Gross 

Area 

(acres)

Snag

Retention 

(acres)1

Net Area 

(acres)

117.18 Tractor N/A General Forest, Partial 

Retention VQO 14 0 14

117.19 Tractor N/A General Forest, Riparian 

Reserve2 30 1 29

117.20 Cable N/A

General Forest, Partial 

Retention VQO, Riparian 

Reserve2

28 16 12

117.21 Tractor N/A

General Forest, Partial 

Retention VQO, Riparian 

Reserve2

41 10 31

117.22 Tractor N/A General Forest, Partial 

Retention VQO 24 0 24

117.23 Tractor New

General Forest, Partial 

Retention VQO, Riparian 

Reserve2

180 33 147

117.24 Tractor Existing 

Roadbed

General Forest, Partial 

Retention VQO, Riparian 

Reserve2

61 5 56

118.03 Tractor New

Partial Retention VQO, 

Retention VQO, Riparian 

Reserve2

48 7 41

118.04 Cable New

Partial Retention VQO, 

Retention VQO, Riparian 

Reserve2

67 22 45

118.05 Cable Existing 

Roadbed

Partial Retention VQO, 

Retention VQO, Riparian 

Reserve2

33 1 32

118.06 Cable New

General Forest, Partial 

Retention VQO, Retention 

VQO, Riparian Reserve2

31 4 27

118.07 Tractor N/A

General Forest, Partial 

Retention VQO, Riparian 

Reserve2

44 4 40

118.09 Tractor N/A Partial Retention VQO 16 0 16

118.12 Cable New General Forest 13 0 13

118.26 Tractor Existing 

Roadbed

General Forest, Partial 

Retention VQO, Riparian 

Reserve2

32 6 26

118.27 Tractor Existing 

Roadbed

General Forest, Partial 

Retention VQO, Riparian 

Reserve2

23 3 20

118.57 Cable N/A

General Forest, Partial 

Retention VQO, Riparian 

Reserve2

127 60 67

118.58 Tractor

Existing 

Roadbed

and New

General Forest, Partial 

Retention VQO 149 0 149
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

33

Unit # Logging 

System

Temporary 

Roads Management Areas

Gross 

Area 

(acres)

Snag

Retention 

(acres)1

Net Area 

(acres)

118.59 Tractor New Partial Retention VQO, 

Riparian Reserve2 41 1 40

118.60 Tractor N/A Partial Retention VQO 24 0 24

118.62 Cable N/A Partial Retention VQO, 

Riparian Reserve2 28 4 24

118.63 Tractor N/A Partial Retention VQO 50 0 50

118.64 Cable N/A Partial Retention VQO, 

Riparian Reserve2 59 3 56

Totals: 2,043 272 1,771

1Snag retention is riparian reserves and geologic riparian reserves.

2Acres shown in riparian reserves are snag retention areas within the unit boundaries. There is no 

proposed salvage harvest in stream-related riparian reserves within salvage units.

VQO = Visual Quality Objective

6) Site Preparation and Planting (without salvage) (458 acres)

Forest stands selected for site preparation and tree planting are predominately plantations 

composed of standing dead trees generally under 16 inches in diameter at breast height. Both 

manual and mechanical methods would be used to cut or masticate standing dead trees 

depending on slope steepness, accessibility, and feasibility. Dead vegetation within plantations 

will be strategically cut, piled, and burned to prepare the site for reforestation activities. Some 

dead vegetation may be left standing on harsh sites to improve survival of seedlings by creating 

shade. Hardwood species that resprout after being top-killed by fire will not be intentionally 

removed from the stand and seedlings will be planted outside of the dripline of the resprouting 

hardwoods. Resprouted shrubs may also be cut, piled, and burned for site preparation. Activitygenerated fuels would be treated using a variety of methods including piling and burning, 

underburning, or lop and scattering.

Reforestation would be accomplished by directly planting nursery-grown seedlings or by 

allowing natural regeneration. Tree species and spacing would depend on a variety of 

environmental factors, including considerations of climate change, elevation, slope steepness, 

slope position, aspect, and soil productivity. Reforestation would avoid creation of denselystocked plantations that would prevent the reintroduction of low-intensity prescribed fire at a 

later date by planting with variable densities to create highly textured stands with clumps and 

small openings. Seedling survival rates and competition from brush species will create a natural 

mosaic of species and stocking densities. Hardwoods would be considered when determining 

whether desired stocking objectives have been met.

Conifer seedlings would be released in the season following planting; if necessary, additional 

release would occur to provide for establishment. Manual release would include clearing woody 

herbs and small brush in a radius around selected trees. If the site is south-facing or droughty, 

dead vegetation may be strategically left on the south-side of the tree to moderate heat stress, 

especially in the first release.

7) Restoration Activities in the Horse Creek Special Interest Area (184 acres)
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

34

Treatment within the Horse Creek Special Interest Area includes hazard tree removal, placing 

trees with or without rootwads attached into the stream channel, and planting hardwood and 

conifers within the riparian reserves.

The Horse Creek Botanical Area is located on the main stem of Horse Creek between Crawfish 

Gulch and Hamburg Gulch. It parallels the creek, spanning both sides and encompassing the 

riparian zone and some of the adjoining hillside. It was selected for Administrative Withdrawal 

as a Special Interest Area (SIA) for its unique characteristic as an intact and highly diverse oldgrowth riparian ecosystem. Located near the community of Horse Creek, California, it is easily 

accessed by vehicle and little-to-no hiking is required for visitors to observe and appreciate the 

unique characteristics of the area. Prior to the Gap fire, the riparian zone was dominated by 

bigleaf maple and white alder, with large old-growth conifers interspersed throughout. Conifers 

in the SIA include Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, sugar pine, incense-cedar, and white fir. Unlike 

most botanical areas, the Horse Creek Botanical Area is not known to contain any federallylisted or protected botanical species.

The entirety of the Horse Creek Botanical Area was affected by the 2016 Gap Fire. While the 

upstream half experienced only light to moderate fire severity, the downstream half below the 

confluence of Fish Gulch Creek was particularly impacted by the fire, with large portions 

experiencing moderate to high fire severity. The downstream area suffered large losses of both 

overstory and ground vegetation. Much of the conifer and riparian hardwood forest in the lower 

third of the Botanical Area has been lost. The resulting altered condition has triggered the need 

to initiate restoration efforts to allow the area to return to the condition for which it was 

designated a special interest area.

Forest Service Road 46N50 runs parallel to Horse Creek throughout the entirety of the Botanical 

Area. This road is crucial to the communities of Horse Creek and Seiad Valley as the main 

egress and ingress route for residents in Horse Creek and Seiad Valley if State Highway 96 

closes (due to wildfire, flooding, road damage, etc.) As a result of the widespread damage to 

trees caused by the 2016 Gap Fire, there is a need to reduce the hazard of dead trees falling on 

this frequently travelled route.

Under this proposed action hazard trees in the Horse Creek Botanical Area would first be 

identified and marked by the district foresters along the 46N50 and 47N77 roads. Specialists

(botanist, fisheries, and hydrologist) would then select which hazard trees would be the best 

candidates for use in restoration projects. The hazard trees selected by resource specialists would 

be used as 1) in-stream large woody debris; 2) forest coarse woody debris; or 3) stockpiled for 

future restoration work. Hazard trees not meeting these needs would either be removed as a 

forest product or moved to a cull deck to be used as firewood or burned. If needed, specific 

details such as directional falling and wood placement criteria will be determined by resource 

specialists.

Selected hazard trees would be felled or uprooted and placed within the Botanical Area as part of 

the restoration effort. Hazard trees not uprooted would be felled in such a way as to disguise 

signs of felling. Where practical, explosives would be used for uprooting and falling trees as well 

as for stump obliteration. Hazard trees would not be uprooted where they are located on road fill 

slopes since such action would destabilize the road prism, potentially causing slope failure and 

sediment discharge into Horse Creek.

Within the Horse Creek Botanical Area, trees possessing either a combination of high quality 

wildlife habitat characteristics or having a minimum diameter at breast height of 40 inches will 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

35

be subject to a 90 percent probability of mortality standard. Trees under 40 inches diameter at 

breast height will be subject to the 70 percent probability of mortality standard according to the 

roadside hazard tree removal treatment unless they demonstrate high quality wildlife habitat

characteristics. For trees under 40 inches diameter at breast height to be subject to a 90 percent 

probability of mortality standard, at least two of the following high quality wildlife habitat

characteristics must be present: 1) flat-topped crown that is not the result of mechanical damage; 

2) very thick bark (3 inches plus) with fissures closed over (for Douglas-fir, white fir, and red fir) 

or large flat bark plates at least 4 inches across (for ponderosa pine) or at least 2 inches across 

(for sugar pine); and 3) large limb size (8 inches plus in diameter).

Mainstem Horse Creek, including the section of mainstem that runs through the Special Interest 

Area, is critical habitat for federally-listed Southern Oregon/Northern California Coho salmon. 

Coho salmon critical habitat in mainstem Horse Creek is considered to be in poor condition due 

to very high road density in the Horse Creek watershed that has resulted in excess sediment 

delivery to the mainstem and reduced the amount of large trees and woody debris available for 

natural recruitment into the mainstem. Long periods of fire exclusion coupled with extensive 

stand-replacement forestry is also a principal factor for the lack of large woody debris in 

mainstem Horse Creek.

Under this proposal, many of the large dead hazard trees within the Special Interest Area that 

will need to be fallen for public safety will be placed into mainstem Horse Creek to restore the 

large woody debris component of Coho salmon critical habitat. Conifer species are preferred

over hardwood species for placement into the stream because conifers have a much slower rate 

of decomposition in water. Uprooted or felled snags up to 30 feet in length, with a minimum 

diameter of 24 inches at breast height would be placed in the channel of Horse Creek to improve 

aquatic habitat conditions. These in-stream logs would be placed at a rate of 20 pieces per 

stream-mile, according to site potential of reference streams on the Forest. They would be 

positioned in a manner to secure them in place, minimizing risk to downstream properties in the 

event of a flood.

Outside of the streambeds, fallen trees with a minimum diameter of 12 inches diameter at breast 

height would be left on the ground, in full contact with the soil, at a rate of up to 20 pieces per 

acre. These trees would be placed with the intention of creating beneficial ecological conditions 

to aid in restoration, while avoiding the creation of large accumulations of fuels or hazards to 

people visiting the botanical area. In areas of bare or severely-burned soil, fine organic material 

(typically fine branches or boughs harvested from fallen trees) would be used to achieve a 

minimum cover of 50 percent.

Wherever possible, trees to be placed in-stream or on the ground would be sourced from the

immediate area in order to minimize the disturbance caused by moving large trees. If the number 

of hazard trees within the Botanical Area exceeds the need of the area, the excess hazard trees 

equal to or greater than 24 inches in diameter at breast height would be collected and staged offsite for use in future aquatic habitat restoration projects. Access to the restoration area by heavy 

equipment such as excavators or skidders would be restricted to the 46N50 road and landings, in 

order to minimize soil impacts. Excess trees less than 24 inches in diameter at breast height 

would be included in the timber sale to help offset the cost of implementation or moved to a cull 

deck to be used as firewood or burned. Activities generated material will be hand piled and 

burned where such concentrations would create hazardous fuels loading.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

36

As part of the restoration effort, portions of the Botanical Area would be planted or seeded with 

native, locally-sourced vegetation. This would be carried out with the intent to aid in the 

recovery process by:

• Restoring native species diversity;

• Accelerating development of large trees that can provide shade to the mainstem;

• Providing future recruitment of large woody debris; and

• Deterring invasion by non-native invasive plant species.

The species used in planting would consist of mostly riparian hardwood, shrub, and forb species, 

with some conifers and grasses if deemed necessary or appropriate. Non-native invasive plants 

located within or near the Horse Creek Botanical Area would be treated manually or 

mechanically in order to prevent their spread into or within the area. Treatments would occur 

prior to, during, and after project implementation, with yearly repeated treatments as deemed 

necessary to achieve restoration goals.

Alternative 3

This alternative was developed in response to concerns raised in scoping about the potential 

effects of salvage harvest along the Siskiyou Crest and temporary road construction (see 

discussion of Results of Scoping in Chapter 1 of this EIS). Alternative 3 proposes to treat 

roadside hazard trees adjacent to approximately 103 miles of roads and 4,665 acres of other 

treatments within the 40,834-acre project boundary. Treatments proposed in Alternative 3 are 

identical to Alternative 2 with the exception of the differences described below:

• Removed all units in the Siskiyou Crest area: Fourteen units in the Siskiyou Crest area 

were removed in this alternative. Nine of the fourteen units also had new or existing 

temporary roads. Total acres removed: 477 acres. Total miles of temporary roads 

removed in the Siskiyou Crest units: 2.1 miles.

• Removed all new and existing temporary roads. Four additional units (not included in the 

Siskiyou Crest units) were removed in this alternative because they had new or existing 

temporary roads. Additional acres removed: 431 acres. Additional miles of temporary 

roads removed: 2.29 miles. Changes to specific units in Alternative 3 are displayed in 

Table 8.

Table 8: Treatment units removed in Alternative 3 in response to scoping concerns.

Unit # Temporary 

Road

Siskiyou 

Crest

Acres Logging 

System 

Changed

Management Area(s)

117.14 No Yes 25 n/a General Forest, Retention 

VQO

117.15 Yes Yes 57 n/a General forest, Partial 

Retention VQO, Retention 

VQO, Riparian Reserve

117.16 Yes Yes 34 n/a General Forest, Partial 

Retention VQO, Retention 

VQO

117.17 No Yes 39 n/a General Forest
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

37

Unit # Temporary 

Road

Siskiyou 

Crest

Acres Logging 

System 

Changed

Management Area(s)

117.18 No Yes 13 n/a General Forest, Partial 

Retention VQO

117.23 Yes No 180 NW portion 

from tractor 

to cable

General Forest, Partial 

Retention VQO, Riparian 

Reserve

117.24 Yes No 61 No General Forest, Partial 

Retention VQO, Riparian 

Reserve

118.03 Yes Yes 48 n/a Partial Retention VQO, 

Retention VQO, Riparian 

Reserve

118.04 Yes Yes 67 n/a Partial Retention VQO, 

Retention VQO, Riparian 

Reserve

118.05 Yes Yes 33 n/a Partial Retention VQO, 

Retention VQO, Riparian 

Reserve

118.06 Yes Yes 31 n/a General Forest, Partial 

Retention VQO, Retention 

VQO, Riparian Reserve

118.07 No Yes 45 n/a General Forest, Partial 

Retention VQO, Riparian 

Reserve

118.09 No Yes 16 n/a Partial Retention VQO

118.12 Yes Yes 14 n/a General Forest

118.26 Yes Yes 32 n/a General Forest, Partial 

Retention VQO, Riparian 

Reserve

118.27 Yes Yes 23 n/a General Forest, Partial 

Retention VQO, Riparian 

Reserve

118.58 Yes No 149 n/a General Forest, Partial 

Retention VQO

118.59 Yes No 41 n/a Partial Retention VQO, 

Riparian Reserve

VQO = Visual Quality Objective

Alternative 4 (Preferred Alternative)

Alternative 4 was developed internally to meet the purpose and need and to respond to concerns 

raised in scoping regarding the impacts of the project on northern spotted owls and their habitat 

(see discussion of Results of Scoping in Chapter 1 of this EIS). Project actions were adjusted or 

removed in this alternative in areas that are more likely to be used by northern spotted owls. 

Each northern spotted owl activity center was evaluated to determine the high valued activity 

centers, which are the activity centers that are more likely to support reproduction and contribute 

towards the species recovery. This alternative removes salvage harvest, reduces roadside hazard

along dead-end roads, reduces roadside fuels, and minimizes the fuel management zone footprint 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

38

that occur in high valued activity center core use areas. This alternative also reduces the amount 

of roadside fuels within suitable northern spotted owl habitat and removes salvage units within 

the high valued core use areas. Alternative 4 proposes to treat roadside hazard trees adjacent to 

approximately 87 miles of roads and 4,749 acres of other treatments within the 40,834-acre 

project boundary.

1) Roadside Hazard Tree Removal (87 miles)

Roadside hazards would be identified using the same methods as Alternative 2, but some spur 

roads will not be treated as they are located in high valued core areas for the northern spotted 

owl.

Specific prescriptions:

Roadside Hazard 1 (39 miles)

• Hazards to the roads would be identified using both the mortality and hazard tree

guidelines. These hazards would be abated as proposed in Alternative 2.

Roadside Hazard 2 (48 miles)

• All hazards would be abated as proposed in Alternative 2, except that different criteria 

will be used within northern spotted owl critical habitat or late successional reserves to 

determine when to leave felled trees on site. Within these areas, all hazard trees 40 inches 

and greater in diameter or fire injured trees (using the 90 percent probability of mortality)

will be left on site except where it would be unsafe for the faller to direct the tree away 

from the road or where the fallen tree presents a direct hazard to the road. There is no 

attempt in this design feature to leave identified hazards standing; the hazards must be 

abated.

2) Roadside Fuels Treatment (315 acres)

The National Forest System Road 46N60 would receive treatment within 150 feet on either side 

of the road. The 12 Road and 46N50 Road would not receive this treatment. Treatments will still 

meet the purpose and need of the project but will reduce effects to the northern spotted owl in 

high valued core areas.

3) Fuels Reduction Adjacent to Private Property (1,412 acres) 

The fuels reduction units adjacent to private property have three prescriptions throughout the 

project area. All three treatments will still meet the purpose and need of the project but will 

reduce effects to the northern spotted owl in high valued core areas.

Specific prescriptions:

Private Property 1 (1,064 acres): same as Alternative 2

Private Property 2 (329 acres):

• Cut live trees up to 8 inches diameter at breast height with 20 to 25 foot spacing, pile and 

burn fuels; and

• Cut dead trees up to 12 inches diameter at breast height, pile and burn fuels up to the size 

class that is possible given the implementation methods.

Private Property 3 (19 acres):
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

39

• Cut live trees up to 8 inches diameter at breast height with 15 foot spacing. Leave trees 

should be left in a clumped fashion over at least ten percent of the unit. Pile and burn the 

fuels; and

• Cut dead trees up to 10 inches diameter at breast height, pile and burn fuels.

4) Developing and Maintaining Fuels Management Zones (684 acres)

The fuel management zone would be the same footprint as proposed in Alternative 2 except for 

the fuels management zones between Hicks Gulch and Negro Creek. Although the same number 

of acres of fuels treatment would occur as in Alternative 2, the fuels management zones between 

Hicks Gulch and Negro Creek are slightly shifted to position the fuels management zone more 

on the southern aspect. Each segment of the fuel management zones would receive one of three 

possible prescriptions (fuels zone 1, fuels zone 2, or fuels zone 3).

Specific prescriptions:

Fuels Zone 1 (342 acres): same as Alternative 2

Fuels Zone 2 (319 acres):

• Cut live trees up to 8 inches diameter at breast height with 20 to 25 foot spacing, pile and 

burn fuels; and

• Cut up to 18 inches diameter at breast height. For dead trees up to 16 inches at breast 

height, pile and burn the fuels up to the size class that is possible given he 

implementation methods. Leave cut dead trees 16 inches to 18 inches at breast height on 

site as woody debris; leave whole when possible.

Fuels Zone 3 (23 acres):

• Prescription is applied only to the existing dozer line footprint for three fuel management 

zone segments; and

• In these three segments, the dozer line would be maintained by removing brush and trees 

up to 8 inches diameter at breast height. The fuels would be piled and burned.

5) Salvage Harvest with Site Preparation and Planting (880 acres Ground-based and 800 acres 

Skyline (Cable)).

• To reduce potential effects on spotted owl habitat, 363 acres of salvage harvest units in 

certain spotted owl activity centers would be deleted from the project, and an additional 

52 acres of snag retention areas within remaining units would be added. Otherwise, this 

alternative is the same as Alternative 2.

6) Site Preparation and Planting (without salvage) (458 acres) and

7) Restoration Activities in the Horse Creek Special Interest Area (184 acres) have no changes 

from Alternative 2 as proposed.

Project Design Features

Standard mitigation measures are applied to all projects to minimize negative environmental 

effects. Project design features specific to this project, developed prior to and after scoping, will 

be used as a part of all action alternatives to minimize or eliminate negative effects to resources 

in the project area. Specific best management practices that will be followed are listed in 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

40

Appendix C of this document. Interim riparian reserve widths from the Forest Plan are used for 

this project because these are determined to be sufficient for resource protection in the project 

area.

Design features in Table 9 are listed under the resource for which they are intended to mitigate 

effects. Design features are applicable to alternatives in which these units are being treated.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

41

Table 9: Project design features.

Project 

Design 

Feature

Description Type of 

activity

Applicable Alternatives and Units (if 

variable)

Rationale or 

Applicable Standard 

or Guideline or Best 

Management 

Practice (BMP)

Wildlife 1 No project actions that modify Northern Spotted Owl (NSO)

nesting/roosting or foraging habitat, or that occur within an 

NSO activity center core, will occur from February 1st to 

September 15th. If surveys result in determining no NSO 

nesting is occurring, this restricted project actions may be 

lifted for the year.

Limited 

Operating 

Period

All action alternatives; applied to all 

salvage harvest, fuels management zone 

(except northern have of unit in section 33), 

fuels adjacent to private land (except 

center and northwest unit in section 2, 

southern unit in section 10 and 6, and 

northwest unit in section 14), roadside 

hazard (except 46N29Y, portion of 46N60 

between the middle of section 15 to middle 

of section 14, and portion of 47N65 in 

section 34), roadside fuels (except portion 

between the middle of section 15 to the 

middle of section 14), and temporary roads.

Consultation with 

FWS

Wildlife 2 No project actions that create loud and/or continuous noise 

within 0.25 mile of nesting/roosting or foraging habitat or that 

occur within an NSO activity center core, will occur from 

February 1st to July 9th. If surveys result in determining no 

NSO nesting is occurring, the restriction on project actions

may be lifted for the year. This project design feature is not 

intended to be applied to motor vehicle travel on roadways.

Limited 

Operating 

Period

All action alternatives; applied to project 

actions (salvage harvest, site prep and 

plant, Fuel management zones, roadside 

hazard, roadside fuels, fuels adjacent to 

private property , temporary roads, or 

special interest area)

Consultation with 

FWS

Wildlife 3 Goshawk surveys will be conducted prior to project 

implementation. No project activities that modify habitat will 

occur from March 1st to August 31st within the primary nest 

zone. If surveys determine no nesting activity, this restricted 

project activities may be lifted for the year.

Limited 

Operating 

Period

All action alternatives; Salvage harvest 

units (117.19, 117.20, 117.21, 117.22, and 

118.2), roadside hazard (section 18, 26, 

24, northeast portion of section 36, 

southern half of section 32, and southwest 

portion of section 33, and southeast portion 

of section 13), roadside fuels (section 18 

and 26, and southeast portion of unit 13), 

fuel management zones (south of 46N60 in 

sections 13 and 24).

Standard and 

Guideline 8-20
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

42

Project 

Design 

Feature

Description Type of 

activity

Applicable Alternatives and Units (if 

variable)

Rationale or 

Applicable Standard 

or Guideline or Best 

Management 

Practice (BMP)

Wildlife 4 Goshawk surveys will be conducted prior to project 

implementation. No loud and/or continuous noise within 0.25 

mile of active goshawk nest sites from March 1st to August 

31st. This restricted project activity time period may be lifted 

for the year, if surveys determine no nesting activity. This 

project design feature is not intended to be applied to motor 

vehicle travel on roadways.

Limited 

Operating 

Period

All action alternatives; Roadside hazard

(47N99 in section 24, 47N65 in section 26, 

47N90 in section 32 and 33, 47N69B in 

section 36, 46N55 and 46N60 in section 

18), roadside fuels (46N60 in section 18)

Standard and 

Guideline 8-20

Wildlife 5 Avoid ground disturbing activities within areas identified as 

possibly occupied Survey and Manage mollusk and 

salamander sites.

Preimplementation 

Survey

All action alternatives; known site in 

salvage harvest unit 115.33

Standard and 

Guideline 6-17

Wildlife 6 Retain existing down woody debris larger than 30” dbh that 

was present prior to the Gap Fire to the greatest extent 

possible from disturbance during treatment (e.g. slash 

burning and yarding).

Operations All action alternatives; all salvage harvest 

units 

Standard and 

Guideline 6-16

Geology 1 If existing temporary roads are found to cross unstable land

riparian reserves, effective mitigation measures will be 

developed to prevent landslides or sediment delivery to 

streams. Where mitigation is not feasible, such sites will be 

avoided.

Temporary

roads

All units where applicable/ all alternatives BMP 2.2

Standard and 

Guideline 2.3

Geology 2 Naturally occurring asbestos is known to occur in some 

existing rock quarries in the project area, and rock from 

these quarries was used in the past to surface nearby roads. 

The following Project Design Features will be applied.

Rock from the ultramafic quarries in the Middle Creek 

Watershed will not be used as road aggregate.

Direction from the Regional Forester (2009a) addressing 

naturally occurring asbestos will be followed.

Project activities which will occur on rock which often 

contains natural asbestos (ultramafic rock) will be identified 

by a GIS overlay process and maps showing the overlap will 

be made available internally and to contractors working on 

the project. 

Appropriate dust mitigation measures and measures to limit 

exposure as identified in the Regional Foresters direction of 

2009a will be applied.

Rock quarries All units where applicable/all alternatives Regional Forester 

direction (2009a); 

Forest Plan pg. 4-20, 

2-5, and 1.6
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

43

Project 

Design 

Feature

Description Type of 

activity

Applicable Alternatives and Units (if 

variable)

Rationale or 

Applicable Standard 

or Guideline or Best 

Management 

Practice (BMP)

Geology 3 There will be no commercial salvage harvesting, or heavy 

equipment operation on unstable land component of riparian 

reserves. Site preparation and planting on these lands will 

be done manually.

Operations 118.26, 118.93 Standard and 

Guideline 2.2

Geology 4 Avoid building new temporary roads on unstable land 

riparian reserves, and also on ground steeper than 40 

percent slope gradient, unless a resource geologist 

conducts a site investigation and provides formal approval to 

the Sale Administrator prior to any earthwork.

Temporary 

Roads

All units where applicable/all alternatives

Geology 5 Proposed new landings will not be built on the following 

types of ground: Unstable land Riparian Reserves; Sites 

where erosion from the landing could deliver sediment 

directly to streams.

New landings will not be built on slopes steeper than 20% 

gradient, and cuts and fills will not exceed five feet in height, 

unless a resource geologist conducts a site investigation 

and provides formal approval to the Sale Administrator prior 

to any earthwork.

Landing fill will not be left perched on slope breaks where 

surface erosion or landslides could deliver sediment to a 

stream due to steeper slopes below. Log decks will not be 

left on the margins of landing fills during the wet season 

where the weight of the logs could destabilize the fill.

Landings Some specific units include, but are not 

limited to: 117.20, 117.23, 117.24, 118.3, 

118.04, 118.05, 115.32, 118.57, 115.33, 

115.34, 115.35.

Forest Plan page 4-

19, 2-1, BMP Veg-6 

LMP 2-3.

Watershed 

1

Maintain 20 pieces of large wood (40 cubic feet or larger) 

per 1,000 lineal feet within 3rd to 5th order channels, or as 

identified in the ecosystem management process at the 

watershed level.

Coarse Woody 

Debris

All units where applicable/all alternatives Forest Plan page 4-

113, S&G MA10-56

Watershed 

2

No more than 15 percent of a harvest unit should have 

detrimental disturbance by tractor equipment, cable 

corridors, swing trails, and landings.

Detrimental disturbance is considered to be complete 

removal of the O and A horizon of, or a 10 percent or more 

reduction in soil porosity (compaction) of the surface soil 

over natural conditions.

Operations All units where applicable/all alternatives Forest Plan: Pp. 5-11, 

Pp. 4-21 3-5

FSH 2409.15
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

44

Project 

Design 

Feature

Description Type of 

activity

Applicable Alternatives and Units (if 

variable)

Rationale or 

Applicable Standard 

or Guideline or Best 

Management 

Practice (BMP)

Watershed 

3

Mechanized harvesting equipment will be restricted to:

If Soil Texture is Loam or finer

Slopes less than 45 percent.

If Soil Texture is Sandy Loam or Coarser

Slopes less than 35 percent.

Restrict all ground-based equipment to slopes less than 35 

percent in units with granitic soils.

Mechanized harvesting equipment will be restricted to 

travelling in straight up and down patterns on slopes above 

35 percent.

In stands where tractor skidding is used and, where 

practical, logs should be placed in bundles on slopes less 

than 35 percent. 

Mechanized harvesting equipment will be allowed to travel 

in straight up and down patterns on slopes above 35 percent 

for short steeper slopes regardless of texture when 

necessary.

Operations Tractor Units

Tractor Units Limited to 35 percent slope: 

118.63 and 115.34

BMP 2.13

BMP 1.3

BMP 1.9

BMP 1.10

BMP 1.17

FSH 2409.15

Watershed 

4

Skid trails that connect benches separated by short steep 

slopes (broken ground) can have minor portions of the skid 

trails on slopes greater than 35 percent.

Skid trails All units where applicable/ all alternatives National BMP Veg-4, 

R5 BMP 5-2; BMP 

1.17

BMP 1.10

BMP 1.9

Watershed 

5

On existing skid trails that are over 35 percent slope 

equipment will be restricted to the skid trail and logs yarded 

to the skid trail.

Skid trails All units where applicable/ all alternatives National BMP Veg-4, 

R5 BMP 5-2; BMP 

1.3

BMP 1.10

Watershed 

6

Skid and swing trails will be:

Waterbarred to prevent concentrated surface runoff and to 

prevent runoff from entering swing trails. 

At project completion:

Permanent operating water bars will be installed and/or 

repaired as necessary on all skid and swing trails.

Slash scattered on all skid and swing trails to achieve the 

soil cover guidelines or a minimum of 50 percent cover, 

where enough material is available.

Skid trails All units where applicable/ all alternatives National BMP Veg-4, 

R5 BMP 1-17; Forest 

Plan: Pg. 4-21 3-4

FSH 2409.15
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

45

Project 

Design 

Feature

Description Type of 

activity

Applicable Alternatives and Units (if 

variable)

Rationale or 

Applicable Standard 

or Guideline or Best 

Management 

Practice (BMP)

Watershed 

7

At project completion temporary and permanent take-offs of 

skid and swing trails that intersect forest system roads will 

be effectively blocked to vehicle access following unit 

treatment.

Skid trails All units where applicable/ all alternatives National BMP Veg-4, 

R5 BMP 1-17; 

BMP1.21,2.7

FSH 2409.15

Watershed 

8

Slash or water bars will be applied to corridors where 

necessary to minimize the concentration of surface runoff 

and to keep ground cover at least 50 percent where enough 

material is available.

Cable 

Corridors

All units where applicable/ all alternatives National BMP Veg-2, 

Forest Plan: Pg 4-21 

3-4

FSH 2409.15
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

46

Project 

Design 

Feature

Description Type of 

activity

Applicable Alternatives and Units (if 

variable)

Rationale or 

Applicable Standard 

or Guideline or Best 

Management 

Practice (BMP)

Watershed 

9

Where enough material is available:

Soil Cover Guidelines for Projects Should be used.

Soil Cover Guidelines for Projects

Soil Texture 

Class

Slope

(percent)

Minimum 

Total Soil 

Cover*

(percent)

Guidelines for Projects Using Tractors:

Sandy Loam 

or Coarser

0-25

26-35

70

80

Loam or Finer 0-35 70

Guidelines for Prescribed Burning:

Sandy Loam 

or Coarser

0-25

26-45

46+

60

70

80

Loam or Finer 0-35

36-60

61+

50

60

70

* Soil cover consists of low growing live 

vegetation (12 inches high), rock fragments 

(greater than 1⁄2 inch in diameter), Slash 

(any size) and fine organic matter (charred 

or not) that is in contact with the soil 

surface. Fine organic matter refers to the 

duff, litter and twigs less than 3 inches in 

diameter.

If the soil cover guidelines cannot be met a minimum of 50 

percent soil cover should be maintained where material is 

available. If 50 percent cover cannot be achieved, consult a 

Forest Botanist to determine if seeding with native grass 

seed is appropriate.

Ground-based 

logging; 

Prescribed 

burning

All units where applicable/ all alternatives Forest Plan: Pg 4-21 

table 4-2,3-4

BMP 2.13

BMP 1.17

FSH 2409.15
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

47

Project 

Design 

Feature

Description Type of 

activity

Applicable Alternatives and Units (if 

variable)

Rationale or 

Applicable Standard 

or Guideline or Best 

Management 

Practice (BMP)

Watershed 

10

Appropriate road watering will be implemented as roads dry 

to maintain road fines on site and to minimize the potential 

for introducing natural asbestos fibers into the air on roads 

surfaced with ultramafic rock.

Operations All units where applicable/ all alternatives R5 BMP 2-23

Watershed 

11

Use temporary roads on existing roadbeds instead of 

constructing new temporary roads except:

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 

When temporary roads on existing roadbeds are located on 

highly erosive soils, unstable areas, wetlands or meadows 

(excluding small springs and seeps).

Temporary

Roads

All units where applicable/ all alternatives National BMP Road5, R5 BMP 2-1.

Watershed 

12

Following use, all temporary roads (new or existing) will 

have takeoffs from system roads obliterated or blocked to 

avoid unauthorized use.

Temporary

Roads

All units where applicable/ all alternatives National BMP Road5, R5 BMP 2-1.

Watershed 

13

During reconstruction of any landings, sidecasting of 

material will be minimized. Mitigation such as straw or mulch 

material will be used if needed to stabilize any sidecast 

material.

Landings All units where applicable/ all alternatives BMP1.6

BMP 1.16

FSH 2409.15

Watershed 

14

Operate according to the Forest’s Wet Weather Operation 

Standards (USDA Forest Service 2002).

Operations All units where applicable/ all alternatives National BMP Veg-2, 

R5 BMP 1-5
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

48

Project 

Design 

Feature

Description Type of 

activity

Applicable Alternatives and Units (if 

variable)

Rationale or 

Applicable Standard 

or Guideline or Best 

Management 

Practice (BMP)

Watershed 

15

At project conclusion, landings will be configured for long 

term drainage and stability by reestablishing natural runoff 

patterns. All landings within riparian reserves will be covered 

with at least 80 percent effective soil cover at the end of 

season use. Use of certified weed free materials including 

straw, wood chips, or mulch may be used where on site 

material is insufficient. 

On areas of landings where soil is left uncovered and has a 

slope of greater than 20 percent but less than 60 percent at 

project completion.

Site to be treated with effective soil cover to achieve at least 

a 50 to 70 percent cover where applicable.

Seeded with weed free grass seed where applicable.

Following use, all landings will be properly closed where 

practical, configured for long-term drainage and stability,

subsoiled where practical, seeded with weed free native 

grass seed where applicable, and natural runoff patterns reestablished.

Landings All units where applicable/ all alternatives S&G 10-51

Watershed 

16

Existing landings will be used to the extent possible. Existing 

landings within 50 feet of the slope break to a stream 

channel or inner gorge will not be used without review by a 

watershed specialist and mitigation measures will be 

developed. If mitigation is not feasible, such sites will be 

avoided.

Landings Units 115.33, 115.34, 115.36, 117.20, 

118.57, and 118.07

BMP 1.6

BMP 1.12

FSH 2409.15

Forest Plan pages 4-

113, S&G MA 10-51, 

National BMP Veg-6. 

Landings LMP 2-3

Watershed 

17

Where logs cannot be adequately suspended for yarding, 

gouging in corridors will be waterbarred and covered with at 

least 50 percent logging slash where available and as 

needed to mitigate erosion and concentration of surface 

runoff.

Cable Logging All units where applicable/ all alternatives National BMP Veg-2, 

R5 BMP 1-14

Watershed 

18

All skyline yarding operations will require:

One end suspension. 

Full suspension will be required for any yarding across or 

over streams and riparian reserves where possible.

Some end lining will be implemented on steeper slope 

(greater than 35 percent).

Skyline All units where applicable/ all alternatives Veg-5., R5 BMP 1-11

FSH 2409.15
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

49

Project 

Design 

Feature

Description Type of 

activity

Applicable Alternatives and Units (if 

variable)

Rationale or 

Applicable Standard 

or Guideline or Best 

Management 

Practice (BMP)

Watershed 

19

No new full bench skid trails will be constructed. Existing full 

bench skid trails can be used where they will not introduce 

sediment to streams (Full bench skid trails have the entire 

skid trail cut into the hill slope).

Skid trails All units where applicable/ all alternatives National BMP Veg-4, 

R5 BMP 1-10

BMP 1.6

Watershed 

20

Ground-based skidding will require front-end suspension of 

logs on skid trails.

Skid trails All units where applicable/ all alternatives National BMP Veg-4, 

R5 BMP 1-10

Watershed 

21

Existing skid trails will be reused whenever possible.

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 existing skid trails in areas:

In which ground-based mechanical equipment is excluded. 

Such as highly erosive soils, unstable areas, wetlands, or 

meadows (excluding small springs and seeps).

Skid trails All units where applicable/ all alternatives National BMP Veg-4, 

R5 BMP 1-10, 

BMP 1.18

BMP 1.6

FSH 2409.15

Watershed 

22

Tractors and mechanical harvesters will be excluded from:

Unstable land component of riparian reserves including:

Active landslides, 

Toe zones of landslides, 

Inner gorges.

Steep-dissected granitic ground.

Operations All units where applicable/ all alternatives R5 BMP 1-6

BMP1.18

Watershed 

23

Cable corridors will avoid ground disturbance or standing 

trees on unstable land component of riparian reserves.

Cable corridor All units where applicable/ all alternatives Soil and Water 

Conservation 

Handbook, Chapter 

10 – Water Quality 

Management 

Handbook pg. 53 

BMP 1.6
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

50

Project 

Design 

Feature

Description Type of 

activity

Applicable Alternatives and Units (if 

variable)

Rationale or 

Applicable Standard 

or Guideline or Best 

Management 

Practice (BMP)

Watershed 

24

Following use, all temporary roads will be hydrologically 

stabilized and natural runoff patterns re-established. This 

includes removal of temporary culverts and fills at stream 

crossings, out-sloping of road surfaces where appropriate, 

subsoiling where practical, seeding with native grass seed 

where appropriate, and proper construction of water bars. 

Use of certified weed free materials including straw, wood 

chips, or mulch may also be used for erosion control. Any 

modification to temporary road alignments during the 

implementation phase of the project (not analyzed in the 

planning phse) will be reviewed by an earth scientist.

Temporary

roads

All units where applicable/ all alternatives BMP 2.7, National 

BMP Road-5. 

Temporary Roads, 

Forest Plan page 4-

113, S&G MA10-51, 

LMP 2-3

Watershed 

25

Mechanized heavy equipment will not be used in riparian 

reserves except on existing system roads, existing landings, 

or existing non-system roadbeds.

Operations, 

Landings

All units where applicable/ all alternatives Forest Plan MA10-42

Heritage 1 Any project activities within site boundaries will follow 

approved Standard Resource Protection Measures 

established by the Regional Programmatic Agreement and 

will be approved through documentation by the district 

archaeologist and/or heritage program manager.

All units where applicable/all alternatives Standards and 

Guidelines 24-7; 24-

8; 24-20.

Heritage 2 All sites within the area of potential effects will be clearly 

identified prior to implementation. This includes but is not 

limited to flagging site boundaries.

Preimplementation 

surveys

All units where applicable/all alternatives Standards and 

Guidelines 24-8 and 

24-20.

Heritage 3 When any changes in proposed activities are necessary to 

avoid cultural resource sites (e.g., project modifications), 

these changes will be completed prior to issuance of the 

Decision.

Preimplementation 

surveys

All units where applicable/all alternatives Standards and 

Guidelines 24-3 and 

24-7.

Heritage 4 No skid roads, road improvements, landings or burn pile 

areas will occur within archeological sites without 

documented approval from the district archaeologist and/or 

heritage program manager.

Operations All units where applicable/all alternatives Standards and 

Guidelines 24-8 and 

24-20.

Heritage 5 Conduct heritage resource surveys to determine presence 

of resources within the area of potential effects following the 

provisions outlined in the Regional Programmatic 

Agreement prior to issuance of the Decision.

Preimplementation 

surveys

All units where applicable/ all alternatives Standards and 

Guidelines 24-3.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

51

Project 

Design 

Feature

Description Type of 

activity

Applicable Alternatives and Units (if 

variable)

Rationale or 

Applicable Standard 

or Guideline or Best 

Management 

Practice (BMP)

Heritage 6 If any late discoveries of new heritage resources, including 

human remains or archeological sites not previously 

recorded are identified during project implementation, all 

activities within in the vicinity (150 feet) will stop, except for 

within roads, and the district archeologist and/or heritage 

program manager will be contacted. No activities within 150 

feet of the resource shall continue until clearance is 

provided by the district archeologist or the heritage program 

manager.

Discovered 

cultural 

resource

All units where applicable/ all alternatives Standards and 

Guidelines 24-7 and 

24-8.

Botany 1

Forest Service botanist will flag for avoidance appropriate 

populations of federally Threatened and Endangered and 

Forest Service Sensitive species. Yellow and black striped 

flagging will be used to delineate population boundaries. 

Some specific areas may also require a limited operating 

period (LOP) to minimize impacts to plants.

Preimplementation 

survey

All units where applicable/ all alternatives 6-7, 6-17

Botany 2

Populations protected under Survey and Manage guidelines 

will be flagged for avoidance. Yellow and black striped 

flagging will be used to delineate population boundaries.

Preimplementation

survey

All units where applicable/ all alternatives NWFP 2001 ROD 

S&G pages 6-14

Botany 3

Hazard trees adjacent to flagged populations of TES and 

Survey and Manage species will be directionally felled away 

from the flagged area to avoid disturbing the population. 

Directionally felled trees may only be removed if it causes 

no ground disturbance within the flagged area. Yellow and 

black striped flagging will be used to delineate population 

boundaries.

Operations All units where applicable/ all alternatives FSM 2670, KNF S&G 

6-17, 7-4, NWFP 

2001 ROD S&G 

pages 6-14

Botany 4

Hazard trees located within the flagged population boundary 

for TES or Survey and Manage species may be felled, but 

must be left on-site to avoid ground disturbance. Yellow and 

black striped flagging will be used to delineate population 

boundaries.

Operations

All units where applicable/ all alternatives

FSM 2670, KNF S&G 

6-17, 7-4, NWFP 

2001 ROD S&G 

pages 6-14

Botany 5 Meadows adjacent to treatment units shall not be used for 

landings or staging areas.

Landings TBD 6-7, 8-42

Botany 6 No canopy- or ground-disturbing activity may occur in areas 

flagged for avoidance with yellow and black botany flagging 

unless otherwise alloed by project design features in this 

document or in consultation with a Forest Botanist.

Operations All units where applicable/all alternatives 6-7, 6-17
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

52

Project 

Design 

Feature

Description Type of 

activity

Applicable Alternatives and Units (if 

variable)

Rationale or 

Applicable Standard 

or Guideline or Best 

Management 

Practice (BMP)

Botany 7 Cultural botanical resources (fern beds in riparian zones) will 

be flagged for avoidance. Yellow and black striped flagging 

will be used to delineate population boundaries.

Preimplementation

survey

All units where applicable/ all alternatives Forest Plan S&G 6-

21, 21-44

Botany 8 Areas identified as potential habitat for threatened, 

endangered, or candidate botanical species must be 

surveyed or be determined unsuitable habitat by a Forest 

Botanist prior to work beginning in these areas.

Operations Units 118.63, 116.49. Roadside fuels on 

46N31 and 46N60 roads. Private Property 

Buffer fuels treatments in Sections 6 and 8 

of T.46N. R.11W.

ESA LRMP 6-7, 6-17

NNIS 1 Equipment and vehicles that leave the established road 

surface will be cleaned of soil, seeds, vegetative matter, and 

other debris that could contain noxious weed seeds prior to 

entering and before leaving the project area. Areas 

appropriate for cleaning equipment prior to leaving the 

project area will be designated as appropriate.

Equipment 

cleaning

All equipment where applicable 21-53, FSM 2080

NNIS 2 Equipment, vehicles, and personnel will avoid working within 

flagged noxious weed sites. Orange/black flagging labeled 

with “INVASIVE SPECIES” will be used to delineate 

population boundaries.

Operations All units where applicable/ all alternatives 21-53, FSM 2080

NNIS 3 If potential landings, staging areas, swing or skid trails are 

infested with noxious weeds, consult a Botanist about 

appropriate methods for containing and/or managing the 

infestation. Methods may include blading infested soil away 

from activity zone and covering this soil; or adding a barrier 

to the landing so seed banks cannot be transported.

Landings All landings where applicable: to be 

determined.

21-53, FSM 2080

NNIS 4 Any straw or seed placed within the project area must be 

documented as California certified weed free. Other 

materials where State inspection protocol does not exist 

(gravel, wood chips) used as mulch in the project area, 

should be inspected by a Forest Service representative to 

determine the potential for spread of noxious weeds.

Operations All materials where applicable 6-11, 21-53, FSM 

2080

NNIS 5 Any facility that provides material such as rock, gravel, or 

boulders to be used in the project area should be inspected 

and determined to have limited potential for the spread of 

noxious weeds from stored material. Material stockpiles 

must be noxious weed free.

Operations All facilities where applicable 21-53, FSM 2080
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

53

Project 

Design 

Feature

Description Type of 

activity

Applicable Alternatives and Units (if 

variable)

Rationale or 

Applicable Standard 

or Guideline or Best 

Management 

Practice (BMP)

NNIS 6 If determined necessary by a Forest Botanist, to prevent 

NNIS invasion temporary roads, landings, skid and swing 

trails will be seeded with native grass seed after use. This 

should occur after any hydrologic stabilization such as 

water-barring.

Operations All units where applicable/ all alternatives 6-7, 6-11, 21.53

Fuels 1 Site specific burn plan prior to implementation would be 

completed to identify desired fire behavior and weather 

conditions to meet prescribed fire and resource objectives 

along with protection measures to avoid impacts to both 

cultural and natural resources within the burn area.

Burning All alternatives and units. FSM 5140

Fuels 2 All burning activities would adhere to pertinent air quality 

regulations. Smoke emissions would be minimized by 

following Best Available Control Measures (BACM). A 

smoke permit administered by the local County Air 

Resource Agency would accompany burn plans.

Burning All alternatives and units. FSM 5140

Fuels 3 All fire lines would follow the established guidelines for water 

bar construction as outlined in the Best Management 

Practices. Upon completion of burning, the visible character 

of the firelines would be disguised by spreading pine 

needles, brush, etc. where they intersect roads or trails in 

order to reduce the likelihood of the firelines becoming 

unwanted trails.

Fuel breaks All alternatives and units. Contract 

specifications

Fuels 4 Piles will be covered to keep piles dry for ignition and 

consumption during wet periods.

Pile 

construction

All alternatives and units. Contract 

specifications

Fuels 5 Planting utilizing a clumping pattern with variable spacing to 

minimize surface fuel loadings and break the continuity of 

the fuel beds to maintain desired low fire hazard conditions.

Planting All alternatives and units. Contract 

specifications

Fisheries 1 Instream work will be implemented only between May 1 and 

October 1.

In-stream 

actions

SIA To prevent direct 

adverse effects to 

spawning salmonids 

and incubating 

salmonid eggs.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

54

Project 

Design 

Feature

Description Type of 

activity

Applicable Alternatives and Units (if 

variable)

Rationale or 

Applicable Standard 

or Guideline or Best 

Management 

Practice (BMP)

Fisheries 2 New and reconstructed culverts, bridges and other stream 

crossings shall be designed and constructed to 

accommodate at least the 100-year flood, including 

associated bedload and debris. Crossings will be 

constructed or reconstructed and maintained to prevent 

diversion of streamflow out of the channel and down the 

road in the event of crossing failure.

Road 

construction

All existing and planned roads to be used 

in the project

MA10-44

Fisheries 3 Fall roadside safety hazard trees. Allow the removal of felled 

hazard trees where large woody debris requirements have 

been met; where fuel loads are excessive; where leaving the 

tree would threaten the function of a drainage structure or 

cause stream diversion; or where leaving the tree would 

present a safety hazard. In agreement with the NMFS, 

target level of LWD for properly functioning streams is 20 

pieces of LWD per mile that are at least 24 inches dbh and 

50 feet long.

Hazard Tree

Abatement

riparian reserves MA10-53

MA10-56

[criteria for LWD for 

properly functioning 

streams - agreement 

between the NMFS 

and the KNF]
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

55

Project 

Design 

Feature

Description Type of 

activity

Applicable Alternatives and Units (if 

variable)

Rationale or 

Applicable Standard 

or Guideline or Best 

Management 

Practice (BMP)

Fisheries 4 Draft water only at sites designated by the Forest Service. 

Decisions related to where water drafting occurs will be 

coordinated with a Forest Service fisheries biologist so that 

potential impacts to anadromous fish, and the thermal 

refugia they rely upon, are sufficiently minimized.

Sites that are not likely to have rearing Coho salmon present 

will be prioritized for use, such as mainstem sites on the 

Klamath River and existing water drafting sites that are not 

fish-bearing. Priority will also be given to sites that involve 

drafting relatively warmer waters in mainstem rivers. 

Drafting from tributaries and colder water sources, 

especially in their lower reaches, will be avoided particularly 

during late summer and early fall (when flows are low and 

fish survival is dependent upon thermal refugia). Water 

storage facilities such as existing non-fish-bearing spring-fed 

drafting ponds and portable foldable tanks are encouraged. 

Project-related water drafting will be monitored, and shifted 

away from streams if their baseflows will no longer sustain 

drafting-related water withdrawal consistent with project 

design features. Additional applicable specifications:

• There will be no modification or improvement of drafting 

sites in Coho Critical Habitat.

• Water drafting by more than one truck per site shall not 

occur simultaneously

• Water drafting from streams in the Horse Creek watershed 

will cease altogether if flows in the mainstem become 

critically low for Coho salmon survival. Critically low flows in 

the lower mainstem often occur in late summer/early fall due 

to excessive water diversions for private lands.

Water Drafting Surface Waters Prevent adverse 

effects to Coho 

salmon and other 

aquatic organisms. 

Recreation 

and Scenic 

Resources 

1

To the degree practicable, minimize visibility of new landings 

from Highway 96. Minimize visibility of existing landings from 

Highway 96, the Horse Creek community, the Horse Creek 

SIA, and all Level 1 and Level 2 Roads (47N81 and 40S01, 

8F001 and 8F003) by retaining screening trees where 

practical during operations, and by burning slash piles within 

three years after dead tree removal.

Landings Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. Unit 116.49, 

115.33, 115.34, 115.35, 118.93, 117.15, 

118.05, 118.03, 118.04, 118.06, 118.07.

11-1, 11-3, 11-4, 11-

7, Response to public 

comment.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

56

Project 

Design 

Feature

Description Type of 

activity

Applicable Alternatives and Units (if 

variable)

Rationale or 

Applicable Standard 

or Guideline or Best 

Management 

Practice (BMP)

Recreation 

and Scenic 

Resources 

2

Where practical, minimize the visibility of new temporary 

roads through the retention of screening tree cover where it 

exists as seen from open areas along the Pacific Crest 

National Scenic Trail, and Level 1 and 2 Roads (47N81 and 

40S01).

Temporary

Roads

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. 

Units 117.5, 118.05, 118.03, 118.04, 

118.06, 118.12, 118.26.

11-1, 11-3, 11-4, 11-

7, Response to public 

comment.

Recreation 

and Scenic 

Resources 

3

If, 2-3 years after harvest, brush ingrowth has not hidden 

stump concentrations in high severity fire areas that are in 

full retention VQO areas within 150 feet of the road, visible 

stumps will be reduced in height. (Level 1 and 2) roads in 

the Project area: 47N81, 40S01, 46N50 (within the Horse 

Creek SIA boundary), and County Road 8F003.

Stump 

treatments

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. All proposed 

treatments (Roadside hazard tree removal, 

roadside fuels treatments, and Private 

Property fuel buffer treatments). Unit 

115.35, Unit 117.15, Unit 118.12.

11-1, 11-3, 11-4, 11-

7, Response to public 

comment.

Recreation 

and Scenic 

Resources 

4

Ensure, where practical, to minimize edge line contrasts, as 

seen from the Klamath Wild and Scenic River, California 

State Route 96 (Klamath River National Forest Scenic 

Byway), Rocky Point River Access, and the community of 

Horse Creek.

Treatment 

boundaries

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. All proposed 

treatments. Units 116.49, 116.50, 115.33, 

115.34, 118.63.

11-1, 11-3, 11-4, 11-

7, Response to public 

comment.

Recreation 

and Scenic 

Resources 

5

Mark cut trees only for a depth of 100 feet from the edge of 

the following High and Moderate Sensitivity (Level 1 and 2) 

roads in the Project area: 47N81, 40S01, 46N50 (within the 

Horse Creek SIA boundary), and County Road 8F003.

Marking Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. All proposed 

treatments (Roadside hazard tree removal, 

roadside fuels treatments, and private 

property fuel buffer treatments). Unit 

115.35, Unit 117.15, Unit 118.12. 

11-1, 11-3, 11-4, 11-

7, Response to public 

comment.

Recreation 

and Scenic 

Resources 

6

Provide visitor information about area/road/trail closures, or 

other recreation setting changes caused by project activities 

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

Closures Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. All proposed 

treatments. 

12-3

Recreation 

and Scenic 

Resources 

7

Repair or replace recreational signing, or other facilities and 

trail settings if damaged during project implementation.

Recreation

Resource 

Repairs

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. All proposed 

treatments.

12-3, Response to 

public comment.

Recreation 

and Scenic 

Resources 

8

Provide safety signing along trails, rivers, or roads, as well 

as trail closures in active project areas to provide for public 

safety.

Closures Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. All proposed 

treatments.

12-3
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

57

Project 

Design 

Feature

Description Type of 

activity

Applicable Alternatives and Units (if 

variable)

Rationale or 

Applicable Standard 

or Guideline or Best 

Management 

Practice (BMP)

Recreation 

and Scenic 

Resources 

9

Activity-generated slash created within 150 feet of the 

Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail, Forest Road 47N81, 

40S01, 46N50 (within the Horse Creek SIA boundary), and 

County Road 8F003 will be piled and burned, or removed 

within one year from the date of project completion. Piles will 

be located a minimum of 100 feet from trails, trailheads, or 

viewing locations.

Slash 

treatment

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. Forest Road 

47N81, Alex Hole Overlook, Motor Vehicle 

Use Map Dispersed Camp 51D006, Unit 

115.35, Unit 117.15, Unit 118.12.

11-1, 11-2, 11-3, 11-

4, Response to public 

comment.

Recreation 

and Scenic 

Resources 

10

Protect the Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail from damage 

during the implementation of roadside hazard tree activities.

Recreational

Trails

Forest Road 47N81 roadside hazard tree 

abatement.

Response to public 

comment.

Recreation 

and Scenic 

Resources 

11

Ensure skyline and/or cable yarding corridors are minimized 

through green tree retention, snag retention and riparian 

reserve areas by limiting corridor widths in retention areas to 

12-15 feet. 

Cable corridor Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. Units 115.33, 

115.35, 116.49, 117.15, 118.4, 118.5, 

118.57, 118.6.

11-1, 11-2, 11-3, 11-

4, 11-7, Response to 

public comment.

Recreation 

and Scenic 

Resources 

12

Temporary road access to be blocked with boulders placed 

in an irregular pattern, and replanted with trees, brush, and 

or grasses in an irregular pattern.

Temporary

roads

Units 118.3, 118.4, 118.06, 118.12, 118.26, 

117.15, 118.05.

11-1, 11-2, 11-3, 11-

4, 11-7, Response to 

public comment.
58

This page intentionally left blank
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

59

Salvage Treatments in Late Successional Reserve (LSR)

All salvage harvest in the late successional reserve (LSR) in this project is considered to reduce 

the risk of future high severity fire in accordance with the goals of the Forest Plan for fire 

management (4-8) which state: “Reduce unacceptable fuel buildups and potential acreage of 

future high intensity wildfires.” Salvage in LSRs also can provide for firefighter and public 

safety. In the LSR land allocation, the Forest Plan of the Klamath National Forest clearly 

anticipated that risk reduction salvage may be necessary and provided project guidelines for both 

risk reductions in LSRs (Forest Plan p. 4-86; MA5-27 to 29) and for salvage (Forest Plan p. 4-87, 

MA 30-1 to MA 30-11) to ensure that the objectives of the Forest Plan were achieved. The 

Forest-wide LSR Assessment for the Forest provides criteria for risk reduction, including 

salvage, in the LSR land allocation. A review by the Regional Ecosystem Office (REO), a 

coordinating body for implementation of the Northwest Forest Plan, determined that projects 

consistent with the recommendations of the KNF LSR assessment are not subject to further 

review by the REO, and may be implemented as designed. All of the action alternatives meet the 

criteria for risk-reduction salvage in the LSR assessment, and are not subject to further review by 

the REO.

Table 10 and Figure 2 through Figure 4 show proposed salvage in the LSR land allocation by

Rapid Assessment of Vegetation Conditions after wildfire (RAVG) class. RAVG class is a 

measure of fire severity, or in other words, the amount of vegetation killed by the fire. The 

proportion of vegetation killed in each RAVG class is shown in Table 10. None of the action 

alternatives will salvage harvest more than five percent of the LSR land allocation within the 

project area. Alternatives 2 and 3 would harvest the same number of acres in salvage units in the 

LSR land allocation. Alternative 4 would harvest approximately 111 fewer acres, changing the 

total salvage harvest from five percent to four percent of the LSR land allocation. In Alternative 

4, the proportion of high severity fire where most salvage may occur is about 40 acres less, (less 

than 1 percent) than in Alternatives 2 and 3. Since green trees that do not meet the hazard tree or 

mortality guidelines would not be cut in any alternative, the practical differences between the 

alternatives with respect to environmental consequences of salvage to the functionality of the 

LSR land allocation are minor and discountable. These graphs and Table 10 clearly show that the 

majority of salvage harvest in the LSR land allocation is in areas that burned with high severity. 

These estimates overstate impacts of salvage because they include acres of roadside hazard

removal. Effects of salvage harvest are described in the various resource reports and in Chapter 

3. The primary effect of salvage harvest in the late successional reserve is the reduction of snag

habitat, which is addressed in the wildlife report, and a reduction in future fire severity, which is 

addressed in the fire and fuels report. The project is designed to reduce fuels and plant trees that 

have the potential to shorten the time it might take for these acres of late successional reserve to 

develop into desired condition – older forested stands.

Table 10: Salvage in LSR by Alternative and RAVG Class, Acres and (Percent)

Action 

Alternatives

Not in 

Salvage 

Harvest 

Unit

RAVG 1

(0-25% 

mortality), 

in Salvage 

Units

RAVG 2

(25-50% 

mortality), 

in Salvage 

Units

RAVG 3

(50-75% 

mortality) in 

Salvage 

Units

RAVG 4

(>75% 

mortality) in 

Salvage 

Units

Total In 

Salvage 

Units*

Alternative 1 10,153 

(100%)

0 0 0 0 0

Alternative 2 9,964 

(95%)

95 (1%) 69 (<1%) 50 (<1%) 275 (3%) 489 (5%)
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

60

Action 

Alternatives

Not in 

Salvage 

Harvest 

Unit

RAVG 1

(0-25% 

mortality), 

in Salvage 

Units

RAVG 2

(25-50% 

mortality), 

in Salvage 

Units

RAVG 3

(50-75% 

mortality) in 

Salvage 

Units

RAVG 4

(>75% 

mortality) in 

Salvage 

Units

Total In 

Salvage 

Units*

Alternative 3 9,664 

(95%)

95 (1%) 69 (<1%) 50 (<1%) 275 (3%) 489 (5%)

Alternative 4 9,756 

(96%)

54 (<1%) 50 (<1%) 40 (<1%) 234 (2%) 378 (4%)

*There is overlap of salvage acres with roadside hazard removal so the total acres in salvage units are overstated. If adjusted to 

remove roadside hazard, there are 295 acres of salvage units in the LSR in Alternative 4 that are not in roadside hazard areas.

Figure 2: Salvage in LSR by Alternative and RAVG Class.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

61

Figure 3: Alternative 2 and 3 LSR Salvage by RAVG Class

Figure 4: Alternative 4 LSR Salvage by RAVG Class

Alternative Developed as a Result of Tribal Consultation with the 

Karuk Tribe (Karuk Alternative)

The Karuk Tribe submitted a proposal in response to the Horse Creek Project’s scoping notice. 

The Forest carefully reviewed the proposal and requested GIS data from the Tribe in order to 

better understand how their proposal compared to our proposed action. The central theme in the 

Karuk Alternative is taking action that, according to the Karuk Tribe, facilitates returning low 

and moderate severity fire to the landscape, while providing for public safety. The Karuk 

Alternative contains all of the elements of the proposed action except reforestation of salvage 

units and burned plantations. Acres treated or specifications differ from the proposed action 

described by the Forest Service in some treatment types, as shown in Table 11.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

62

Table 11: Karuk Alternative compared to Forest Service action alternatives.

Action (Unit of Measure) Alternative 

2

Alternative 

3

Alternative 

4

Karuk 

Alternative

Karuk 

Alternative 

Actions in 

Proposed 

Action

Karuk 

Alternative 

Actions 

not in 

Proposed 

Action

1) Roadside Hazard Tree 

Removal (miles) 103 103 87 102 102 0

2) Roadside Fuels 

Treatments (acres) 688 688 315 797 688 109*

3) Fuels Reduction 

Adjacent to Private 

Property (acres) 1,412 1,412 1,412 1,616 1,412 204*

4) Fuels Management 

Zones (acres) 733 733 702 773 733 40*

5a) Salvage with Site 

Preparation and PlantGround-Based Yarding 

(acres) 1,137 488 880 70 70 0

5b) Salvage with Site 

Preparation and PlantCable Yarding (acres) 905 704 800 34 34 0

6) Site Preparation and 

Plant without Salvage

(acres) 458 458 458 0 0 0

7) Horse Creek Special 

Interest Area (acres) 184 184 184 184 184 0

Temporary Roads (miles) 4.6 0 3.6 0 0 0

*See specific treatment types below for descriptions of why these additional acres were not included in the proposed 

action.

The Karuk Alternative is generally in agreement with the following actions or principles found in 

the Forest Service proposed action: 

1. Fuels reduction adjacent to private property (500 foot buffer);

2. Roadside fuels treatment (150 foot buffer, each side of the road);

3. Fire fighter safety; and

4. Protection of private property.

A discussion of the Karuk Alternative by project action follows, concluding with the analysis 

that was completed for this alternative and why further detailed analysis was not conducted.

Roadside Hazard Tree Removal

The Karuk Tribe is fully supportive of roadside hazard treatments within 150 feet on either side 

of the road along access and egress routes for community safety and to support putting fire back 

on a fire adapted and dependent landscape. The Karuk Alternative drops about 2.3 miles of low 

standard road at the end of the 46N29Y and 47N84 roads and spurs of the 46N20Y as shown in 

the Karuk Alternative map in Appendix A. Otherwise, the hazard tree area treated is the same as 

the Forest Service proposed action. The Karuk Alternative would also use a slightly different 

criteria for removal of trees likely to die. While the proposed action uses a 70 percent probability 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

63

of mortality (90 percent for trees over 40 inches) as a threshold for trees likely to die, the Karuk 

Alternative would retain any tree that is alive at the time of implementation so long as the tree is 

not a hazard to the road. The Karuk Alternative did not provide criteria to define hazard trees so 

the definition provided in Report #RO-12-01 “Hazard Tree Guidelines for Forest Service 

Facilities and Roads in the Pacific Southwest Region” (Angwin et al. 2012) is assumed for the 

purposes of analysis.

Because this portion of the Karuk Alternative is not substantially different from the proposed 

action, we did not analyze it in detail under a separate alternative.

Roadside Fuels Treatment

The Karuk Tribe has consistently advocated for strategic hazardous fuel treatments on critical 

ingress and egress routes. The Karuk Tribe also firmly believes this is a proactive approach to 

reduce fire suppression cost. The Karuk Alternative would treat the same roads (National Forest 

Transportation System roads 12, 46N60, and 46N50) to the same specification (within 150 feet 

of the designated roads) as the proposed action by removing dead vegetation and live ladder 

fuels less than 12 inches in diameter. Activity fuels created by roadside fuels treatments would 

be disposed of as specified in the proposed action. The Karuk Alternative added approximately 

109 acres of roadside fuels treatment on the 47N69 road system in Horse Creek as shown in the 

Karuk Alternative map in Appendix A that are not part of the Forest Service proposed action.

Because this portion of the Karuk Alternative is substantially different from the proposed action, 

we did a preliminary analysis to determine the proposal’s effects on northern spotted owls, since 

we believed this would be the resource most impacted by the addition of 109 acres of roadside 

fuels treatments in an area already proposed for roadside hazard abatement. 

Chapter 3 of the EIS describes the analysis used to estimate the effects of the project actions on NSO 

habitat, NSO sites, and critical habitat. The EIS describes the current understanding of NSO use of a 

post-fire landscape and the importance of balancing the more immediate effects on habitat with the 

possible future benefits of improving habitat or reducing the risk of larger scale high severity fire. 

Using the NSO information presented in the EIS, an estimate of the effects were assessed using the 

actions presented in the Karuk Alternative and comparing those effects to Alternative 2.

Effects to northern spotted owl habitat

The additional roadside fuels proposed by the Karuk Tribe along the 47N69 road occurs in a late 

successional reserve and critical habitat for northern spotted owls. This additional treatment, in 

combination with roadside hazard abatement already included in the proposed action, would possibly 

downgrade about 80 acres of northern spotted owl habitat in an area that contains larger patches of 

habitat. 

Effects to NSO Activity Centers

Although other NSO home ranges overlap the additional actions in the Karuk Alternative, only one 

NSO site is likely to experience additional measurable effects as a result of the actions that extend 

beyond Alternative 2. The roadside fuels plus roadside hazard along 47N69 crisscrosses through 

habitat occurring within the core and home range of the KL1152 site. Given the proximity of the 

NSO detections and the distribution of habitat, the area where this action occurs is likely used by 

NSO. The roadside hazard with roadside fuels is estimated to downgrade about 80 acres of habitat in 

the KL1152 core and home range combined thus likely reducing foraging opportunity for the NSO in 

the activity center.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

64

Because hazards along the 47N69 road will be abated through the roadside hazard treatments of the 

proposed action, and the addition of roadside fuels treatments in LSR proposed in the Karuk 

Alternative would downgrade an additional 80 acres of critical habitat for northern spotted owl, this 

option will not be analyzed further.

Fuels Reduction Adjacent to Private Property

The Karuk Tribe is fully supportive of the proposed action to reduce fuels adjacent to private 

property. The Karuk Alternative would treat the same areas, presumably to the same 

specification as the proposed action, but with the addition of a buffer adjacent to private lands in 

Negro Creek and Buckhorn Creek that total 204 acres. The Negro Creek private property buffer 

was removed from Alternative 2 as it is already under approved NEPA (Westside Fire Recovery 

FEIS) and a current service contract. It is included in the cumulative effects analysis but would 

be inappropriate to reconsider in the proposed action. 

The Buckhorn Creek private property buffer was removed from Alternative 2 as it has no 

structure now or prior to the fire on this portion. Fuels reduction treatments are proposed within 

the 500 feet of National Forest System lands adjacent to private property with an existing 

structure or that had a structure that was affected by the fire. Fuels would be reduced by 

removing dead vegetation and live understory vegetation including conifer trees less than 12 

inches in diameter at breast height, spacing residual trees and pruning to a height of seven feet 

above the ground. Activity fuels would be disposed of as described in the proposed action.

Because this portion of the Karuk Alternative is not substantially different from the proposed 

action, we did not analyze it in detail under a separate alternative.

Developing and Maintaining Fuels Management Zones

The Karuk Tribe advocates for fuel management zones (fuel zones) along strategic ridgetops. 

Although the GIS mapping for the Karuk Alternative fuel zones system shows the same areas as 

the proposed action, the Tribe believes that “the extent of the dozerlines to be considered should 

be revisited and critically analyzed for effectiveness based on past fire occurrences and potential 

use for planned ignitions.” The only difference between the proposed action and the Karuk 

Alternative for developing and maintaining fuels management zones is that the Karuk 

Alternative added 40 acres of ridgetop fuel zones on the ridge above Buckhorn Creek on the east 

side of the fire area. As with the Negro Creek private property buffer, this area is already covered 

in a previous NEPA document (Westside Fire Recovery FEIS)), as analyzed in the cumulative 

effects section of this FEIS, and would be inappropriate to reconsider in the proposed action. 

Because this portion of the Karuk Alternative is not substantially different from the proposed 

action, we did not analyze it in detail under a separate alternative.

Salvage Harvest with Ground Based and Skyline Systems followed by 

Site Preparation and Planting

Salvage harvest is the activity in the Karuk Alternative that differs most from the Forest Service 

proposed action. The Karuk Tribe does not oppose the salvage of trees that are hazards to human 

safety and infrastructure, however the Tribe holds that the pulse input of surface fuels resulting 

from salvage-logging (McIver and Ottmar 2007, Donato et al. 2006) followed by the 

establishment of uniform young plantations may increase susceptibility to severe reburns in the 

early stages of forest development. Accordingly, the Karuk Alternative proposes salvage harvest 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

65

on a much smaller area with different specifications than the proposed action, and does not 

propose follow-up planting in the salvage areas. Salvage harvest that is proposed in the Karuk 

Alternative is all within late successional reserve land management allocation and adjacent to a 

small portion of the private lands affected by the Gap Fire and proposed by the Forest Service for 

fuels reduction. Activity fuels in the Karuk Alternative would be treated after salvage harvest. 

Karuk and Forest Service salvage specifications are compared in Table 12.

Table 12: Comparison of Karuk and Forest Service salvage specifications.

Activity Karuk Alternative Alternative 2

Ground Based Salvage Harvest 70 acres (all LSR) 1,137 acres (177 in LSR)

Skyline Based Salvage Harvest 32 acres (all LSR) 905 acres (318 in LSR)

Tree Mortality Threshold All live trees at time of 

implementation are retained.

Trees with less than 70 percent

probability of mortality within the 

next 3 to 5 years are retained.

Tree Size Thresholds All trees greater than 30 inches 

in diameter are retained whether 

live or dead so long as they are 

not hazard trees

High value wildlife trees are 

retained as they occur but there 

is no diameter threshold.

Unit Mortality Thresholds Units must be at least 90 percent

dead; all live trees are retained.

Moderate to high severity burned 

units must include at least 10 

contiguous acres of trees with a 

70 percent or greater probability 

of mortality in the next 3 to 5 

years.

Merchantable Dead Trees within 

Salvage in Riparian Reserves

Associated with Stream Systems

Retain all Retain all 

Merchantable Dead Trees in 

Riparian Reserves Associated 

with Unstable or Potentially 

Unstable Soils

No salvage harvest would occur 

in any inner gorges, previously 

active landslides and older 

landslide deposits.

No salvage harvest would occur 

in inner gorges, currently active 

landslide areas or areas where 

logging activity would increase 

instability. Salvage harvest that 

does not increase instability may 

be permitted in some areas to 

reduce fuels.

New Temporary Roads No new roads are proposed Approximately 1.7 miles of new 

temporary roads would be 

constructed.

The Karuk Alternative’s proposal to eliminate all but about 100 acres of salvage treatments was 

eliminated from detailed study because it would not meet the project’s purpose and need to treat 

fuels near communities and private structures and to create effective fuel breaks. Other iterations 

of this request were also considered but eliminated from detailed study: Alternative 3 addresses 

the request to cancel all post-fire logging units in the Siskiyou Crest connectivity corridor near 

Condrey Mountain and Dry Lake Mountain, and Alternative A addresses the suggestion to avoid 

salvage within all late successional reserves. 

As explained in the Purpose and Need for Action section of Chapter 1, within all land allocations 

within the project, there is a need for public safety after the Gap Fire created unsafe conditions 

for the public and adjacent private landowners. In the Karuk Alternative, about 1,940 acres 

would no longer benefit from treatments described in Alternative 2, and would resemble the No 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

66

Action Alternative. As a result, there would be an increase in flame length potential, fireline 

intensity, and resistance to control within those untreated areas. 

A major reason this was dropped from further detailed analysis is the projected fire behavior 

potential and resistance to control in areas no longer being proposed in the Karuk Alternative for

salvage and site preparation. In some areas where high severity fire occurred, it can be expected 

that over 100 tons per acre of fuel loading within the next 20 to 40 years may accumulate, 

including within the wildland urban interface. Desired conditions would no longer be met in the 

mid- to long-term within or adjacent to the areas not proposed for treatments. This includes areas 

adjacent to the private property buffer to the community of Horse Creek. This would decrease 

community and firefighter safety and reduce the effectiveness of private property buffer 

treatments in the event of future wildfire. 

Because this was fully analyzed within Alternative 1 and found to not meet the purpose and need 

of the project (see Fire and Fuels analysis in Chapter 3), as well as partially analyzed in other 

alternatives, it is not further analyzed in detail as a separate alternative. 

Site Preparation and Planting (no salvage)

The Karuk Tribe does not support reforestation with coniferous species because the Tribe holds 

that reforestation will create a homogenized forest structure that contributes to future high 

severity fire. Accordingly, the Karuk Alternative proposes no coniferous reforestation in existing 

burned plantations and instead relies on natural regeneration and fire succession throughout. The 

Forest Service proposed action would plant approximately 458 acres of burned plantations

(previously logged and planted stands) in order to meet our Forest Plan objectives for fireresilient coniferous forests within these appropriate land management areas. 

Although we agree with the Karuk proposal’s summation that “the concept and practice of 

restoration is where our respective management visions diverge,” we have modified our current 

planting techniques to be more in line with Karuk desired practices. As proposed, our 

reforestation would be accomplished by directly planting nursery-grown seedlings or by 

allowing natural regeneration. Tree species and spacing would depend on a variety of 

environmental factors, including considerations of climate change, elevation, slope steepness, 

slope position, aspect, and soil productivity. Reforestation would avoid creation of denselystocked plantations that would prevent the reintroduction of low-intensity prescribed fire at a 

later date. Seedling survival rates and competition from brush species will create a natural 

mosaic of species and stocking densities. Hardwoods would be considered when determining 

whether desired stocking objectives have been met.

The effects of completely avoiding replanting are considered in our No Action Alternative, and 

will not be analyzed as an additional alternative since we believe this would not meet our 

purpose and need or Forest Plan objectives. 

Restoration Activities in the Horse Creek Special Interest Area

The Karuk alternative is consistent with the Forest Service proposed action for the recovery of 

the Horse Creek Special Interest Area. This includes planting of appropriate riparian vegetation.

Because this portion of the Karuk Alternative is not substantially different from the proposed 

action, we did not analyze it in detail under a separate alternative.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

67

Reintroduction of Low and Moderate Severity Fire

In addition to consideration of the seven treatments of the proposed action, the Karuk Alternative

strongly advocates the reintroduction of fire to reduce fuels and manage vegetation; the Karuk 

proposal, however, makes no specific recommendations for application of prescribed fire or 

other specific methods to reintroduce fire to reduce fuels and manage vegetation. Reintroduction 

of low and moderate severity fire at the landscape scale is also an objective of the Forest Service 

for many of the same reasons advocated by the Tribe, and is fully consistent with the Forest Plan. 

The Forest Service does not include reintroduction of fire in the proposed action because fuels 

conditions will not be “ripe” for reintroduction of fire for another five to ten years. Where fuels 

treatments are being proposed in this project, pile burning or broadcast burning within salvage 

unit boundaries will be the primary tools rather than landscape-scale prescribed fire.

Because this portion of the Karuk Alternative does not differ in concept from the proposed action

and does not suggest specific treatments at this time, we did not analyze it in detail under a 

separate alternative.

Summary of Consideration of the Karuk Alternative

As shown in the comparisons above, the primary differences between the Karuk Alterative and 

Alternative 2 are an increase in the acres of roadside fuels, fuels reduction adjacent to private 

property, and fuel management zones; and a decrease in the acres of salvage harvest. Except for the 

Special Interest Area, the Karuk alternative proposes no site preparation and planting within high fire 

severity burned forested areas such as those proposed in Alternative 2 (i.e. plantations or salvage 

harvest units). Proposed treatments within the Karuk Alternative for roadside hazard tree removal 

and for restoration activities in the Horse Creek Special Interest Area are not substantially different 

from the proposed action and therefore were not analyzed in detail in a separate alternative. Roadside 

fuels treatments proposed in the Karuk Alternative did substantially differ from our proposed action 

by adding 109 acres. The location of this addition within LSR and critical habitat for northern spotted 

owl would lead to downgrading about 80 additional acres of suitable habitat. Since roadside hazards 

would be abated in this area without the additional treatment, we are unwilling to accept the 

additional toll on northern spotted owl critical habitat and this proposed treatment is not further 

considered in detail. Fuels reduction adjacent to private property is only different in the Karuk 

Alternative because the Karuk proposal added areas that are already under approved NEPA and a 

current service contract or that does not have a current or pre-fire structure to protect; since this is not 

substantially different from the proposed action, it is not analyzed in detail in a separate alternative. 

Similarly, the only difference for the fuels management zones is that the Karuk Alternative proposed 

incorporation of an area that is already covered under previous NEPA, and thus it is not analyzed in detail 

in a separate alternative.

The main difference between Alternative 2 and the Karuk Alternative is a reduction of salvage, 

site preparation, and planting. The Karuk Alternative has a reduction of approximately 2,460 

acres of these combined treatments when compared to Alternative 2. These areas would no 

longer benefit from treatments described in Alternative 2, and would resemble the No Action 

Alternative. As a result, there would be an increase in flame length potential, fireline intensity, 

and resistance to control. Desired conditions would no longer be met in the mid- to long-term 

within or adjacent to the areas removed from treatments in the Karuk Alternative. This includes 

areas adjacent to the private property buffer to the community of Horse Creek. This would 

decrease community and firefighter safety and reduce the effectiveness of private property buffer 

treatments in the event of future wildfire, thereby not meeting the purpose and need of the 

project.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

68

One of the primary threats to the NSO recovery is the loss of habitat which includes habitat burned 

by high severity wildfire. NSO have been reported to use areas affected by high severity fire in the 

short-term, but as the high severity patches start to deteriorate and the standing snags that provided 

cover for NSO start to fall over, NSO use of these areas is likely to decline. Using this information, 

the Horse Creek Project attempts to minimize effects on NSO habitat including habitat affected by 

high severity fire by balancing the short-term effects to NSO habitat with the longer-term threat of 

future high severity fire. Although the Karuk Alternative reduces salvage by 1,940 acres, these 

retained acres may not be used by NSO at the same level as the areas avoided in project design that 

was used to create Alternative 2. Generally, the Karuk Alternative would affect a slightly larger

number of NSO suitable habitat acres as compared to those presented for Alternative 2, but it retains

about 1,940 acres of higher severity burned forest that would be harvested in alternative 2. These 

salvage units could provide for NSO foraging use in the short-term but in the long-term, these 

retained 1,940 acres of burned forest may contribute to future NSO habitat loss to high severity fire.

This concern for long-term habitat conditions for northern spotted owls, as well as not meeting our 

purpose and need for community protection, led to the Karuk Alternative’s proposal to remove all 

but about 100 acres of salvage being eliminated from detailed study. 

Avoiding all replanting was fully analyzed in our No Action Alternative, and similar to removing 

all salvage treatments, would not meet our purpose and need or Forest Plan objectives. For all 

these reasons, the Karuk Alternative was eliminated from further detailed study.

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study

Federal agencies are required by NEPA to rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all 

reasonable alternatives and to briefly discuss the reasons for eliminating any alternatives that 

were not developed in detail (40 CFR 1502.14). Public comments received in response to the 

Proposed Action provided suggestions for alternative methods for achieving the purpose and 

need. Some of these alternatives may have been outside the scope of this project, duplicative of 

the alternatives considered in detail, or determined to be components that would cause 

unnecessary environmental harm. Therefore, a number of alternatives were considered, but 

dismissed from detailed consideration for reasons summarized below.

Alternative A:

This alternative was generated after considering multiple comments recommending avoiding 

salvage within the late successional reserves. This alternative was eliminated from detailed study 

because it would not meet the purpose and need to treat fuels near communities and private 

structures and to create effective fuel breaks. Salvage within the late successional reserve was 

proposed next to private property with structures or along a fuel management zone for strategic 

firefighting, in accordance with Standard and Guideline management area 5-28 of the Forest 

Plan, which states:

Silviculture activities aimed at reducing risk shall focus on younger stands in late 

successional reserves. The objective will be to accelerate development of latesuccessional condition while making the future stand less susceptible to natural 

disturbances. Salvage activities should focus on the reduction of catastrophic 

insect, disease and fire threats. Treatments should be designed to provide effective 

fuel breaks wherever possible. However, the scale of salvage and other treatments 

should not generally result in degeneration of currently suitable owl habitat or 

other late-successional conditions.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

69

The areas proposed for salvage within late successional reserve are not currently suitable habitat 

for northern spotted owls, and must be treated in order to reduce fuel loading within the next 

three to five years. Several additional contiguous patches of moderate to high vegetation 

mortality ranging from less than ten up to 250 acres that could benefit from treatment were 

identified in the late successional reserve, however, they were eliminated before scoping due to 

the following reasons: 1) salvage in patches less than 10 acres would not meet Forest Plan 

Standards and Guidelines (MA5-30, #1), 2) many of these locations are relatively inaccessible 

requiring construction of excessively long temporary roads on steep slopes, 3) would require 

construction of temporary roads that cross stream courses or unstable terrain, 4) the amount of 

timber volume in these locations would make helicopter yarding infeasible, 5) most of the 

salvage volume is located in Riparian Reserves particularly in Maple Gulch and south-facing 

slopes of White Cloud Mountain. Therefore, these areas will be maintained as natural patches of 

snags, except where they intersect roadside hazard treatment. This alternative was eliminated 

from detailed study because it would not meet the purpose and need of the project.

Alternative B:

This alternative was developed after considering multiple comments which suggest using only 

prescribed fire instead of salvage logging and eliminating all proposed planting in order to 

reduce fire risks. Scoping comment #21-9 further calls for us to:

1. Implement only fuel reduction adjacent to the community of Horse Creek; consider the 

use of prescribed fire and non-commercial fuel treatments;

2. Cancel all post-fire logging units in the Siskiyou Crest connectivity corridor near 

Condrey Mountain and Dry Lake Mountain;

3. Analyze the cumulative impact of private land logging, public land logging, and 

discretionary fire suppression impacts such as dozerline and backburning in the 

Environmental Analysis;

4. Not implement post-fire logging treatments in forested habitats purposefully backburned 

by fire suppression crews; and

5. Cancel all post-fire logging units due to extreme cumulative impacts and to compensate 

for the damage already done on adjacent private timberland.

This alternative was eliminated from detailed study because it would not meet the purpose and 

need of the project. Currently, the fuels in the area will not be ready for another prescribed fire 

treatment for another five to ten years. The salvage harvest treatment is being proposed around 

the community of Horse Creek, next to private properties with structures. Alternative 3 addresses 

the request to cancel all post-fire logging units in the Siskiyou Crest connectivity corridor near 

Condrey Mountain and Dry Lake Mountain, and thus will not be further analyzed in a separate 

alternative. All cumulative impacts will be addressed in Chapter 3 of the environmental impact 

statement.

Alternative C:

This alternative was proposed by scoping comment #9-44, which references the 1995 Beschta et 

al. paper entitled “Recommendations for Ecologically Sound Post-Fire Treatments on Federal 

Lands.” The commenter suggests an alternative that includes all the post-fire management 

recommendations of the 1995 Beschta et al. paper and that retains high elevation snag habitat on 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

70

the Siskiyou Crest near Condrey Mountain and Dry Lake Mountain. The report referenced in the 

comment was prepared to “offer a scientific framework of principles and practices that are 

provided to guide development of federal policy concerning wildfire and salvage logging and 

other post-fire treatments,” (Beschta et al.1995) and includes recommendations on post-fire 

practices. The recommendations are as follows:

• Salvage logging should be prohibited in sensitive areas.

• On portions of the post-fire landscape determined to be suitable for salvage logging, 

limitations aimed at maintaining species and natural recovery processes should apply.

• Building new roads in the burned landscape should be prohibited.

• Active reseeding and planting should be conducted only under limited conditions.

• Structural post-fire restoration is generally to be discouraged.

• Post-fire management requires reassessment of existing management.

• Continued research efforts are needed to help address ecological and operational issues.

• Public must be educated regarding natural fires and post-burn landscapes to provide 

balance to the “Smokey Bear” perspective of fires and forests.

The commenter seeks an alternative that includes all of the above recommendations. Some of the 

recommendations are consistent with Alternatives 2 and 3, including maintaining species and 

natural recovery processes, not building new roads, no structural post-fire restoration, and a 

reasonably foreseeable action that will limit planting and reseeding.

However, the Beschta report from 1995 also recommends that salvage logging should be 

prohibited in sensitive areas. Table 13 summarizes how sensitive areas listed in the report were 

determined in the proposed action.

Table 13: Consideration of sensitive areas listed in the Beschta el al. report.

Sensitive Areas listed in 

Beschta et al. Report Sensitive Areas Defined in the Project

In severely burned areas

Burned Area Reflectance Classification (BARC) data was adjusted by 

a Burned Area Emergency Response (BAER) team Soil Scientist to 

determine areas of Severe Soil Burn Severity.

On erosive soils and any site 

where accelerated erosion is 

possible

To determine erosive soils, the forest-wide soil survey was used; any 

soils with a very high erosion hazard rating were deemed erosive. 

On fragile soils

Fragile soils are defined as those that have physical, chemical, or 

biological limitations that reduce ability to recover after disturbance. 

On the Forest those would include alpine areas, serpentine soils, or 

shallow rocky soils. These types of soils are within the project area but 

are not proposed for treatment.

In roadless areas No roadless areas are proposed for treatment in this project.

In riparian areas

Riparian areas, as defined by the Forest Plan will not be harvested by 

salvage operations, except for roadside hazard tree. Hazard trees will 

be left on site when considering site specific variables as described 

under Alternative 2.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

71

Sensitive Areas listed in 

Beschta et al. Report Sensitive Areas Defined in the Project

On steep slopes

Steep slopes are difficult to define and are relative. For the purpose of 

this analysis we will assume slopes not suitable for ground based 

harvest are steep. 

Specifically prohibiting salvage logging in what the Beschta et al. report considers to be sensitive 

areas will limit our ability to meet the purpose and need for action. These areas are defined in the 

report as severely burned areas, erosive soils, fragile soils, roadless areas, riparian areas, on steep 

slopes, and any site where accelerated erosion is possible. The project is not proposing activities 

on fragile soils or roadless areas; only hazard tree removal and fuels removal that does not affect 

stream shade is proposed in hydrologic riparian areas (riparian reserves). Eliminating treatments 

on severely burned soils, erosive sites, steep slopes, and any site where accelerated erosion is 

possible will limit the salvage harvest to small portions of the project area. Project design 

features are in place to minimize resource impacts and to ensure compliance with the Forest Plan 

and applicable laws and regulations. Logging only a few units with three separate logging 

systems is neither ecologically effective nor economically feasible.

Although the project is consistent with many of the recommendations outlined in the report, as 

described above, meeting all of the recommendations will not meet the purpose and need of the 

project as it will be unnecessarily restrictive given insignificant effects and portions are outside 

of the scope of the project. For these reasons, this alternative will not receive further analysis.

Monitoring

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

normal operating procedures. The Forest uses the Forest Plan, Standards and Guides, project 

design features, and best management practices to monitor the actions done within a project. 

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. Seedling growth and quality are monitored and inspected in the 

nursery prior to planting trees. Contract inspectors will work with planting crews to ensure that 

planting prescriptions are followed and release methods are suitable for enhancing survival of 

seedlings. Subsequent surveys will be conducted to document seedling survival, stocking 

densities and species diversity within treatment areas. Areas that are planted will also be assessed 

for overall vigor, growth, amount (and species) of competing vegetation, and seedling damage.

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.

Project design features identified for wildlife species within the analysis will be monitored for 

effectiveness during implementation and assumptions made pertaining to effects to species will 

be verified. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will continue involvement through the life of the 

project as part of the consultation process by providing recommendations for minimizing effects 

if new information becomes available through northern spotted owl monitoring and the 

application of protection measures. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife may have terms and conditions 

associated with the Biological Opinion that may require additional monitoring. Preimplementation surveys for northern goshawk, peregrine falcon, and bald eagles have been 

completed and nests identified will be monitored throughout project implementation.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

72

The Forest Noxious Weed Detection and Treatment Program will continue to monitor for new 

infestations of invasive plant species that may be introduced or spread throughout the project 

area and Forest lands. Project implementation monitoring will be conducted for both invasive 

species and sensitive botanical species, where effectiveness of project design features, as 

implemented on the ground will be noted. The viability of sensitive botanical populations will be 

assessed as part of this process. Results will be documented in the Forest annual monitoring 

reports.

The Horse Creek Special Interest Area will be monitored for the effectiveness and survival of 

planting and seeding of native species.

Best Management Practices Evaluation Program (BMPEP) monitoring (USDA 2016a) will occur 

on a sample of the BMPs appropriate for this project which are listed in Appendix C. Because 

many project treatments do not occur within the same year, these treatments will be included in 

Best Management Practices Evaluation Program monitoring pools for up to a decade as needed. 

The Forest Sediment and Shade Monitoring Plan (USDA 2010) will be implemented for Total 

Maximum Daily Load compliance as displayed in the North Coast Region Basin Plan (North 

Coast Region Water Quality Control Board 2011).

In addition to the Best Management Practices Evaluation Program the Waiver requires us to 

develop best management practice (BMP) implementation and effectiveness monitoring 

checklists for all Category B projects: 

• Implementation monitoring checklists shall be developed for all water quality related 

BMPs and on‐the‐ground prescriptions to assess whether they were fully and properly 

carried out and are functioning properly. 

• Road project effectiveness monitoring checklists shall be developed to assess whether 

each new road project (e.g., new road construction or re‐construction, crossing and 

culvert replacements, etc.) and the associated BMPs were effective in protecting water 

quality. Road project effectiveness monitoring shall be performed after a particular road 

project has gone through at least one winter period in order to evaluate how well the 

project and BMPs functioned during winter rain events and/or spring snowmelt.

• Implementation and effectiveness monitoring checklists shall be submitted with the 

Category B project enrollment package for Regional Water Board staff review. The 

results of the BMP monitoring will be included in an annual report the Regional Water 

Board including key results, findings, problems encountered, and corrective actions 

taken.

Monitoring of at-risk historic properties and cultural resources during implementation will be 

conducted to ensure the effectiveness of resource protection measures pursuant to the Regional 

Programmatic Agreement.

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

Standard and Guidelines in the Forest Plan may occur in the Horse Creek 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 Horse Creek project will be included in the sampling pool for 

soil monitoring. Results will be documented in the Forest annual monitoring reports.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

73

Comparison of Alternatives

This section provides a summary of the treatments in each alternative and a comparison of the 

effects of implementing each alternative. Information in the tables are focused on activities and 

effects where different levels of effects or outputs can be distinguished quantitatively or 

qualitatively among alternatives.

Table 14: Comparison of treatment differences between alternatives.

Treatments Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

1) Roadside Hazard Tree Removal 

(miles) 0 103 103 87

2) Roadside Fuels Treatments (acres) 0 688 688 315

3) Fuels Reduction Adjacent to 

Private Property (acres) 0 1,412 1,412 1,412

4) Developing and Maintaining Fuels 

Management Zones (acres) 0 733 733 702

5) Salvage Harvest with Site 

Preparation and Plant (acres) 0 2,043 1,192 1,679

6) Site Preparation and Planting 

(without salvage) (acres) 0 458 458 458

7) Horse Creek Special Interest Area

(acres) 0 184 184 184

Temporary Roads (new and existing) 

(miles) 0 4.63 0 3.57
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

74

This page intentionally left blank.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

75

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences

Introduction

This section summarizes the physical, biological, social, and economic environments of the 

affected project area and the potential changes to those environments due to implementation of 

the alternatives. It presents the scientific and analytic basis for comparison of alternatives 

presented in Chapter 2.

Analysis methods are discussed for each resource, followed by a description of the spatial and 

temporal context used for analysis. The affected environment section describes the existing 

condition against which environmental effects are evaluated and from which progress toward the 

desired condition can be measured (represented by the ‘no action’ alternative).

The environmental consequences section discusses the potential effects to the resource 

associated with the implementation of each alternative. This forms the scientific and analytic

basis for comparison of the alternatives, including the proposed action. This section discloses 

direct, indirect, and cumulative effects on the resource and discusses the potential for 

significance of these effects. Effects are quantified where possible; qualitative discussions are 

included where appropriate. The proposed action and action alternatives include the project 

design features which were developed to minimize negative effects and are included in Chapter 

2.

Effects are defined as (1) direct effects caused by an action and occur at the same place and time 

as the action; (2) indirect effects caused by an action but are later in time, or removed in distance, 

from the action; and (3) cumulative effects resulting from incremental impact of an action when 

added to other past, present, and reasonable foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency 

or person undertakes such actions. Direct and indirect effects of an action are often discussed 

together. Cumulative effects are discussed separately. Effects can result from individually minor, 

but collectively significant, action taking place over a period of time. Past, present, and 

reasonable foreseeable future actions are assessed along with the effects of the proposed action 

and alternatives to determine whether significant cumulative effects occur. Past activities 

contributed to the existing condition and are considered in the affected environment for the 

Project. This analysis is consistent with the Council on Environmental Quality memorandum 

incorporated by reference (Connaughton 2005) which states: “...agencies can conduct an 

adequate cumulative effects analysis by focusing on the current aggregate effects of past actions 

without delving into the historical details of individual past actions.” Past actions are treated 

similarly in the recently published Forest Service direction for implementing NEPA (Forest 

Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.15, 15.1) and are consistent with the Forest Service NEPA 

Regulations.

Analysis areas for determining environmental effects vary by resource, as do the other actions 

included in each cumulative effects analysis. Cumulative effects in an analysis area may include 

estimated effects from past, present, and reasonable foreseeable future private or public 

vegetation treatments, road construction, grazing, and wildfire exclusion. A list of such potential 

actions is included in Appendix B of this document.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

76

Resource reports provide background for the analysis, and are referenced and summarized in this 

chapter of the Final Environmental Impact Statement. These reports use resource data housed in 

the geographic information system and other relevant sources. The reports are available on the 

Forest website at https://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=50586.

Air Quality

The purpose of this report is to analyze the effects of the Project and its alternatives on air quality 

with emphasis on greenhouse gas emissions.

Ambient Air Quality Standards

Siskiyou County in which the Project is located is identified as in attainment for ozone, carbon 

monoxide, sulfur oxides, lead, respirable particulate matter, and fine particulate matter (criteria 

pollutants) for both state and federal standards. Under the Conformity Rule, there is no further 

state or federal regulation for project activities that generate criteria emissions; since the county 

is in attainment, this does not need to be analyzed further.

Regional Haze Rule

The Regional Haze Rule (1999) requires a Regional Haze Plan for Class 1 designated airsheds. 

These include National Parks and Wilderness established before 1977. Marble Mountain 

Wilderness is a Class I airshed that is nearly ten miles from the closest portion of the Project. 

The Class I airshed impact area is all lands within ten kilometers (six miles) of the Marble 

Mountain Wilderness. Since the Project is outside the Class I impact zone, no addition analysis is 

required for compliance with the Regional Haze Rule. Air quality monitoring and smoke permits 

issued by the Siskiyou County Air Pollution Control District provide further assurance that air 

quality in the Marble Mountain Wilderness will be maintained.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Diesel equipment used in logging and prescribed burning activities release greenhouse gases 

(carbon dioxide or CO2

, nitrous oxides or NOx, and methane, or CH4) into the air which can 

contribute to climate change. Currently there are no thresholds for greenhouse gas emissions for 

prescribed burning activities or logging.

Methodology

Analysis Indicators

Estimated greenhouse gas emission annually, and in total for the project.

Measures

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Currently there are no thresholds identified for greenhouse gas emissions for forest management 

activities. Emissions of greenhouse gases are commonly expressed as carbon dioxide 

equivalents. This provides a standard metric to compare effects of greenhouse gases. Some 

greenhouse gases are more potent than others and this metric allows for the direct comparison of 

impacts between different activities with different ratios of greenhouse gases emissions. The 

carbon dioxide equivalent of methane is 1:25. The carbon dioxide equivalent of nitrous oxides is 

1:298. Outputs are measured in metric tons. One metric ton equals approximately 2,200 pounds.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

77

The average greenhouse gas emissions from prescribed fire are estimated using the First Order 

Fire Effects Model (FOFEM). The modeling is based on a Douglas-fir – tanoak - madrone forest 

under moderate weather conditions with a natural or activity fuel load. The same model was used 

in the Westside Fire Recovery air quality analysis and is incorporated by reference here. The 

defaults of the model in this mode are used for the model runs. The FOFEM is recognized by the 

Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region as being the most current and accurate analysis tool 

available for emissions prediction (Reinhardt et al. 1997). It is based on extensive research in 

western forest ecosystems. Model outputs are shown in the Air Quality resource report as are 

conversion factors for carbon dioxide equivalents. Based on the FOFEM outputs, each acre 

burned produces approximately 15 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (FOFEM Output 

Table, available in the resource report on the project website).

Nitrogen oxides and carbon dioxide emissions for mobile sources (heavy equipment and log 

trucks) were estimated using an emission-factor model as outlined in Desk Reference for NEPA 

Air Quality Analysis (USDA 1995b, Table 3.3.1-1). Emission factors are in tons per hour. 

Therefore, several assumptions were made to estimate the amount of emissions per year from 

mobile sources. Table 16 shows the estimated pieces of equipment and engine outputs. This 

assessment assumes all of the salvage operations would be completed in the first year of 

operations. The analysis also assumes that all the equipment uses diesel fuel. These factors do 

not account for all the emission-reduction technology for vehicles and fuel currently in place; 

therefore, the estimates of emissions over-estimate what is likely to result from equipment use.1

Spatial and Temporal Bounding of Analysis Area

It is difficult to determine the spatial analysis area for effects to air quality due to the mobility of 

air. For this project, the spatial boundary includes the project area and the unincorporated 

community of Horse Creek. Temporally, emissions from mobile sources such as logging trucks 

and tractors, as well as from prescribed burning, are transient and the impacts are short-lived. Air 

quality regulations are in terms of 1-year emissions. In light of this, the temporal analyses are on 

an annual basis and this is considered short-term. Impacts are considered long-term if they 

persist for more than a year. The cumulative effects of emissions will be addressed at the project 

scale. This analysis assumes a project life of five years. Since the project will be implemented in 

various phases, it is assumed that about 20 percent of the projected prescribed burning acres 

would be treated in any given year. Logging operations would be completed in the first year of 

operations.

Affected Environment 

The project area is primarily forested, federally-managed lands with no substantial humancaused emission sources within the area other than emissions from logging and recreation. Other 

emission contributions will be smoke and haze from seasonal wildland and prescribed fires from 

both within and outside the county. According to the California Air Resources Board 

(http://www.arb.ca.gov/app/emsinv/emssumcat.php) the nitrogen oxide emissions in the county 

are primarily from heavy-duty diesel trucks (such as from the I-5 corridor).

 1 Modeling outputs of greenhouse gas carbon dioxide equivalents is not a precise process because of differences in 

equipment, burning conditions, predicted production rates, air movement etc. Reviewers should consider the relative 

differences between the alternatives as more meaningful than the absolute values estimated by the model outputs 

and assumptions. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

78

Environmental Consequences

Treatment (prescribed burning) of fuels from logging, fuel break construction and other fuel 

reduction project is a source of greenhouse gasses. Table 15 shows the acres of activity fuels that 

would likely be treated in each alternative. Table 16 provides a summary of annual and total 

carbon dioxide equivalents by alternative for logging and treatment of prescribed burning used 

throughout the analysis.

Table 15: Acres of Prescribed Burning by Activity

Activity Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Roadside Hazard (Assumes 

50% requires treatment)a

0 103 miles

(about 3,800 

acres Rx fire)

103 miles

(about 3,800 

acres Rx fire)

87 miles

(about 3,200 

acres Rx Fire)

Roadside Fuels 0 688 acres 688 acres 315 acres

Fuel Reduction adjacent to 

private property

0 1,412 acres 1,412 acres 1,412 acre

Fuel Management Zones 0 733 acres 733 acres 702 acres

Salvage with site prep and 

plant 

0 2,042 acres 1,565 acres 1,679 acres

Site prep and plant without 

salvage

0 458 acres 458 acres 458 acres

Horse Creek SIA 

Rehabilitation (assumes 50% 

of acres treated)

0 184 acres

(about 90 

acres Rx fire)

184 acres

(about 90 

acres Rx fire)

184 acres

(about 90 

acres Rx fire)

Total Acres Treated 0 Rx Fire about 9,200 

acres Rx Fire

about 8,750 

acres Rx Fire

about 7,950 

acres Rx Fire

a Not all roadside hazard or Horse Creek SIA will require slash treatment. This assessment assume 

prescribed fire will occur on about 50 percent of the acres in those activities. Piling and burning is given the 

same factor as broadcast burning since about the same amount of slash would be consumed.

Table 16: Total and Annual Carbon Dioxide Equivalents by Alternative

Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Total acres burned 9,200 8,750 7,950

CO2 Equiv. per acre (metric tons) 15 15 15

Total 5 year CO2 equiv. (metric tons) 138,000 131,250 119,250

Burning One Year Emissions CO2 Equiv. 

(metric tons) 27,600 26,250 23,850

Acres Harvested 2,042 1,565 1,679

Percent of Alternative Two 100 percent 77 percent 82 percent

One Year Logging Equipment Total CO2 Equiv. 

(metric tons) 30,800 23,600 25,400

Total One Year logging plus burning CO2 

Equiv. (metric tons) 58,400 49,850 49,250
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

79

Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Total CO2 Equiv. Life of Project (metric tons) 168,800 154,850 144,650

Data Sources: CO2 Equivalents from burning are from FOFEM Model Outputs in the resource report available on the 

project website. CO2 from logging equipment is demonstrated in Table 17.

Alternative 1

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects

Under this alternative no direct federal management action will be taken that will emit 

greenhouse gases. Carbon dioxide will, however, continue to be emitted as fire-killed trees 

decompose. Emissions will also continue from wildfires, and to the degree that fire-killed trees 

from the Horse Creek fire are consumed by fire, carbon dioxide and minor amounts of other 

greenhouse gasses would be released. Estimating amounts would be speculative.

Cumulative Effects

There are no direct or indirect effects on air quality as a result of federal actions for this 

alternative; therefore there are no cumulative effects. As noted, emissions from decomposition 

and wildfires will continue.

Alternative 2

Direct and Indirect Effects

The prescribed fire proposed in the project area will occur over a few days of any given year. 

Burning will likely occur in the spring or fall, outside of the wildfire season. Since the wildfire 

season is the time of the year when haze is at its worst, the project would not impact visibility on 

the worst haze days. The likelihood that prescribed burning on a few days any given year will 

affect the average visibility on the best days over an entire year is small. If prescribed burning 

does occur within wildfire season, effects would be mitigated by the regulations of the Siskiyou 

Air Quality Control District.

This alternative proposes prescribed fire on about 9,200 acres of activity fuels over the life of the 

project of which about 1,840 acres are assumed to be treated in any given year. Therefore, the 

greenhouse gas emissions from prescribed burning will be about 138,800 metric tons of carbon 

dioxide equivalent over the life of the project and about 27,600 metric tons metric tons of carbon 

dioxide equivalent annually (Table 16).

Estimated emissions for carbon dioxide and nitrous oxides from logging equipment are shown in 

Table 17 (Data Source: Table 3.3.1-1, A Desk Reference for NEPA Air Quality Analysis (USDA 

1995b)). One metric ton of nitrous oxides is the equivalent of 298 metric tons of carbon dioxide. 

Note that these outputs do not reflect current filtration and engine performance standards and 

likely overstate impacts for newer equipment. Salvage logging operations will likely be 

completed in one season of operations.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

80

Table 17: Estimated Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions for Logging Equipment.

Carbon Dioxide (CO2)

Equipment 

Horse 

Power

Grams 

CO2 / hp.-

hr. Grams/hr. Hrs./day Days

Number of vehicles or 

pieces of equipment

Total output 

metric tons/year

Log Trucks 500 525 262,500 10 80 10 2,100

Loader 600 525 315,000 10 80 2 504

Yarders 600 525 315,000 10 80 2 504

Skidders 200 525 105,000 10 80 4 336

Water Truck 325 525 170,625 10 80 2 273

total 3,717

Nitrous Oxide (NOx)

Equipment

Horse 

Power 

Grams 

NOx / 

hp.-hr. Grams/hr. Hrs./day Days

Number of vehicles or 

pieces of Equipment

Total output 

metric tons/year

Log Truck 500 14 7,000 10 80 10 56

Loader 600 14 8,400 10 80 2 13

Yarders 600 14 8,400 10 80 2 13

Skidders 200 14 2800 10 80 2 4

Water Truck 325 14 4550 10 80 1 4

Total NOx outputs, Metric Tons 91

Total CO2 equivalent at 1 metric ton NOx = 298 metric tons CO2 27,118

Total CO2 equivalent annual output in metric tons from logging equipment About 30,800

Total greenhouse gas emissions (CO2, NOx and CH4) are about 168,800 metric tons carbon 

dioxide equivalents over the life of the project. This is the sum of outputs from logging (about 

30,800 metric tons for one year) plus prescribed burning (about 138,000 metric tons total over 5 

years). Emissions are presumed to be highest in the first year of operations at about 58,400 

metric tons when logging operations (about 30,800 metric tons) and prescribed burning (about 

27,600 metric tons) may occur during the same season. After the first year, greenhouse gas 

emissions would come primarily from prescribed burning at about 27,600 metric tons per year 

until the end of the project (Table 16). Emissions from log trucks would be dispersed over the 

entire haul route between the project area and receiving sawmills.

It is not currently feasible to quantify the indirect effects of individual or multiple projects on 

global climate change and, therefore, determining significant effects of those projects or project 

alternatives on global climate change cannot be made at any scale (USDA 2009b). Because 

greenhouse gases mix readily into the global pool, it is not currently possible to ascertain the 

indirect effects of emissions from single or multiple sources (projects). Also, because the large 

majority of Forest Service projects are extremely small in the global atmospheric carbon dioxide 

context, it is not presently meaningful to conduct quantitative analysis of actual climate change 

effects based on individual or multiple projects (USDA 2009b).

Cumulative Effects

Adding the effects on air quality of Alternative 2 to effects of ongoing or reasonably foreseeable 

future actions in the project area is expected to cause minimal cumulative effects. With the 

oversight of the Siskiyou County Air Pollution Control District, potential negative effects are 

further minimized. Criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions will degrade air quality 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

81

cumulatively with activities occurring in the surrounding area. However, these emissions are 

expected to be minimal and able to disperse readily. Compliance with burn day, marginal burn 

day, and no burn day designation, and coordination with, and permitting from, the Siskiyou 

County Air Pollution Control District will minimize cumulative effects of prescribed fire.

As greenhouse gas emissions are integrated across the global atmosphere, it is not possible to 

determine the cumulative impact on global climate from emissions associated with any number 

of particular projects. Nor is it expected that such disclosure will provide a practical or 

meaningful effects analysis for project decision (USDA 2009b).

Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect Effects

The effects of Alternative 3 are the same as for Alternative 2 except there are 8,750 acres of 

burning proposed over the life of the project instead of 9,200 as proposed in Alternative 2. An 

estimated 1,750 acres would be burned annually. Greenhouse gas emissions from burning will be 

reduced to about 131,250 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent over the estimated five year 

life of the project, with an annual projected output of about 26,250 metric tons of carbon dioxide 

equivalent. This is about five percent lower than Alternative 2 for greenhouse gas emissions 

from burning.

Emissions from logging equipment are reduced by about 23 percent to about 23,600 metric tons 

carbon dioxide equivalents to reflect the reduction in salvage acres in Alternative 3 from 2,042 

acres to 1,565 acres.

Total greenhouse gas emissions in carbon dioxide equivalents for Alternative 3 are estimated at 

about 154,580 metric tons by adding outputs of logging equipment (about 23,600 metric tons) 

and prescribed fire (about 131,250 metric tons). This represents an eight percent reduction in 

total outputs from Alternative 2 for all sources. Emissions are presumed to be highest in the first 

year of operations at about 49,850 metric tons when logging operations (about 23,600 metric 

tons) and prescribed burning (about 26,250 metric tons) may occur in the first year (Table 16).

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects are the same as in Alternative 2.

Alternative 4

Direct and Indirect Effects

The effects of Alternative 4 are the same as for Alternative 2 except there are 7,950 acres of 

burning proposed over the life of the project instead of 9,200 as proposed in Alternative 2. An 

estimated 1,590 acres would be burned annually. Greenhouse gas emissions from burning will be 

reduced to about 119,250 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent over the estimated five year 

life of the project, with an annual projected output of about 23,850 metric tons of carbon dioxide 

equivalent. This is about 14 percent lower than Alternative 2 for outputs from prescribed fire.

Emissions from logging equipment are reduced by about 18 percent to about 25,400 metric tons 

to reflect the reduction in salvage acres in Alternative 4 from 2,042 acres to 1,679 acres.

Total greenhouse gas emissions for Alternative 3 are estimated at about 144,650 metric tons 

carbon dioxide equivalent by adding outputs of logging equipment (about 25,400 metric tons) 

and prescribed fire (about 119,500 metric tons). This represents a 14 percent reduction in total 

outputs from all sources from Alternative 2. Emissions are presumed to be highest in the first 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

82

year of operations at about 49,250 metric tons when logging operations (about 25,400 metric 

tons) and prescribed burning (about 23,850 metric tons) may occur in the first year.

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects are the same as in Alternative 2.

Summary of Effects

Table 18: Comparison of greenhouse gas CO2 equivalents for all alternatives.

Indicator Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Total Greenhouse Gas

Emissions over five years 

in carbon dioxide 

equivalents

None 168,800 metric

tons

154,850 metric 

tons

(8 percent less 

than Alternative 2)

144,650 metric 

tons

(14 percent less 

than Alternative 2)

Estimated Highest Annual 

Greenhouse Gas

Emissions in carbon 

dioxide equivalents

None 58,400 metric 

tons

49,850 metric 

tons

49,250 metric 

tons

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

The project is not anticipated to result in an adverse impact to air quality because compliance 

with Siskiyou County Air Pollution Control District burn day designations and permits has 

resulted in continued attainment status designations for both federal and state standards. The 

project meets requirements for the General Conformity Rule and the Regional Haze Rule under 

the Clean Air Act.

Aquatic Conservation Strategy

The Forest Plan contains the components, objectives and standards and guidelines for 

consistency of projects with the Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS). The Record of Decision 

(ROD) for the Forest Plan (USDA, 1995d) is the guiding document for Forest projects; the 

Forest Plan ROD incorporates the Aquatic Conservation Strategy standards and guidelines from 

the ROD for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning 

Documents within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl (commonly known as the Northwest 

Forest Plan) (USDA USDI 1994).

The Aquatic Conservation Strategy has four components: 1) Key Watershed, 2) Watershed or 

Ecosystem Analysis (Forest Plan, page 4-25), 3) Watershed Restoration, and 4) Riparian 

Reserves. Within riparian reserves are standards that prohibit and regulate activities that retard or 

prevent attainment of Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives (Forest Plan, page 4-106). This 

analysis documents the consistency of the project with the Aquatic Conservation Strategy 

objectives at the site scale and the 5th field watershed scale. The consistency is analyzed at the 

short-term (during implementation up to the first 1 to 2 years) and the longer-term scales (greater 

than 2 years).

This discussion will summarize the comprehensive information provided in the project Aquatic 

Conservation Strategy Report available on the project website. The report provides detailed 

descriptions of the existing watershed condition including the important physical and biological 

components of the 5th field watersheds, a discussion of the natural range of variability for 

potentially affected processes, and a review of standard and guide consistency by objective.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

83

Key Watersheds

Since there are no key watersheds within the Horse Creek Project, they will not be further 

discussed.

Ecosystem Analysis (or Watershed Analysis) Recommendations

Ecosystem analyses provide recommendations, not management direction, to be considered in 

project-level planning. Two Ecosystem Analyses were conducted that cover most of the land 

base in these two 5th-field watersheds. The Horse Creek Ecosystem Analysis was completed in 

2002 and the Thompson/Seiad/Grider Ecosystem Analysis was completed in 1999. Most 

proposed actions would occur within the Horse Creek Ecosystem Analysis area.

Horse Creek Ecosystem Analysis

The descriptions and recommendations in the Horse Creek ecosystem analysis are based on 

watershed conditions at that time which did not significantly change until the 2014 Beaver Fire 

and the 2016 Gap Fire. Other than the 2014 and 2016 Fires, and the wet winter following the 

2016 Gap Fire which resulted in significant road damage, there have been minor disturbances 

from wildfires and other management activities. The Gap Fire burned a high percentage of the 

watershed at mostly low to moderate intensity although there were large patches that burned at 

high severity.

The Horse Creek Ecosystem Analysis describes a number of management opportunities 

including: decommissioning and stormproofing roads, strategically treating and removing high 

fuel loading; providing defensible space; promoting and/or maintaining vegetative growth; 

restoring native vegetation; promoting plantations late-successional characteristics; and 

maintaining connectivity of late successional forests across the landscape. Management activities 

implemented since the 2002 Ecosystem Analysis are fuels reduction, road stormproofing, and 

vegetation management/fuels reduction.

The Horse Creek project is largely consistent with recommendations in the Horse Creek 

Ecosystem Analysis. One notable exception is the lack of road decommissioning and 

stormproofing which is outside the scope of the project –short sections of new or existing road 

would be constructed or reopened. Site preparation and planting trees in burned areas would help 

promote future late successional habitat and large wood in the long term and reduce future fire 

risk. The project proposes extensive fuels treatments including fuels reduction adjacent to private 

property, roadside fuels treatment, and strategic fuels management zones.

Seiad/Thompson/Grider Ecosystem Analysis

The descriptions and recommendations in the Seiad/Thompson/Grider Ecosystem Analysis are 

based on watershed conditions at that time. Notable disturbances in the analysis area were the 

winter storm in 2005 with an estimated peak flow return period of 10-20 years; the 2012 Goff 

Fire which burned large areas of the watershed at mostly low to moderate severity; the 2014 

Happy Camp Complex Fire which burned different large areas of watershed at low, moderate, 

and high severity; a summer flash flood following the 2014 Happy Camp Complex Fire that 

initiated major debris flows from high severity burned areas in Grider and Walker Creeks; and 

the 2016 Gap Fire which burned in face drainages to the Klamath River at mostly (90%) low to 

moderate severity followed by a winter with above average precipitation.

The Thompson/Seiad/Grider Ecosystem Analysis described a number of management 

opportunities including: improving and/or decommissioning roads; restoring natural stream 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

84

processes; improving site conditions to promote the growth of large trees and increase large 

wood recruitment; treating or underburning areas affected by the 1987 fires; improving access 

for strategic prescribed fire and suppression efforts; developing fire defensible space and safe 

conditions; reducing fuel loading and stand densities; reducing risk to late successional habitat; 

planting trees to accelerate development of late-successional forests; maintaining connectivity of 

late successional forests across the landscape; and implementing opportunities to protect and 

develop future suitable late successional habitat. Management activities implemented since the 

Ecosystem Analysis was prepared in 1999 include fuels reduction, road stormproofing and 

upgrading, aquatic habitat improvements and vegetation management. Road decommissioning is 

planned starting late summer 2017.

The Horse Creek Project is largely consistent with the recommendations of the 

Thompson/Seiad/Grider Ecosystem Analysis. Site preparation and planting trees in burned areas 

would help promote future late successional habitat and large wood in the long term and reduce 

future fire risk. The project proposes extensive fuels treatments including fuels reduction 

adjacent to private property, roadside fuels treatment, and fuels management zone treatments that 

are strategic.

Watershed Restoration

Treatments within the Horse Creek Special Interest Area include restoration activities. 

Restoration actions would increase large wood by placing hazard trees in the stream channel and 

restore riparian vegetation by planting of native trees and shrubs to exclude noxious weeds that 

would likely invade the burned areas. These treatments would help improve stream function and 

aquatic habitats, and re-establish native vegetation.

Riparian Reserves

Riparian reserves are established to maintain hydrologic, geomorphic, and ecologic processes in 

watersheds. There are two categories of riparian reserve. Stream course (or hydrologic) riparian 

reserves are buffers on each side of stream courses that protect aquatic habitats for upslope 

disturbances. Steam course buffer widths are based on a site potential tree height for the project 

area which is 150 feet. Fish bearing streams have a stream course riparian reserve buffer on each 

side of the active channel (bankfull channel) equal in width to the combined length of two site 

potential tree heights (300 feet). Permanently flowing non-fish bearing streams have a riparian 

reserve buffer on each side of the active channel equal in width to the length of one site potential 

tree height (150 feet). Seasonally flowing or intermittent streams have riparian reserve widths 

equal to the length of one site potential tree height (150 feet) on each side of the active channel 

or 100 feet slope distance, whichever is greater. Stream course riparian reserves extend beyond 

site potential tree height(s) where there is unstable ground or inner gorge adjacent to the stream 

channel. In these instances, the stream buffer extends to the extent of the unstable or potentially 

unstable ground and/or to the top of the inner gorge. Geologic riparian reserves are established to 

protect sensitive ground from excessive disturbance. Geologic riparian reserve includes active 

landslides, toe zones of dormant landslides, inner gorges, and highly dissected granitic terrain. 

Riparian reserves are managed under special standards and guidelines that prohibit and regulate 

forest management activities that would retard or prevent attainment of aquatic conservation 

strategy objectives and are a key element designed to maintain and restore riparian structure and 

function and provide biological connectivity corridors among late successional reserves.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

85

Proposed Treatments

Actions proposed by each alternative are described in detail in Chapter 2. 

Treatments in Riparian Reserves

Some of the proposed actions would occur within riparian reserves as follows: roadside hazard 

tree removal would take place within about 630 acres of riparian reserve; roadside fuels 

treatment would occur within 287 acres of riparian reserve; the development and maintenance of 

strategic fuels management zones would occur within eight acres of riparian reserve; fuel 

reduction treatments around private property would occur within 371 acres of riparian reserve; 

site preparation and planting would occur within 126 acres of riparian reserve; and 

approximately 0.15 mile of existing road within riparian reserves would be re-opened. Other than 

the 0.15 mile of existing road that would be reopened, no mechanized equipment would be used 

in stream course riparian reserves or on unstable ground except for on existing roads and 

landings, and no natural, live vegetation would be removed from stream banks that would reduce 

stream shade or bank stability. There would be no salvage, no landing construction or reconstruction, and no new road construction within riparian reserves.

Most of the ground in the Horse Creek Special Interest Area (SIA) is riparian reserve. Treatment 

within stream course riparian reserves in the Horse Creek Special Interest Area includes hazard 

tree removal, placing trees with or without root wads attached into the stream channel, and 

planting native hardwood and shrub species within the riparian reserves. These treatments would 

help reduce hazard trees, reduce excessive fuels accumulations, and improve riparian and stream 

function.

Compliance with Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objectives

Analysis results of compliance with the nine Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives is 

summarized below. Analysis of compliance with the nine Aquatic Conservation Strategy 

objectives is focused on Alternative 2 because this alternative would cause the most ground 

disturbance of all the action alternatives.

Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objective 1 - Summary

Maintain and restore the distribution, diversity, and complexity of watershed and 

landscape-scale features to ensure protection of the aquatic systems to which species, 

populations and communities are uniquely adapted.

Two measures were used to analyze the effects of proposed actions on the distribution, diversity 

and complexity of watershed features: change in quantity of large woody debris in stream course 

riparian reserves; and change in pool frequency and depth.

The analyses found that: (1) proposed actions would maintain or restore coarse and large woody 

debris in riparian reserves at most sites where actions would be implemented, (2) proposed 

actions would maintain or restore coarse and large woody debris in riparian reserves at the 5thfield watershed scale, and (3) proposed actions would result in minor increases in sedimentation 

to streams that would not significantly increase pool in-filling with sediment at the site or larger 

scales. Proposed actions would not prevent attainment of objective 1.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

86

Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objective 2 - Summary

Maintain and restore spatial and temporal connectivity between watersheds. Lateral, 

longitudinal, and drainage network connections include floodplains, wetlands, upslope 

areas, headwater tributaries, and intact refugia. These network connections must provide 

chemically and physically unobstructed routes to areas critical for fulfilling life history 

requirements of aquatic and riparian-dependent species.

The analysis of watershed connectivity focuses on: (1) passage: physical blocking of stream 

channels by woody debris, stream crossings, and channel sediment aggradation that could 

prevent or hinder aquatic organisms from accessing habitat areas necessary to survive and thrive 

and (2) channel-floodplain connectivity: potential for streams to interact with their floodplains.

The analysis found that: (1) proposed actions would maintain passage for fish and other aquatic 

organisms at the site and larger scales, and (2) proposed actions would maintain channelfloodplain connectivity at the site and larger scales. Proposed actions would not prevent 

attainment of objective 2.

Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objective 3 - Summary

Maintain and restore the physical integrity of the aquatic system, including shorelines, 

banks, and bottom configurations.

The physical integrity of the aquatic system was considered by analyzing increased peak flows 

and landslide likelihood. Changes in peak flows and landslide likelihood was analyzed using the 

Equivalent Roaded Area (ERA) and mass wasting (GEO) models. The analyses found that the 

project would not change peak flows enough to cause a measureable increase. Landslide 

likelihood would not increase measurably due to the project. Proposed actions would not prevent 

attainment of objective 3.

Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objective 4 - Summary

Maintain and restore water quality necessary to support healthy riparian, aquatic, and 

wetland ecosystems. Water quality must remain within the range that retains the 

biological, physical, and chemical integrity of the system and benefits survival, growth, 

reproduction, and migration of individuals composing aquatic and riparian communities.

Two measures were used to analyze the effects of proposed actions on water quality: water 

temperature as determined by changes in shading, microclimate, and risk of landsliding; and 

turbidity as evaluated by proximity and probability and as evaluated using the USLE and GEO 

cumulative watershed effects models.

The analyses found that: (1) proposed actions would negligibly increase water temperature at the 

site scale and would have neutral effect at larger scales in the short term but in the long term 

reforestation would decrease water temperature sooner than if no reforestation were to occur, (2) 

salvage, road, and landing actions would negligibly increase sediment delivery and turbidity at 

the site and 5th-field watershed scales in the short and long-term; (3) hazard tree and water 

drafting actions would cause minor short term increases in turbidity at the site scale; and (4) site 

preparation and fuels treatment would negligibly decrease surface erosion and turbidity at the 

site and larger scales in the short term and long term because soil cover would be increased over 

current condition (Soils Report). Proposed actions would not prevent that attainment of objective 

4.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

87

Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objective 5 - Summary

Maintain and restore the sediment regime under which aquatic ecosystems evolved. 

Elements of the regime include the timing, volume, rate, and character of sediment input, 

storage, and transport.

The sediment regime was analyzed by predicting sediment delivery to streams. The Universal 

Soil Loss Equation (USLE) and mass wasting (GEO) models were used to model sediment 

delivery at the 7th field watershed scale. While some impacts from the project are expected in 

regard to sediment delivery, the modeling showed that the increases would not be measureable. 

The project would not prevent that attainment of objective 5.

Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objective 6 – Summary

Maintain and restore in-stream flows sufficient to create and sustain riparian, aquatic, and 

wetland habitats, and to retain patterns of sediment, nutrient, and wood routing. The 

timing, magnitude, duration, and spatial distribution of peak, high, and low flows must be 

protected.

In-stream flows and their various attributes were analyzed by looking at changes to peak flows. 

Peak flows were measured by using the Equivalent Roaded Area (ERA) model. The modeling of 

the project showed very little increase in ERA. While compaction would occur during the 

project, it would not occur at the scale to cause measureable changes in peak flows. The project 

would not prevent attainment of objective 6.

Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objective 7 - Summary

Maintain and restore the timing, variability, and duration of floodplain inundation and 

water table elevation in meadows.

The water table elevation and floodplain inundation of meadows would not be influenced by the 

Horse Creek Project. The Horse Creek Project would not have salvage in riparian reserves, 

which includes meadows. Disturbance of meadows is prevented by guidelines and road locations 

for the Horse Creek Project. Proposed actions would not prevent attainment of objective 7.

Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objective 8 - Summary

Maintain and restore the species composition and structural diversity of plant communities 

in riparian areas.

Species composition and structural diversity of plant communities in riparian areas would be 

maintained and restored by limiting ground disturbing activities and/or canopy loss, removing 

invasive plant species, retaining live trees as well as standing or down woody debris, active 

planting of native plants and trees, and the natural regrowth and recolonization of native plants 

and trees. Proposed actions would not prevent attainment of objective 8.

Aquatic Conservation Strategy Objective 9 - Summary

Maintain and restore habitat to support well-distributed populations of native plant and 

invertebrate riparian dependent species.

Riparian dependent native plant and invertebrate species’ habitat as well as their distribution 

across the landscape would be maintained or restored by limiting ground disturbing activities 

and/or canopy loss, removing invasive plant species, retaining live trees as well as standing or 

down woody debris, active planting of native plants and trees, and the natural regrowth and 

recolonization of native plants and trees. Rare and sensitive species would be excluded or 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

88

buffered from project activity impacts. Proposed actions would not prevent attainment of 

objective 9.

Summary and Conclusion

Standards and guidelines of the Forest Plan regulate and prohibit activities that prevent 

attainment of aquatic conservation strategy objectives. Specific project design features were 

drafted to ensure the project integrates Best Management Practices for the protection of water 

quality and maintains and restores the natural processes described in the Aquatic Conservation 

Strategy Objectives. The aquatic conservation strategy analysis found that proposed actions 

would maintain or restore, or at least not prevent the attainment of the nine aquatic conservation 

strategy objectives. The decrease in risk of future high-severity fire due to fuel reduction 

treatments would help to maintain and restore watershed processes identified in the aquatic 

conservation strategy objectives in the long term. Therefore, the project is consistent with the 

Aquatic Conservation Strategy and Forest Plan.

Botanical Resources and Non-Native Invasive Plants

Methodology

An office pre-field review was conducted to determine if the project is within the range of any 

federally listed threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate species, Forest listed sensitive 

species, or survey and manage botanical species, and if suitable habitat for any species of 

concern is present within the proposed project area. The review also indicated whether any 

known populations of botanical species of concern or non-native invasive plant species are 

present within the proposed project area. All species listed for the Forest were considered in this 

review (USDA 2013).

Habitat for the federally endangered species Fritillaria gentneri may be present in the project 

area. All areas identified as possibly suitable habitat during pre-field review and habitat 

modelling will be field-verified. If areas are found to be suitable habitat for F. gentneri, they will 

be surveyed prior to project implementation, during the appropriate time for species 

identification, early to mid-Spring. If populations of F. gentneri are located, they will be 

protected from all project activities, and formal consultation with USFWS will be initiated.

Due to the project time frame, need to conduct surveys during appropriate times for 

identification (typically when blooming), and the obligation to assess the condition of known 

populations, it may be unfeasible to conduct unit surveys for un-known sensitive botanical 

populations. Presence of sensitive species will be assumed in areas where identified suitable 

habitat is present and pre-disturbance surveys have not been completed.

Surveys to evaluate the status of known populations within project activity areas will be 

conducted in the spring and summer of 2017 during appropriate times for identification. If 

populations are located within treatment areas and the habitat, in its current state, is likely to be 

negatively impacted by the proposed action, sensitive species populations and surrounding 

habitat will be flagged for avoidance to prevent a declining trend in viability.

Pre-disturbance surveys will be conducted for survey and manage Category A and C species in 

project activity units where known sites and suitable habitat are still present. Known occurrences 

within the Project area of Category A, B, C, D and E species will be flagged for avoidance for 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

89

continued persistence at the site. Project design features incorporated into the project for the 

protection of botanical species can be found in Chapter 2.

A preliminary habitat review based on aerial imagery, existing vegetation (EVeg) (USDA 2014)

spatial data, rapid assessment of vegetation condition (RAVG) data, and limited field surveys 

was conducted to determine if portions of the project area meet the required features to trigger 

survey and manage equivalent effort surveys. Based on this review, it was determined that 

Equivalent Effort surveys are not necessary within the project area because habitat disturbing 

activities will not occur in stands defined as old growth.

An invasive species risk assessment was completed to determine the risk of introducing or 

spreading non-native invasive species associated with the project. For projects having a moderate 

to high risk of introducing or spreading noxious weeds, the project decision document must 

identify noxious weed control measures that must be undertaken during project implementation 

(FSM 2903.04).

Analysis Indicators

• Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Candidate Species: Likelihood of jeopardizing the 

continued existence of threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate species populations.

• Sensitive Species: Trend of sensitive species population viability measured as increasing, 

declining, or static.

• Survey and Manage Species: Compliance with survey and manage guidelines as defined by 

the 2001 Record of Decision.

• Non-native Invasive Species: Risk of introducing or spreading non-native invasive species 

measured by a rating of very high, high, moderate, low, or very low risk.

Assumptions specific to Botanical Species of Concern

• Analysis is based on spatial population records only, field visits to known sites were not 

conducted prior to analysis.

• Un-surveyed habitats that are highly suitable for particular sensitive species, which prefield analysis has determined as likely to occur in the project area, will be assumed to 

contain populations of those sensitive species, and be analyzed under this assumption

(USDA 1995a, Standard and Guide 6-8).

• Botanical species of concern located in areas burned at moderate-high intensity, as 

indicated by RAVG data are assumed to be extirpated.

• Habitat located in areas burned at moderate-high intensity, as indicated by RAVG data and 

salvage unit criteria, are no longer expected to support viable populations of botanical 

species of concern.

Assumptions specific to Non-native Invasive Species (NNIS)

• Analysis is based on spatial population records only, field visits to known sites were not 

conducted prior to analysis;

• Not all existing NNIS infestations are currently mapped;

• Existing NNIS infestations were spread during the 2016 Gap Fire and associated 

suppression efforts;
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

90

• It is likely that new NNIS infestations were introduced during the 2016 Gap Fire and 

associated suppression efforts and are presently undiscovered;

• Roadside NNIS infestations are expected to continue to spread along road systems 

regardless of project activities;

• Inclusions of privately owned lands within the project boundary may contain infestations of 

NNIS that will spread to National Forest System lands regardless of Forest actions or 

efforts at prevention and control; and

• Once established, NNIS infestations are likely to persist long term.

Assumptions about habitat condition (based on site visits and RAVG data):

• Areas characterized by high severity burns experienced 75 percent or greater vegetation 

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

debris;

• Areas characterized by moderate severity burns experienced 50 to 75 percent vegetation 

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

large woody debris; and

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

mortality and a reduction in fuel loading.

Spatial and Temporal Context

The analysis area for botanical species of concern is the project area because it is the most 

relevant to changes in population viability. The analysis area for non-native invasive species is 

the project area and all routes proposed to be used by crews and equipment to access the project 

area. The temporal bounding for botanical species of concern and non-native invasive species 

will be less than five years for the short-term and greater than five years for long-term effects. 

Temporal bounds were chosen to account for species recovery times, seed dormancy and 

germination requirements, and the difficulty of identifying biennial and perennial vegetative life 

stages.

Affected Environment

Species of Concern

There are no known populations of Federally-listed threatened, endangered, proposed, or 

candidate species within the project area; however, suitable habitat is present for the Endangered 

lily, Fritillaria gentneri. Suitable habitat or confirmed populations of thirteen sensitive species 

and eleven survey and manage species are present in the project area. Six species are protected 

under both Sensitive and survey and manage guidelines. A list of these species and the number 

of populations assumed alive within the project area is displayed below in Table 19. Species 

which are listed as both Sensitive and survey and manage will be addressed under both 

categories respectively in this assessment.

Table 19. List of sensitive and survey and manage (SM) botanical species known or assumed to be present in 

the project area.

SPECIES Lifeform* STATUS

POPULATION 

NUMBER(S)

Buxbaumia viridis BR Sensitive, SM Category E 0 (assumed present)
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

91

SPECIES Lifeform* STATUS

POPULATION 

NUMBER(S)

Campanula wilkinsiana VA Sensitive 0 (assumed present)

Cantharellus subalbidus FU SM Category D 1

Cudonia monticola FU Sensitive, SM Category B 0 (assumed present)

Cypripedium fasciculatum VA Sensitive, SM Category C 7

Cypripedium montanum VA Sensitive, SM Category C 1

Dendrocollybia racemosa FU Sensitive, SM Category B 0 (assumed present)

Eriogonum hirtellum VA Sensitive 2

Erythronium hendersonii VA Sensitive 1

Fissidens aphelotaxifolius BR Sensitive 0 (assumed present)

Horkelia hendersonii VA Sensitive 1

Mielichhoferia elongata BR Sensitive 0 (assumed present)

Peltigera gowardii LI Sensitive 0 (assumed present)

Phaeocollybia californica FU SM Category B 2

Phaeocollybia fallax FU SM Category D 1

Phaeocollybia olivacea FU Sensitive, SM Category E 0 (assumed present)

Phaeocollybia piceae FU SM Category B 1

Ptilidium californicum BR SM Category A (in CA only) 3

* Lifeform: VA = vascular, BR = bryophyte, LI = lichen, FU = fungi

Table 20: Requirements for survey and manage categories.

Category Relative 

Rarity

Pre-disturbance 

surveys

Manage all known sites Strategic surveys

A Rare Yes Yes Yes, not required for NEPA

B Rare No/Eq. Effort* Yes Yes, NEPA requirement

C Uncommon Yes High-priority only Yes, not required for NEPA

D Uncommon No High-priority only Yes, not required for NEPA

E Rare No Yes Yes, not required for NEPA

F Uncommon No No Yes, not required for NEPA

*If strategic surveys are not completed. Equivalent effect surveys are required.

Unique Botanical Areas of Concern: Horse Creek Botanical Area

The Horse Creek Botanical area is located on the main stem of Horse Creek between Crawfish 

Gulch and Hamburg Gulch. It was selected as a Special Interest Area (SIA) for its unique 

characteristic as an intact and highly diverse old-growth riparian ecosystem. Unlike most 

botanical areas, the Horse Creek Botanical Area is not known to contain any threatened, 

endangered, proposed, candidate, sensitive, or survey and manage botanical species.

The entirety of the Horse Creek Botanical area was affected by the 2016 Gap Fire. The lower 

half, below Fish Gulch, was particularly impacted by the fire, with a large portion experiencing 

moderate to high fire severity. The invasive plant species Rubus armeniacus – Himalayan 

blackberry – and Cirsium vulgare – bull thistle – have been identified in the SIA. The lower, 

more severely burned portion of the SIA borders on private land with very heavy infestations of 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

92

Himalayan blackberry. Removal of the canopy, soil duff layer, and the majority of native 

vegetation by high-severity fire has made the lower portion of the SIA highly vulnerable to 

invasive plant colonization and establishment.

Non-native Invasive Species

Ten non-native invasive species (NNIS) are present within the project area. Of these, five are 

considered to be high priority, three are considered to be moderate priority and two are 

considered to be low priority on the Forest. The current risk of introduction or spread of NNIS is 

high due to the numerous NNIS populations present in and adjacent to the project area, the high 

level of disturbance from the 2016 Gap Fire which created habitat conditions that are extremely 

vulnerable to NNIS invasion, and the probability that the substantial use of the project area for 

recreation, wood cutting, and hunting will vector NNIS propagules into these vulnerable areas. A 

list of NNIS species, their Forest priority, number of populations, and infested acres in the 

project area are displayed below in Table 21.

Table 21: Known populations of non-native invasive species within the project area.

Scientific Name Forest Priority Populations Total Acreage

Centaurea maculosa* High 3 0.3

Centaurea solstitialis* Moderate 5 53.7

Centaurea squarrosa High 1 0.2

Cirsium arvense* Moderate 1 0.1

Cirsium vulgare* Low 1 1.4

Cytisus scoparius High 10 14.7

Euphorbia esula High 13 3.9

Isatis tinctoria* Moderate 8 5.3

Lepidum latifolium High 4 1

Rubus armeniacus* Low Unknown unknown

*Due to incomplete surveys, numbers are likely significantly higher.

Environmental Consequences

Interactions between the project activities and the potential effects to botanical resources are 

discussed in detail in the resource report included in the project record, the project website and 

are summarized here.

Alternative 1

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects

Threatened, Endangered, Proposed and Candidate Plant Species

There would be no direct or indirect effects to threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate 

species. The Project area contains suitable habitat for Fritillaria gentneri; however, no 

populations are currently known. There is no designated critical habitat for this species in the 

Project area. Surveys for the presence of this species will be conducted during appropriate times 

for identification. If populations of Fritillaria gentneri are located, they will be documented and 

excluded from any future project activities. Due to the fire-adapted nature of this species’ habitat, 

a no-action alternative is not expected to have any indirect effects on populations that may occur 

in the Project area. Subsequently, there is no likelihood of jeopardizing the continued existence 

of threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate species.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

93

Sensitive Vascular Plants

There would be no direct effect to the six sensitive botanical species located or assumed present 

in the project area: Campanula wilkinsiana, Cypripedium fasciculatum, Cypripedium montanum,

Eriogonum hirtellum, Erythronium hendersonii, and Horkelia hendersonii.

Indirect effects to Cypripedium fasciculatum and C. montanum may result from shade or future 

fire severity due to accumulations of downed dead wood and litter as well as brush and tree 

regeneration.

Potential indirect negative effects to E. hirtellum populations under a no action alternative would 

be due to increased competition from early seral species that were stimulated to germinate by the 

fire or introduced during fire suppression activities. Due to their proximity to a permanent fuel 

break, there is potential that this alternative may increase the risk of damages to populations by 

foreseeable future fire suppression activities.

No populations of Erythronium hendersonii within the project area were affected directly by fire 

No indirect effects to these populations are expected as a result of this alternative.

Due to the sparse nature of its habitat, no indirect effects to Horkelia hendersonii are expected as 

a result of this alternative.

Sensitive Bryophytes, Lichens, and Fungi

Under this alternative there would be no direct effect to the bryophytes Buxbaumia viridis and

Fissidens aphelotaxifolius. Indirect effects may be both beneficial and harmful. The presence of 

standing and down large dead trees in and near the riparian zone would contribute to current and 

future habitat development. However, there would also be potential for accumulation of dense 

fuels, creating a possibility of future high severity fire.

No direct or indirect effect would be expected to the bryophyte Mielichhoferia elongata, which is

associated with rock outcroppings, under this alternative.

Under this alternative there would be no direct effect to the lichen Peltigera gowardii. Some 

potential exists under this alternative for indirect effects to its habitat from sedimentation 

associated with roads or other land management features that would otherwise be dealt with 

under the action alternatives.

No direct effects would be expected to the fungi species Cudonia monticola, Dendrocollybia 

racemosa, or Phaeocollybia olivacea. Suitable habitat and known populations may be indirectly 

affected under this alternative. Downed woody debris would provide habitat for saprophytic 

fungi, while the retention of damaged live trees would provide continued habitat for 

ectomycorrhizal fungi. Reforestation would occur over a longer time period in severely burned 

areas, compared to the action alternatives, thereby indirectly postponing mycorrhizal fungal 

recolonization in these areas.

Survey and Manage Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, Lichens and Fungi

There would be no direct effects to survey and manage vascular plant, bryophyte, lichen, and 

fungi species or habitat; therefore, the project would be in compliance with survey and manage 

regulations. Indirect effects would be similar or identical to those identified for their sensitive

species counterparts above.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

94

Horse Creek Botanical Area (SIA)

Under this alternative, native vegetation in moderate to high severity burn would re-colonize the 

area over a period of several-to-many years, giving non-native invasive plant species (NNIS) an 

opportunity to invade and establish in the area. It is likely that Himalayan blackberry would 

become established along the riparian area between the east boundary of the SIA and the bridge 

at Fish Gulch. Bull thistle and other ruderal invasive plants would spread and establish along the 

road edge and in previously disturbed areas. Once established, Himalayan blackberry and other 

NNIS would prevent the recovery or re-establishment of the desired native vegetation for which 

the Special Interest Area was established. Current and ongoing invasive plant treatments by the 

Forest may slow the spread of NNIS into the SIA but would be unlikely to prevent it.

Non-native Invasive Species

There would be no direct effect to non-native invasive species under Alternative 1.

Indirect effects may occur due to the continued spread of existing NNIS populations at their 

current or higher rates due to the disturbance from the 2016 fire and suppression efforts, the 

subsequent habitat vulnerability, and the numerous non-project dependent vectors that are 

present in or use the project area.

The risk of introduction or spread of NNIS under this alternative is high due to the numerous 

NNIS populations present in and adjacent to the project area, the high level of disturbance from 

the 2016 Gap Fire which created habitat conditions that are extremely vulnerable to NNIS 

invasion, and the probability that the substantial use of the project area for recreation, grazing, 

logging, firewood cutting, and hunting will vector NNIS propagules into these vulnerable areas.

Cumulative Effects

There are no cumulative effects for threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate species, 

because there will be no direct or indirect effects.

All activities and factors listed in Appendix B could have additional effects to sensitive, survey 

and manage, and non-native invasive species (NNIS) populations in the project area when added 

to Alternative 1. Ongoing and future reasonable foreseeable Forest projects have been and will 

be evaluated for effects to sensitive, survey and manage and NNIS. Project design features have 

been incorporated into these projects to limit their effects on sensitive, survey and manage and 

NNIS populations. It is expected that, because of these evaluations and the inclusion of project 

design features, cumulative effects from Forest projects will have a neutral effect on population 

viability trends for sensitive species and on Forest compliance with survey and manage

regulations. However, project design features cannot eliminate risk of spreading NNIS and it is 

expected that new infestations would still become established in spite of these mitigation 

measures. Consequently, the cumulative risk of NNIS introduction and spread from Forest 

projects would increase, resulting in a continued risk rating of high.

Projects on private lands are not required to protect sensitive or survey and manage botanical 

species; subsequently, actions on private lands may lead to a localized downward trend in 

population viability for these species. If that is the case, ongoing and future foreseeable projects 

on private lands would have a declining cumulative effect on population viability trends for 

sensitive species. However, without knowing how many species or populations are present, how 

many may be affected, and how project activities will affect habitat conditions, it is difficult to 

determine how potential effects from private actions would cumulatively influence population 

viability trends.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

95

The Horse Creek SIA is within the Forest’s Horse Creek grazing allotment and there may be 

some cumulative direct or indirect disturbance related to livestock grazing. There is a large 

section of private timber land north and east of the SIA; however, it is not directly connected via 

a road system so no direct effects would be expected as influence from this property. Members 

of the public would continue to visit or travel through the SIA, potentially serving as vectors for 

NNIS and providing a continued source of ground disturbance.

The Horse Creek and Dry Lake grazing allotments may contribute to the long-distance dispersal 

of NNIS infestations in the project area. Livestock mainly transport NNIS propagules on their fur 

or through ingestion. Many NNIS have barbed or prickly seeds that readily adhere to animal fur 

and may potentially be transported long-distance or fall off in areas that are currently weed-free. 

Since many NNIS seeds can pass through the stomach unaffected, ingested seeds may also 

introduce NNIS to new areas once they are expelled. The added cumulative effects of grazing to 

Alternative 1 would likely increase the risk of NNIS introduction and spread. Projects on private 

lands are not required to mitigate for the spread or introduction of NNIS species which could 

also increase negative cumulative effects to NNIS populations and subsequently raise the risk 

rating.

The burned area emergency response (BAER) team analyzed the project area and prescribed 

emergency treatments to help limit the introduction and spread of NNIS from the 2016 Gap Fire

and suppression activities (USDA 2016b). Emergency treatments will take place in the first year 

following the fires (2017) and will include additional surveys for NNIS within the fire footprints 

and contingency areas and the concurrent hand removal of newly located infestations. These 

treatments will help control the introduction and spread of annual NNIS species, such as yellow 

starthistle - Centaurea solstitialis. Unfortunately, biennial and perennial species that have a 

rosette life-stage are difficult to locate in the first year because of their short stature, and may not 

be found during these surveys. The Forest Noxious Weed Detection and Treatment program 

would also continue to survey for and treat new populations that may be introduced or spread 

onto Forest lands through ongoing and future foreseeable Forest and Private land projects; 

however, the cumulative risk for the introduction and spread of NNIS would remain high due to 

the highly vulnerable condition of the project area.

Alternatives 2 and 4

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects 

Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, and Candidate Plant Species

Effects to threatened, endangered, proposed, and candidate plant species are the same as 

Alternative 1.

Sensitive Vascular Plants

Wilkins’ harebell - Campanula wilkinsiana: The area in which this species is assumed to be 

present is limited to the upper elevations of the project area, in or near the headwater portions of 

the riparian reserves identified for this project. Some overlap occurs with the proposed activities 

of temporary road construction or use and hazard tree removal.

• Temporary road construction and use – highly suitable habitat for C. wilkinsiana occurs 

within the zone of effect for the temporary route proposed along the existing roadbed of 

47N31Y.1 in Township 47 North, Range 10 West, Section 24. As the road bed is preexisting, impacts to C. wilkinsiana habitat are expected to be minimal. Nevertheless, 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

96

because presence is assumed, this activity may cause the loss of individuals, but is unlikely 

to result in the loss of a population.

• Hazard tree removal – Hazard tree removal activities along the 47N31Y.1, 51D006, 

47N22YB, 47N99, and 47N81.1 roads would occur in areas where C. wilkinsiana is 

assumed to be present. This activity may impact individuals, but is unlikely to cause the 

loss of a population.

Clustered and mountain lady’s slipper - Cypripedium fasciculatum and C. montanum: Four 

populations of C. fasciculatum are located within proposed activity units for roadside fuel 

reductions, fuel management zone, and roadside hazard tree removal. One populations of C. 

montanum is located within an activity unit for roadside hazard tree removal.

• Roadside Hazard Tree Removal: Roadside hazard tree removal along the 47N77, 47N37, 

and 46N60 roads has a slight potential to affect individuals or populations of C. 

fasciculatum or C. montanum. It may result in a loss of individuals, but would be unlikely 

to result in the loss of a population either directly or indirectly, due to protections in place 

in the project design features.

• Fuels Management Zones and Roadside Fuel Reductions: No direct effects to known C. 

fasciculatum or C. montanum populations are expected as a result of these proposed 

activities under Alternative 2 and 4. Indirect effects would be tied largely to the health of 

associated vegetation or changes to the microclimate such as light, temperature, and 

humidity regimes. Overall indirect effects, due to implementation of project design 

features, are expected to be neutral or beneficial.

Direct and indirect effects may occur to these species where they are assumed but not known to 

be present. Manual and mechanical treatment would potentially cause the loss of individuals. 

Prescribed underburns typically burn at intensities that are low enough to avoid damaging below 

ground bulbs. C. fasciculatum and C. montanum populations on the Forest have been 

documented to be able to resprout the year after a low-intensity underburn when the population’s 

habitat is maintained. Fuels treatments that would affect these populations are designed to 

maintain adequate overstory and ground cover, while reducing excessive fuels. There is expected 

to be a long-term, indirect benefit to C. fasciculatum and C. montanum populations and suitable 

habitat by reducing excessive fuel loading and the potential for a future high severity wildfire.

Klamath mountain buckwheat – Eriogonum hirtellum: The two known populations of this 

species in the project area are located within a quarter mile of each other on the south aspect of 

O’Neil Ridge. Both populations occur in close proximity to the 46N60 road, and are within 

Alternative 2 and 4 activity units for both hazard tree removal and roadside fuels treatments.

• Roadside hazard tree removal along the 46N60 road is unlikely to directly affect 

individuals or populations of E. hirtellum, due to protection measures incorporated into 

the project design. Indirect effects may occur from the introduction of non-native 

invasive plant species or stimulation of early seral competitive vegetation growth. 

Possible beneficial indirect effects may occur from shade removal and removal of 

competing vegetation around E. hirtellum sites. Effects to E. hirtellum populations as a 

result of hazard tree felling along road 46N60 would possibly result in a loss of 

individuals but are unlikely to result in the loss of a population either directly or 

indirectly.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

97

• Roadside fuels treatments would be expected to have no direct effect on populations of E. 

hirtellum, due to protections incorporated into the Project design. Indirect beneficial 

effects may result from the removal of brush and competing vegetation around 

populations of E. hirtellum.

Henderson’s fawn lily – Erythronium hendersonii: None of the populations occurring in the 

project area were affected directly by fire, and they do not occur within any of the proposed 

activity units. No direct or indirect effects to these populations are expected as a result of any 

proposed alternative in this project.

Henderson’s horkelia – Horkelia hendersonii: One population of this species is known to 

occur in the project area, near Dry Lake. The population is within a proposed roadside hazard

tree removal zone under Alternatives 2 and 4; however, the habitat that it occupies in is not 

forested. The site will be flagged for avoidance, per the project design features of this project. 

The largest threat to this population is off-road vehicle activity as the site is adjacent to the 

40S01 road. This road would be a primary access route to salvage units proposed under these 

alternatives. Crews and equipment operators would be instructed to stay on the road in this area. 

Pre-existing mitigations are in place in the form of boulders which would block a vehicle from 

accessing the site directly from the road. Signs are scheduled to be installed at the site as well, as 

part of the Gap Fire suppression repair plan. No direct or indirect effects are expected to this 

population of H. hendersonii under Alternative 2 or 4.

Sensitive Bryophytes, Lichens, and Fungi

Fissidens aphelotaxifolius and Buxbaumia viridis: These riparian-associated sensitive 

bryophytes may be affected by activities that occur within riparian reserves that cause direct 

disturbance to springs, seeps, stream banks or channels, or significantly alter shade or water-flow 

regimes.

• Hazard tree removal – Project design features regarding hazard tree removal in riparian 

reserves and sensitive plant sites would mitigate many potential negative effects to F. 

aphelotaxifolius. Hazard tree removal may affect individuals, but is unlikely to cause the 

loss of populations or create a declining trend in overall population viability.

• Temporary road construction - Within areas of assumed presence, temporary road 

construction may cause the loss of F. aphelotaxifolius individuals and possibly populations. 

New temporary road construction in unit 117.24 passes through an area of assumed 

presence where it departs from the 12 road. In the case where a road-bed already exists, this 

risk would be significantly decreased. The temporary route proposed along the existing 

roadbed of 47N31Y.1, in Township 47 North, Range 10 West, Section 24, may cause the 

loss of F. aphelotaxifolius individuals, but is unlikely to result in the loss of a population.

Mielichhoferia elongata: Due to its preferred habitat, moist, rocky outcrops, this bryophyte 

would not be expected to be affected by proposed activities. Insufficient data is available to 

model or map highly suitable habitat for this species in the project area, however, it is unlikely 

that project activities would have significant impacts to its preferred habitat. Any highly suitable 

un-surveyed habitat located during field visit would be flagged for avoidance if deemed 

necessary.

Peltigera gowardii: This lichen is associated with stream headwaters, and thus only likely to 

occur in the riparian reserves of higher elevation areas. Its area of assumed presence is nearly 

identical to that of C. wilkinsiana above, with the exception that its habitat is limited to within 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

98

the banks of a flowing stream. Actions that only affect the riparian reserve around a stream may 

have indirect effects but will not affect the species directly. Both hazard tree removal and 

temporary road construction/use have the potential to indirectly cause the loss of individuals by 

changing temperature/shade regimes or increasing levels of sedimentation, but are unlikely to 

cause the loss of a population or create a declining trend in population.

Phaeocollybia olivacea: No populations of the ectomycorrhizal fungi species P. olivacea are 

known to occur in the project area; however, highly suitable habitat for this species exists 

throughout a large portion of the Project area. Project design features – such as higher retention 

standards for large living trees - developed to protect soil and forest health would provide 

protection to populations from direct and indirect effects; however, without flag and avoid 

protection, activities outside of medium to high burn severity areas may cause a short term loss 

or decline in population viability through impacts to fruiting bodies. Suitable habitat for 

ectomycorrhizal fungi requires the presence of live host trees because these species are obligate 

symbionts. Indirect effects would occur as a result of the removal of living host trees which 

provide shade, nutrient and growth substrate for fungi. These indirect effects may result in a 

short term decline in population viability. Tree planting prescriptions in salvage and site prep and 

plant units would indirectly benefit ectomycorrhizal fungi habitat in the long term by increasing 

the speed at which conifers are re-established. This would cause an increasing trend in potential 

population viability through the creation and restoration of suitable habitat.

Saprophytic Fungi - Cudonia monticola and Dendrocollybia racemosa: No populations of 

these fungi species are known to occur in the project area; however, highly suitable habitat exists

throughout a large portion of the Project area. Project design features associated with aquatic 

conservation standards, soil stability and productivity, or retention of large woody debris and 

snags would protect or create areas of suitable habitat for saprophytic fungi. However, without 

flag and avoid protection, activities outside of medium to high burn severity areas may directly 

or indirectly cause a short term loss or decline in population viability through impacts to fruiting 

bodies. Saprophytic fungi live in and feed on downed wood, detritus, and duff accumulated on 

the forest floor. Although, these species are not dependent upon specific vascular plant hosts, 

they require adequate canopy cover to retain sufficient moisture levels. Fuel reduction treatments 

would decrease the likelihood of another high severity fire event. Therefore, treatments would 

cause a long-term increasing trend in population viability through the maintenance and 

protection of the remaining suitable habitat.

Horse Creek Botanical Area

Planting of native vegetation in moderate to high severity burned areas would accelerate natural 

recovery of the area and create resilience to NNIS invasion. Falling of hazard trees and the use of 

existing non-system roads as temporary access would create short-term disturbance to the ground 

and nearby native vegetation. Ultimately, the proposed action in the Horse Creek SIA would be 

expected to accelerate the recovery of native vegetation and in the long-term restore the 

conditions for which the SIA was established.

Survey and Manage Plant Species

Cypripedium fasciculatum and Cypripedium montanum: Four populations of C. fasciculatum

are located within proposed activity units for roadside fuel reductions, fuel management zone, 

and roadside hazard tree removal. One populations of C. montanum is located within an activity 

unit for roadside hazard tree removal.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

99

Effects to these species would be identical to those described in the vascular sensitive plants 

portion of Alternative 2 and 4 analysis above. Pre-disturbance surveys will be performed for 

these species prior to project implementation. All known populations will be flagged for 

avoidance and protected.

Ptilidium californicum: Three populations are located in the project area, one of which is 

located in an activity unit – roadside hazard tree reduction. Roadside fuels treatments may 

indirectly effect P. californicum populations by creating small canopy openings adjacent to 

populations. This would be a short-term effect as larger canopy elements would be maintained 

and shading to the habitat would not be significantly reduced. The reduction in excessive fuels 

may indirectly benefit populations by reducing the risk of a future high severity wildfire. Predisturbance surveys will be performed for this species prior to project implementation. All 

known populations will be flagged for avoidance and protected.

Ectomycorrhizal fungi - Phaeocollybia californica, P. fallax, P. piceae, and Cantharellus 

subalbidus: Phaeocollybia californica, P. fallax, and P. piceae are closely related species with 

very similar life cycle characteristics. Cantharellus subalbidus is not closely related to the other 

three species; however due to the similarity in habitat needs, effects to these species are 

described together in this section.

Phaeocollybia californica and P. piceae are Category B species and P. fallax and C. subalbidus

are Category D species, all of which require the protection of all known sites. All known 

populations for the other four species within the project area are located adjacent to the 47N69 

and 47N69B roads which are proposed for hazard tree removal under Alternative 2. Alternative 4 

excludes most of the 47N69B road from treatment, leaving only the single population of P. fallax

within the area of potential effect near the 47N69 road. Survey and manage management 

recommendations for this species direct us to maintain current habitat and microclimate 

conditions and prevent the removal of host trees. Project design features designed to protect soil 

and vegetation health would provide some protection to populations of these species. Known 

populations of P. californica, P. piceae, P. fallax, or C. subalbidus would be protected through 

implementation of flag and avoid protection measures.

Indirect effects would occur as a result of the removal of host trees which provide shade, nutrient 

and growth substrate for fungi. These indirect effects may result in a long term decline in 

population viability.

Non-native Invasive Species

The project area is highly susceptible to NNIS infestation regardless of project activities due to 

the numerous NNIS infestations already present, the vulnerability of the project area from the 

2016 Gap Fire and suppression activities, livestock grazing, private timber industry activities and 

the high recreational use of the area. In these alternatives, the five risk factors combined have a 

higher potential for NNIS introduction and spread within the project area when compared to the 

no action alternative, due to the higher level of ground disturbing activities and increased 

vectors. Alternative 4 would have a lower likelihood of introducing or spreading NNIS when 

compared to Alternative 2, due to a decrease in affected area; however, the overall risk rating for 

both alternatives would be the same.

Ground disturbance that would contribute to the movement of soils contaminated with NNIS 

propagules, such as the road and landing construction would directly contribute to the spread of 

these infestations. With extensive infestations occurring along roadways, dispersal distance may 

be increased through transport on project related vehicles and equipment. Trucks used for 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

100

watering roads could also spread NNIS propagules through waterways when filling their tanks, 

allowing new infestations to establish downstream.

Project design features and mitigation measures would minimize these effects, however, the risk 

would remain high due to the pre-existing condition. Continuation of the existing Forest weed 

monitoring and treatment would detect any new high-priority weed sites that may become 

established within the project area. Quickly identifying and treating these sites will limit new 

NNIS establishment.

Cumulative Effects

There are no cumulative effects for threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate species, 

because there will be no direct or indirect effects.

All activities and factors listed in Appendix B could have additional effects to sensitive, survey 

and manage, and non-native invasive species populations in the project area when added to 

Alternative 2 or 4. Ongoing and future foreseeable Forest projects have been and will be 

evaluated for effects to sensitive, survey and manage, and non-native invasive species. Project 

design features have been or will be incorporated into ongoing and future foreseeable Forest 

projects to limit their effects on sensitive, survey and manage, and non-native Invasive species 

populations.

Sensitive and survey and manage species viability and persistence may be both beneficially and 

negatively affected by cumulative Forest projects. Project design features have been or will be 

incorporated into all ongoing and future foreseeable Forest projects to limit negative effects on 

population viability trends. Consequently, the cumulative effect of Forest projects on sensitive 

species would be expected to cause a short-term declining trend in population viability as 

individuals are lost, but would create a long-term increasing trend in population viability from 

the beneficial impacts of management activities on suitable habitat (i.e. fuel treatments, tree 

planting, habitat creation, etc.).

Projects on private lands are not required to protect sensitive or survey and manage botanical 

species, and subsequently actions on private lands may lead to a localized downward trend in 

population viability for these species. If that is the case, ongoing and future foreseeable projects 

on private lands would have a declining cumulative effect on population viability trends for 

sensitive species. However, without knowing how many species or populations are present, how 

many may be effected, and how project activities will affect habitat conditions it is difficult to 

determine how potential effects from private actions would cumulatively influence population 

viability trends.

Within the Horse Creek SIA, neither the grazing allotment nor the nearby private timber land 

would be expected to have a direct or indirect cumulative effect with the proposed actions. 

Visitation, travel, and firewood cutting by members of the public would be expected to maintain 

a minor level of disturbance primarily along the main roadway and in dispersed campsites, and 

may be a source of NNIS propagules. This activity is not likely to interfere or delay the goals of 

the proposed action within the Horse Creek SIA.

The five risk factors combined have a high potential for NNIS introduction and spread within the 

project area for Alternatives 2 and 4, due to the high level of ground disturbing activities and 

increased vectors. Project design features and mitigation measures would attempt to minimize 

these effects; however the risk would remain high due to the pre-existing condition. Ongoing and 

future foreseeable projects would also implement mitigation measures aimed at reducing NNIS 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

101

introduction and spread. Unfortunately, project design features cannot eliminate risk and it is 

expected that new NNIS infestations may still become established in spite of these mitigation 

measures. Consequently, the cumulative risk of NNIS introduction and spread from Forest 

projects would increase, resulting in a continued risk rating of high for both alternatives.

The Horse Creek and Dry Lake grazing allotments may contribute to the long-distance dispersal 

of NNIS infestations in the project area. Livestock mainly transport NNIS propagules on their fur 

or through ingestion. Many NNIS have barbed or prickly seeds that readily adhere to animal fur 

and may potentially be transported long-distance or fall off in areas that are currently weed-free. 

Since many NNIS seeds can pass through the stomach unaffected, ingested seeds may also 

introduce NNIS to new areas once they are expelled. The added cumulative effects of grazing to 

Alternatives 2 and 4 would likely increase the risk of NNIS introduction and spread. Projects on 

private lands are not required to mitigate for the spread or introduction of NNIS species which 

could also increase negative cumulative effects to NNIS populations and subsequently raise the 

risk rating.

The BAER team analyzed the project area and prescribed emergency treatments to help limit the 

introduction and spread of NNIS from the 2016 Gap Fire and suppression activities (USDA 

2016b). Emergency treatments will take place in the first year following the fires (2017) and will 

include additional surveys for NNIS within the fire footprints and contingency areas as well as 

subsequent hand removal of newly located infestations. These treatments will help control the 

introduction and spread of annual NNIS species, such as Centaurea solstitialis. Unfortunately, 

biennial and perennial species that have a rosette life-stage are difficult to locate in the first year 

because of their short stature, and may not be found during these surveys. The Forest Noxious 

Weed Detection and Treatment program would also continue to survey for and treat new 

populations that may be introduced or spread onto Forest lands through ongoing and future 

foreseeable Forest and private land projects; however, the cumulative risk for the introduction 

and spread of NNIS would remain high due to the highly vulnerable condition of the habitat.

Alternative 3

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

Threatened, Endangered, Proposed and Candidate Plant Species

Effects to threatened, endangered, proposed, and candidate plant species are the same as 

Alternatives 1, 2, and 4.

Sensitive Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, Lichens, and Fungi

Effects to sensitive plant species would be identical to those identified in Alternative 2 and 4, 

with the exception of:

• The removal of salvage units near the Siskiyou Crest and associated temporary roads would 

decrease the risk to populations of sensitive species known or assumed to be present in that 

area.

• The removal of temporary roads from the proposed action would decrease the risk to 

sensitive species populations assumed to be present in the project area.

By comparison, this alternative would be more beneficial to sensitive plants and their habitats in 

the area near the Siskiyou Crest as it would allow natural succession in a mixed-severity burned 

environment without disturbance or interference from management activities. Patches of highseverity fire are typically not larger than 20 acres in this area, and if left alone will create new 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

102

habitat and promote biodiversity and landscape heterogeneity. The removal of units on White 

Cloud Mountain and in the lower Buckhorn Creek drainage would increase the timeframe for 

forest recovery in these more large-scale areas of high-severity burn, and increase the risk of 

future high-severity fire when compared to Alternatives 2 and 4.

Horse Creek Botanical Area

The proposed actions within the SIA are identical for all of the action alternatives, therefore the 

effects would also be the same as those described for Alternatives 2 and 4.

Survey and manage Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Fungi

Effects to survey and manage plant species would be identical to those identified in Alternative 

2, with the exception of:

• The removal of salvage units near the Siskiyou Crest and associated temporary roads would 

decrease the risk to populations Ptilidium californicum when compared to Alternatives 2 

and 4.

• The removal of temporary roads from the proposed action would decrease the risk to 

Ptilidium californicum, Cypripedium fasciculatum and C. montanum when compared to 

Alternatives 2 and 4.

Non-native Invasive Species

Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects from this alternative on the risk of spread and 

introduction of NNIS infestations would be the same as for Alternatives 2 and 4 with the 

following exceptions:

• Reduction in the scope and intensity of project activities will directly reduce the risk of 

introducing or establishing NNIS associated with those activities. The elimination of all 

temporary roads as well as all salvage units and associated landings near the Siskiyou crest 

greatly reduces the disturbance footprint of the project when compared to Alternatives 2

and 4.

• The majority of the known NNIS populations in the project area are located in the lower 

elevations. Elimination of the crest units and temporary roads greatly reduces the risk of 

vectoring NNIS propagules to these higher elevation sites; however, it should be noted that 

many of the NNIS identified in the project would not survive or thrive at the higher 

elevation of the crest. Dyer’s woad is known to invade the high elevation habitats of the 

crest, and some members of the knapweed and thistle groups, such as spotted knapweed 

and Canada thistle, may be able to invade and persist in those habitats as well.

• Risks associated with habitat alteration on the short term would be moderate, due to the 

fact that the majority of ground-disturbing activities would be occurring in alreadydisturbed moderate to high severity burned areas, and no new road construction would 

occur. In the long term, planting, natural revegetation, monitoring, and treatment of NNIS 

populations would decrease this risk; however, it would still likely remain moderate due to 

the proximity of altered habitats to known NNIS populations.

• Risks associated with increased vectors as a result of project activities would be somewhat 

lower than Alternatives 2 and 4. Short term risks would be moderate due to the buffering 

effect of mitigations and design features, while long term risks would be low as the amount 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

103

of vectors in the project area would be expected to return to a more-or-less normal level 

after five years.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects to sensitive species, of actions on private lands, and in the Horse Creek SIA 

will be the same as those described for Alternative 2 and 4.

Cumulative effects to survey and manage species would be largely the same as those identified 

for Alternatives 2 and 4 with the exception that less effect would be expected near the Siskiyou 

Crest as well as near White Clout Mountain and the lower reaches of Buckhorn Creek related to 

salvage logging and temporary roads. For NNIS Alternative 3 effects would also be similar to 

those identified in Alternative 2 and 4; however, removal of temporary roads and the salvage 

units along the crest significantly reduces NNIS cumulative risks associated with those features. 

This would decrease the risk factors related to habitat alteration and project-related vectors. The 

cumulative risk of introduction, establishment or spread of non-native invasive plant species 

associated with this alternative would be lower than Alternative 2 and 4, however the overall 

rating would remain high.

Comparison of Alternatives

Table 22: Comparison of effects to Species of Concern and NNIS by Alternatives.

Group Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4

TEPC*

No direct, indirect or 

cumulative effects.

No direct, indirect or 

cumulative effects. Same as Alt 2. Same as Alt 2.

Sensitive

No direct effects

Indirect effects from 

competition, lack of 

disturbance, delayed 

reforestation,

sedimentation of 

aquatic habitat, and 

increased risk of fire.

Direct effects to 

individuals may 

occur, but are not 

likely to result in a 

trend toward federal 

listing or a loss in 

population viability.

Same as Alt 2 but 

large reduction in 

salvage acreage 

and temporary road

use would 

significantly reduce 

risk of direct and 

indirect effects near 

the crest.

Same as Alt 2 but 

some reduction in 

treatment acreage 

would reduce risk of 

direct effects and 

increase some risk 

of future high 

severity wildfire.

Survey 

and 

Manage

Would be in 

compliance with 

survey and manage 

guidelines as 

defined by the 2001 

Record of Decision

(USDA USDI 

2001a).

Would be in 

compliance with 

survey and manage 

guidelines as 

defined by the 2001 

Record of Decision

(USDA USDI 

2001a).

Would be in 

compliance with 

survey and manage 

guidelines as 

defined by the 2001 

Record of Decision

(USDA USDI 

2001a).

Would be in 

compliance with 

survey and manage 

guidelines as 

defined by the 2001 

Record of Decision

(USDA USDI 

2001a).

NNIS

No direct effects

Indirect long-term 

effects from habitat 

disturbance and 

non-project 

dependent vectors.

High risk of spread 

due to numerous 

existing NNIS 

populations, habitat 

vulnerability, nonproject and project 

dependent vectors, 

and ground 

disturbing activities.

Same as Alt 2. Same as Alt 2.

*TEPC is an abbreviation of threatened, endangered, proposed, or candidate species.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

104

Determination of Effects

Alternative 1

Under the no action alternative it is my determination that the Horse Creek Community 

Protection and Forest Restoration project will not affect the sensitive plant species: Eriogonum 

hirtellum, Erythronium hendersonii, Horkelia hendersonii, and Campanula wilkinsiana.

Alternative 2

Under Alternative 2 it is my determination that the Horse Creek Community Protection and 

Forest Restoration project may affect individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward 

federal listing or a loss of viability for the sensitive plant species: Eriogonum hirtellum, 

Erythronium hendersonii, Horkelia hendersonii, and Campanula wilkinsiana.

Alternative 3

Under Alternative 3 it is my determination that the Horse Creek Community Protection and 

Forest Restoration project may affect individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward 

federal listing or a loss of viability for the sensitive plant species: Eriogonum hirtellum, 

Erythronium hendersonii, Horkelia hendersonii, and Campanula wilkinsiana.

Alternative 4

Under Alternative 4 it is my determination that the Horse Creek Community Protection and 

Forest Restoration project may affect individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward 

federal listing or a loss of viability for the Sensitive plant species: Eriogonum hirtellum, 

Erythronium hendersonii, Horkelia hendersonii, and Campanula wilkinsiana.

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

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Botanical Species: The Horse Creek Community 

Protection and Forest Restoration project complies with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act 

of 1973, as amended, in the preparation of a Biological Assessment and Biological Evaluation 

and the disclosure of effects; Forest Service Policy (FSM 2670), and Klamath National Forest 

Plan Standards and Guidelines for sensitive plant species have been met by managing 

populations for viability where possible.

Survey and manage Plants: The Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration

project complies with the 2001 Record of Decision and Standards and Guidelines for 

Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measures 

Standards and Guidelines by preparing an assessment and documenting effects (USDA USDI 

2001a).

Non-native Invasive Species: The Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration

project complies with Forest Service Manual 2900 and Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines for 

non-native invasive species by preparing the Noxious Weed Risk Assessment, and providing 

Project Design Features to mitigate risk of introduction and spread.

Climate Change

Increasingly, the relationships between human-caused emissions, climate change, and the role of 

the forests as carbon sinks (carbon sequesters) are being documented (IPCC 2007, USEPA 2013, 

USGCRP 2014); it is generally agreed that human activities are now the dominant agents of 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

105

climate change (USGCRP 2014, page 736). Scientific understanding of observed temperature 

changes in the United States has improved; the latest estimates are that average temperatures in 

the United States are expected to increase by about 4.4 degrees centigrade if current greenhouse 

gas emissions continue and by about 1.4 degrees centigrade if immediate and rapid greenhouse 

gas reductions occur (USGCRP 2014, chapter 2, figure 7). Trends in heat waves, drought, and 

fire risk are increasing in many regions as temperatures and evaporation rates rise (USDA 2011b, 

USGCRP 2014, pages 736 and 769-772); these trends have affected and are likely to continue to 

affect the project area.

Although climate change simulations vary in making future predictions of climate change in 

regard to projected precipitation, in most observations precipitation events have become more 

extreme (USGCRP 2014, page 770, figure 32). Most precipitation in the western United States 

has been occurring, and is projected to continue to occur, during winter storms. However, 

increased winter temperatures in California may mean that more of the winter precipitation falls 

as rain and less as snow. Snow accumulations may decrease, as was observed in the project area 

in 2014 and 2015; spring snow melt is projected to occur earlier than in the past. These findings 

are likely to increase the likelihood of continued drought and risk of wildfire.

Although there is little local scientific information to help predict whether or not storms may 

increase in size or frequency, since 1964 there have been major channel-altering events about 

once per decade in the Klamath Mountains (Cover et al. 2010). There is national evidence that 

storms are more extreme than in the past (USGCRP 2014). If these trends are indicative of what 

will happen locally, extreme storm events may occur in the project area in the future.

The use of future climate scenarios and ecological models suggests that the impact of climate 

change on ecosystems in the United States may include increases in ecosystem productivity in 

the short term and shifts in the distribution of plants and animals in the long term (Joyce and 

Birdsey 2000, Anderson and Palik 2011). Although there is no local scientific information to 

predict what changes will occur in the project area, there is an opportunity with this project for 

some adaptation to climate change effects on the local level.

Adapting to climate change and its potential impacts poses challenges and opportunities to 

managing resources. Forests and rangelands are seen as part of the solution to reducing 

atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases due to their ability to sequester or store 

carbon (USEPA 2013). Forest ecosystems and the associated wood products industry currently 

serve as a “carbon sink,” offsetting about 16 percent of carbon dioxide emitted by fossil fuel 

burning in the United States in 2011 (USGCRP 2014, page 176). Climate change, combined with 

current societal trends in land use, is projected to reduce this rate of forest carbon uptake 

(USGCRP, page 179) but forest management practices that increase forested areas (planting or 

encouraging growth of forests) have the potential to increase carbon sinks (USGCRP, page 181).

Some uncertainty continues to exist in quantifying the impact of project-level emissions on 

climate. Although down-scaling techniques are in use to assess global climate change impacts at 

regional levels, there are uncertainties in these approaches especially in applying them to the 

project level. Projecting climate change impacts at the local level is a resource intensive 

approach with methodological limitations (USGCRP 2014, page 761). Local information 

concerning precipitation and temperature in the vicinity of the project area suggests that national 

predictions on increasing temperature and erratic precipitation trends may be reflected at the 

project level (Butz and Safford 2011). Specifically, the following may occur:
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

106

• Increases in average temperatures, with earlier snowmelt, may lead to an increase in the 

size and frequency of wildfires with warmer, drier and longer fire seasons as was evident 

in 2014;

• Harvest of burned areas can reduce fuels, especially those larger fuels that are slow to 

ignite but burn at high intensities which lead to heated soils and damaged soil 

productivity; and

• From our current state of understanding, climate change may bring about increases in 

insect and pathogen outbreaks.

Based on regional predictions of a warming climate and increases in disturbances such as 

wildfire and insect infestations, it is expected that treatments proposed in the action alternatives 

for this project will benefit forests by reducing the amount and severity of future high intensity 

fire and reestablishing resilient forests. Some adaptation measures such as assisted migration of 

vegetative and animal species are not proposed due to both difficulty in anticipating climaterelated changes at local scales (USGCRP 2014, page 671) and lack of knowledge about the 

impacts to the species and ecosystem from such migration (Millar et al. 2007).

The contribution of this project to factors that may affect climate change such as greenhouse gas

emissions is disclosed in the Air Quality section of this chapter and referenced Air Quality 

resource report. Knowledge about how to effectively manage forests for carbon sequestration is 

evolving; active forest management is believed to be an effective method of long-term carbon 

sequestration (IPCC 2007, USGCRP 2014, and USDA 2011b). Although there are models to 

calculate carbon storage for forests, using these models for this project does not seem to be costefficient since this project will remove very few live trees and will have little direct effect on 

carbon storage. Selecting trees for reforestation that are likely to survive if climate change 

predictions are fulfilled in the project area is also included in the discussion of site preparation

and planting in the Silviculture section of the environmental impact statement. Salvage harvest, 

hazard tree removal, and additional fuel-reduction treatments will not eliminate wildfire from the 

project area but can help change fire behavior (as discussed in the Fire and Fuels section of this 

chapter and Fire and Fuels resource report) thereby likely reducing carbon dioxide emissions 

resulting from wildfire. Short-term negative effects on carbon storage from prescribed burning 

are balanced by long-term carbon storage negative effects from wildfire. Effects on future global 

climate change from this project are too small to measure but mitigation and adaptation 

techniques (USGCRP, chapters 27 and 28) are expected to be beneficial.

Fire and Fuels

Methodology

Three primary variables affecting fire behavior are fuels, weather, and topography. Fuels are the 

primary variable that management activity can influence to minimize the potential for extreme 

fire behavior. Fuel treatments can be strategically placed to help contain future large wildfires. A 

combination of field data, geospatial data, fire and vegetation modeling, professional judgement, 

and literature review is used to provide a landscape level analysis to determine fire behavior 

potential and resistance to control of future wildfire activity within the project area.

Fire severity in this report primarily relates to the degree of post-fire ecological change to 

vegetation, including changes in post-fire stand structure (e.g., canopy cover or basal area loss). 

The term fire behavior commonly refers to the variable characteristics of a fires flaming front 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

107

(e.g., flame length, rates of spread, or crown fire type). Problem fire behavior is fire activity that 

presents potential hazards to fireline personnel. Extreme fire behavior, the highest level of 

problem fire behavior, can be described with specific elements: rapid rate of spread, intense 

burning, spotting, and crowning (National Wildfire Coordinating Group, 1994). Fireline 

personnel observe current fire behavior characteristics (i.e. flame length, rate of spread, crown 

fire activity, spotting) and numerous environmental conditions on a constant basis in order to 

anticipate and predict potential fire behavior, determine strategies, and implement tactics to 

safely contain a wildland fire. Problem fire behavior and extreme fire behavior are often related 

to high fire severity. Environmental conditions contributing to potential extreme fire behavior 

include fuel moistures less than six percent, temperatures greater than 85 degrees Fahrenheit, and 

surface wind speeds greater than 10 miles per hour (National Wildland Coordination Group, 

2006).

The forest vegetation simulator (FVS), Flammap (Finney 2006), and Byram (1959) fireline 

intensity equation were used to determine fire behavior characteristics for the project area and to 

compare alternatives. Fire behavior modeling uses input variables of fuels, weather, and 

topography to calculate fire behavior. Flammap and FVS outputs pertinent to the fire and fuels 

analysis (Reinhardt and Crookston 2003) include flame length, fireline intensity, and resistance 

to control.

Analysis Indicators and Measures

A major concern within the project boundary is fire behavior potential and resistance to control 

from future wildland fire activity. To evaluate the effects of alternatives, including the no action

alternative, indicators for this analysis include flame length, fireline intensity, and resistance to 

control.

• Flame Length –a visual and measurement indicator of surface fire intensity. Flame length 

is defined as the distance along the slant of the flame from the midpoint of its base to its 

tip.

• Fireline Intensity – a measurement indicator of how hot a fire is burning that often 

dictates which firefighting tactics can be utilized (i.e., direct or indirect suppression 

tactics). Fireline intensity is defined as the rate of heat energy release per unit time per 

unit length of fire front, regardless of the depth or width of the zone of active flaming 

combustion.

• Resistance to control – a measurement indicator of the relative difficulty to construct and 

hold a fireline affected by resistance to line construction and fire behavior. Resistance to 

control can also be viewed as the suppression force required for controlling a unit of fire 

perimeter.

Primary metrics often used for assessing fire behavior are flame length and fireline intensity. 

These metrics help assess the potential for fires to become difficult to suppress or contain 

(resistance to control), to threaten private property and communities at risk (i.e., wildland urban 

interface), and to threaten resource values (e.g., wildlife habitat, soil stability, human uses, 

hydrology, air quality). The relationship between flame length, fireline intensity, and resistance 

to control can be seen in Table 23 below. The desired condition for the Horse Creek Project is to 

have flame lengths less than 4 feet, fireline intensity less than 100 BTUs/ft/sec, and a low 

resistance to control.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

108

Table 23: Flame length potential and fireline intensity relationships with fire suppression activities.

Flame Length

Fireline 

Intensity 

(BTUs/ft/sec)

Description

0 to 4 feet 0 to 100 Low: Fires can generally be attacked at the head or flanks 

by persons using handtools. Handtools should hold the fire.

4 to 8 feet 100 to 500

Moderate: Fires are too intense for direct attack on the head 

by persons using handtools. Handline cannot be relied on to 

hold the fir. Equipment such as dozers, engines and 

retardant aircraft can be effective.

8 to 11 feet 500 to 1,000 High: Fires may present serious control problems – torching 

out, crowning, and spotting. Control efforts at the head of 

the fire will probably be ineffective.

Greater than 

11 feet

Greater than 

1,000

Very High: Crowning, spotting, and major runs are common. 

Control efforts at the head of the fire are ineffective.

In addition to flame length and fireline intensity, resistance to control is directly impacted by fuel 

type and loading along with slope. Resistance to control can be viewed as the estimated 

suppression force required to control a unit of fire perimeter. For example, “high” resistance to 

control means “slow work for dozers, very difficult for hand crews; handline will be difficult” 

(Brown et. al. 2003). Generally, line construction is faster on flatter slopes and in vegetation 

types with low fuel loading (e.g., grass), and slower on steeper slopes and vegetation types with 

high fuel loading (timber, high load shrubs, slash, and high load of downed logs). Line 

construction rates based on fuel model type can be seen in Table 25 below. In addition, 

resistance to control can significantly increase where hazards and safety concerns exist, such as 

abundant overhead hazards (e.g., snag patches) or rugged terrain. Brown et al. (2003) displayed 

high and extreme resistance to control for the fuel loadings shown in Table 24 (tons per acre).

Table 24: Resistance to control rating (tons per acre).

0 to 3 inch diameter 3 to 10 inch diameter

High Extreme

5 25 40

10 15 25

15 5 15

Table 25 displays estimated line construction rates by fuel model type for initial actions (scratch 

line and hot spotting) and sustained line production rates (line construction and holding).

Table 25: Line production rates by fuel model type for initial actions and sustained line production rates.

Fire Behavior Fuel Model Specific 

Conditions

Construction Rate –

Initial Actions (in chains 

per person per hour)

Sustained Line 

Production Rate 20 

person Type 1 Crew 

(Chains per hours)

1 Short Grass Grass 4 17

2 Open Timber/Grass Understory All 3 17

3 Tall Grass All 0.7 17
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

109

Fire Behavior Fuel Model Specific 

Conditions

Construction Rate –

Initial Actions (in chains 

per person per hour)

Sustained Line 

Production Rate 20 

person Type 1 Crew 

(Chains per hours)

4 Chaparral Chaparral 0.4 6.6

5 Brush All 0.7 6.6

6 Dormant Brush/Hardwood Slash Brush 1 16.5

8 Closed Timber Litter Conifers 2 10.5

8 Closed Timber Litter Hardwoods 10 10.5

9 Hardwood Litter Conifers 2 10.5

9 Hardwood Litter Hardwoods 8 10.5

10 Timber (Litter and Understory) All 1 10.5

11 Logging Slash, Light All 1 15

12 Logging Slash, Medium All 1 7

13 Logging Slash, Heavy All 0.4 5

Spatial and Temporal Bounding of Analysis Area

The spatial bounding for this analysis will be the project area, treatment area and wildland urban 

interface (Defense Zone – defined below) for each alternative. The short-term analysis would 

consider up to five years post-fire, mid-term 10 to 15 years, and long-term greater than 20 years 

to display the potential effects of fall and decay of snags and subsequent surface fuel loading 

overtime.

To display outputs from modeling results, short-term effects are displayed at five years in the 

future, mid-term effects are ten years, and long-term effects are greater than twenty years. 

Effects are shown for these time periods whether or not any treatments occur. After 

approximately twenty years, and in some cases sooner, modeling indicates fuels treatments are 

no longer effective and there is a potential need for maintenance in order for treatments to 

continue to stay effective. Snag fall and decay will be modeled out to 40 years to display fuel 

loading through time as they continue to fall.

The wildland urban interface is divided into three zones

Home Ignition Zone (Zone 1): This is a 100-foot zone around structures as identified by State 

of California Public Resource Code 4291. The goal of this zone is to have no crown fire and for 

flame lengths to be less than two feet, and “Fuels shall be maintained in a condition so that a 

wildfire burning under average weather conditions would be unlikely to ignite the structure” on 

100 percent of the land base (State of California Public Resource Code 4291).

Defense Zone (Zone 2): This is a quarter mile buffer around structures and other human 

developments. The goal of this zone is to create an environment where firefighters can safely and 

effectively suppress wildfires by treating fuels and vegetation to reduce flame heights below four 

feet and have no crown fire under 90th percentile weather conditions on 100 percent of the land 

base (USDA USDI 2001b, Nowicki 2002).

Threat Zone (Zone 3): This is a 1.5 mile buffer around structures and other human 

developments. The goal of this zone is to treat fuels and vegetation to reduce crown fire to a 

surface fire before reaching the community fire defense zone under 90th percentile weather 

conditions (USDA USDI 2001b). Research suggests (Finney 2007, Schmidt et al. 2008) that at 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

110

least 20 percent of the land base should be strategically treated to increase landscape level fire 

resilience.

Table 26: Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) acres within the project boundary by WUI Zone.

WUI Zone Federal 

Acres

Private 

Acres

Total 

Acres

Percent 

Federal

Home Ignition 

Zone 0 75 75 0

Defense Zone 1,025 3,075 4,100 25

Threat Zone 16,215 9,700 25,915 63

Flame length potential may be used as a proxy for community safety or resilience to wildfire. 

Nowicki (2002) states “The protection of houses and communities from the threat of forest fire 

depends upon the proper treatment of the wildland-urban interface, the area directly adjacent to 

houses and communities. The protection of the house depends entirely on treatment of the home 

ignition zone regardless of what treatments are implemented in the adjacent forest.” Cohen 

(2008) also notes that the home ignition zone principally determines a home’s ignition potential.

Lowering flame lengths to a level conducive to safe and effective firefighting is the main goal of 

fuel reduction in the wildland urban interface. In order to reduce both direct flame impingement 

and resulting home ignition, as well as to provide space for firefighters to suppress the fire 

directly, the 100-foot home ignition zone should have flame lengths of two feet or less. In the 

surrounding quarter mile defense zone, flame lengths of four feet or less are essential in 

providing an extra buffer for firefighter safety, and lessen the chances of firebrands from nearby 

vegetation igniting structures. Fuel reduction in the outlying 1.5 mile threat zone can help to 

lower the intensity of an approaching front into the defense zone, but does not have a noticeable 

effect on reducing home ignitions. Strategically based treatments, such as on ridgelines and 

roads, help reduce fire behavior in areas often utilized by fire suppression resources. In addition, 

roads serve as important ingress and egress routes during emergencies such as wildfire and may 

serve as alternative routes for safety and evacuation if needed. For analysis purposes, only the 

private property buffer (500 feet treatment area), which includes the home ignition zone and 

defense one, will be displayed as these are the most important zones for protecting structures and 

infrastructure coupled with public and firefighter safety. In addition, the analysis will only 

display treatment areas on Federal System Lands as this is the areas in which the project will be 

able to provide proposed treatments for comparison of effects between alternatives.

Affected Environment

Fire History and Historical Conditions

Fire historically played a major role in shaping vegetation composition and structure in the 

project area (Agee 2007, Skinner et al. 2006, Taylor and Skinner 1998). The analysis area 

extends through the montane ecological zones and is characterized by frequent fires of low to 

mixed severity (Skinner et al. 2006, Taylor and Skinner 1998). With frequent fire of low to 

mixed severity, fuel accumulation over most of the project area was historically maintained at 

low levels, and landscape features such as ridgetops and streams were often sufficient to impede 

fire spread.

The natural conditions for the Horse Creek Project, are different than those of the Coast Range 

and Oregon and Washington Cascades: infrequent (20 to 50 years) light surface fires with 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

111

localized intense fires every 100 to 200 years, and extensive stand replacing fires at intervals 

probably greater than 400 years (Stewart 1989; Morrison and Swanson 1990; Agee 1993). The 

historical fire regime of the Horse Creek Project area consists of frequent (about 8 to 15 years) 

low to moderate intensity and severity fire; and is not stand replacing (Skinner 2006). This fire 

regime would have created conditions unlikely for coarse woody debris to accumulate to levels 

found in mesic Douglas-fir forests (Taylor and Skinner 1998). Skinner (2002) described the 

influence of fire on the dynamics of dead woody material, concluding that fire history resulted in 

a “landscape with many of the snags and logs clustered in both time and space, and very 

sparsely distributed in the intervening time and space” (pg. 445). Skinner 2002 also concluded 

that “it is unlikely that much large woody material survived long enough to decompose fully in 

fire regimes that preceded the fire-suppression era” (pg. 445). This research shows that the 

amount of dead wood would have been much less under the historical fire regime than exists 

today and is consistent with other research in similar dry forest fire regimes (Knapp 2015,

Stephens 2004). Table 27 below shows the number of fires per century and fire return intervals, 

from the pre-settlement era to the suppression era, representative of the project area.

Table 27: Average number of fires per century and the fire return interval (years) representative of the project 

area (Taylor and Skinner 1998).

Aspect Suppression Era:

1905 to 1992

Settlement Era:

1850 to 1904

Pre-settlement Era:

1740 to 1849

North 3.2

(31.3)

6.0

(16.6)

5.1

(19.6)

East 3.4

(29.4)

7.0

(14.3)

3.9

(25.6)

West 4.1

(24.3)

6.5

(15.3)

5.8

(17.3)

South 2.4

(41.6)

7.3

(13.6)

6.0

(16.6)

Average all 

Aspects

3.28

(30.49)

6.7

(14.93)

5.2

(19.23)

Fire history data provides insight into historical and pre-Gap Fire conditions. According to the 

Klamath National Forest GIS layers, over 400 fire starts have been recorded in the project area 

(approximately 33,480 acres) over the past 100 years. An analysis of a 20 year period (1997 to 

2016) showed 60 recorded fire starts. On average, the project area has historically seen between 

3 to 4 fire starts per year. Large fire (greater than 10 acres) history shows that less than 6,000 

acres burned over the past 100 years within the project boundary, with the last large fire within 

the project boundary occurring in 1987 (Fort Copper Fire).

The fire history and start analysis shown in Table 28 shows that there have been long periods 

with the absence of fire on the landscape. Despite numerous fire starts, a large portion of the 

project area had not seen fire in over 100 years prior to the Gap Fire of 2016, and is primarily 

due to fire suppression.

Table 28: Wildfire ignition by cause and total acreage burned (1911 to 2015).

Fire Cause Total Number of 

Ignitions

Total Reported Acres 

Burned in Project Boundary

Lightning 290 270
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

112

Fire Cause Total Number of 

Ignitions

Total Reported Acres 

Burned in Project Boundary

Human 90 5100

Unknown 28 610

Grand Total 408 5,980

Pre- Gap Fire Conditions

Fire suppression and fuel accumulation have altered stand structures and increased number of 

stems and amount of dead and down wood. These factors contributed to the relative high severity 

and stand mortality experienced in the 2016 Gap Fire.

Numerous fire starts still occur in the project analysis area. However, with the onset of fire 

suppression in the early 1900s and increased effectiveness of suppressing fires with mechanized 

equipment (fire engines, dozers, aircraft, etc.) in later years, most of the fires were kept small. As 

a result, forest vegetation changed from a heterogeneous pattern to a more homogeneous pattern 

of smaller openings in a matrix of denser forests (Skinner et al. 2006). Therefore, one of the most 

extensive problems related to the health of this watershed prior to the Gap Fire was the overaccumulation of vegetation and fuel loading due to a lack of disturbance from fire. Although 

severity patterns are still largely dependent on physical factors (i.e. slope position, aspect, slope 

percentage, elevation, etc.), the vegetation composition and structure prior to the fire created 

conditions that increased the likelihood of larger areas of intense and severe fire (Skinner et al. 

2006, Taylor and Skinner 2003, Scott and Reinhardt 2001).

The Fire and Fuels Report of the Johnny O’Neil Late Successional Habitat and Restoration and 

Fuels Reduction Project (USDA 2012a), which is within the project area and largely 

unimplemented prior to the Gap Fire, stated that “the need for action in the project area evolved 

primarily from changes in fire regimes over the last century. Historically, low to mixed-severity 

fires in the area played a significant role in creating a high spatial complexity of vegetation, 

including openings of different sizes, forested stands that were generally more open and latesuccessional, closed-canopy forests. Fire suppression - along with other past management 

activities in the project area - has resulted in uncharacteristically dense vegetation and high fuel 

loading, a decline in wildlife forage and habitat diversity, and an elevated risk of high-severity, 

stand-replacing fires. The vegetation and fuels conditions are conducive to large fire growth, 

extreme fire behavior, and large areas of severe and intense wildfire leading to concerns over 

fire effects to resources (i.e. wildlife habitat, soils, hydrology, human uses and air quality), as 

well as public and firefighter safety” (pg. 9). This need for action statement from the Johnny 

O’Neil Project describes characteristics of the Gap Fire, which created uncharacteristic large 

openings from high severity fire and impacted communities (destroying structures),

infrastructure, private timberlands, and late-successional habitat.

Gap Fire: Fire Behavior Conditions

The Gap Fire started on August 27, 2016. The fire was actively burning upon the arrival of initial 

attack resources and was above 90th percentile weather conditions with hot and dry conditions as 

seen by the energy release component (ERC) (Figure 5). Earned release component is a measure 

fire managers use to judge the potential for how well and how hot a wildfire might burn. It also 

tracks the severity in terms of dryness of the fire season.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

113

Figure 5: Energy Release Component as determined by the National Fire Danger Rating System for Collins 

Baldy Remote Automated Weather Station.

The fire was mainly a surface fire burning under the canopy with occasional torching from the 

initial start point of the fire. The fire actively burned all night. Dry conditions created a situation 

that encouraged consistent spread in all directions. Fire behavior was described as active with 

uphill runs, spotting, and active backing.

Timelines of significant events from the Gap Fire showed that the fire Sunday morning (August 

28) was under a mild inversion. The fire was estimated at over 600 acres and, as the wind picked 

up later in the afternoon, was in alignment with the east-west lay of the Horse Creek drainage. 

With wind aligned with slope, the fire spotted across Horse Creek and fire activity quickly 

picked up and moved at a tremendous rate of spread. Early evening spots were observed up to 

one half mile ahead of the advancing fire and quickly became greater than 100 acres. By 18:30 to 

19:00 hours the fire was running rapidly down Horse Creek. The Incident Commander (IC) 

commented that a pick-up truck would have had a hard time outrunning the advance of the fire 

front.

The Gap Fire continued on for several more days and continued to impact the nearby 

communities, structures, infrastructure, private timberlands, and natural resources. Overly dense 

vegetation and fuels conditions, weather, and topography all played a role in the extreme fire 

behavior experienced on the Gap Fire. As weather conditions subsided (winds reduced and fuel 

moistures increased) along with surface inversions, more desirable fire behavior/effects occurred.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

114

Post- Gap Fire Conditions

As a result of the Gap Fire, there is a mosaic of fire severity effects, as measured by basal area 

loss (RAVG) across the landscape. Large patches from low to high severity fire occurred within 

the project boundary. As shown in Table 29 and Figure 6 below, high severity effects occurred 

on 15 percent (all ownerships) of the project area.

Table 29: Fire severity based on basal area loss within the Gap Fire perimeter across all ownerships.

Fire Severity Class Acres Percent

Low: less than 25 percent severity 26,640 78

Low to Moderate: 25 to 50 percent severity 1,490 4

Moderate to High: 50 to 75 percent severity 1,040 3

Greater than High: 75 percent severity 4,860 15

Total 34,030 100

High severity patch size ranged from less than 1 acre to 1,050 acres. Numerous contiguous 

patches of over 100 acres occurred within the project boundary. It is important to note that 

previous wildfires in the area (e.g., 2014 Beaver Fire, 2014 Happy Camp Complex Fire, 2012 

Goff Fire, 2008 Klamath Theatre Fires) have shown significant increases in delayed mortality 

over time. The Happy Camp Complex Fires of 2014 increased severity by 10 percent after the 

first year and delayed mortality is still occurring. In other words, severity in Table 29 is

anticipated to increase from delayed mortality (e.g. delayed fire effects, drought, stress, and 

insects) by at least 7 to 12 percent or higher resulting in increased high severity patch sizes. In 

addition, many of these patch sizes are uncharacteristically large compared to the historic fire 

regime of the Klamath Mountains described by Skinner et al. 2006.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

115

Figure 6: Fire severity based on vegetation change of basal area loss from the Gap Fire.

Low to low moderate severity fire effects (less than 50 percent basal area mortality) generally 

consumed surface fuels, with greater consumption of finer fuels than larger fuels. However, 

because of dry conditions during the Gap Fire, many large logs were mostly or completely 

consumed. Understory vegetation, such as grass and brush, was generally consumed, changing 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

116

the understory structure and pattern. Some overstory trees were killed, however, the majority of 

the stand still contains live overstory trees. Low soil heating generally occurred in these areas.

Moderate high to high severity fire effects (50 to 75 percent basal area mortality) generally 

consumed surface fuels. Although some large fuels still remain on the surface floor partially 

consumed, more fuel was consumed under these conditions when generally compared to low to 

moderate fire effects conditions. The overstory trees ranged from small pockets of fire killed 

trees, to areas with overstory needles and branches largely untouched. Some areas had high 

levels of scorch, creating brown needles with few green needles remaining. These scorched 

needles continue to fall and cover the forest floor. Some moderate to high soil heating generally 

occurred in these areas. Down logs will begin to occur and add to surface fuel loading as pockets 

of dead trees weaken and fall.

High severity fire effects (greater than 75 percent basal area mortality) fully consumed the 

majority of overstory trees and surface fuels, including duff and litter. High severity crown fires 

result in high levels of tree mortality, consuming leaves and small branches but leaving the boles 

largely intact (Ritchie et al. 2012). A few large down logs that are mostly consumed still exist. 

More downed logs will begin to occur as dead trees begin to weaken and fall. Many trees that are 

still alive had very high scorch heights, and may see delayed mortality within the next few years. 

High soil heating generally occurred in these areas.

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Under Alternative 1, no activities would be implemented and therefore, no direct effects would 

occur. Immediately following the Gap Fire, the project area has a reduction in surface fuel 

loading, spread rate, fireline intensity, and flame length potential. Over the next five years flame 

lengths, fireline intensity and rate of spread are expected to remain in a condition that fire 

suppression resources will be capable of containing any unplanned ignition within the project 

area; reducing the threat within the wildland urban interface.

In addition, over the next five years, vegetation within the project area will have a variety of 

responses to the Gap Fire. In high severity areas of the nearby Happy Camp Complex of 2014, 

Goff Fire of 2012, and the Stanza Fire of 2002; grasses, forbs, shrubs and re-sprouts from oak 

species and madrone generally dominated the post-fire landscape along with standing snags.

Conditions in the Horse Creek Project area are anticipated to be similar. Forested stands which 

had low to low moderate fire severity will be expected to maintain relatively shrub free due to 

the overstory canopy layer shading out these species. Over the next one to five years, dead tree 

branches, conifer and broadleaf litter, small trees and shrubs not entirely consumed by the fire 

will overtime fall to the surface and contribute to surface fuel loading.

Over time, indirect effects of not taking any action will result in an increased probability of high 

severity fire across the landscape as vegetation re-establishes and grows. Within moderate high 

to high severity fire areas, hundreds of dead trees with few live trees remaining characterize the 

post fire landscape. Indirect effects to future vegetation, fire behavior, spread and severity may 

be impacted as a result of taking no action and leaving standing dead trees on portions of the 

landscape. Standing snags may retain a substantial amount of biomass that will contribute to 

surface fuels over time as snags fall (Ritchie, Knapp, and Skinner, 2012).
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

117

In high severity areas, the number of fire killed trees per acre is much higher than the number of 

trees that existed naturally in the pre-suppression area as described in the “Affected 

Environment” section. As noted by Knapp (2015), this material is all fuel, and can increase 

future fire intensity and severity. Since the number of trees per acre is significantly higher than 

historical levels because of fire suppression, it follows the logic that the amount of heavy fuel 

created by these dead trees will be much higher than historical levels, and can cause elevated fuel 

levels for up to 40 years (Peterson et al. 2015).

As shown above, currently standing dead trees are storing an enormous loading of dead fuel. 

Within high severity fire areas, as time increases without disturbance (i.e., fire) to the fire area, it 

is expected that once forested areas will re-establish into non-forested vegetation predominately 

with shrub species. In a matter of 10 years fire behavior is expected to increase, and again 

susceptible to high intensity and severity fire. Shrubs, which can act as a “heat sink” with high 

live fuel moisture contents, can increase duration (or heating) required to ignite foliage; however, 

typical live fuel moisture patterns decrease moisture contents over time as seasonal drying and 

lack of precipitation continue through the summer months resulting in these fuels becoming a 

“heat source” and are susceptible to ignition, rapid spread rates and increased fireline intensities. 

The post fire effects of dead surface fuel conditions along with standing trees now add to the 

area’s susceptibility to fire.

Fire Behavior Modeling for Analysis Indicators and measures

Flame Length Potential

Under Alternative 1 proposed treatments will not occur and the desired conditions for the project 

area and wildland urban interface will not be met. Table 30 below shows the flame length 

potential over the next 20 years for the project area and Table 31 shows flame length potential 

for the wildland urban interface over the same time frame.

Table 30: Alternative 1 flame length potential by acres and as a percent of treatment area.*

Flame 

Length

Short-term PostTreatment

(5 years post fire)

Mid-term Post-treatment

(10 years post fire)

Long-term Posttreatment

(20 years post fire)

0 to 4 feet 33,600 (82 percent) 28,500 (70 percent) 10,200 (25 percent)

4 to 8 feet 80 (0.1 percent) 6,370 (16 percent) 9,985 (24 percent)

8 to 11 feet 6,900 (17 percent) 470 (1 percent) 6,065 (15 percent)

Greater 

than 11 feet 285 (1 percent) 5,535 (14 percent) 14,620 (36 percent)

* Treatment acres do not equal proposed treatment acres by alternatives as described in Chapter 2 because less 

concentrated treatments were not incorporated into the fuels modeling for the purpose of determining fuels effects.

Table 31: Alternative 1 flame length potential within the wildland urban interface by acres and as a percent 

of treatment area.*

Flame 

Length

Short-term PostTreatment

(5 years post fire)

Mid-term Post-treatment

(10 years post fire)

Long-term Posttreatment

(20 years post fire)

0 to 4 feet 1,040 (74 percent) 1,030 (74 percent) 140 (10 percent)

4 to 8 feet 0 (0 percent) 175 (12 percent) 375 (27 percent)

8 to 11 feet 340 (24 percent) 20 (1 percent) 175 (12 percent)
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

118

Flame 

Length

Short-term PostTreatment

(5 years post fire)

Mid-term Post-treatment

(10 years post fire)

Long-term Posttreatment

(20 years post fire)

Greater than 

11 feet 40 (2 percent) 190 (13 percent) 725 (51 percent)

* Treatment acres do not equal proposed treatment acres by alternatives as described in Chapter 2 because less 

concentrated treatments were not incorporated into the fuels modeling for the purpose of determining fuels effects.

Table 30 and Table 31 show that 31 percent of the project area and 26 percent of the wildland 

urban interface would not meet desired conditions of less than 4 feet flame lengths in the midterm. This increases to 75 percent of the project area and 90 percent of the wildland urban 

interface over the long-term.

Fireline Intensity and Resistance to Control

Fire persistence, resistance to control and burnout time (which affects soil heating) are 

significantly influenced by loading, size and decay state of large woody material (Brown et al.

2003). Large woody material can contribute to fire behavior and fire spread by acting as a source 

of embers, both directly by lofting from burning snags and indirectly through torching of trees 

preheated by burning of heavy fuels on the forest floor (Ritchie et al. 2012).

Surface fuel loading values in Table 32 through Table 34 are potential fuel loading over time 

including standing dead trees that fall to the ground. These values do not incorporate vegetation 

that will reestablish over time as added surface fuel loading. As standing snags fall, they 

contribute to surface fuel loading and increase subsequent fire behavior potential. Intensity is 

calculated based on two scenarios with moderate and rapid spread rates, both of which were 

observed during the Gap Fire. Table 32 through Table 34 below describes projected measures of 

fuel loading, fireline intensity, and resistance to control over time for Alternative 1 for four 

representative plots. Table 32 represents these measures for those areas that experienced low 

severity during the Gap Fire; Table 33 represents areas that experienced moderate/high severity; 

and Table 34 represents areas that experienced high severity during the Gap Fire.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

119

Table 32: Alternative 1 projected fuel loading, fireline intensity and resistance to control for areas 

experiencing low severity fire effects during the Gap Fire.

Year Surface Fuel 

<3" (tons/acre)

Surface Fuel 

>3" (tons/acre)

Intensity 

(btu/ft/sec) 

25 ch/hr

Intensity 36 

(btu/ft/sec) 

36 ch/hr

Resistance 

to Control

Stand ID / Plot Number 0505521150369

1 2 8 145 145 Low

5 6 10 297 297 Moderate

10 7 13 1801 2594 Moderate

20 11 14 2512 3617 High

40 15 14 3173 4569 Extreme

Stand ID/Plot Number 0505521150343

1 2 4 106 106 Low

5 5 4 205 205 Low

10 5 3 975 1404 Low

20 7 3 1305 1880 Low

40 9 3 1636 2356 Low

Stand ID/Plot Number 1184

1 2 8 145 145 Low

5 2 8 145 145 Low

10 3 7 843 1214 Low

20 6 6 1289 1856 Low

40 8 6 1619 2332 Low

Stand ID/Plot Number 11857

1 1 6 93 93 Low

5 2 6 126 126 Low

10 3 5 744 1071 Low

20 4 4 859 1237 Low

40 6 3 1140 1642 low
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

120

Table 33: Alternative 1 projected fuel loading, fireline intensity and resistance to control for areas 

experiencing moderate to high severity fire effects during the Gap Fire.

Year Surface Fuel 

<3" (tons/acre)

Surface Fuel 

>3" (tons/acre)

Intensity 

(btu/ft/sec) 

25 ch/hr

Intensity 36 

(btu/ft/sec) 

36 ch/hr

Resistance 

to Control

Stand ID/Plot Number 0505521150369

1 2 11 175 175 Moderate

5 6 26 456 456 High

10 15 51 5007 7210 Extreme

20 15 66 5750 8281 Extreme

40 13 68 5519 7947 Extreme

Stand ID/Plot Number 0505521150343

1 2 6 126 126 Low

5 5 13 294 294 Moderate

10 9 46 3767 5425 Extreme

20 10 34 3338 4807 Extreme

40 9 36 3272 4711 Extreme

Stand ID/Plot Number 1184

1 2 15 215 215 Moderate

5 3 17 268 268 Moderate

10 7 22 2247 3236 High

20 9 29 2925 4212 Extreme

40 8 34 3007 4331 Extreme

Stand ID/Plot Number 11857

1 1 10 132 132 Low

5 2 14 205 205 Moderate

10 6 19 1933 2784 Moderate

20 7 29 2594 3736 High

40 6 35 2726 3926 High
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

121

Table 34: Alternative 1 projected fuel loading, fireline intensity and resistance to control for areas 

experiencing high severity fire effects during the Gap Fire.

Year Surface Fuel 

<3" (tons/acre)

Surface Fuel 

>3" (tons/acre)

Intensity 

(btu/ft/sec) 

25 ch/hr

Intensity 36 

(btu/ft/sec) 

36 ch/hr

Resistance 

to Control

Stand ID / Plot Number 0505521150369

1 1 5 83 83 Low

5 4 32 449 449 High

10 18 96 7733 11136 Extreme

20 19 123 9237 13301 Extreme

40 13 120 8097 11659 Extreme

Stand ID / Plot Number 0505521150343

1 1 3 63 63 Low

5 3 23 327 327 Moderate

10 11 57 4643 6686 Extreme

20 12 71 5502 7924 Extreme

40 9 69 4908 7067 Extreme

Stand ID / Plot Number 1184

1 1 8 112 112 Low

5 2 13 195 195 Moderate

10 11 33 3454 4973 Extreme

20 13 51 4676 6734 Extreme

40 7 58 4032 5806 Extreme

Stand ID / Plot Number 11857

1 1 5 83 83 Low

5 2 11 175 175 Moderate

10 8 35 3057 4402 Extreme

20 10 59 4577 6591 Extreme

40 5 70 4296 6187 Extreme

As shown in Table 32 through Table 34, there is an increase in fuel loading, fireline intensity, 

and resistance to control as severity increases. Within 10 years in high severity areas, fuel 

loading and fireline intensity are high leading to extreme resistance to control. In areas that 

experienced low severity, it is anticipated to have low fuel loading, fireline intensity and 

resistance to control over the next 20 to 40 years slowly trending towards pre fire conditions. If 

understory vegetation (shrubs and small saplings and seedlings) were killed under low severity 

fire, this would contribute to surface fuel loading, and therefore; these projections may 

underestimate fireline intensity and resistance to control over time.

Low severity areas have the least amount of increase in surface fuel accumulations due to the 

relatively low mortality levels. Modeling results (Table 32) over the next 40 years and 

experiences of recent fires in the Klamath Mountains re-burning in the 1987 fires footprints 

suggest that low severity fire begets future low severity fire. Odion et al. 2004 and Thompson et 

al. 2007 highlight this in the 1987 Klamath National Forest fires and Biscuit fire areas 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

122

respectively. Both studies found that where low severity fire areas occurred in the past, these 

same areas re-burned at low severity again.

However, there is concern in high and moderate/high severity stands where mortality exceeded 

fifty percent. Modeling results (Table 33 and Table 34) over the next 40 years and experiences of 

recent fires in the Klamath Mountains re-burning in the 1987 footprints suggest that high severity 

begets future high severity fire without fuel treatment intervention. Heavy fuel loading can lead 

to the increased likelihood of high fire intensity in areas that experienced high fire severity. 

Much of the high severity fire areas were mature mixed conifer stands with closed canopies in 

the Gap Fire. Within areas of high fire severity that fully consumed forested canopies, it can be 

expected that non-forested conditions consisting of shrubs and grasses will persist, have a high 

potential for future high severity fire, and resume an extreme resistance to control.

The likelihood of a re-burn is higher in heavy accumulations of coarse woody debris because of 

the high fire persistence that characterizes coarse woody debris (Brown, Reinhardt, and Kramer, 

2003). Beyond the initial flaming front, consideration for residence time (i.e. burnout time) needs 

to be taken into account as large fuels smolder for long periods, through radiation and 

conduction, into soils and surrounding vegetation which can have negative effects. The Fire 

Behavior Assessment Report from the Beaver Fire (2014), which is adjacent to the Gap Fire to 

the east, provides an example of temperature from initial flaming front through residence burn 

down time of larger fuels. Within the plot, estimated surface fuel loading was 70 tons per acre. 

The initial flaming front spiked at temperatures to 1000 degrees Celsius then subsided to above 

200 degrees Celsius but sustained those temperatures for 30 minutes. Long-term smoldering can 

cause extended high soil heating, frequently above 60 degrees Celsius which is the temperature 

required to kill plant tissue (Hood, 2010). Ground fires and consumption of large-diameter 

surface fuels can cause root and basal stem injury by consuming fine roots growing in the duff 

layer and through long-term heating of the soil and cambium at the tree base (Hood, 2010). As 

conifers reestablish within shrub fuels, they will be at risk of re-burn at high severity and 

extended periods of heating (residence time) as large fuels burn down and smolder.

The same future conditions may exist over the course of a 40 year time period as shrubs establish 

and grow. Standing snags fall and contribute dead fuel loading and trees begin to intermix among 

the shrubs directly correlating to increased flame lengths, fireline intensity and subsequent fire 

severity from prolonged heating (residence time) of large surface fuels. Torching, crowning, and 

spotting, which contribute to large fire growth, are greater where large woody fuels have 

accumulated under a forest canopy and contribute to surface fire heat release (Brown, Reinhardt, 

and Kramer, 2003). Over time, it can be expected that the potential for high severity fire to occur 

where non-forested vegetation continues to grow and areas of high tree mortality continue to add 

to surface fuel loadings, especially where larger trees fall and decay. After enough fuels have 

accumulated, fire hazard likely increases with time as fuels accumulate and coarse woody debris 

rots, increasing its flammability (Monsanto and Agee, 2008; Peterson and Harrod, 2010).

Fire Behavior Synopsis for Alternative 1

A major concern within the Horse Creek Project area is the projected fire behavior potential and 

resistance to control under Alternative 1. Numerous snags exist within the wildland urban 

interface and hold an enormous amount of fuel loading as they weaken and fall. In some areas 

where high severity fire occurred, it can be expected to have over 100 tons per acre of fuel 

loading within the next 20 to 40 years; including within the wildland urban interface. Heavy fuel 

load increases the likelihood of high flame lengths, high fireline intensity and extreme resistance 

to control over time.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

123

High fuel loading and snag density also poses a challenge along road systems and strategic 

locations (i.e. roads, ridgetops, natural barriers, and the wildland urban interface defense zone) 

that have been used as primary control lines to contain previous wildfire events. It is reasonable 

to assume fire managers will utilize such locations and features for future wildfire events. The 

high density of snags and heavy fuel loading can jeopardize road systems, including those that 

serve as critical ingress and egress routes for the communities and emergency personnel. This 

includes both blocking roads from travel as well as the likelihood of increased fire intensity and 

flame lengths adjacent to the road. Ridgetops often serve as a critical holding feature for fire 

suppression activities. Heavy fuel loading and high density snag patches increase the resistance 

to control along such features and snags pose a risk for increased spotting potential; both as 

ember producers and receptors increasing problem fire behavior.

To safely attack and contain a large fire in the future will be difficult, time consuming, and 

require large amounts of fire suppression resources under Alternative 1. During the Happy Camp 

Complex of 2014 and Dillon Fire of 2013, fire suppression resources encountered large patches 

of snags from previous wildfires. These snag patches were over five years old in the Dillon Fire 

and over 10 years old in the Happy Camp Complex. Some areas of the Happy Camp Complex 

were even as old as the 1987 fires. In both situations, the snags had begun to rot and decay 

making for extremely dangerous overhead hazardous situations. In addition, these snags were 

extremely dangerous to fell with chainsaws. As a result, indirect control lines away from the

hazards where utilized adding to the difficulty in suppression; creating a condition of unburned 

fuel between fire suppression resources and the main fire, creating a new hazard. Under 

Alternative 1, similar conditions may exist for safety concerns, problem fire behavior, and 

resistance to control in the Horse Creek Project Area and the Gap Fire perimeter.

Cumulative Effects

Under Alternative 1, vegetation structure will continue to change over time, leading to an 

increase in flame length potential, fireline intensity and resistance to control. In high severity 

areas from the Gap Fire, snags will begin to decay and fall over time and become intermixed 

with brush leading to the potential of extreme fire behavior, extreme resistance to control, and 

safety concerns. The difficulties of removing high fuel loadings and snag densities once they 

begin to rot and decay; due to cost or safety concerns, may preclude future projects from being 

planned or implemented. This includes prescribed fire as a management tool in which desired 

conditions may not be met due to high fuel loadings leading to increase potential for escape, 

undesired fire effects, and an increase in time and cost in order to implement. In addition, other 

projects (Appendix B) that are planned for fuels reduction work would not be supplemented by 

this project.

Concerns raised during public scoping for the protection of communities within and adjacent to 

the project area would not be addressed. Additional concerns raised by private timberlands 

would also not be addressed. Plans to work collaboratively with private timberland and other 

private land owners to develop fuel breaks along strategic ridgetops, roads, wildland urban 

interface, and other identified locations would not occur. It is understood that the private timber 

companies (e.g., Fruit Growers Supply) within the project boundary plan to remove fuel through 

salvage harvest and reduce fuels along ridgetops and road systems. This will improve fuels 

conditions in treated areas as well as continuing to join fuel break work already completed on 

private lands from the adjacent Beaver Fire 2014 area. This work is expected to have a benefit to 

future fire management in the area due to reduced fuel loading and strategic fuels placement, to 

an unknown degree, within and adjacent to the project boundary.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

124

Alternative 2

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 2 was designed to meet the purpose and need of the project by utilizing a variety of 

treatments to increase safety to public and forest users, increase fire resilient landscapes, and 

alter fire behavior to meet desired conditions in strategic locations. 

Alternative 2 implements multiple types of activities to reduce snag densities and surface fuel 

loading. The fuel treatment design in this alternative looks at strategic locations (i.e. roads, 

ridgetops, natural barriers, and the wildland urban interface defense zone) to increase future fire 

management actions, fire resiliency and public and forest user safety. Proposed thinning with 

follow-up pile burning removes small diameter trees which reduces ladder fuels and increases 

the likelihood of a surface fire. This is important in areas where fire suppression resources will 

utilize future fire lines in strategic locations. These treatments are expected to be effective into 

the long-term; and slowly trend towards pre-fire conditions or until maintenance of fuels 

treatments occur.

Alternative 2 also proposes treatments where high density of snags and fuel loading would not 

meet desired conditions across the landscape. Post-fire logging can serve as an effective tool for 

managing fuel loadings in forests regenerating after high severity fires (Peterson et al. 2015). The 

direct effect of salvage harvest is reducing snag densities across the landscape (Ritchie et al.

2012) and subsequently reducing surface fuel loading as dead trees begin to fall over time. As a 

result of reducing fuel loading, there would be a decrease in overall flame length potential, 

fireline intensity, and resistance to control as shown in the fire behavior modeling results for 

Alternative 2 (Table 35 through Table 37).

The short-term effect of salvage harvest is an elevated surface fuel loading from branches, cull 

logs, and un-merchantable tops followed by a much longer period of reduced surface fuel 

loading relative to burned stands that were not logged. Alternative 2 has a follow-up treatment of 

site preparation following salvage harvest. This treatment is aimed at reducing surface fuel 

loading (in all fuel size categories) from activity fuels generated by the salvage harvest, breaking 

up continuous fuel beds and reduction in fuel bed depth. Post-logging fuel treatments, such as 

piling and burning or jackpot burning, can rapidly reduce total amounts and spatial continuity of 

surface woody fuels, and may allow logged stands to serve as fuel-breaks in a landscape-level 

fire management strategy (Peterson and Harrod 2010). In addition, Peterson et al. 2015 found 

that post-fire logging altered post-fire fuel succession by (1) greatly accelerating the deposition 

of surface woody fuels from logged snags, (2) reducing peak loading of large diameter woody 

fuels, and (3) initiating the woody fuel decay earlier.

Ritchie et al. (2012), evaluated salvaged units following the Cone Fire on the Lassen National 

Forest. They found that after four years higher levels of surface fuel accumulations occurred in 

lower intensity salvage plots. The highest surface fuel accumulations occurred in un-salvaged 

plots four to eight years after the fire. Furthermore, the highest levels of large woody debris were 

associated with un-salvaged areas. Ritchie et al. (2012) observed that areas that were salvaged to 

remove heavy fuels had lower fuel loading after eight years than areas that were unsalvaged. 

Activity fuel treatment following salvage harvest would reduce fuel loading even further within 

salvage units.

The proposed treatments in Alternative 2 will allow reforestation efforts to have a better chance 

of survival. Weatherspoon and Skinner 1995 and Peterson et al. 2009 found that fire intensity 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

125

and damage to the overstory are much lower in plantations where slash has been removed 

following logging. A high percentage of plantations in the Gap Fire burned at low severity.

Patches, of various sizes, of high severity fire are not being treated in portions of the fire area for 

Alternative 2. In areas not being treated, similar effects to those described in Alternative 1 would 

be anticipated. These patches of high severity would not meet the purpose and need and desired 

condition into the future. Areas with more contiguous treatment would be more effective at 

meeting the purpose and need for the fire and fuels resource. Snag retention within treatment 

units (i.e., aquatic and geologic riparian reserves or wildlife retention areas) would impact the 

treatment unit depending on size and placement of the leave area. Generally, larger snag 

retention areas would make the treatment unit less effective in meeting desired conditions. 

Retention areas would increase fuel loading adjacent to the treatment units, increase fire behavior 

potential, and decrease suppression capability through an increase in resistance to control. In 

addition, leave areas would make it more difficult to implement treatments. Retention areas are 

generally away from more strategic fuels areas such as key road systems and ridgetops.

Fire Behavior Modeling for Analysis Indicators and Measures

Flame Length Potential

Under Alternative 2, proposed fuels reduction treatments would occur on over 5,500 acres across 

the 40,834 acre project area (25,596 acres National Forest). Table 35 through Table 37 below 

shows the flame length potential over a 20 year period for the project area, Alternative 2 

treatment area, and wildland urban interface respectively. Table 35 below shows the projected 

fuel loading, fireline intensity, and resistance to control for treatment areas proposed in 

Alternative 2. Areas outside of treatment areas would be expected to be the same as described in 

Alternative 1.

Table 35: Alternative 2 flame length potential, under 90th percentile weather conditions, by acres and as a 

percent of project area.*

Flame 

Length

Short-term PostTreatment

(5 years post-fire)

Mid-term Post-treatment

(10 years post-fire)

Long-term Posttreatment

(20 years post-fire

0 to 4 feet 33,640 (82 percent) 29,685 (73 percent) 14,910 (37 percent)

4 to 8 feet 6,305 (15 percent) 7,410 (18 percent) 9,890 (24 percent)

8 to 11 feet 205 (1 percent) 430 (1 percent) 5,390 (13 percent)

Greater than 

11 feet 305 (1 percent) 3,340 (8 percent) 10,680 (26 percent)

* Treatment acres do not equal proposed treatment acres by alternatives as described in Chapter 2 because less 

concentrated treatments were not incorporated into the fuels modeling for the purpose of determining fuels effects.

Over the long-term, Table 36 shows that there is approximately a twelve percent increase in the 

project area meeting desired conditions of a surface fire with flame lengths less than four feet 

when compared to Alternative 1. In addition, there is approximately a ten percent decrease in the 

long-term of extreme fire behavior potential and resistance to control compared to Alternative 1.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

126

Table 36: Flame length potential, under 90th percentile weather conditions, within the proposed treatment 

area footprint of Alternative 2 over a 20-year period, by acres and as a percent of project area.*

Flame 

Length

Short-term PostTreatment

(5 years post-fire)

Mid-term Post-treatment

(10 years post-fire)

Long-term Post-treatment

(20 years post-fire)

0 to 4 feet 4,820 (100 percent) 4,350 (90 percent) 3,500 (73 percent)

4 to 8 feet 0 (0 percent) 415 (9 percent) 1,000 (21 percent)

8 to 11 feet 0 (0 percent) 20 (.1 percent) 160 (3 percent)

Greater than 

11 feet 0 (0 percent) 45 (1 percent) 165 (3 percent)

* Treatment acres do not equal proposed treatment acres by alternatives as described in Chapter 2 because less 

concentrated treatments were not incorporated into the fuels modeling for the purpose of determining fuels effects.

Proposed treatments in Alternative 2 effectively reduce flame length potential for the majority of 

the treatment area, especially when compared to Alternative 1. The treatments reduce fuel 

loading, which in turn, reduce flame lengths, fireline intensity, and resistance to control. In 

addition, treatments meet desired conditions further into the future through the reduction of fuel.

Table 37: Alternative 2 flame length potential, under 90th percentile weather conditions, within the wildland 

urban interface over a 20-year period, by acres and as a percent of project area.*

Flame 

Length

Short-term PostTreatment

(5 years post-fire)

Mid-term Posttreatment

(10 years post-fire)

Long-term Posttreatment

(20 years post-fire)

0 to 4 feet 1,415 (100 percent) 1,275 (90 percent) 930 (66 percent)

4 to 8 feet 0 (0 percent) 100 (7 percent) 385 (27 percent)

8 to 11 feet 0 (0 percent) 10 (1 percent) 55 (4 percent)

Greater than 

11 feet 0 (0 percent) 30 (2 percent) 45 (3 percent)

* Treatment acres do not equal proposed treatment acres by alternatives as described in Chapter 2 because less 

concentrated treatments were not incorporated into the fuels modeling for the purpose of determining fuels effects.

Under Alternative 2, ninety percent of the project area is meeting desired conditions within the 

wildland urban interface private property buffer within the first 10 years. Without maintenance 

of treatments, the effective treatment is reduced to sixty six percent over a twenty year period, 

with ninety three percent of the area projected to experience less than 8 foot flame lengths over 

this same period. Alternative 2 shows a dramatic decrease from high fuel loading and safety

concerns related to high severity areas from the Gap Fire within this zone. Such safety concerns 

within the wildland urban interface include, but are not limited to, a safe working environment 

for fire emergency personnel in the event of a future wildfire as well as an increase of potential 

problem fire behavior due to heavy fuel loading experienced in Alternative 1.

Fireline Intensity and Resistance to Control

The proposed treatments under Alternative 2 are expected to significantly reduce large surface 

fuel accumulations when compared to Alternative 1. Treating surface fuels upon completion of 

salvage harvest in high severity areas and understory vegetation removal in treated areas within 

low to low/moderate severity areas will reduce surface fuel loading leading to a reduction in 

fireline intensity and resistance to control (Table 38).
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

127

Table 38: Projected fuel loading, fireline intensity and resistance to control for treatment areas proposed

within Alternative 2.

Year Surface Fuel 

<3" (tons/acre)

Surface Fuel 

>3" (tons/acre)

Intensity 

(btu/ft/sec) 

25 ch/hr

Intensity 36 

(btu/ft/sec) 

36 ch/hr

Resistance 

to Control

Stand ID/Plot Number 0505521150369

1 1 1 43 43 Low

5 4 3 162 162 Low

10 5 10 1322 1904 Moderate

20 4 11 1206 1737 Moderate

40 3 10 991 1428 Moderate

Stand ID/Plot Number 0505521150343

1 1 3 63 63 Low

5 2 9 155 155 Low

10 3 11 1041 1499 Moderate

20 2 11 876 1261 Moderate

40 2 10 826 1190 Moderate

Stand ID/Plot Number 1184

1 1 7 102 102 Low

5 3 6 159 159 Low

10 3 9 942 1356 Low

20 3 9 942 1356 Low

40 2 8 727 1047 Low

Stand ID/Plot Number 11857

1 1 4 73 73 Low

5 2 6 126 126 Low

10 2 8 727 1047 Low

20 2 8 727 1047 Low

40 2 9 777 1118 Low

The proposed treatments under Alternative 2 are expected to significantly reduce large surface 

fuel accumulations when compared to Alternative 1. Treating surface fuels upon completion of 

salvage harvest in high severity areas and understory vegetation removal in conjunction with 

treating surface fuels in treated areas within low to low/moderate severity areas will reduce 

surface fuel loading leading to a reduction in fireline intensity and resistance to control (Table 

38). It is anticipated that higher fuel loadings would occur in post-salvage harvest treatments

compared to fuels treatments in other locations (i.e., low severity areas receiving roadside fuels, 

wildland urban interface, or ridgetop treatments). All treatments are expected to move the project 

area towards desired conditions.

Fire Behavior Synopsis for Alternative 2

The combination of treatments in Alternative 2 reduces snag densities and surface fuel loading in 

strategic fuels locations. Within these strategic fuels locations, Alternative 2 shows a beneficial 

effect by reducing flame lengths, fireline intensity and resistance to control.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

128

Snag densities would be reduced across much of the landscape, including within the wildland 

urban interface. This would reduce future fuel loading and subsequent fire behavior potential. In 

addition, there would be less likelihood of problem fire behavior and spotting potential from 

snags and heavy fuel loading. There would be improved protection from future wildfire to the 

communities within and adjacent to the project area; including ingress and egress on road 

systems for alternative travel routes in case of emergency.

Future fire management options would be increased by Alternative 2. Conditions would be safer 

to contain a large fire in the future and would likely require less fire suppression resources. 

Roads, ridgetops, and the wildland urban interface defense zone would serve as firefighting 

holding features once treatments are complete. It would be desired to introduce prescribed fire, to 

maintain low fuel loading and fire behavior conditions, in the project area once conditions are 

ripe to do so into the future.

Cumulative Effects

Under Alternative 2, the Horse Creek Project coupled with ongoing and foreseeable future 

actions have the potential to increase fire resiliency, public/forest user safety, and ingress/egress 

travel routes (Appendix B). Current and foreseeable future actions are anticipated to reduce 

flame lengths, fireline intensity and resistance to control.

Private lands have proposed ongoing and emergency timber harvest plans and fuels treatments, 

adding to the approximately 5,520 acres proposed actions to be treated within Alternative 2. It is 

understood that the private timber companies (e.g., Fruit Growers Supply) within the project 

boundary plan to remove fuel through salvage harvest and reduce fuels along ridgetops and road 

systems. Treatments adjacent to private timberlands will increase the size and scale of treatment 

area. In addition, continuing to join fuel management zones and roadside fuels work between 

private and Federal lands is anticipated to improve resistance to control and provide safer and 

more fire management options in the event of future wildfires or prescribed fire activities.

Communities affected by the 2016 Gap fire continue to reduce fuels on certain individual 

properties. Alternative 2 complements many of these activities to improve fire resiliency, and 

provides opportunities to enhance the work performed by landowners to improve vegetation and 

fuel loadings. These combined actions promote less intense fire behavior, reduced likelihood of 

damage to structures/infrastructure, and promote safer firefighting action in the future, within 

urban interface fires.

Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect Effects

The direct and indirect effects of Alternative 3 will be similar to those described in Alternative 2. 

Proposed treatment activities are anticipated to reduce flame lengths, fireline intensity and 

resistance to control.

The main difference between the two alternatives is no temporary roads are proposed under 

Alternative 3, leading to a decrease in approximately 850 acres of salvage harvest, site 

preparation and planting. The about 850 acres no longer proposed for treatment would be similar 

to those areas described in Alternative 1. As a result, desired conditions would no longer be met 

in the mid- to long-term within or adjacent to these areas. In addition, these areas would have 

similar fuel loading, fireline intensity and resistance to control as described in Alternative 1.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

129

The majority of the units being dropped are near the Siskiyou Crest and adjacent to the private 

property buffer adjacent to the community of Horse Creek. The areas no longer proposed 

adjacent to the community will decrease community and firefighter safety in the event of a future 

wildfire.

Table 39 through Table 41 below show flame length potential for the project area, treatment area 

and private property buffer for Alternative 3.

Table 39: Alternative 3 flame length potential for the Horse Creek Project Area, by acres and as a percent of 

the project area.*

Flame 

Length

Short-term PostTreatmentMid-term Post-treatment Long-term Posttreatment

0-4 ft. 32,890 (80 percent) 28,965 (71 percent) 12,415 (30 percent)

4-8 ft. 6,805 (17 percent) 7,680 (19 percent) 9,875 (24 percent)

8-11 ft. 330 (1 percent) 495 (1 percent) 5,775 (14 percent)

>11 ft. 430 (1 percent) 3,335 (8 percent) 12,800 (32 percent)

* Treatment acres do not equal proposed treatment acres by alternatives as described in Chapter 2 because less 

concentrated treatments were not incorporated into the fuels modeling for the purpose of determining fuels effects.

Table 40: Alternative 3 flame length potential for the treatment area proposed within Alternative 3, by acres 

and as a percent of the project area.*

Flame 

Length

Short-term PostTreatmentMid-term PosttreatmentLong-term Posttreatment

0-4 ft. 4070 (100 percent) 3510 (86 percent) 2685 (66 percent)

4-8 ft. 0 (0 percent) 405 (10 percent) 980 (24 percent)

8-11 ft. 0 (0 percent) 70 (2 percent) 150 (4 percent)

>11 ft. 0 (0 percent) 95 (2 percent) 255 (6 percent)

* Treatment acres do not equal proposed treatment acres by alternatives as described in Chapter 2 because less 

concentrated treatments were not incorporated into the fuels modeling for the purpose of determining fuels effects.

Table 41: Alternative 3 flame length potential for the private property buffer for the proposed treatments 

within Alternative 3, by acres and as a percent of the project area.*

Flame 

Length

Short-term PostTreatmentMid-term PosttreatmentLong-term Posttreatment

0-4 ft. 1415 (100 percent) 1195 (84 percent) 850 (60 percent)

4-8 ft. 0 (0 percent) 100 (7 percent) 385 (27 percent)

8-11 ft. 0 (0 percent) 10 (1 percent) 55 (4 percent)

>11 ft. 0 (0 percent) 110 (8 percent) 125 (9 percent)

* Treatment acres do not equal proposed treatment acres by alternatives as described in Chapter 2 because less 

concentrated treatments were not incorporated into the fuels modeling for the purpose of determining fuels effects.

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects are anticipated to be similar to those described in Alternative 2; except in 

areas within and adjacent to the about 850 acres no longer proposed for treatment under 

Alternative 3. The areas no longer proposed for treatment would be similar to Alternative 1, 

would not tie into current and ongoing projects/treatments, and would reduce the overall 

landscape treatment effectiveness over time.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

130

Alternative 4

Direct and Indirect Effects

The direct and indirect effects of Alternative 4 will be similar to those described in Alternative 2. 

Proposed treatment activities are anticipated to reduce flame lengths, fireline intensity and 

resistance to control.

Under Alternative 4, when compared to Alternative 2, there would be a reduction of fuels 

treatment on approximately 375 acres of roadside fuels treatment, 31 acres of fuel management 

zones, and 360 acres of salvage harvest, site preparation and plant. There would be a reduction of 

treatment effectiveness in the mid- and long-term for flame lengths, fireline intensity and 

resistance to control on over 750 acres compared to Alternative 2. Approximately half of the fuel 

management zone (340 acres) would also see a reduced treatment prescription (reduction in size 

of understory trees to be thinned from 12” to 8”) under Alternative 4; otherwise would be the 

same as Alternative 2.

The direct and indirect effects of Alternative 4 are anticipated to be similar to those in 

Alternative 2 for areas receiving treatment. A decrease, to and unknown extent, in treatment 

effectiveness over time would occur in areas receiving a reduced treatment prescription. The 

overall landscape fuels treatment effectiveness would be reduced in areas adjacent to and within 

areas no longer being considered for treatment; as compared to Alternative 2. Areas no longer 

proposed for treatment would have similar fuel loading, fireline intensity and resistance to 

control as described in Alternative 1.

Table 42, Table 43, and Table 44 show flame length potential for Alternative 4 for the project 

area, treatment area, and private property buffer.

Table 42: Alternative 4 flame length potential for the Horse Creek Project Area, by acres and as a percent of 

the project area.*

Flame 

Length

Short-term PostTreatmentMid-term Post-treatment Long-term Posttreatment

0-4 ft. 32,925 (81 percent) 28,800 (71 percent) 12,670 (31 percent)

4-8 ft. 6,705 (16 percent) 7,730 (19 percent) 9,890 (24 percent)

8-11 ft. 360 (1 percent) 500 (1 percent) 5,800 (14 percent)

>11 ft. 465 (1 percent) 3,730 (9 percent) 12,510 (31 percent)

* Treatment acres do not equal proposed treatment acres by alternatives as described in Chapter 2 because less 

concentrated treatments were not incorporated into the fuels modeling for the purpose of determining fuels effects.

Table 43: Alternative 4 flame length potential for the treatment area proposed within Alternative 4, by acres 

and as a percent of the project area.*

Flame 

Length

Short-term PostTreatmentMid-term PosttreatmentLong-term Posttreatment

0-4 ft. 4105 (100 percent) 3490 (85 percent) 2870 (69 percent)

4-8 ft. 0 (0 percent) 350 (9 percent) 890 (22 percent)

8-11 ft. 0 (0 percent) 65 (2 percent) 120 (3 percent)

>11 ft. 0 (0 percent) 90 (4 percent) 230 (6 percent)

* Treatment acres do not equal proposed treatment acres by alternatives as described in Chapter 2 because less 

concentrated treatments were not incorporated into the fuels modeling for the purpose of determining fuels effects.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

131

Table 44: Alternative 4 flame length potential for the private property buffer for proposed treatments within 

Alternative 4, by acres and as a percent of the project area.*

Flame 

Length

Short-term PostTreatmentMid-term PosttreatmentLong-term Posttreatment

0-4 ft. 1415 (100 percent) 1240 (88 percent) 895 (63 percent)

4-8 ft. 0 (0 percent) 100 (7 percent) 385 (27 percent)

8-11 ft. 0 (0 percent) 10 (1 percent) 55 (4 percent)

>11 ft. 0 (0 percent) 65 (4 percent) 80 (6 percent)

* Treatment acres do not equal proposed treatment acres by alternatives as described in Chapter 2 because less 

concentrated treatments were not incorporated into the fuels modeling for the purpose of determining fuels effects.

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects are anticipated to be similar to those described in Alternative 2 except in 

areas within and adjacent to the about 850 acres no longer proposed for treatment under 

Alternative 4. The areas no longer proposed for treatment would be similar to Alternative 1, 

would no longer tie into current and ongoing projects/treatments, and would reduce the overall 

landscape treatment effectiveness over time.

Comparison of Alternatives

In order to compare alternatives, the long term change in each analysis indicator and measure

compared to Alternative 1, no action, is shown below. Table 45 shows flame length potential for 

the project area by alternative in the long-term, more than 20 years. Table 46 similarly shows 

flame length potential in the long-term, but within the treatment area (for Alternative 1, no 

action, the footprint of Alternative 2 treatments was used). Finally, Table 47 shows the long-term 

flame length potential for proposed treatment areas that are within the 500 foot private property

buffer.

Table 45: Long-term flame length potential for each alternative by acres and percent of project area.

Flame Length Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

0-4 feet 10,200 (25%) 14,910 (37%) 12,415 (30%) 12,670 (31%)

4-8 feet 9,985 (24%) 9,890 (24%) 9,875 (24%) 9,890 (24%)

8-11 feet 6,065 (15%) 5,390 (13%) 5,775 (14%) 5,800 (14%)

>11 feet 14,620 (36%) 10,680 (26%) 12,800 (32%) 12,510 (31%)

Table 46: Long-term flame length potential for each alternative by acres and percent of treatment area.

Flame Length Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

0-4 feet 570 (12%) 3500 (73%) 2685 (66%) 2870 (69%)

4-8 feet 1110 (23%) 1000 (21%) 980 (24%) 890 (22%)

8-11 feet 460 (10%) 160 (3%) 150 (4%) 120 (3%)

>11 feet 2685 (56%) 165 (3%) 255 (6%) 230 (6%)

Table 47: Long-term flame length potential for each alternative by acres and percent of treatment area within 

the 500 foot private property buffer.

Flame Length Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

0-4 feet 140 (10%) 930 (66%) 850 (60%) 895 (63%)

4-8 feet 375 (27%) 385 (27%) 385 (27%) 385 (27%)
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

132

Flame Length Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

8-11 feet 175 (12%) 55 (4%) 55 (4%) 55 (4%)

>11 feet 725 (51%) 45 (3%) 125 (9%) 80 (6%)

Figure 7 and Figure 8 below show estimated fuel loading for action alternatives compared to no 

action (Alternative 1) within one example plot of high severity areas. All action alternatives 

consider salvage and fuels treatments to have the same effect for areas being treated. This is 

described further in the environmental consequences described in the fuels resource report 

available on the project website. Treating surface fuels upon completion of salvage harvest in 

high severity areas and understory vegetation removal in conjunction with treating surface fuels 

in treated areas within low to low/moderate severity areas will reduce surface fuel loading 

leading to a reduction in fireline intensity and resistance to control (see fuels resource report for 

more detail). The main differences between action alternatives would be the changes in acres 

being treated across each alternative.

Figure 7: Comparison of estimated fuel loading of surface fuels less than 3 inches in diameter for Alternative 

1 (No Action) and action alternatives for plots representing the project area.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

133

Figure 8: Comparison of estimated fuel loading of surface fuels greater than 3 inches in diameter for 

Alternative 1 (No Action) and action alternatives for plots representing the project area.

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

The action alternatives meet the Forest Plan and applicable law, regulation and policy. See Forest 

Plan consistency checklist for more information.

Fisheries (Aquatic Resources)

Introduction

The Aquatic Resources Report provides a more detailed description of the affected environment, 

which includes special status aquatic species and their habitat, and the Environmental 

Consequences or anticipated effects of the Horse Creek Project on these species and their 

habitat. Special status aquatic species includes fish and aquatic-associated species that require 

aquatic habitats for successful completion of all or a portion of their life history. Aquaticassociated species primarily use aquatic and riparian habitats. The term ‘aquatic’ in this report 

refers to fish and aquatic-associated amphibian, reptile, mammal and bird species. Special status 

aquatic species considered in this analysis are shown in Table 48.

Methodology

The Horse Creek Project Aquatic Resources analysis has four components: (1) a review of 

existing information, (2) post-fire field review of watershed conditions, particularly riparian 

reserves and aquatic habitat, (3) field review of selected treatment areas, (4) cumulative 

watershed effects modeling, and (5) evaluation of the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of 

project alternatives on special status aquatic species and their habitat.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

134

Special Status Aquatic Species Considered in this Analysis

A list of threatened, endangered, and candidate fish and aquatic-associated species was obtained 

online from the US Fish and Wildlife Service IPaC (USFWS 2017) website accessed on March 

26, 2017. Fish and aquatic-associated species designated Forest Service sensitive were obtained 

from the Region 5 Regional Forester’s 2013 Sensitive Animals Species List (USDA 2017) via 

website accessed on March 26, 2017. Management indicator species (MIS) were obtained from 

Table 3-13 on page 55 of the Forest Plan. Range for each of these species was determined by 

Klamath National Forest fish census over the last eight years or by range maps accessed from the 

California Wildlife Habitat Relationships Database (CDFW 2017) website accessed on March 26, 

2017. There are sixteen fish and aquatic-associated species on the lists as follows: one 

threatened; nine sensitive; and nine management indicator species. Three of the species are both 

sensitive and management indicator species. According to the range maps in the California 

Wildlife Habitat Relationships Database, the following three species do not have range in the 

analysis area and are therefore not included in this analysis: western brook lamprey, northern 

red-legged frog, and Cascades frog. Special status aquatic species includes fish and aquaticassociated species that require aquatic habitats for successful completion of all or a portion of 

their life history. Aquatic-associated species primarily use aquatic and riparian habitats. ‘Special 

status aquatic species’ in this report refers to fish and aquatic-associated amphibian, reptile, 

mammal and bird species. Special status species considered in this analysis are shown in Table 

48.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

135

Table 48: Special status species in project area

Special Status Aquatic Species

EndangeredThreatenedSensitiveManagement IndicatorCritical HabitatEssential Fish Habitat

Salmonids

Coho Salmon (Southern 

Oregon/Northern California Coasts) Oncorhynchus kisutch X X X

Chinook Salmon (Upper 

Klamath/Trinity Rivers) Oncorhynchus tshawytscha X X

Steelhead Trout (Klamath Mountains 

Province) Oncorhynchus mykiss X X

Rainbow Trout (Klamath Mountains 

Province) Oncorhynchus mykiss X

Lamprey

Pacific Lamprey Entosphenus tridentatus X

Klamath River Lamprey Entosphenus

similus X

Western Brook Lamprey1 Lampetra richardsoni X

Amphibian

Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog Rana boylii X

Northern Red-Legged Frog1 Rana aurora X X

Cascades Frog1 Rana cascadae X X

Tailed-Frog Ascaphus truei X

Southern Torrent Salamander Rhyacotriton variegatus X

Reptile

Western Pond Turtle Actinemys marmorata X X

Mammal

Northern Water Shrew Sorex palustris X

Long-Tailed Vole Microtus longicaudus X

Bird

American dipper Cinclus mexicanus X

1Western brook lamprey, northern red-legged frog and Cascades frog are not present in analyses areas (CDFW 

2017) and will not be further addressed in this analysis.

Direction Regarding the Analysis of Project-Level Effects on Management 

Indicator Species

Two MIS ‘species associations’ are analyzed in this document. The River/Stream Species

Association includes rainbow trout, steelhead trout, tailed-frog, Cascades frog, American dipper, 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

136

northern water shrew, and long-tailed vole. The Marsh/Lake/Pond Species Association includes 

northern red-legged frog and western pond turtle. 

Project-level MIS effects analyses are informed by project and landscape-scale habitat analyses 

alone. This involves first assessing ‘habitat status’ and ‘habitat trends’ for MIS habitat 

components at the project and landscape level, then assessing how impacts of proposed actions 

would be likely to affect habitat status and habitat trend. “Habitat status” is the current amount of 

habitat available to a population. “Habitat trend” is the direction of change in the amount of 

habitat over a given time period of time to the present. The Forest Plan does not require 

population monitoring for any MIS except for rainbow trout and steelhead trout. Besides 

steelhead and rainbow trout, there has been annual census for adult and juvenile Chinook and 

Coho salmon. The Forest Plan analysis requirements for MIS are summarized in Part I of the 

MIS Report included in the Aquatic Resource Report. Adequately analyzing project effects to 

MIS involves the following steps:

• Identifying which MIS have habitat that would be either directly or indirectly affected by 

the project alternatives. This information is documented in Part I of the MIS Report.

• Analyzing project and landscape-level effects on habitats for which the MIS was selected 

to indicate in the Forest Plan.

• Relating project-level impacts on MIS habitat to population trends of MIS.

Status and Habitat Requirements of Threatened, Sensitive, and Management 

Indicator Species

This section summarizes the status of threatened, sensitive and management indicator species 

and their habitat that could potentially be affected by the project.

Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast Coho Salmon (threatened)

The Southern Oregon/Northern California Coastal (SONCC) Coho salmon evolutionary 

significant unit (ESU) includes all naturally spawned populations of Coho salmon in coastal 

streams between Cape Blanco, Oregon and Punta Gorda, California, as well as Coho salmon 

produced by three hatcheries: Iron Gate, Cole Rivers, and Trinity River. An ESU is comprised of 

groups of populations with geographic and evolutionary similarities that are considered a 

“species” under the Federal Endangered Species Act. The National Marine Fisheries Service 

originally listed SONCC Coho salmon as threatened under the ESA in 1997 (62 FR 24588, May 

6, 1997) and Critical Habitat (CH) was subsequently designated (64 FR 24049). Essential Fish 

Habitat (EFH) was designated for SONCC Coho salmon by the Pacific Fishery Management 

Council in 1999. On the Klamath National Forest, EFH for Coho salmon is identical to the 

distribution of Coho salmon Critical Habitat.

Little information exists to provide insight on the historical abundance of Coho salmon within 

the middle Klamath River and tributaries. Population estimates mostly arose from fishing and 

canning records within the Lower Klamath River and estuary. Historic reach-specific estimates 

for upstream sub-basins do not exist. Snyder (1931) reported the first commercial gill net catch 

of 11,162 Coho salmon in the lower reaches of the Klamath River in 1919 and was the first 

author to report a concern for declining salmon populations in California, due to commercial 

fishing, forestry and agricultural practices. Long-term monitoring data from the lower river and 

ocean fisheries suggests a marked decrease in abundance of adult Coho salmon by the 1950s 

(Klamath River Basin Fisheries Task Force (USDI 1991), Weitkamp et al. 1995). WeitKamp et 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

137

al. 1995 estimated that Klamath River Coho salmon population could be less than six percent of 

the abundance in the 1940s.

NMFS 2014 describes the ‘Upper Klamath River SONCC Coho salmon population’ in the 

project area as being at high risk of extinction. The key limiting stresses adversely affecting 

salmonids populations in the mid-Klamath River are impaired water quality, lack of floodplain 

function and channel structure, passage barriers, altered flow regime, and lack of quality summer

and winter rearing habitat that is protected from warm temperatures in summer and high flows in 

winter. Key limiting threats are high severity fire, dams, diversions, and roads. The Upper 

Klamath River population is highly influenced by Iron Gate Dam and Hatchery, and has likely 

experienced a loss of life history diversity due to environmental conditions and loss of habitat 

(NMFS 2014).

Southern Oregon/Northern California Coast Coho are critically vulnerable to extinction as wild 

fish within the next 50 to 100 years. There has likely been 95 percent or more decline in numbers 

since the 1960s in California due to dam construction and habitat degradation from various land 

use practices. Level of concern for SONCC Coho salmon is “critical” (Moyle et al. 2017).

A full description of SONCC Coho salmon including life history, habitat requirements, 

distribution, abundance, factors affecting status, population trends and status can be found in 

Moyle et al. 2008. Desired and properly functioning habitat conditions for Coho salmon on the 

Klamath National Forest is given in the Table of Population and Habitat Indicators in Appendix 

C in the Aquatic Resources Report.

Coho salmon spawn and rear in the mainstem Klamath River. Horse and Seiad creeks are the 

only tributaries in the project area where Coho salmon spawn and rear, however, other perennial 

tributaries in the project area are critical for providing cool clear water so that Coho salmon parr 

and smolts can survive high water temperatures and poor water quality common in the mainstem 

Klamath River from mid-summer to early-fall.

Upper Klamath-Trinity River Chinook Salmon (sensitive)

The Upper Klamath-Trinity Rivers (UKTR) Chinook salmon evolutionary significant unit (ESU) 

includes Chinook salmon in all streams in the Klamath River watershed upstream from the 

Trinity River confluence. UKTR Chinook salmon are a Forest Service sensitive species because 

the spring run is considerably reduced in population size and range compared to historical 

condition. Essential Fish Habitat was designated for UKTR Chinook salmon by the Pacific 

Fishery Management Council. The distribution of EFH for Chinook salmon is identical to the 

distribution of Coho salmon critical habitat. See project maps in Appendix A for the distribution 

of salmonid fish species and Coho salmon critical habitat (Chinook salmon EFH) in the project 

area.

UKTR Chinook salmon is a Forest Service sensitive species because the spring-run is much 

reduced in range and remaining populations have low numbers of adult fish returning. Chinook 

salmon exhibiting spring run timing are likely to disappear in the next 50 years. Small, selfsustaining populations remain primarily in the Salmon and South Fork Trinity rivers, where they 

are highly vulnerable to climate change, hybridization with hatchery-origin fish, and other 

stressors. Level of concern for spring-run Chinook salmon is “critical” (Moyle et al. 2017).

Historic numbers of wild UKTR fall-run Chinook probably ranged between 125,000 and 250,000 

fish per year. While numbers over the past 25 years have sometimes reached into that range, 

much lower numbers are typical and many fish are of hatchery origin (Moyle et al. 2015). Of 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

138

particular concern is the increasing trend of the proportion of basin-wide escapement made up of 

hatchery returns (Quiñones et al. 2014). UKTR fall-run Chinook are not in immediate danger of 

extinction, although their numbers have declined in recent decades. There appears to be an 

increasing reliance on hatcheries to maintain fisheries, and returns of hatchery-origin fish may be 

masking a decline of wild production in the Klamath-Trinity Basin. Level of concern for fall-run 

Chinook salmon is “moderate” (Moyle et al. 2017). The International Union for the Conservation 

of Nature considers the spring-run of UKTR Chinook salmon as “endangered” and the Fall-run 

as “near threatened.” The Chinook salmon fishery along the west coast was severely restricted 

for several years between 2006 and 2016 due to low production numbers in the Klamath basin. 

The fall 2017 run of Chinook salmon is projected to be the lowest on record (Pacific Fishery 

Management Council, 2017).

A full description of UKTR Chinook salmon including life history, habitat requirements, 

distribution, abundance, factors affecting status, population trends and status can be found in 

Moyle et al. 2008. Properly functioning habitat conditions for Chinook salmon on the Klamath 

National Forest is given in Appendix C in the Aquatic Resources Report.

Chinook salmon spawn and rear in the mainstem Klamath River. Horse and Seiad creeks are the 

only tributaries in the project area where Chinook salmon spawn and rear, however, other 

perennial tributaries in the project area are critical for providing cool clear water so that salmon 

parr and smolts can survive high water temperatures and poor water quality common in the 

mainstem Klamath River from mid-summer to early-fall. 

Klamath Mountains Province Steelhead and Resident Rainbow Trout (sensitive and 

management indicator species)

The Klamath Mountains Province (KMP) steelhead trout ESU includes all steelhead trout and 

rainbow trout sub-populations in the Klamath River basin. The distinction between anadromous 

steelhead trout and resident rainbow trout is a topic of recent research and both life history types 

are currently classified as the same species. Anadromy and residency appear to reflect 

interactions among genetics, individual condition, and environmental influences (Sloat and 

Reeves 2014; Kendall et al., 2015). 

KMP steelhead/rainbow trout is a Forest Service sensitive species because the summer run is 

much reduced in range and remaining populations have low numbers of adult fish returning. 

KMP steelhead appear to be in long-term decline (Moyle et al. 2015). Stream-maturing KMP 

summer steelhead face a high likelihood of extinction in California in the next 50 years. Level of 

concern for summer-run steelhead trout is “critical” (Moyle et al. 2017). Ocean-maturing winter 

steelhead are in a state of decline from historical numbers in the Klamath Basin. These oceanmaturing fish are relatively more widespread than the stream-maturing summer-run fish, yet still 

face an uncertain future due to reductions in suitable habitat. Level of concern for winter-run 

KMP steelhead trout is “moderate” (Moyle et al. 2017). The International Union for the 

Conservation of Nature considers KMP steelhead to be “vulnerable.” 

Steelhead and rainbow trout were selected to be a management indicator species for water 

quality, in-stream woody debris, bottom substrate, flows, and channel condition. 

Steelhead/rainbow trout are common in cool, clear, fast-flowing perennial tributaries to the midKlamath River where suitable habitat is present, including: flows necessary to provide dissolved 

oxygen close to saturation; cool summer water temperatures (optimum 15-18 degrees C); and 

diverse and abundant invertebrate life. Coarse gravels in riffles or pools are used for spawning. 

Ample and complex cover from riparian vegetation, large woody debris, boulders, deep pools, or 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

139

undercut banks reduces exposure to predators, high flows, and excessive energy expenditure. A 

full description of KMP steelhead trout including life history, habitat requirements, distribution, 

abundance, population trends and status, and factors affecting status can be found in Moyle et al. 

2008. Properly functioning habitat conditions for steelhead/rainbow trout on the Klamath 

National Forest is given in Appendix C in the Aquatic Resources Report.

KMP steelhead/rainbow trout spawn and rear in the mainstem Klamath River. KMP 

steelhead/rainbow trout spawn and rear in Horse and Seiad creeks and likely other tributaries to 

the Klamath River within the project area. 

Pacific Lamprey (sensitive species)

Pacific lamprey occupy Klamath River streams that have relatively stable flow conditions. Adult 

lamprey spend up to a year in streams maturing before spawning and require a mix of deep pools 

with good hiding cover such as boulders, cobble, and large wood. Lampreys spawn in areas with 

gravel and cobbles. As with salmon spawning areas, well-oxygenated water flowing through 

relatively clean substrates is critical to egg survival. After hatching and spending a short amount 

of time in the nest gravel, ammocoetes move downstream to areas of soft sand or mud where 

they burrow in and live as filter feeders for up to seven years, sucking organic matter and algae 

off the substrate surface (Moyle 2002). Ammocoetes are particularly vulnerable to irrigation 

diversions and therefore designs of diversions or water withdrawal must provide lamprey 

protection features such as fish screens. For diversions that are not screened, ammocoetes 

trapped in ditches will perish when ditches are drained or run dry.

Currently, Pacific lamprey are seldom seen in Klamath River tributaries. In the mid to late 1990s 

Pacific lamprey were more commonly seen (J. Grunbaum, personal observation). The lack of 

formal monitoring of adult migrations makes quantification of population trends impossible. The 

presence of a long-term tribal fishery in the North Coast with living recollections of past lamprey 

runs allows a qualitative sense of declining numbers. Anecdotal and empirical information 

suggests that Pacific lamprey populations have declined or been locally extirpated in parts of 

California (Moyle et al. 2009). Tribal fishermen who fished in the 1970 to 80's recollect much 

larger runs and suggest declines of at least 90 percent, and remark that runs have been 

consistently low since the mid 1980's with continued decline (Goodman and Reid, 2012). Pacific 

lamprey likely use habitats in lower Horse and Seiad Creek but this use has not been 

documented.

Klamath River Lamprey (sensitive species)

This species was described from the upper Klamath River and Upper Klamath Lake in Southern 

Oregon (Moyle 2002). However, it appears to be widespread in the Lower Klamath and Trinity 

Rivers and tributaries (Josh Boyce, Humboldt State University, personal communication, 2001). 

As with other Klamath basin lampreys, abundance estimates for Klamath River lamprey do not 

exist.

Little is known about the habitat requirements of Klamath River lamprey. The environmental 

tolerances of adult Klamath River lamprey have not been documented but they are likely similar 

to those of Pacific lamprey. If this is the case, then Klamath River lamprey need cold, clear water 

for spawning and incubation. They would also require a diverse range of habitats to complete 

their life cycle. Presumably, ammocoete larvae have the same basic requirements as those of 

Pacific lamprey, living in backwaters with soft substrates.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

140

Klamath River lamprey are commonly observed attached to salmonid fishes in the lower reaches 

of mid-Klamath River tributaries (J.Grunbaum, personal observation). It is likely that Klamath 

River lamprey spawn and rear in the lower reaches of many of the perennial tributaries to the 

Klamath River within the project area.

Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog (sensitive species)

Foothill yellow-legged frogs occur throughout the north and south coasts ranges of California as 

far south as the Transverse Range, across northern California to the west slope of the Cascade 

Range, and south through the foothills of the Sierra Nevada to Tehachapi Creek, Kern County. It 

occurs up to 6,000 feet elevation in the northern Sierra Nevada. It inhabits forest streams and 

rivers with sunny, sandy, and rocky banks, deep pools, and shallow riffles (Stebbins and 

McGinnis, 2012). Habitat requirements can be divided into three main categories: breeding and 

rearing habitat, non-breeding habitat, and overwintering habitat. Breeding and rearing habitat is 

generally located in gently flowing, low-gradient stream sections, with variable substrate 

predominated by cobble and boulder (Kupferberg 1996). Lind et al. (2016) observed that egg 

mass relative abundances were negatively associated with water depth and positively associated 

with distance from the shoreline, suggesting that breeding areas with high egg mass relative 

abundances generally occurred in wide shallow areas. Egg masses are typically attached to 

cobble, boulder, or bedrock substrate near river margins in shallow and relatively slow habitat 

(Kupferberg 1996, Lind and Yarnell, 2008). Larvae are found in the same habitat and require 

protection from scouring flows (Kupferberg et al. 2011). Adults remain in terrestrial riparian and 

riverine habitat adjacent to the wetted channel during the non-breeding season (Kupferberg 1996, 

Zweifel 1955). Van Wagner (1996) observed overwintering adults both in the water and along 

stream-edge habitat beneath rocks, leaf litter, and grasses. Kupferberg (1996) observed that frogs 

may move into smaller tributaries to avoid risk of scouring flows, or move into adjacent 

terrestrial habitat to avoid winter peak flow events altogether.

Foothill yellow-legged frogs are rare in the Klamath Basin (Fellers, 2005). The species has 

disappeared from more than half of its historically occupied locations throughout its range in 

California and Oregon (Lind 2005). According to the range map in CDFW 2017 and the 

presence of suitable habitat, yellow-legged frog could occur in the project area.

Tailed-Frog (management indicator species)

Locally, this species is seen most commonly in and adjacent to cold, rocky, fast-flowing 

perennial streams in humid riparian and forest environments such as Fort Goff Creek. Tailed 

frogs could occur in the 0.6 mile of stream at and downstream from the project area, along the 

200 feet of existing water ditch, and within the entire 0.25 acre area where vegetation and ground 

disturbance would occur.

Southern Torrent Salamander (sensitive species)

Since the Horse Creek project area is slightly to the east of the range of southern torrent 

salamanders (CDFW 2017), it is unlikely that there are any southern torrent salamanders in the 

project area.

Western Pond Turtle (sensitive and management indicator species)

Western pond turtles are listed as Region 5 Forest Service Sensitive because of declining 

populations throughout their range. Western pond turtles were selected to be a management 

indicator species for standing open water and associated vegetation, and chosen for sensitivity to 

physical aquatic conditions and coarse woody debris.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

141

Western pond turtles are seldom seen far away from the Klamath River in smaller tributaries 

such as Fort Goff Creek Habitat for western pond turtles is marginal at the project site because 

the water is fast and there is no lush vegetation at the waters’ edge for rearing juveniles, there is 

no sun to bask in, there are no alluvial benches to lay eggs in, and there is little duff and cover 

for overwinter habitat. Much of the project area has large trees, no mid-story canopy, and a low 

simplified ground cover consisting primarily of invasive ivy. The best habitat on site is the 

existing water ditch when it has water in it, however, water supply can be erratic due to problems 

at the point of diversion (such as sediment plugs or water levels too low to flow into the point of 

diversion). It is likely that there are western pond turtles in the project area. Pond turtles are most 

likely to occur along the Klamath River corridor and within the lower stream corridor of Horse 

Creek where the valley is wide and the stream gradient is low.

Northern Water Shrew (management indicator species)

This species uses logs, streamside vegetation, and rocky stream bottoms for cover and nest very 

close to water in moss or other soft material in a protected bank or hollow or decaying log.

According to the range and habitat description, there could be northern water shrew in the project 

area. 

Long-Tailed Vole (management indicator species)

Long-tail vole were selected to be a management indicator species of riparian vegetation 

including canopy, deciduous vegetation, and grasses/forbes. According to known range and 

habitat description, there could be long-tailed vole in the project area. 

American Dipper (management indicator species)

American dipper were selected to be a management indicator species of water quality, instream 

woody debris, bottom substrate and flows. American dippers very partial to swift, cold, 

permanent streams, preferably those with large boulders, tumbling waterfalls, steep cliffs, and 

ledges which can be used as sheltered nest sites. In the mid-Klamath region, this species is

commonly seen along fast-flowing Klamath River tributaries. There is suitable habitat for the 

American dipper in Klamath River tributaries in the project area.

Direct Effects Analysis

Direct effects on fish populations is assessed by examining what activities would occur in-stream 

and the probable effects of those in-stream activities on fish. Direct effects on special status 

aquatic species that are not fish, and on habitat for management indicator species, is assessed by 

examining what activities would occur in-stream and within stream course riparian reserves, and 

the probable direct effects of those in-stream and riparian activities on those species and habitats. 

Direct effects to species are described in terms of estimated number individuals of each species 

that could be injured or killed in the course of project implementation. Direct effects to 

management indicator species habitat is described in terms of length of stream and area of stream 

course riparian reserve habitat that would be removed, degraded, or restored in the course of 

project implementation.

Analysis Indicators for Aquatic and Riparian Habitat

The Aquatic Resources analysis uses habitat indicators from the Analytical Process for 

Developing Biological Assessments for Federal Actions Affecting Fish within the Northwest 

Forest Plan Area (USDA-USDOC-USDI 2004). The Analytical Process utilizes key indicators 

of habitat quality (habitat indicators) and was formulated to standardize evaluations of actions 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

142

and effects for conferencing/consultations under Section (§) 7(a)(2) of the federal Endangered 

Species Act (ESA), focusing on salmonid fishes within the Northwest Forest Plan area. Although

the key aquatic habitat indicators apply to anadromous fish, they will also be used for other

aquatic species in this report since these species have over-lapping aquatic habitat requirements 

that are well represented by the habitat indicators. The information developed through the

Analytical Process also satisfies the information requirements for essential fish habitat (EFH) 

consultation for Pacific salmon under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 

Management Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR Part 600) when the species is also 

listed under the ESA.

The Analytical Process includes use of the “USFWS/NOAA Fisheries Table of Population and 

Habitat Indicators” which is a tool to characterize baseline habitat conditions for populations of 

salmonids in the Northwest Forest Plan area (USDA-USDOC-USDI 2004). Consistent with the 

Matrix of Pathways and Indicators Table 49 provides values and ranges of conditions to 

determine whether baseline conditions are Properly Functioning, At Risk, or Not Properly 

Functioning. The Forest has developed criteria for the mid-Klamath region using values from 

streams that are considered pristine and as supported by the data contained in the environmental 

impact statement for the Forest Plan. The Klamath tributaries matrix (KNF 2012) serves as the 

basis to identify relative baseline conditions, including existing conditions for the Horse Creek 

Project area. The Klamath tributaries matrix in conjunction with watershed assessments, field 

reviews, and proposed actions are used to evaluate effects of the alternatives.

The Forest Plan contains the components, objectives, and standards and guidelines for land 

management projects. A major provision of the Forest Plan is the Aquatic Conservation Strategy 

(ACS) which specifies nine objectives which each project must satisfy to maintain or restore

habitat for aquatic and aquatic/riparian-associated species. The Horse Creek Project 

interdisciplinary team evaluated the proposed alternatives for potential to maintain or restore 

ACS objectives at site and watershed scales (see ACS analysis report in the project record). A 

major provision of the Aquatic Conservation Strategy is riparian reserves. The ACS allows 

treatment in riparian reserves only when it is required to attain ACS objectives (“where 

catastrophic events such as fire, flooding, volcanic, wind, or insect damage result in degraded 

riparian conditions, allow salvage and fuelwood cutting if required to attain Aquatic 

Conservation Strategy objectives”). Whether a proposed treatment in riparian reserves is 

required in order to achieve ACS objectives is an important part of the Aquatic Resources

analysis.

A stand-alone BA will be prepared for Coho salmon and Coho salmon Critical Habitat. This 

document will be the Biological Evaluation for Forest Service sensitive species and the 

Management Indicator Species analysis for management indicator species. The Biological 

Assessment will analyze project effects relative to the full suite of habitat indicators included in 

the Analytical Process: water temperature; turbidity; chemical and nutrient contamination; 

physical barriers; substrate character; large woody debris; pool frequency and quality; offchannel habitat; refugia; width to depth ratio; streambank condition; floodplain connectivity;

change in peak and base flows; increase in drainage network; road density and location; 

disturbance history; disturbance regime; and riparian reserves.

Three key indicators of habitat quality were selected from the Analytical Process, based on the 

potential for project effects and, in turn, the potential for impacts on aquatic species and their

habitat: sediment, water temperature, and large woody debris. Table 49 shows these habitat 

indicators and their rating criteria relative to Properly Functioning, At Risk, or Not Properly 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

143

Functioning. The full suite of habitat indicators are assessed in 7th field watersheds where there is 

potential for effects to special status aquatic species (see resource report).

Table 49: Measurement indicators for fisheries habitat quality (from the Klamath National Forest tributaries 

matrix: Table of Population and Habitat Indicators for Use on the Klamath National Forest).

Properly Functioning At Risk Not Properly Functioning

Water Temperature

1st-3rd Order Streams

(Instantaneous Temperature 

Measurement)

about 20.5oC or less

1st-3rd Order Streams

(Instantaneous Temperature

Measurement)

greater than 20.5 to 21.3oC

1st-3rd Order Streams

(Instantaneous Temperature

Measurement)

about 21.3oC or more

4th-5th Order Streams

(Maximum Weekly Maximum

Temperature)

about 21.4oC or less

4th-5th Order Streams

(Maximum Weekly Maximum

Temperature)

greater than 21.4 to 23.1 oC

4th-5th Order Streams

(Maximum Weekly Maximum

Temperature)

about 23.0oC or more

Sediment, Substrate Character

Less than 15 percent fines (less 

than 2 mm) in spawning habitat 

(pool tail-outs, low gradient 

riffles, and glides) and cobble 

embeddedness less than 20

percent.

Suspended Sediment/Turbidity: 

Water clarity returns quickly 

(within 3 days) following peak 

flows.

15 percent or greater fines (less 

than 2 mm) in spawning habitat 

(pool tail-outs, low gradient 

riffles, and glides) or cobble 

embeddedness is 20 percent or 

greater.

Suspended Sediment/Turbidity: 

Water clarity slow (four to six 

days) to return following peak 

flows; moderate to high fines in 

substrate; moderate modeled 

surface erosion and mass 

wasting; riparian reserves are 

not fully functioning.

Greater than 20 percent fines 

(less than 2 mm) in spawning 

habitat (pool tail-outs, low 

gradient riffles, and glides) and 

cobble embeddedness greater 

than 25 percent. 

Suspended Sediment/Turbidity: 

Water clarity poor for long 

periods of time (one week or 

more) following peak flows. 

Some suspended sediments 

occur even at low flows or base 

flow; high fines in substrate, 

stream buffers in poor condition, 

high modeled surface erosion 

and mass wasting; riparian 

reserves are in poor condition.

Large Woody Debris

There is an average of 20 

pieces of large wood or more 

per mile. On the west-side of the 

Forest large wood is defined as 

a minimum length of 50 feet and 

diameter of 24 inches. However, 

site potential and channel width 

must be considered rather than 

using strict numbers. Large 

wood pieces longer than 1.5 

times the active channel 

function as large woody debris. 

Potential for future recruitment 

of large woody debris into 

stream channels from stream 

buffer is high in both the shortand long-term.

Current levels are being 

maintained at minimum levels 

desired for “properly 

functioning”, but potential for 

future recruitment of large wood

into stream channels from 

stream buffers is too low to 

maintain minimum values.

Current levels are not at those 

desired values for “properly 

functioning”, and potential 

sources of woody debris for 

short and long-term recruitment 

are lacking
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

144

Sediment

The analysis of sediment will examine the current sediment regime and the potential for project 

activities to alter the current regime. In particular, the analysis will focus on the potential for the 

project to change the risk and rate of sediment delivery and the effects of that change on aquatic 

and riparian habitats. The criteria for “properly functioning”; at-risk”; and “not properly 

functioning” relative to sediment is given in Table 49.

Project effects to sediment supply and delivery are assessed herein at the site- and watershedscale. The assessment of project effects to sediment supply and delivery at the site-scale relies on 

field review of the proposed treatment areas, an understanding and prediction of project element 

effects based on past projects and involvement in research, literature reviews, and discussions 

with the interdisciplinary team members (geologist, hydrologist, and fire behavior specialist)

regarding the potential for disturbance and risk to aquatic resources based on site conditions 

(including unit-specific slope stability, soil types, disturbance potential, and effects minimization 

measures that would be implemented). For effects analyses at watershed scales, the Klamath 

National Forest cumulative watershed effects (CWE) modeling process (USDA 2012) was used 

to assess effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities as described here and in 

relevant supporting references. Three cumulative watershed effects analysis models were used: 

the equivalent roaded acres (ERA) model is used to evaluate watershed disturbance; the 

universal soil loss equation model (USLE) is used to evaluate soil erosion; and the Geology 

model (GEO) is used to evaluate the potential for mass wasting.

Since 2009, the Forest has been actively monitoring stream channel sediment in Klamath River 

tributaries. One of the objectives of this monitoring program is to compare stream sediment

conditions in reference watersheds that have negligible to minor watershed disturbance, to 

stream sediment conditions in managed watersheds that have various levels of watershed 

disturbance from past use of national forest and private lands. A total of 20 reference streams

were established. Sampling of reference stream sediment indices (filled pool volume, surface

fines, and subsurface fines) was used to define thresholds (75th percentile of reference condition

plus survey error) for evaluation of conditions in managed streams (Laurie and Elder, 2012). 

Three of the project 7th field watersheds are considered ‘managed’ and have established sediment 

monitoring reaches: Lower Horse Creek, Middle Creek, and Middle Seiad.

The geologic assessment of sediment involved field review of proposed ground disturbing 

activities where available GIS information indicated possible slope stability issues, observations 

and notes made during the 2016 Gap Fire Burned Area Emergency Response work (in project 

record), and subsequent monitoring of post-fire storms (Geology Report). The Forests 

cumulative watershed effects geology model (GEO) was used to estimate current landslide risk 

and predict changes in landslide risk for each project alternative. The model overlays 

geomorphic features with existing conditions (roads, timber harvests, and wildfire) and 

anticipated disturbances from future projects, and applies coefficients to estimate landslide 

sediment volume delivered to the mouth of each 7th field watershed. These volumes are then 

converted into percent over background rates. Background is defined as the volume of landslide 

sediment which would be anticipated when a watershed is fully forested, without any roads, or 

recent vegetation disturbance from timber harvest or fire. The model provides a systematic way 

of estimating landslide sediment volumes, and uses landslide coefficients developed on Klamath 

National Forest. The GEO model accounts for effects of temporary roads, landings, and timber 

harvest, as these activities cause most of the disturbance and can be modeled. The model does 

not account for roadside hazard tree treatments (including activities in the Special Interest Area), 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

145

fuel treatments, or site preparation and planting because these activities cause relatively minor 

disturbance and are not easily modeled.

Water Temperature

Riparian reserves generally parallel the stream network but are also established to maintain 

hydrologic, geomorphic, and ecologic processes and, as such, include other areas necessary for

maintaining these processes. Riparian reserves widths are based on a site potential tree height for 

the project area which is 150 feet. Fish-bearing streams have a riparian reserve buffer on each 

side of the active channel (bankfull channel) equal in width to the combined length of two site 

potential tree heights (300 feet). Permanently flowing non-fish-bearing streams have a riparian 

reserve buffer on each side of the active channel equal in width to the length of one site potential 

tree height (150 feet). Seasonally flowing or intermittent streams have riparian reserve widths 

equal to the length of one site potential tree height (150 feet) on each side of the active channel

or 100 feet slope distance, whichever is greater. Ponds and wetlands also have designated 

riparian reserves. The width of riparian reserves along streams is expanded beyond site potential 

tree height requirements to encompass areas of geologic instability including inner gorges, active 

landslides, toe zones of dormant landslides, and highly dissected granitic terrain. Riparian 

reserves are managed under special standards and guidelines that prohibit and regulate forest 

management activities that would retard or prevent attainment of ACS objectives and are a key

element designed to maintain and restore riparian structure and function and provide connectivity

corridors among late successional reserves.

Large Woody Debris

The zone of influence for large wood recruitment is defined by the particular stand 

characteristics and recruitment process rather than an absolute distance from the stream channel 

or floodplain. FEMAT (1993) concluded that the probability of wood entering the active stream 

channel from greater than one tree height is generally low. Riparian reserve widths based on 

Forest Plan standards (as described under water temperature above) would provide ample buffer 

widths to protect large wood recruitment and other important functions of riparian reserves. 

When removal of trees (e.g. through salvage, hazard trees, fuels reduction) is proposed within 

riparian reserves, analysis must show that present and future coarse woody debris needs are met 

and that the action would not prevent attainment of ACS objectives.

Analysis quantified the extent of riparian reserves burned in the 2016 Gap Fire as well as fire 

severity and associated effects to vegetation. Acres of riparian reserves burned, fire severity, and 

expected impacts to vegetation are used as a proxy to update the pre-fire baseline conditions for 

large wood including to update and assess the near- and long-term impacts on wood loading and 

recruitment potential from streamside sources and via mass wasting. The landslide risk 

cumulative watershed effects model (GEO) mentioned in the sediment section above was used to 

inform the post-fire large woody debris baseline.

The area, character, and magnitude of proposed actions in stream-course and geologic riparian 

reserves will be used to assess affects to the large woody debris indicator for each alternative. 

Intensity of Effects

“Intensity” refers to the severity of effects or the degree to which an action may adversely or 

beneficially affect a resource. The intensity definitions used throughout this analysis are 

described below.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

146

Effects to habitat Indicators are described at the site- and watershed-scale using the following 

terms:

• Neutral (no effect)

• Discountable (effects may occur but they are not to a level that can be meaningfully 

measured or detected)

• Significant (effects are detectable or effects would significantly increase cumulative 

effects in watersheds that are already in a highly disturbed state).

Effects to aquatic species are described using the following terms:

• Neutral (no effect to habitat individuals or species)

• Beneficial (contemporaneous positive effects to individuals and populations via improved 

habitat condition without any adverse effects to the species)

• Discountable (no direct effect to individuals; adverse habitat may reasonably occur but 

would not be measurable or detectable and would be so minor as to not affect individuals 

or lower carrying capacity). Discountable effects equate with an ESA determination of “No 

Effects”.

• Minor (no direct effect to individuals; adverse effects to habitat may be measureable or 

detectable but cumulatively so minor as to not affect processes sustaining the population or 

carrying capacity). Minor effects equate with an ESA determination of “May Affect/Not 

Likely to Adversely Affect.”

• Moderate (adverse direct effect on individuals possible; adverse effects to habitat would be 

measureable or detectable, and/or adverse effects would be cumulative with existing high 

level of disturbance further decreasing carrying capacity and potential for natural processes 

to sustain populations. Key ecosystem processes may experience disruptions that may

result in population or habitat condition fluctuations that would be outside the range of

natural variation, but would return to natural conditions. Moderate level adverse effects 

equate with an ESA determination of “May Affect/Likely to Adversely Affect”.

• Major Effect (individuals or population of a listed species, its critical habitat, or the natural 

processes sustaining them would be measurably and detectably adversely affected. Key

ecosystem processes would be altered resulting in long-term decline in population numbers 

and long term modification of critical habitat. Major adverse effects would equate with an

ESA determination of “Jeopardy/Adverse Modification of Critical Habitat”.

Spatial and Temporal Bounding of Analysis Area

Project effects are analyzed at three spatial scales: the site-scale is the treatment areas and the 

lands or waters 300 feet downslope or downstream from treatment areas; the 6th field watershed 

scale; and the 5th field watershed scale. Individual watershed checklists are included in the 

appendix of the Fisheries (Aquatic) Resource Report and provide a summary of current 

conditions for the full suite of habitat indicators in 7th field watersheds where there is potential to 

effect special status aquatic species.

The temporal bounding of the analysis includes effects during implementation, short-term effects 

expected to occur within the first five years following implementation, and long-term effects that 

are expected to last beyond five years. Five years was chosen because vegetative cover on 

burned or otherwise wide disturbed ground is largely recovered after five years.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

147

Affected Environment

The Horse Creek project area is on the west side of the Forest in the Klamath Mountains of 

northern California. The Klamath Mountains are extremely rugged with total relief in excess of 

7,500 feet and hillslopes commonly steeper than 65 percent (Cover et al, 2010). The Klamath 

Mountains are also characterized by steep ecological gradients and high vegetation, wildlife, and 

fish diversity, with numerous special-status species. Annual precipitation ranges from

approximately 10 inches in eastern valleys to over 70 inches in the highest elevations (Cover et 

al, 2010). Climate is essentially Mediterranean and watershed hydrology is characterized by dry

summer and fall months followed by significant winter precipitation. Morphology and function 

of tributaries in the analysis area is largely determined by large floods such as those in 1997, 

1974, 1964, and 1955 (Stewart and LaMarche, 1967; de la Fuente and Elder, 1998) with 

associated landslides and debris flows. Riparian vegetation is primarily hardwood although 

valley bottom mixed-conifer vegetation with large Douglas fir was historically significant 

(Mondry, 2004).

The Klamath River and three of the tributaries (Horse, Seiad, and Tom Martin Creeks) in the 

project area support salmon, steelhead, resident rainbow trout, lamprey, and other native fish 

species. The Aquatic Resources Report analysis area is the 5th, 6th, and 7th field watersheds 

located in the Middle Klamath HA that were affected by the fires or have activities proposed that 

have the potential to effect special status aquatic species. Table 50 lists the watersheds included 

in the project area and miles of anadromous and resident fish habitat in each 7th field watershed.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

148

Table 50: The Gap Fire 5th, 6th, and 7th field watersheds and miles of anadromous and fish-bearing stream. 

All of the Horse Creek 7th field watersheds are included even if not in project area.

5th Field

Watershed

6th Field 

Watershed

7th Field 

Watershed Area in Acres

Total Miles of 

Anadromous 

Salmonid 

Habitat

Miles of FishBearing 

Streams

Horse CreekKlamath River Horse Creek Buckhorn 

Creek 9,088 1.4 1.4

Horse CreekKlamath River Horse Creek Lower Horse 

Creek 7,979 6.2 6.2

Horse CreekKlamath River Horse Creek Middle Creek 8,064 1.5 1.5

Horse CreekKlamath River Horse Creek Middle Horse 

Creek 3,328 3.1 3.1

Horse CreekKlamath River Horse Creek East Fork 

Horse Creek 4,710 0 3.4

Horse CreekKlamath River Horse Creek Salt Gulch 2,432 1 2.9

Horse CreekKlamath River Horse Creek West Fork 

Horse Creek 3,352 0 2.3

Horse CreekKlamath RiverKohl Creek –

Klamath River

Collins CreekKlamath River 7,872 0 0

Horse CreekKlamath RiverKohl Creek –

Klamath River Kohl Creek 3,537 0 0

Horse CreekKlamath RiverKohl Creek –

Klamath River

Sambo GulchKlamath River 6,400 0 0

Horse CreekKlamath RiverKohl Creek –

Klamath River

Tom Martin 

Creek-Klamath 

River

10,688 0.2 0.2

Seiad CreekKlamath River Seiad Creek Middle Seiad 

Creek 5,712 2.8 2.8

Seiad CreekKlamath River

Bittenbender 

Creek-Klamath 

River

Negro Creek 2,112 0 0

Seiad CreekKlamath River

Bittenbender 

Creek-Klamath 

River

Schutts GulchKlamath River 6,720 0 0

The analysis area in this report includes only the 38,912 acre Horse Creek 6th field true 

watershed and the reach of the middle Klamath River within the Horse Creek project area. The 

Middle Klamath River is discussed because it is hydrologically linked to upslope/upstream areas 

where actions are proposed. The Seiad Creek-Klamath River 5th field watershed and face 

drainages to the Klamath River in the Horse Creek-Klamath River 5th field watershed are not 

included in the analysis beyond this point because: (1) little treatment is proposed in these 7th

field watershed areas; (2) what is proposed is primarily hazard tree treatment, site preparation

and planting, and fuels reduction that would cause minor ground disturbance (exceptions to this 

area: salvage and reforestation on 15 acres in the McCollins-Klamath River watershed; salvage 

and reforestation on 17 acres in the Sambo Gulch-Klamath River watershed; and salvage and 

reforestation on one acres in the Kohl Creek Watershed.); (3) what is proposed is on or near 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

149

ridges or; not near perennial stream channels, and (4) ground disturbing actions are over a 

quarter mile from perennial stream channels (see project maps in Appendix A). Therefore, the 

Horse Creek project would have no effect on special status aquatic species in these excluded 

watershed areas.

The current condition of aquatic habitats and watersheds in the analysis area provides context for 

assessing the impacts of the proposed action with regard to the impacts of past human activities 

and natural disturbances that are or could be affecting special status aquatic species and their 

habitats. Current condition is based on the best available information from the following sources:

• Horse Creek Ecosystem Analysis (USDA 2002).

• Klamath National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan including the 

Environmental Impact Statement (USFS 1995).

• Klamath National Forest water temperature monitoring from 1989 to 2015.

• Klamath National Forest stream sediment monitoring in 2009 and 2012 (USDA 2016).

• Klamath National Forest fish passage barrier inventory (USDA 2003).

• Klamath National Forest road sediment source inventory and risk assessment (USDA 

2016).

• Klamath National Forest - 1997 Flood Assessment (de la Fuente and Elder, 1998).

• Klamath National Forest GIS data layers needed to run the three Klamath National Forest 

cumulative watershed effects (CWE) models. Cumulative watershed effects were analyzed 

using the Klamath National Forest CWE modeling process (USDA 2012). 

• Hydrology Specialist Report (in project record).

• Geology Specialist Report (in project record).

• Fire and Fuels Specialist Report (in project record).

• Burned Area Emergency Recovery (BAER) report.

• Professional judgment and personal observation of fish populations and aquatic habitat 

condition from 22 years working in the mid-Klamath sub-basin as fisheries biologist.

The watershed team (fisheries biologist, hydrologist and geologist) worked together to integrate 

assessment of upslope watershed features that have the potential to impact habitat for special 

status aquatic species. The team worked together to identify sensitive watershed areas such as 

active landslides, active surface erosion, severely burned areas, riparian reserves, and stream 

channels to develop effective project design features for the protection and restoration of aquatic 

and riparian resources. The watershed team review included these elements:

• Field review of sensitive watershed areas within, downslope, and downstream from 

proposed treatment areas. The objective was to determine if and where watershed 

processes, and aquatic and riparian habitats, would be particularly susceptible to impacts 

from proposed actions.

• Field review of selected stream reaches of Horse Creek to get an idea of current (Spring 

2017) aquatic and riparian conditions (i.e. post-2016 Gap Fire followed by a very wet 

winter with high peak flows).
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

150

• Office review of the application of the Forests’ Cumulative Watershed Effects (CWE) 

model to the alternatives. The CWE model tracks watershed disturbances and management 

activities to gauge the relative risk to watershed function, aquatic habitats, and other 

beneficial uses of water.

Middle Klamath River (within the Horse Creek project area)

Aquatic Resources

The Middle Klamath River (mid-Klamath) and tributaries in the Horse Creek-Klamath River 5th

field watershed (mid-Klamath) provide habitat for SONCC Coho salmon, UKTR Chinook 

salmon, KMP steelhead, resident rainbow trout, lamprey and other native fish, reptile, 

amphibian, mammal, and bird species. Past human activities have impacted the numbers and 

distribution of anadromous salmonids and other special status aquatic species in the Klamath 

Basin including dams, historic large-scale mining, timber harvest, road construction, agriculture, 

grazing, water diversion, floodplain alteration, channelization, artificial propagation (hatcheries), 

and over-fishing. Since the early 1900s, water has been diverted from the Klamath River for the 

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation’s Klamath Project. This diversion has altered the historic hydrologic

regime of the mainstem Klamath River, as well as reduced the total volume of water available

for instream flows. The key limiting stresses adversely affecting salmonids populations in the 

mid-Klamath River are impaired water quality, lack of floodplain function and channel structure, 

barriers, altered flow regime, and lack of quality summer and winter rearing habitat that is 

protected from warm temperatures and high winter flows. Key limiting threats are high severity 

fire, dams, diversions, and roads (NMFS 2014).

Sediment

Sediment delivery to the mid-Klamath River is increased over the range of natural variability 

primarily due to recent large wildfires, timber harvest, and an extensive road network prone to 

chronic surface erosion and mass-wasting failures (J. Grunbaum, personal observation). 

Morphological changes associated with increased sediment loads eliminate or result in a 

decreased volume of thermal refugia and impede access to thermal refugia provided by 

tributaries. Refugial volume is reduced or eliminated when deep pools fill with sediment, when 

side channels are buried, or when cold tributary flows percolate into aggraded tributary deltas or 

gravel bars before entering the river. Access to refugia or spawning areas in tributaries is 

restricted or eliminated when sediment loads result in aggradation at tributary mouths.

Alterations in flow in the Klamath River basin have contributed to the degradation of salmonid

spawning and rearing habitat. Principal factors affecting anadromous fish production in the 

Klamath River from Iron Gate Dam to Weitchpec include impaired flow in some tributaries

(particularly the Shasta and Scott Rivers), impaired flows in the mainstem, and alterations to the

timing and magnitude of mainstem flows. These impacts have contributed to the degradation of 

available spawning gravel from sedimentation (Hardy et al 2006, p.20).

Water Temperature

Water quality in the mid-Klamath River is impaired and is on the 303(d) Clean Water Act list 

due to temperature and other constituents. Increased water temperatures, elevated nutrient levels, 

low dissolved oxygen concentrations, elevated pH, potential ammonia toxicity, increased 

incidence of fish disease, an abundance of aquatic plant growth, high chlorophyll-a levels (both 

planktonic and periphytic algae), and high concentrations of potentially toxinogenic blue-green 

algae decrease the quality and quantity of suitable habitat for fish and aquatic life (NCRWQCB, 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

151

2010). Hydromodification, channelization, dam construction, flow regulation/modification, water 

diversions, stream channel and riparian modification, wetland loss, and natural and non-point 

sources are implicated for the high water temperature problem (NCRWQCB, 2010).

Use of mainstem habitat and disease prevalence is most limited by water quality during the 

summer months (June through September) when water temperatures are high throughout the day. 

In warm periods, juveniles must utilize tributaries and other off-channel areas where cooler 

water thermal refugia can be found. Tributaries to the Klamath River within the Horse CreekKlamath River 5th field watershed known to provide thermal refugia in lower reaches or at 

Klamath River confluences include Barkhouse, Doggett, Dona, Horse, Kohl, Little Humbug, and 

McKinney creeks (NCRWQCB, 2010). In general, mainstem habitat in the Klamath River is not 

suitable for productive summer or winter rearing, making tributary habitats highly valuable for

growth and survival of Coho salmon (NMFS and USFWS 2013). 

Large Woody Debris

Although large wood and complex floodplain habitat were not dominant features of the historic 

mainstem Klamath River channel, degraded riparian forest conditions pose a stress for salmonids 

(NMFS 2014). The potential for future recruitment of large woody debris to the river from 

stream buffers has been significantly reduced because: (1) there is a high density of roads 

constructed within stream buffers where trees used to grow, (2) trees that would otherwise recruit 

to the river are removed during road construction and maintenance, (3) trees within stream 

buffers are made accessible to the public and agencies via the Klamath River Highway, via river 

accesses and other public and private roads, and (4) trees are often cleared from private lands 

bordering the river and its tributaries. Large wood recruitment from Klamath River face 

drainages and tributaries is reduced due to past timber harvest, mining, and wildfires. Many

riparian areas along the Middle Klamath that used to be forested remain barren or partially

barren as a result of historic placer and hydraulic mining activities that washed away fertile soils 

and disconnected the river from its floodplain.

Horse Creek 6th field watershed

Aquatic Resources

The Horse Creek 6th field true watershed (mid-Klamath) provides habitat for SONCC Coho 

salmon, UKTR Chinook salmon, KMP steelhead, resident rainbow trout, lamprey and other 

native fish, reptile, amphibian, mammal, and bird species. Past human activities that have 

impacted the habitat for special status aquatic species in the Horse Creek watershedinclude

historic large-scale mining, channel constraint due to berming, timber harvest, roads, agriculture, 

grazing, and water diversion. The Horse Creek Ecosystem Analysis (USFS 1996) contains more

detailed watershed information.

Sediment

Based on high degree of hillslope and inner gorge disturbance from roads, and hillslope 

disturbance from past stand-replacement forestry, it is assumed that current sediment production 

and delivery to streams is much greater than pre-European settlement rate (2002 Horse Creek 

WA). The Gap Fire followed by a wetter than average winter likely added to that excessive 

sediment delivery to streams. The wet winter of 2016-17 triggered landslides and road failures 

all across northern California including within Horse Creek watershed. The extent of last 

winters’ landsliding and road failures in the Horse Creek watershed is not fully known as of this 

writing because a full reconnaissance of Horse Creek watershed has not been completed. Field 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

152

observations indicate that large quantities of sediment from had been transported through and 

deposited in stream channels. 

Roads are the major contributor to excessive sedimentation to streams and impacts to watershed 

function in the Horse Creek watershed (Horse Creek WA). Road density is high in the Horse 

Creek 6th field watershed and moderate to very high in the 7th field sub-watersheds, including 

within stream course riparian reserves. Eight percent of this very extensive road system is 

hydrologically connected to the stream network. Much of the road system in lower Horse Creek 

and throughout the Horse Creek watershed was constructed on dormant landslide deposits that 

are highly susceptible to chronic and acute surface erosion and mass-wasting from road drainage 

and road drainage structure failures. Roads in the Horse Creek watershed have increased 

sediment production from surface erosion, mass wasting, and culvert failures and will continue 

to do so at a high rate until stormproofed, decommissioned, or maintained (Horse Creek WA).

Substrate quality was evaluated in mainstem Horse Creek in 2010 and 2013 by comparing four 

sediment indicators in lower mainstem Horse Creek (a managed watershed) to the 85th percentile 

value plus survey error for reference streams that have minor to negligble management-related 

watershed disturbance. Managed watersheds exceeding the 85th percentile of reference streams 

may be impaired. In both 2010 and 2013 assessments, three of four sediment indices exceeded 

reference values. Cumulative watershed effects modeling results suggest that watershed function 

may be adversely impacted by high levels of watershed disturbance. Cumulative watershed 

effects model risk ratios greater than 1.00 indicate an elevated risk (“yellow flag” warning) of 

adverse impacts to watershed function including altered flow and sediment regimes. Cumulative 

watershed effects analysis show that Buckhorn, Lower Horse, Middle Creek, and Middle Horse 

7th field watersheds are near, at, or over the threshold of concern in one to all three CWE models.

The geology (GEO) cumulative watershed effects model risk ratio is used as a measure to track

changes in the likelihood that a landslide event will occur. See the Geology section of this EIS 

and the associated resource report for details.

In all 7th field watersheds the likelihood of landsliding is moderate to high and the consequences 

of landsliding are moderate or very high. Moderate consequences correlate to minor short-term 

adverse effects on aquatic and riparian habitats. High and very high consequences correlate to 

multi-year adverse impacts to habitat for special status aquatic species due to sedimentation, 

scour of streams, and damage to riparian vegetation over a large portion of late flowing 

intermittent or perennial streams.

Fire intensity and extent of area burned is also an indicator of the potential for sedimentation to 

streams and adverse effects to riparian function. Approximately fifteen percent of the Horse 

Creek watershed burned at moderate to high severity. Approximately eight percent of the stream 

course riparian reserves in the Horse Creek watershed burned at moderate to high severity. 

Sediment production is expected to have increased from stream course riparian reserves that 

burned at moderate to high severity. The capacity for stream course riparian reserves to filter and 

trap sediment from upslope sources is diminished.

The Sediment habitat indicator in the Horse Creek watershed was considered as “not properly

functioning” before the Gap Fire. The Gap Fire has further altered the sediment regime in the 

Horse Creek watershed increasing the risk of adverse impacts to aquatic and riparian habitats.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

153

Water Temperature

Pre Gap Fire: Summer water temperature of lower mainstem Horse Creek was monitored from 

2010 to 2015 at the Forest Service Road 46N60 stream crossing at approximately RM 2.4. 

During this period of record the maximum instantaneous water temperature ranged from 16.1oC 

to 18.2oC and averaged 17.4oC; and the maximum weekly maximum temperature (MWMT) 

ranged from 15.8oC to 17.7oC and averaged 16.9oC. In 2015, Middle Creek reached a maximum 

instantaneous temperature of 17.9oC and had an MWMT of 17.6oC. Mainstem Horse Creek has 

relatively cool summer water temperatures for a large watershed with southerly aspect and 

significant watershed disturbance from roads and landings; stand-replacement forestry and 

salvage harvest on private timberlands; grazing; and agriculture. Properly Functioning.

Post Gap Fire: Loss of shade and microclimate due to the Gap Fire could increase the rate of 

stream heating and cooling, resulting in lower lows and higher highs in water temperatures, and 

larger daily swings in temperature, until vegetation and shade recovers. The percent of riparian 

vegetation (stream course riparian reserves) burned is used herein as indication of the impacts 

from the Gap Fire to shade, microclimates, and water temperature. High burn severity areas will 

provide little to no shade to stream channels immediately post-fire. Moderate severity burn areas 

provide greatly reduced shade. Based on remote sensing data, area of riparian vegetation that 

burned at moderate and high severity in Horse Creek 7th field watersheds ranged from zero to 23 

percent of total. Four of the 7th field watersheds were not burned or had no moderate or high 

severity burn. Eight percent of the total riparian area in the Horse Creek 6th field watershed 

burned at moderate and high severity (Table 51). This much reduction in shade or cool 

microclimate will likely result in a small and possibly detectable increase in rate and magnitude

of stream heating and cooling.

Table 51: Acres and percentage of riparian areas affected by moderate and high burn intensity in the 2016 

Gap Fire in Horse Creek by 7th field watershed.

7th Field Watershed Moderate to High 

Burn Severity

Percent of Total 

Riparian Vegetation

Buckhorn Creek 314 12

Lower Horse Creek 487 23

Middle Creek 70 3

Middle Horse Creek 0 0

East Fork Horse Creek 0 0

Salt Gulch 0 0

West Fork 0 0

Total Acres 871 8

Increased sediment loads may alter channel morphology, leading to a wider and shallower wetted 

channel. The sizes of sediment that present a temperature concern are those that may result in 

pool filling, increased width, decreased depth, or a reduction of inter-gravel flow. A wider and 

shallower channel caused by aggradation or scour by debris flows gains and loses heat more 

readily than a narrow and deep channel. Debris flows often remove or bury riparian vegetation 

that was providing shade. Based on past experiences with large storm events on large burned 

areas it is reasonable to expect an increase in the rate of mass wasting during future wet weather 

events (see Geology Resource Report).
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

154

Based on percentage of riparian area burned at moderate to high severity, slight increase in risk 

of mass wasting, and pre-Gap Fire water temperature monitoring information showing Horse and 

Middle creeks are well within the properly functioning range for water temperature, the rate of 

heating and cooling of water in Horse and Middle creeks is likely to be slightly increased over 

pre-Gap Fire condition but would remain within the properly functioning range (at least as far 

downstream as the current monitoring location at river mile 2.4). The increase in rate and 

magnitude of heating and cooling due to the Gap Fire is likely to last several years or longer. An 

increase would likely be too small too small to ‘detect’ in that making a clear cause-and-effect 

relationship between the Gap Fire and water temperature would be difficult to do unless post-fire 

temperature metrics were markedly different than pre-fire temperature metrics (which is not 

anticipated).

Large Woody Debris

Pre Gap Fire: In the last stream survey of lower mainstem Horse Creek in July 2002, there was 

zero pieces of large woody debris (LWD) in the 1.15 mile section of stream that was surveyed, 

however, there were over 57 trees growing adjacent to that reach that were big enough to qualify 

as LWD. This survey was on National Forest lands at the upper reach of lower mainstem Horse 

Creek that is within the Lower Horse Creek HUC 7 watershed. Based on qualitative dashboard 

observations or observations made during fish population censuses there is an extreme lack of 

LWD in the stream channel and few large conifers growing adjacent to the creek that could 

provide future LWD. The 1989-90 stream surveys showed there was a lack of LWD along most 

of mainstem Horse Creek (Horse Creek WA). Large woody debris and LWD recruitment 

potential throughout most of the watershed has been significantly reduced by past timber harvest 

and a high density of roads and landings. Not Properly Functioning.

Post Gap-Fire: Large swathes of forest burned at high severity areas along mainstem Horse 

Creek in the Special Interest Area and up Fish Gulch. Stream reaches within these areas had a 

fair amount of LWD before the Gap Fire but are now experiencing a large increase in LWD 

loading as dead trees begin to fall into the stream channel. These reaches will soon reach 

desired condition for LWD loading and, in fact, may eventually exceed what is desirable at 

least in terms of fuel loading and wood jams. An increase in large wood loading into channels is 

expected in the near term in other areas where the stream buffer burned at moderate to high 

severity. Thus, in the moderate and high severity burned stream course riparian reserves on 

National Forest lands, an increase in large wood loading is expected in the near term, and a

reduction in large wood available for future recruitment is expected over the long-term until 

these areas recover with conifers. There will still be a lack of large woody debris in lower 

mainstem Horse Creek on private property because: (1) there were few or no large conifers prefire, (2) transport of large woody debris into lower Horse Creek is hindered by a tightly 

constrained canyon just upstream from private property that tends to hold up large woody debris 

in jams, and (3) large woody debris from Buckhorn and Middle Creeks is unlikely to reach 

mainstem Horse Creek due to low gradient reaches on private property where the large woody 

debris is likely to hold up. The Gap Fire will not change LWD amounts in streams throughout 

most of the watershed where LWD and LWD recruitment potential has been significantly 

reduced by past timber harvest and a high density of roads and landings. Although the fire 

caused some significant recruitment of LWD to several miles of stream channels the LWD 

habitat indicator is still considered Not Properly Functioning.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

155

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1

Direct and Indirect Effects

Under Alternative 1, there would be no action taken to meet the purpose and need for the project 

and desired future conditions within the project area (see Chapter 1, Final EIS). The no action 

alternative is not a baseline condition, but rather a description of future circumstances without 

implementation of the Horse Creek project. The no-action alternative is a continuation of the 

current level of management including road maintenance, hazard tree removal, dispersed 

recreation, mining, watershed restoration, appropriate management and fire suppression against 

the back-drop of about 33,000 acres of burned national forest and private lands within the 

assessment area. No direct effects would occur under the no action alternative since no activities 

would be implemented as a result of the project.

The potential for indirect effects to habitat indicators and aquatic species under Alternative 1 is 

framed herein relative to the following proposed project elements that would occur under the 

Horse Creek project action alternatives:

• Hazard Tree Treatments (including treatments in SIA)

• Roads and Landings

• Salvage and Reforestation

• Fuels Treatment

• Water Drafting

The no action alternative would not remove burned trees or restore forests through reforestation

including in moderate and high fire intensity areas. Re-establishment of conifers may only occur

around the edges of the fire where a good seed source is still available. Dead trees remaining 

from the Gap Fire would pose a fire hazard to the community and hinder efforts to expand 

options for managing future fires for resource benefit, including protection and restoration of 

riparian and aquatic conditions. 

Hazard Tree Removal

Sediment

Under the no action alternative, felled hazard trees would not be re-positioned to improve aquatic 

habitat.

Water Temperature

Not treating hazard trees would result in retaining slightly more stream shading than if hazard 

trees are felled.

Large Woody Debris

There would be greater large woody debris wood loading into riparian areas and stream channels 

in the short and long term under the no action alternative because hazard trees would be left on 

site to naturally recruit into streams over time. However, in some areas wood loading would 

become excessive creating conditions for high severity fire that could burn up the LWD and 

adversely impact riparian function. This would be even more likely to occur since roadside fuels 

reduction along many of the same roads would not be implemented either.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

156

Roads and Landings

Sediment

Potential effects to the sediment regime and soil productivity would not occur under the no action 

alternative because there would be no road and landing construction.

Water Temperature

Under the no action alternative there is no short or long term risk of increased mass wasting from 

road construction that could impact water temperature by altering stream channels and removing 

riparian vegetation. 

Large Woody Debris

Under the no action alternative, roads and landings would not be constructed or expanded into 

riparian reserves, thus there will be no reduction in existing amounts or potential future 

recruitment of LWD into riparian and aquatic habitats.

Salvage and Reforestation

Sediment

The no action alternative could indirectly affect sediment regimes in the project area if a future

wildfire occurs because there would be an increased potential for severe fire effects if fuels are

not reduced. Additionally, the abundance of burned trees within the fire areas would make fire 

suppression difficult if not impossible. Under the no action alternative, there would be no 

opportunity to move the landscape towards conditions where fire managers would have more 

options to manage wildland fire safely and for resource benefit, including restoration of sediment 

regimes closer to desired conditions. On the other hand, there would be no potential for short or 

long-term project-related increases in surface erosion and mass wasting if no action was taken.

Water Temperature

The no action alternative could indirectly affect water temperature in the analysis area if a future

wildfire occurs because potential for severe fire effects would be greater than if fuels are 

reduced, and the high fuel loads would make fire suppression difficult if not impossible in some 

areas. Under the no action alternative, there would be no opportunity to create conditions where 

fire managers would have more options to manage wildland fire for resource benefit, including 

protection and restoration of riparian and aquatic habitats. On the other hand, there would be no 

potential for short or long term project-related effects to sediment regimes due to implementation 

of salvage and reforestation if no action was taken.

Large Woody Debris

Not implementing salvage and reforestation would have little indirect effect on LWD other than 

increasing the risk of future high fire severity which could kill live trees and consume LWD in 

riparian areas. 

Fuels Treatment

Sediment

The no action alternative could indirectly affect sediment regimes in the project area if a future

wildfire occurs because there would be an increased potential for severe fire effects if fuels are

not reduced. Additionally, the abundance of burned and green vegetation along roads, and on untreated fuel breaks, would make fire suppression difficult if not impossible. Under the no action 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

157

alternative, there would be no opportunity to move the landscape towards conditions where fire 

managers would have more options to manage wildland fire safely and for resource benefit, 

including restoration of sediment regimes closer to desired conditions. 

Water Temperature

The no action alternative could indirectly affect water temperature in the analysis area if a future

wildfire occurs because potential for severe fire effects would be greater than if fuels are 

reduced, and the high fuel loads would make fire suppression difficult if not impossible in some 

areas. Under the no action alternative, there would be no opportunity to create conditions where 

fire managers would have more options to manage wildland fire for resource benefit, including 

protection and restoration of riparian and aquatic habitats. The no action would not significantly 

affect water temperature.

Large Woody Debris

The no action alternative will have no effect on large woody debris in the next one to five years 

as surface fuel loading is low from the 2016 Gap Fire and re-growth of shrubs will be limited. 

From 5-10 years out, and beyond, the burned areas will become more susceptible to high severity

fire as snags fall, shrubs grow, fuel loading increases, and the ability to contain a future fire is 

reduced. Not implementing fuels treatments would have little short term indirect effect on LWD 

other than increasing the risk of high fire severity which could kill live trees and consume LWD 

in riparian areas. 

Water Drafting

Sediment

There would be no significant difference in effects to the sediment character and regime since 

the action would not occur.

Water Temperature

Water temperature would not be affected by the no action.

Large Woody Debris

The no action and action alternatives would not significantly affect existing LWD or potential for 

future recruitment of LWD into the stream. 

Cumulative Effects

The no action alternative would not add project-related incremental effects to the effects of past, 

present/ongoing or future projects because no management activities are proposed. However, the

burned watersheds will be vulnerable to a wildfire in from five to 10 years and beyond if no 

action is taken, which could lead to cumulative adverse effects to fish habitat. Aquatic habitat is 

recovering from past disturbances and fish populations are at low levels. Thus, a severe wildfire, 

in combination with past, present/ongoing and future actions, could result in cumulative impacts 

to fish associated with increases in sediment supply, localized increases in water temperature and 

reduced long-term large woody debris recruitment. The magnitude of impacts is expected to be 

minor to moderate depending on the spatial pattern of high intensity fire. Under the no action 

alternative, salvage harvest using various methods, and construction or reconstruction of roads 

and landings would not add to ongoing adverse cumulative watershed effects in the Horse 

Creek watershed.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

158

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4

Direct Effects

The potential for direct effects to special status aquatic species and their habitats is associated 

with actions that occur within the wetted channel of fish-bearing stream reaches, and within the 

riparian zone. All action alternatives have potential for direct effects to aquatic resources because

all action alternatives call for hazard tree treatment and water drafting. Hazard tree felling and 

moving has potential to directly affect special status aquatic species within the stream and 

riparian zone. Water drafting has the potential to directly affect special status species within 

streams. Potential direct impacts to aquatic resources from hazard tree treatments and water 

drafting is discussed below.

Hazard Tree Treatments

Special status aquatic species in stream course riparian reserves could be crushed or displaced in 

the course of felling and moving hazard trees. Much of the stream course riparian reserve area 

where hazard trees would be felled and moved is within the SIA and lower Fish Gulch where 

Gap Fire severity was high. It is unlikely that there would be any or many special status aquatic 

species (except fish and the American dipper that are highly mobile) in the severely burned 

riparian areas because most were probably killed in the fire and none have migrated back 

because no suitable habitat has grown back yet. Chances of a felled hazard tree crushing a 

special status aquatic species outside of severely burned riparian reserve is higher. Felling hazard 

trees could conceivably crush individual fish if the tree lands in the water (which would be the 

desired action in many cases), but chances of this happening are small and few, if any, fish are 

likely to be crushed. Re-positioning felled hazard trees into the wetted channel is unlikely to 

adversely affect fish because fish would flee and seek cover in response to the disturbance. It is 

anticipated that fish temporarily avoiding in-stream disturbance are not likely to experience

significantly reduced feeding success or higher probability of exposure to prey. It is conceivable 

but unlikely that hazard tree felling and moving felled trees in stream course riparian reserves 

could injure or kill a yellow-legged frog, or a southern torrent salamander.

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 have approximately the same potential to have adverse direct effects on 

special status aquatic species and their habitat. Alternatives 2 and 3 call for more miles of hazard 

tree treatment than Alternative 4 so potential for adverse effects would be slightly greater for 

these two alternatives.

Water Drafting

Direct effects to special status aquatic species and their habitat can result from water drafting

activities. Established water drafting sites would be used and located within fish-bearing and 

non-fish-bearing streams. Water drafting sites overlap suitable habitat for special status aquatic 

species.

Drafting operations can disturb holding or spawning adult fish, as well as impinge or entrain 

juveniles (Sicking 2003). Impingement of would be avoided by requiring the use of specific

mesh sizes, pumping rates, and screen areas, as outlined in the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration Fisheries Water Drafting Specifications (NOAA 2001). National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) water drafting specifications would be 

implemented when drafting within Coho salmon critical habitat. Forest Service Best 

Management Practices (BMPs), which require screening for aquatic species present, would be 

required at water drafting sites outside of critical habitat. There is a very low probability of fish 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

159

impingement given that fish would flee and seek cover in response to a water tender operator 

placing a hose in the water. It is anticipated that fish temporarily avoiding water drafting 

activities are not likely to experience significantly reduced feeding success or higher probability

of exposure to prey. It is unlikely that there would be any adult salmon or steelhead holding in 

drafting locations before the aquatic Limited Operating Period (October 15 to April 15) when 

project activities in streams are more restrictive. Spring- and summer-runs of salmon and 

steelhead are not seen in Horse Creek and would not be in locations that drafting would occur in 

the Klamath River. Implementation of Forest Service BMPs specific to water drafting minimizes 

potential impacts to resident and steelhead trout, and other aquatic species that may be present, to 

minor or insignificant.

Alternative 2

Indirect Effects

Hazard Tree Treatments

Sediment

Hazard trees would be treated along roads, including through stream course riparian reserves. 

Felled hazard trees would be left in place if needed to meet Forest Plan standards for course and 

large woody debris or removed from site if wood standards requirement were met or fuel loading 

was excessive (see Chapter 2 for specific prescriptions). Felled hazard trees in the SIA may be 

re-positioned to improve stream function and fish habitat. Felling and moving felled hazard trees 

in stream course riparian reserves would cause minor localized ground disturbance and could 

mobilize small amounts of sediment towards or into stream channels. Effects of felling and 

moving hazard trees with concomitant risk of sediment delivery to streams would be greatest 

where burn severity, hillslope gradient, and density of hazard trees to be felled is the greatest, 

which is within the SIA and lower Fish Gulch, in the Lower Horse Creek 7th field watershed. 

Most of the total sediment delivered to streams during hazard tree operations is expected to occur 

within the SIA and lower Fish Gulch.

Water Temperature

Hazard trees would be treated along roads, including through stream course riparian reserves. 

Removing hazard trees from stream course riparian reserves would slightly reduce stream 

shading which could leading to increased stream heating and higher water temperatures. 

However, to experience a measureable increase in temperature, or have a significant effect on 

aquatic organisms, relatively large contiguous segments of stream must experience significant 

reduction in shade canopy which would not occur under the action alternatives. A relatively large 

contiguous swath of hazard trees would be felled along the main Horse Creek road through the 

SIA, however, nearly all these hazard trees are fire-killed snags that provide much less shade and 

microclimate than live green trees. Felling hazard trees would result in a minor reduction in 

stream shade and would negligibly affect rate of stream heating and cooling, or summer high 

temperatures.

Large Woody Debris

Hazard tree treatments would increase large woody debris loading into stream channels in most 

locations in the short term because hazard trees felled in stream course riparian reserves would 

be left on site unless course and large wood debris requirements already meet Forest Plan 

standards or fuel loading is or would be excessive. Felling hazard trees would diminish the 

supply of trees available for longer term recruitment into channels. Infrequently, felled trees that 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

160

would pose a hazard to people or road drainage structures would be removed from a stream 

course riparian reserve. Hazard tree treatments would maintain or increase large woody debris 

loading into streams in most location but reduce the supply of trees that would naturally recruit 

over time in all locations.

Roads and Landings; Salvage and Reforestation

Sediment

In the cumulative effects models (cumulative watershed effect) for all action alternatives, 

increases in modeled watershed disturbance (estimated by ERA model), rate of soil erosion 

(estimated by USLE model), and potential for mass wasting (estimated by GEO model) was 

driven primarily by salvage and reforestation and by landing construction work and secondarily 

by roadside fuel treatments and fuels management zone treatments. Site preparation and planting 

was a minor component of cumulative watershed effect increases.

Existing disturbance levels in the project 7th-field watersheds are large and generally dwarf the 

effects of Alternative 2 in the cumulative watershed effect models. Alternative 2 resulted in no 

increase in modeled cumulative watershed effects for many of the 7th-field watersheds but there 

were significant increases (0.05 or more) in one or more of the cumulative watershed effect 

models in the Buckhorn Creek, Lower Horse Creek, Middle Creek, Middle Horse Creek and 

Negro Creek 7th-field watersheds. Buckhorn Creek, Lower Horse Creek, Middle Creek and 

Middle Horse Creek were already over the threshold of concern in one or more cumulative 

watershed effect models prior to Alternative 2 being added. Watersheds over threshold of 

concern may have compromised watershed function including the inability to absorb additional 

disturbance without adversely affecting aquatic habitats.

Salvage and reforestation, construction of new road and landing, and re-opening existing 

landings would not occur within riparian reserves so increases in peak flows, sediment delivery

to streams, and risk of landsliding from implementing the actions would be negligible to minor. 

Approximately 0.1 mile of existing road in stream course riparian reserves would be re-opened 

in the Buckhorn Creek watershed and approximately 0.06 mile of existing road would be reopened in stream course riparian reserves in the Middle Creek watershed. Re-opening short 

segments of existing road would negligibly increase sedimentation in the short term and long 

term because segments within riparian reserves are short; existing drainage problems would be 

corrected before road use; and re-opened segments of road would be hydrologically obliterated 

after use. Many of the Horse Creek watershed areas where actions would occur are particularly 

vulnerable to disturbance due to post-fire conditions, high road density, and existing cumulative 

watershed effects over the threshold of concern. Therefore, ground disturbance from salvage 

logging, and road and landing construction even outside stream course riparian reserves, is likely 

to slightly elevate peak flows and increase sediment delivery to streams.

In light of the relatively small differences in cumulative watershed effect model outputs for the 

alternatives, a different way of comparing the alternatives is to simply look at the amount of 

activities with the highest potential for triggering landslides: those alternatives incorporating the 

most new and existing roads and landings would have the highest potential for initiating 

landslides, and those with the fewest would have the lowest potential (Geology Report).

Therefore, alternative 2 would have the highest potential for initiating landslides.

Aquatic habitats in the Lower Horse Creek watershed are degraded due to current high levels of 

watershed disturbance from excessive sedimentation (USDA 2015). The same could be surmised 

for aquatic habitats in Buckhorn and Middle Creek where current watershed disturbance is also 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

161

very high. Additional sedimentation from salvage and reforestation, and from road and landing 

work, is expected to be non-measureable in fish-bearing reaches but would nevertheless further 

degrade aquatic habitats given the poor conditions in many of the 7th-field watershed. According 

to the cumulative watershed effect results and proposed alternatives for construction of new and 

existing roads, Alternative 2 poses the highest risk of increasing peak flows and sediment 

delivery streams and causing further degradation of riparian and aquatic habitats. Alternative 2 is 

likely to cause slight but significant short term increase in degradation of aquatic habitats in the 

Horse Creek watershed due to increased peak flows and sedimentation at the site, 7th-field 

watershed, and 6th-field watershed scales. Slight additional degradation of aquatic habitats by 

increased peak flows and sedimentation is likely to slightly reduce carrying capacity for special 

status aquatic species.

Table 52: Increases in modeled cumulative watershed effects over existing condition for Alternatives 2, 3, 

and 4.

7th field watershed Change in Risk Ratio

USLE GEO ERA

Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4 Alt. 2 Alt. 3 Alt. 4

Buckhorn Creek 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.12* 0.03* 0.08*

East Fork 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Lower Horse Creek 0.05+ 0.02 0.02 0.05* 0.03* 0.02* 0.11* 0.07* 0.06*

Middle Creek 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.07* 0.03* 0.04* 0.14* 0.04* 0.08*

Middle Horse Creek 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09* 0.05* 0.03*

Salt Gulch 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.01

West Fork Horse 

Creek

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

+alternative pushed model results over TOC.

*Model results over TOC before action alternative added

The relative risk of sedimentation associated with salvage and reforestation and temporary road

and landing construction or reconstruction varies with location, site conditions, and proximity of 

disturbances to stream channels. Sedimentation associated with roads and lands is expected to be 

minor because there would be no new or existing landings in riparian reserves, no new road in 

riparian reserves, and only 0.15 mile of existing roadbed re-opened in riparian reserves.

Salvage and reforestation, would not occur within stream course riparian reserves so the risk of 

increased peak flows and elevated sediment delivery to streams from these activities would be 

minimized. However, many of the Horse Creek watershed areas where ground-disturbing actions 

would occur are particularly vulnerable to disturbance due to post-fire conditions, high road 

density, and existing cumulative effects over the TOC. Therefore, ground disturbance from 

salvage logging, and road and landing construction even outside stream course riparian reserves, 

is likely to slightly elevate peak flows and increase sediment delivery to streams.

In light of the relatively small differences in CWE model outputs for the alternatives, a different 

way of comparing the alternatives is to simply look at the amount of activities with the highest 

potential for triggering landslides: those alternatives incorporating the most new and existing 

roads and landings would have the highest potential for initiating landslides, and those with the 

fewest would have the lowest potential (Geology Report). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

162

Aquatic habitats in the Lower Horse Creek watershed are degraded due to current high levels of 

watershed disturbance from excessive sedimentation (USDA 2015). The same could be surmised 

for aquatic habitats in Buckhorn and Middle Creek where current watershed disturbance is also 

very high. Additional sedimentation from salvage and reforestation, and from road and landing 

work, is expected to be non-measureable but would nevertheless further degrade aquatic habitats 

given current poor aquatic and riparian habitat conditions in these watersheds. According to the 

CWE results and proposed alternatives for construction of new and existing roads it appears that 

Alternative 2 poses the highest risk of increasing sediment delivery streams and further 

degradation of aquatic habitats. Alternative 2 is likely to cause slight short term increase in 

degradation of aquatic habitats at the site 7th field watershed and 6th field watershed scales in the 

Horse Creek watershed due to slight (probably not measurable or detectable) increases in peak 

flows and sedimentation . Further degradation of habitat caused by Alternative 2 grounddisturbing actions are likely to result in further decline in carrying capacity for special status 

aquatic species.

Water Temperature

Salvage and reforestation, and roads and landings, would not directly reduce stream shading or 

affect microclimates because these activities would not occur within stream course riparian 

reserves. Therefore, no direct effects to water temperature are expected. Increased rate of 

landsliding caused by salvage and reforestation, and road and landing actions, could indirectly 

affect water temperature by removing riparian vegetation that is shading streams and by 

widening and shallowing stream channels. According to the GEO model CWE results, and 

proposed alternatives for construction of new and existing road and landing, it appears that 

Alternative 2 poses the highest risk of increasing landslides. Increased water temperature 

resulting from Alternative 2 is expected to be non-measureable and is not expected to adversely 

affect aquatic organisms because water temperature in Horse Creek streams is well within the 

properly functioning range (based on water temperature monitoring in mainstem Horse Creek 

and Middle Creek).

Large Woody Debris

Salvage and reforestation, and roads and landings, would not directly alter the amount of large 

woody debris in channels and stream course riparian reserves because these activities would not 

occur within stream course riparian reserves. Increased rate of landsliding caused by salvage and 

reforestation, and road and landing actions, could indirectly affect large woody debris loading in 

streams by delivering large woody debris to streams via mass wasting. According to the GEO 

model CWE results, and proposed alternatives for construction of new and existing road and 

landing (see sediment indicator discussion), it appears that Alternative 2 poses the highest risk of 

increasing landslides, however, the absolute likelihood of increased landsliding would not be 

significantly increased (Geology Report). Therefore, salvage and reforestation, and road and 

landing construction, under Alternative 2 would not significantly affect the large woody debris 

indicator.

Fuels Treatment

Sediment

Alternative 2 proposed fuels treatments would not significantly increase ground disturbance and 

consequent sediment delivery to streams because: (1) most fuel treatments would be 

implemented manually, (2) most fuel treatment is not within riparian reserves, (3) use of 

equipment in riparian reserves would be limited to end-lining from outside the riparian reserve, 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

163

and (4) diameter limits would be 18 inches diameter-breast-height for dead trees and 12 inches 

diameter breast height for live trees.

Water Temperature

Alternative 2 proposed fuels treatments would have negligible adverse effect on water 

temperatures because treatments largely target ground fuels, understory vegetation, and limbs so 

that shade and microclimate is just slightly diminished, and because trees that would be felled are 

dead and not providing much shade or are understory and not providing much shade.

Large Woody Debris

Alternative 2 proposed fuels treatments would have no effect on large woody debris in stream 

channels because no large woody debris would be removed from channels. Alternative 2 

proposed fuels treatments would have no short term effect on large woody debris recruitment 

potential because no dead or live trees large enough to qualify as large woody debris would be 

removed. Proposed fuels treatments are likely to improve long term potential for recruitment of 

course and large woody debris because reducing live vegetation density would release residual 

trees allowing them the grow faster, and would reduce the risk of high severity fire that could kill 

trees before they reach large enough size to qualify as course or large woody debris. 

Water Drafting

Sediment

Water drafting would be from existing sites so minor to no ground disturbance is expected from 

accessing and re-opening (if necessary) sites. Ground disturbance could occur at drafting sites 

that have not been used in a long-time due to activities such as brushing, grading, berm removal, 

etc. Most water drafting sites in the project area have been used recently in the Gap Fire so 

would not need much or any re-opening. Re-opening water drafting sites may cause a brief sitescale increase in turbidity, and alterations of substrate at the immediate drafting location. Once 

an existing site is re-opened, effects to turbidity and substrate character from use are generally 

negligible. Minor turbidity related to water drafting could occur due to over-drafting or placing 

intake hose/fish screen setups. Project design features, such as hardening the access road with 

gravel and not allowing over-drafting, would minimize or prevent sedimentation from entering 

the wetted channel. Water drafting would have a discountable adverse effect on the sediment 

indicator.

Water Temperature

Water drafting can affect stream temperature if stream flow is measurably reduced for more than 

a brief duration. NOAA Fisheries Water Drafting Specifications (NOAA 2001) would be 

followed so that the rate of drafting would not cause significant increase in stream heating or 

cooling. Forest Fisheries Biologists would coordinate with Timber Sale Administrators to 

determine drafting locations to protect aquatic species during the season as water temperatures 

increase and flows decrease. Water drafting would have discountable negative effect on the 

water temperature indicator.

Large Woody Debris

Existing water drafting sites would be used so that no large or medium sized trees would need to 

be cleared. Existing LWD on site might be re-positioned out of the way but would not be left in 

the channel. Water drafting would have negligible effect on the large woody debris indicator.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

164

Alternative 3

Indirect Effects

Hazard Tree Removal

Sediment

Alternative 2 and 3 have the same proposed action for hazard tree treatment, therefore, effects on 

the sediment regime and character would be the same.

Water Temperature

Alternative 2 and 3 have the same proposed action for hazard tree treatment, therefore, effects on 

water temperature would be the same.

Large Woody Debris

Alternative 2 and 3 have the same proposed action for hazard tree treatment, therefore, effects on 

large woody debris would be the same.

Roads and Landings; Salvage and Reforestation

Sediment

Alternative 3 proposed less salvage and reforestation, and road and landing construction, than 

Alternative 2 and notably less than Alternative 4. In Alternative 3, two of the Horse Creek 7th

field watersheds show a small measureable increase in CWEs compared to four watersheds 

showing a measureable increase under Alternative 2, and three watersheds showing a 

measureable increase under Alternative 4. Under Alternative 3, none of the watersheds show a 

measureable increase in the USLE and GEO models that were shown in Alternative 2. According 

to the CWE results and proposed alternatives for construction of new and existing roads it 

appears that Alternative 3 poses the lowest risk of increasing sediment delivery to streams and 

further degrading of aquatic habitats. Alternative 3 is likely to cause slight significant increase in 

degradation of aquatic habitats due to sedimentation at the site and 7th field watershed scales in 

the short term which would result in minor adverse effect on carrying capacity of aquatic 

habitats. At the 6th field and larger scales, Alternative 3 is likely to have discountable adverse 

effects on aquatic habitats and discountable effects on carrying capacity of aquatic habitats.

Water Temperature

Risk to water temperature is less under Alternative 3 than Alternative 2 and 4 because there 

would be less ground disturbance and less risk of increased peak flows and sedimentation. As 

with Alternative 2, there would be no measureable increase in water temperature. Any nonmeasureable increase in water temperature increase would not be expected to adversely affect 

aquatic organisms because water temperature in Horse Creek streams is well within the properly 

functioning range (based on water temperature monitoring in mainstem Horse Creek and Middle 

Creek).

Large Woody Debris

As in Alternative 2, salvage and reforestation, and roads and landings, would not directly alter 

the amount of large woody debris in channels and stream course riparian reserves because these 

activities would not occur within stream course riparian reserves. As in Alternative 2, the 

likelihood of increased landsliding would not be significantly increased (Geology Report). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

165

Therefore, salvage and reforestation, and road and landing construction, under Alternative 3 

would not significantly affect the large woody debris indicator.

Fuels Treatment

Sediment

All action alternatives have the same proposed action for fuels treatment, therefore, effects on 

sediment regime and character would be the same as described for Alternative 2.

Water Temperature

All action alternatives have the same proposed action for fuels treatment, therefore, effects on 

water temperature would be the same as described for Alternative 2.

Large Woody Debris

All action alternatives have the same proposed action for fuels treatment, therefore, effects on 

large woody debris would be the same as described for Alternative 2.

Water Drafting

Sediment

Alternative 3 would have less potential to affect turbidity and substrate character than 

Alternatives 2 and 4 because there would be less salvage and less attendant road and landing 

construction. Water drafting as proposed in Alternative 3 would have a similar discountable 

adverse effect on the sediment indicator as explained for Alternative 2 above.

Water Temperature

Alternative 3 would have less potential to affect water temperature than Alternatives 2 and 4 

because there would be less salvage and less attendant road and landing construction that would 

need water for dust abatement. Water drafting as proposed in Alternative 3 would have a similar 

discountable adverse effect on the water temperature indicator as explained for Alternative 2 

above.

Large Woody Debris

In all action alternatives, existing water drafting sites would be used so that no large or medium 

sized trees would need to be cleared. Existing LWD on site might be re-positioned out of the way 

but would not be left in the channel. Water drafting would have negligible effect on the large 

woody debris indicator.

Alternative 4

Indirect Effects

Hazard Tree Removal

Sediment

Alternative 4 has 16 miles less (15 percent) hazard tree treatment proposed than Alternatives 2 

and 3. However, Alternative 4 would treat hazard trees in the SIA and lower Fish Gulch the same 

as in Alternatives 2 and 3. Most of the sediment reaching streams during hazard tree treatments 

is expected in the SIA and lower Fish Gulch (see discussion in Alternative 2). Therefore, risk of 

sediment delivered to stream channels from hazard tree treatments in Alternative 4 actions would 

not be significantly less than in Alternatives 2 and 3. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

166

Water Temperature

Hazard tree treatments in Alternative 4 would reduce stream shading and microclimate slightly 

less than Alternatives 2 and 3 because there would be 15 percent less road miles of hazard tree 

treatments. Similar to Alternatives 2 and 3, Alternative 4 would negligibly increase summer 

water temperatures.

Large Woody Debris

As with Alternatives 2 and 3, hazard tree treatments would maintain or increase large woody 

debris loading into streams in most location but reduce the supply of trees that would naturally 

recruit over time in all locations.

Roads and Landings; Salvage and Reforestation

Sediment

Alternative 4 proposes intermediate intensity of salvage and reforestation, and road and landing 

construction, compared to Alternatives 2 and 3. In Alternative 4, three of the Horse Creek 7th

field watersheds show a small measureable increase in the ERA model compared to four 

watersheds showing a measureable increase in CWEs under Alternative 2, and two watersheds 

showing a measureable increase under Alternative 4. Under Alternative 4, none of the 

watersheds show a measureable increase in the USLE and GEO models that were shown in 

Alternative 2. According to the CWE results and proposed alternatives for construction of new 

and existing roads it appears that Alternative 4 poses intermediate risk of increasing sediment 

delivery to streams and further degrading of aquatic habitats. Similar to Alternative 2, 

Alternative 4 is likely to cause slight but significant short term increase in degradation of aquatic 

habitats in the Horse Creek watershed due to sedimentation at the site, 7th field watershed, and 

6th field watershed scales which would have minor adverse effect on the carrying capacity of 

aquatic habitats.

Water Temperature

Risk to water temperature is less under Alternative 4 than Alternative 2 but greater than under 

Alternative 3 because there would be an intermediate level of ground disturbance and 

intermediate level of risk of increased peak flows and sedimentation. As with Alternatives 2 and 

3, there would be no measureable increase in water temperature. Any non-measureable increase 

in water temperature would not be expected to adversely affect aquatic organisms because water 

temperature in Horse Creek streams is well within the properly functioning range (based on 

water temperature monitoring in mainstem Horse Creek and Middle Creek).

Large Woody Debris

As in Alternative 2 and 3, salvage and reforestation, and roads and landings, would not directly 

alter the amount of large woody debris in channels and stream course riparian reserves because 

these activities would not occur within stream course riparian reserves. As in Alternative 2 and 3, 

the likelihood of increased landsliding would not be significantly increased (Geology Report). 

Therefore, salvage and reforestation, and road and landing construction, under Alternative 4 

would not significantly affect the large woody debris due to delivery of large woody debris to 

streams via mass wasting.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

167

Fuels Treatment

Sediment

All action alternatives have the same proposed action for fuels treatment, therefore, effects on 

sediment regime and character would be the same as described for Alternatives 2 and 3.

Water Temperature

All action alternatives have the same proposed action for fuels treatment, therefore, effects on 

water temperature would be the same as described for Alternatives 2 and 3.

Large Woody Debris

All action alternatives have the same proposed action for fuels treatment, therefore, effects on 

large woody debris would be the same as described for Alternatives 2 and 3.

Water Drafting

Sediment

Compared to Alternatives 2 and 3, Alternative 4 would have intermediate potential to affect 

turbidity and substrate character because proposed level of salvage, and road and landing 

construction, with attendant need for water for dust abatement, is intermediate between the 

action alternatives. Water drafting as proposed in Alternative 3 would have a similar 

discountable adverse effect on the sediment indicator as explained for Alternative 2 above.

Water Temperature

Compared to Alternatives 2 and 3, Alternative 4 would have intermediate potential to affect 

water temperature because proposed level of salvage, and road and landing construction, with 

attendant need for water for dust abatement, is intermediate between the action alternatives.

Water drafting as proposed in Alternative 3 would have a similar discountable adverse effect on 

the water temperature indicator as explained for Alternative 2 above.

Large Woody Debris

In all action alternatives, existing water drafting sites would be used so that no large or medium 

sized trees would need to be cleared. Existing LWD on site might be re-positioned out of the way 

but would be left in the channel. Water drafting would have negligible effect on the large woody 

debris indicator.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects includes both ESA Cumulative Effects and NEPA Cumulative Effects. All 

interrelated and interconnected actions were included in the action alternatives and considered 

for effects analysis. Current and future foreseeable actions considered for analysis within the 

project area are provided in Appendix B. The activities listed were accounted for in the project 

CWE analysis and interpretation. In addition other current actions, models were updated to 

incorporate effects of the 2016 Gap Fire fires and road improvements identified in BAER

assessments. The modeling provides the fundamental assessment of post-fire existing conditions, 

as well as an initial assessment of the project no action alternative. Subsequently, effects of 

project action alternatives were modeled based on proposed actions. These model results reflect 

that there will be slight cumulative impact from adding the effects of action alternatives to past, 

present and reasonable foreseeable future actions.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

168

Summary of Effects

The no action alternative would have no short term direct, indirect, and cumulative effect on 

listed and sensitive fish and other special status aquatic species that use both aquatic and riparian 

habitats. In the long term, taking no action would increase the risk of adverse effects to aquatic 

and riparian species because future risk of high severity fire would not be abated and treatments 

would not be implemented to improve future options for managing fire for resource benefit. 

Potential direct effects to aquatic resources from action alternatives are associated with water 

drafting and hazard tree treatments. Project design features, best management practices, and wet 

weather operations standards would adequately minimize or prevent adverse direct effects to 

species and habitat from water drafting. Felling and moving, hazard trees in stream buffer 

riparian reserves could crush special status aquatic species and adversely affect their habitat in 

the short-term due to physical disruption of habitat.

All action alternatives are likely to further degrade habitat for special status aquatic species in the 

short term due to increases in peak flows and sediment delivery to streams. Impacts are expected 

in large part due to the vulnerable post fire condition of project area watersheds and existing 

poor condition of aquatic habitats. Ground disturbance associated with all action alternatives 

would slightly increase adverse effects to special status aquatic species in the Lower Horse

Creek, Buckhorn Creek, and Middle Creek watersheds because these watersheds are vulnerable 

to further disturbance due to post-2016 Gap Fire conditions and due to high levels of watershed 

disturbance from existing roads, landings, and clearcutting of fire-killed and live trees on large 

tracts of private land. Carrying capacity in these watersheds is diminished due to poor existing 

condition of aquatic and riparian habitats. Slight increases in peak flows and sedimentation in 

these watersheds due to action alternatives would further lower carrying capacity. Adverse 

effects to habitat for special status aquatic species in these watersheds would be highest in the 

alternatives where the most ground disturbing activity would occur. Alternative 2 would pose the 

highest risk to special status aquatic species because this alternative would cause the most 

ground disturbance. In alternative 2, there would be a significant increase (0.5 or greater) in riskratio in seven 7th-field watershed-CWE model combinations. Alternative 3 would have the least 

adverse effect on special status species and their habitat by addressing watershed concerns by not 

constructing or reconstructing roads and by salvaging timber on 851 fewer acres than Alternative 

2 and 487 fewer acres that Alternative 4. In alternative 3, there would be a significant increase 

(0.5 or greater) in risk-ratio in two 7th-field watershed-CWE model combinations. Alternative 4 

would have an intermediate effect on special status aquatic species between alternatives 2 and 4 

because an intermediate level of ground disturbance would occur. In alternative 4, there would be

a significant increase (0.5 or greater) in risk-ratio in three 7th-field watershed-CWE model 

combinations. 

Table 53 provides a summary of comparison of effects of alternatives on habitat and species 

assessed in this report.

Table 53: Summary of comparison of effects of alternatives for aquatic resource analysis indicators and 

special status aquatic species.

Indicator Spatial Scale Alternative 1

habitat/species

Alternative 2

habitat/species

Alternative 3

habitat/species

Alternative 4

habitat/species

Sediment

Site Neutral / Neutral Significant/Moderate Significant/Moderate Significant/Moderate

7th field Neutral / Neutral Significant/Moderate Significant/Moderate Significant/Moderate
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

169

Indicator Spatial Scale Alternative 1

habitat/species

Alternative 2

habitat/species

Alternative 3

habitat/species

Alternative 4

habitat/species

6th field Neutral / Neutral Significant/Moderate Significant/Moderate Significant/Moderate

5th field1 Neutral / Neutral Discountable/Neutral Discountable/Neutral Discountable/Neutral

Water 

Temperature

Site Neutral / Neutral Discountable/Neutral Discountable/Neutral Discountable/Neutral

7th field Neutral / Neutral Discountable/Neutral Discountable/Neutral Discountable/Neutral

6th field Neutral / Neutral Discountable/Neutral Discountable/Neutral Discountable/Neutral

5th field1 Neutral / Neutral Neutral/Neutral Neutral/Neutral Neutral/Neutral

Large 

Woody 

Debris

Site Neutral / Neutral Discountable/Neutral Discountable/Neutral Discountable/Neutral

7th field Neutral / Neutral Neutral/Neutral Neutral/Neutral Neutral/Neutral

6th field Neutral / Neutral Neutral/Neutral Neutral/Neutral Neutral/Neutral

5th field1 Neutral / Neutral Neutral/Neutral Neutral/Neutral Neutral/Neutral

1 = includes the mainstem Klamath River within the project area. 2 = Ratings for effects to habitat and species are 

defined in the methods sections.

Effects Determination

The no action determination for listed, sensitive and management indicator species is No Effect. 

The determination for threatened Coho salmon for all action alternatives is May Affect, Likely to 

Adversely Affect. The determination for sensitive species for all action alternatives is May Affect 

Likely to Adversely Affect, but not likely to lead to a trend towards listing. The determination for 

management indicator species for all action alternatives is May Affect Individuals, but is not 

Likely to Lead to a Decreasing Population Trend. The determination for Coho and Chinook 

salmon essential fish habitat is May Affect, Likely to Adversely Affect.

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

Refer to Aquatic Conservation Strategy analysis that was developed together in an 

interdisciplinary fashion with the project watershed specialists. The Forest Plan consistency 

checklist reflects how the project meets specific standards and guidelines from the Forest Plan. 

Interagency consultation under ESA section 7 is currently in progress with National Marine 

Fisheries Service, and will also include consultation under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act.

Geology

Methodology

Methods of assessment included review of the following information:

1. Previous geologic investigations in the project area, including the Burned Area 

Emergency Response assessment for the Gap Fire of 2016 (USDA 2016b). This 

assessment evaluated debris flow potential after the Gap Fire, and is discussed below in 

the affected environment section (Geomorphology).
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

170

2. Historical air photos HAP 83F, roll 441, frames 110-113 were examined to evaluate the 

effects of the Buckhorn Fire of 1977 in the project area. These air photos were taken on 

8-17-83.

3. Forest GIS (geographical information system) coverages for bedrock and 

geomorphology, and fire severity (Gap Fire). These coverages were examined to 

determine how project activities overlapped with bedrock, geomorphic features, and fire 

severity.

4. Literature on post-wildfire watershed response.

The assessment also involved field review of proposed ground disturbing activities where 

available GIS information indicated possible slope stability issues. Lastly, observations and notes 

made during the burned area emergency response work, and subsequent monitoring of post-fire 

storms were also utilized in the assessment.

The Cumulative Watershed Effects Geology Model was used to track changes in landslide 

sediment volume for a 10-year storm event (cubic yards per decade). The model overlays 

geomorphic features with existing conditions (roads, timber harvests, and wildfire) and 

anticipated disturbances from future projects, and applies coefficients to estimate landslide 

sediment volume delivered to the mouth of each 7th field watershed. These volumes are then 

converted into percent over background rates. Background is defined as the volume of landslide 

sediment which would be anticipated when a watershed is fully forested, without any roads, or 

recent vegetation disturbance from timber harvest or fire. The model provides a systematic way 

of estimating landslide sediment volumes, and uses landslide coefficients developed on the

Forest. It was run for background conditions, current conditions (Alternative 1), and for 

Alternatives 2 through 4. The model accounts for effects of temporary roads, landings, and 

salvage timber harvest, as these are the activities most likely to affect landslide potential. The 

model does not account for roadside hazard treatments, site preparation and planting, or 

treatments in the Special Interest Areas, since these activities are widely dispersed, and generally 

involve very minor disturbances. Also, project design features would limit the amount of soil 

disturbance from mechanical equipment.

Percent over Background- Percent over background is a measure of the change in landslide 

sediment volume relative to the background volume. For example, if the model predicts that a 

given watershed would produce 100 cubic yards of sediment under background conditions, and 

200 cubic yards for a particular alternative, then the percent over background for that alternative 

would be 100 percent. The Forest has established a value of 200 percent over background as a 

management threshold or yellow flag (but not scientific threshold) indicating that additional 

disturbances in that watershed would likely lead to adverse cumulative watershed effects. This 

threshold was developed by comparing percent over background for 7th field watersheds across 

the west side of the Klamath National Forest, and identifying those which showed physical signs 

of degradation, such as sedimentation or riparian conditions.

Risk Ratio- The risk ratio is computed for each analysis watershed by dividing the percent over 

background by the threshold value of 200 percent. For example, a watershed with a percent over 

background value of 200 percent has a risk ratio of 1.0, and a watershed with a percent over 

background of 100 percent has a risk ratio is 0.5. The Forest has established a risk ratio of 1.0 as 

a management threshold or yellow flag (but not scientific threshold) indicating that additional 

disturbances in that watershed would likely lead to adverse cumulative watershed effects. A 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

171

more detailed description of the cumulative watershed effects modeling process is available in a 

Forest-wide document (USDA 2004, Bell 2012).

Analysis Indicators

Two analysis indicators are used in this assessment. They are the likelihood that a landslide event 

will occur, and the consequences of such an event should it occur. A landslide event is defined as 

one which causes widespread damage to roads and other infrastructure, delivers sediment to 

streams which persists in streams for several years, or severely damages riparian vegetation. It is 

well documented that certain forest management activities such as constructing roads or landings

on unstable ground, or reduction of forest cover in unstable areas as a result of timber harvest or 

fire can increase the likelihood of landslide events (USDA 1993). To avoid these negative 

effects, the project incorporates project design features that are important for landslide 

prevention, including: 1) to avoid building temporary roads and landings on unstable ground; 2) 

to avoid building new landings on ground steeper than 20 percent slope; 3) to avoid building new 

temporary roads on ground steeper than 40 percent; 4) to avoid placing landing or road fills on 

slope breaks where steeper slopes below could deliver sediment to streams; and 5) to avoid using 

mechanized equipment on unstable ground. To accomplish this goal, the project geologist will 

focus on identifying unstable ground during final project layout and implementation.

Measures

The measure which will be used to track changes in the likelihood that a landslide event will 

occur is the Risk Ratio. The measure used to track changes in consequences is a categorical 

ranking, and a qualitative discussion of key physical characteristics within 7th field watersheds. 

This discussion is based on professional expertise and judgment. Each of these measures is 

described in more detail below.

Risk Ratio is defined above, and was used to track the likelihood that a landslide event could 

occur under each alternative. Five categories, ranging from very high to very low were defined, 

and are listed below. 

1. Very High Likelihood: Risk Ratio greater than 1.5

2. High Likelihood: Risk Ratio 1.0 to 1.5

3. Moderate Likelihood: Risk Ratio 0.5 to 1.0

4. Low Likelihood: Risk Ratio 0.25 to 0.5

5. Very Low Likelihood: Risk Ratio less than 0.25

Consequences- The following descriptive classes are used to characterize the magnitude of 

adverse consequences anticipated for each alternative by 7th field watershed.

1. Very High Consequences- This category ranking is limited to situations where human 

health and safety is susceptible to landslide events. The presence of occupied structures 

(homes, businesses, and work areas), campgrounds, or heavily used roads that are 

vulnerable to (in the path of) a potential landslide event meets the criteria for this 

category.

2. High Consequences– In this category essential infrastructure such as main National 

Forest Transportation System roads or utility corridors are susceptible to damage from 

landslide events. The category also indicates vulnerability of anadromous fish habitat to 

landslide events that lead to multi-year damage to the habitat due to sedimentation or 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

172

scour of streams or damage to riparian vegetation over a large portion of late flowing 

intermittent or perennial streams.

3. Moderate Consequences- In this category only secondary roads and system trails are 

susceptible to damage. Blockage to roads and damage to anadromous habitat generally 

lasts no longer than a year. This category also applies to a small portion of late-flowing 

intermittent and perennial streams which could experience short term aggradation, 

degradation, or damage to riparian vegetation.

4. Low Consequences- In this category infrastructure is vulnerable to generally minor 

damage, and landslide effects on streams are very localized and short lived (less than a 

year).

5. Very Low Consequences- In this category there is no infrastructure, fish habitat or 

stream shade vulnerable to landslide events.

Spatial and Temporal Bounding of Analysis Area

The spatial boundary for all effects is the 7th field watershed. The temporal scale is 10 years for 

short term and more than 10 years for long term, with conditions returning to the pre-fire 

situation at approximately 50 years. The 7th field scale is appropriate for this assessment because 

watersheds of this size express the cumulative effects of multiple landslides which typically 

occur during landslide events. For example two or more small landslides in such a watershed 

may in turn mobilize the bed material in the 7th field watershed, and generate a debris flow. A 

temporal boundary of 10 years is used for the short term because that is the length of time 

required for ground cover to return following project activities, as well as reestablishment of part 

of the root support. Long term is set at 50 years because that is the length of time required for 

evapotranspiration and full root support to return to pre-project conditions. The Cumulative 

Watershed Effects Geology Model assumes a return to pre-fire conditions after 50 years.

Affected Environment

Bedrock Geology

The Horse Creek Project area is within the Klamath Mountains physiographic province, and is 

underlain predominantly by schist of the Condrey Mountain geologic terrane, commonly referred 

to as the Condrey Mountain schist. There is a small amount of granitic rock near Crawfish Gulch 

and in the southernmost part of the project area (map available in the Geology resource report 

appendix). Scattered outcrops of ultramafic rock occur in the project area, and some in the 

Middle Creek watershed, were quarried for rock aggregate in the past and used to surface many 

of the roads nearby (map available in the Geology resource report appendix). Ultramafic rock is 

a type of igneous rock with a very low silica content and rich in minerals such as hypersthene, 

augite, olivine, and serpentine. This rock commonly contains naturally occurring asbestos, which 

can be introduced into the air when traversed by vehicles under dusty conditions. Rock from the 

quarries mentioned previously have been lab tested, and natural asbestos was found to be 

present. When inhaled, asbestos can be hazardous to human health and can cause certain lung 

cancers. Because of this, project design features have been included for dust abatement.

The Condrey Mountain Blueschist Geologic Special Interest Area lies on a ridge crest on the 

northeast margin of the project area (map available in Geology resource report appendix). This 

special interest area contains an assemblage of minerals such as glaucophane and crossite, which 

formed at very high pressure and low temperatures deep within the earth’s crust. The area was 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

173

nominated as a special interest by Dr. Mark Helper of the University of Texas, Austin, and he 

continues to conduct geologic research in the area.

Geomorphology

The Condrey Mountain schist is a weak rock which typically forms terrain which is gentler than 

adjacent parts of the Klamath Mountains, due to the presence of large, deep seated landslides

which occupy a large proportion of the project area, and typically form gentle slopes (map 

available in the Geology resource report appendix). Most of these features are dormant under 

present climatic conditions, but parts of them are commonly reactivated during periods of heavy 

precipitation.

Historic landslide episodes on the Forest have been documented in 1964, 1983, 1997, and 2005, 

and these events damaged infrastructure and aquatic habitat (de la Fuente et al. 2009). Of 

particular note for the Horse Creek watershed is the event of 1982 to 1983, which came on the 

heels of the Buckhorn Fire (1977) that burned considerable acreage in Middle and Buckhorn 

Creeks in 1977. Examination of historical air photos from 1983 revealed that a large area in the 

central part of the Buckhorn Creek watershed was thoroughly deforested as a result of the fire. 

During the landslide event of 1982-1983, numerous landslides, mostly slumps and earthflows, 

along with some small debris flows occurred in the burned area. The largest landslide reactivated at that time was a slump and debris slide on the west bank of Buckhorn Creek in 

Section 34. This activated landslide is about 0.25 miles wide, and still has the potential to deliver 

a large volume of sediment to the creek. The landslide event following the 1977 Buckhorn Fire 

provides a useful analog for describing the likely post-fire watershed response in the Gap Fire

area, since both fires burned a sizeable area of dormant landslide terrain, and the Gap Fire reburned parts of the Buckhorn Fire. It is reasonable to expect that watershed response to the Gap 

Fire will be similar to that of the Buckhorn Fire in the event of a very wet winter. See affected 

environment in the Soils section of this EIS.

The Gap Fire Burned Area Emergency Response Assessment identified the potential threat 

which fire-related debris flows could have on human habitation sites, roads, and other 

infrastructure in the project area (USDA 2016b). Project activities were overlain with areas 

where post-fire debris flows were most likely to occur. These areas lie within the zones of high 

and moderate soil burn severity (map available in the Geology resource report appendix).

Watershed monitoring after the Gap Fire has revealed high flows in streams draining severely 

burned watersheds, and damage to roads and a few small debris flows (such as Hamburg Gulch).

Damages began with the storms of October, 2016 and subsequent heavy precipitation produced 

near record totals for the winter of 2016-2017 in this part of the Forest. As a result, many slumps 

and earthflows were activated in the project area, and some of these damaged or temporarily 

closed roads. Examples occur on the 12 Road in the Middle Creek watershed and on 46N50 

along main Horse Creek. An inventory of road damage is underway, but as of May 2017, snow 

still blocked access to higher elevations. A map and spreadsheet of storm damage to date can be 

found in the project record. Road damage sites are being evaluated to determine if they qualify 

for special funding through the Emergency Relief Federally Owned Roads (ERFO) program. To 

date, no large debris flows have been identified, and the watershed response has been similar to 

that which occurred during the winter of 1982-1983, but has involved fewer and smaller 

landslides.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

174

For additional details on the geologic setting of the project area, refer to the geology report on 

National Forests in northern California (USDA 2012b) or to the Horse Creek Watershed 

Analysis (USDA 2002).

Riparian Reserves

Certain geomorphic types are included in the riparian reserve by the Forest Plan due to the fact 

that they are landslide-prone, and commonly deliver sediment to the stream system. These 

include active landslides, toe zones of deep seated landslides, inner gorges, and steep, deeply 

weathered and dissected granitic lands, and are depicted on Map 2 in the Geology resource 

report. It is important to note that only the toe zones of the large dormant landslides which occur 

throughout the project area (Map 2) are included in the riparian reserve.

Environmental Consequences

Environmental consequences for each alternative are described below. The implementation of 

the project design features described in Chapter 2 is assumed in the effects assessment, and is

critical to the success of the project.

Alternative 1

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 calls for no new activities, and as a result, there will be no direct effects of the 

project on landslide potential. However, since no site preparation or planting will occur there will 

be an indirect effect in that, reforestation with conifers will be slower in some areas relative to 

other alternatives which would plant conifers (see Silviculture resource report for this project). 

Sprouting hardwoods such as live oak can come back within a decade. This delay in conifer 

reforestation will slow the return to pre-fire conditions on the planted sites. The amount of delay

would be highly variable, and depends on a number of site factors, including soil, aspect, and 

tree species.

Left untouched, the burned area would gradually revegetate (see Silviculture resource report for 

this project). This would include the re-establishment of vegetation and ground-cover, increasing 

root support and evapotranspiration, both of which reduce landslide potential. Root support will 

gradually decrease as roots decay, but this effect will be offset by the growth of new roots 

coming in, such that a low point in root support will occur five to 10 years after the fire, 

depending on tree species, size, and local site conditions (Zeimer 1981). The potential for 

shallow debris slides will be elevated for a number of years due to the loss of root support, and 

dry ravel will likely play an important role in filling steep channels with debris which is then 

subject to mobilization by debris flows (Jackson et al. 2009). Dry ravel is the process which 

typically occurs following wildfires whereby rock and coarse soil particles tumble and roll down 

hillslopes due to the burning of branches and leaves which formerly held them in place. The 

project area may take up to 50 years to return to pre-fire landslide potential, and it could take 

longer in areas where seed sources were eliminated by the fire.

Cumulative Effects

Parts of the current and reasonably foreseeable actions listed in Appendix B will contribute to 

cumulative watershed effects in the project area and were analyzed in the Cumulative Watershed 

Effects Geology Model. Refer to Appendix B for more project details. The model addresses all 

activities in those projects with the exception of the following: Livestock Grazing Allotment; 

Non-industrial Timber Harvest; Coho Salmon Off-Channel Ponds; Checkerboard Roadside 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

175

Harvest; and Horse Creek Road rehabilitation. These activities were not included for a variety of 

factors, including: They involve very minor disturbances and are unlikely to change landslide 

potential; They are in locations unlikely to initiate landslides, such as on the valley floor; and 

Any potential for initiating landslides would be effectively mitigated with implementation of 

project design features.

The effects of current and reasonably foreseeable actions are common to all alternatives, and the 

model assumes that all actions are concurrent. Some of these actions may actually be distributed 

over time. As a result, model outputs may exaggerate the effects slightly. 

Under Alternative 1, the likelihood for a landslide event ranges from very high at O’Neil Creek, 

to low at Tom Martin and Franklin Gulch. Franklin Gulch and O’Neil Creek have only a 

negligible area within the project boundary. These elevated levels of likelihood of a landslide 

event are primarily due to existing conditions from roads, fires, and timber harvest. The 

consequences of a landslide event range from very high at Lower Horse, Middle, and Buckhorn 

Creeks to moderate in most other watersheds (Table 54). The very high ratings are due to the 

presence of homes and structures in the lower reaches of those streams.

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects Common to Alternatives 2, 3, and 4

Acreage of direct and indirect effects will differ between the action alternatives, as determined 

by the acreage of proposed treatments (see Chapter 2 for details), but the magnitude is basically 

the same for all action alternatives. Effects of proposed treatments is described below.

Roadside hazard tree removal and roadside fuel treatment would result in some soil disturbance 

as well as disturbance to residual vegetation caused by falling and yarding of logs. Fuel treatment 

by private property and in fuel reduction zones would also result in some soil disturbance, which 

will be mitigated by project design features. Commercial harvest, site preparation, and planting 

will remove dead and fire-damaged trees, and replant conifers. Removal of the dead trees (aside 

from associated soil disturbance) does not increase landslide potential. Removal of fire-damaged 

trees will have a short term (three to five years) adverse effect due to loss of root support which 

they would have provided had they lived a few years longer. The cumulative watershed effects

geology model accounts for the potential adverse effects of this activity. Site prep and planting is 

anticipated to have negligible adverse effects (ground disturbance), since project design features 

preclude using mechanized equipment on steep or unstable ground, and sprouting hardwoods 

will be left in place. This activity also has a positive effect in that it will hasten conifer 

reforestation and speed up the return to pre-fire conditions on the planted sites. The shortening of 

recovery time would be highly variable, and depend on a number of site factors, including soil, 

aspect, and tree species, which is why it is not practical to include in the cumulative watershed 

effects geology model. Activities in the Horse Creek SIA are expected to have very small shortterm adverse effects due to localized ground disturbance. Of all project activities, temporary 

roads and landings have the greatest potential for initiating landslides, due to the associated soil 

disturbance and effects on natural runoff patterns. The cumulative watershed effects geology 

model accounts for these activities, and project design features provide direction for avoiding 

unstable land and limiting the size of cuts and fills.

Aside from roadside hazard tree removal, no activities are planned in the Condrey Mountain 

Blueschist Geologic Special Interest Area.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

176

Some roads which would be used for project activities in these alternatives are underlain by 

ultramafic rock which could contain natural asbestos (maps available in the Geology resource 

report appendix). In addition, some roads, such as 12 Road, are surfaced with ultramafic rock 

from quarries in the project area. Hazard tree removal will occur on one road underlain by 

ultramafic rock (44N29Y) in the Shutts Gulch watershed. Project design features call for 

identification of these roads, and appropriate watering for dust abatement.

Cumulative Effects Common to Alternatives 2, 3, and 4

Alternatives 2 and 4 increase the landslide risk ratio a small amount in three 7th field watersheds 

(Buckhorn, Lower Horse, and Middle Creeks) but the increase is too small to warrant a change in 

the likelihood category compared to existing condition (Table 54). For Alternative 2, the 

landslide risk ratio for these three watersheds is increased by 0.03, 0.05, and 0.07, respectively; 

for Alternative 4, it is increased by 0.02, 0.02, and 0.04, respectively. Alternative 3 slightly 

increases the landslide risk ratio in only two 7th field watersheds: Lower Horse Creek (0.03) and 

Middle Creek (0.03), again, without any change to the likelihood of a landslide event. As with 

Alternative 1, the consequences of a landslide event should it occur under any of the action 

alternatives are very high for these three watersheds due to the presence of homes and other 

structures in the lower reaches.

Table 54: Comparison of risk ratio, likelihood, and consequences of a landslide event under Alternatives 1 

through 4.

7th Field 

Watershed

Alt. 1

Risk 

Ratio 

Alt. 2 

Risk Ratio 

(change 

from Alt. 1, 

if any)

Alt. 3 

Risk Ratio 

(change 

from Alt. 1, 

if any)

Alt. 4 

Risk Ratio 

(change 

from Alt. 1, 

if any) Likelihood Consequences

Buckhorn 

Creek 0.84 0.87 (0.03) 0.84 0.86 (0.02) moderate very high 

Collins 

CreekKlamath 

River 0.78 0.78 0.78 0.78 moderate moderate

Doggett 

Creek 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.07 high moderate

East Fork 

Horse 

Creek 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 moderate moderate

Franklin 

Gulch –

Scott River 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 low moderate

Jaynes 

Canyon 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.83 moderate moderate

Kohl Creek 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 high moderate

Lower 

Horse 

Creek 1.02 1.07 (0.05) 1.05 (0.03) 1.04 (0.04) high very high

Middle 

Creek 1.06 1.13 (0.07) 1.09 (0.03) 1.10 (0.04) high very high
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

177

7th Field 

Watershed

Alt. 1

Risk 

Ratio 

Alt. 2 

Risk Ratio 

(change 

from Alt. 1, 

if any)

Alt. 3 

Risk Ratio 

(change 

from Alt. 1, 

if any)

Alt. 4 

Risk Ratio 

(change 

from Alt. 1, 

if any) Likelihood Consequences

Middle 

Horse 

Creek 0.70 0.70 0.70 0.70 moderate moderate

Middle 

Seiad 

Creek 0.57 0.57 0.57 0.57 moderate moderate

Negro 

Creek 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 moderate moderate

O’Neil 

Creek 1.57 1.57 1.57 1.57 very high high

Salt Gulch 0.86 0.86 0.86 0.86 moderate moderate

Sambo 

Gulch –

Klamath 

River 0.73 0.73 0.73 0.73 moderate moderate

Schutts 

Gulch –

Klamath 

River 1.24 1.24 1.24 1.24 high moderate

Tom Martin 

Creek –

Klamath 

River 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 low moderate

West Fork 

Horse 

Creek 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.42 low moderate

Comparison of Alternatives

Figure 9 compares landslide risk ratio between alternatives. This comparison clearly shows the 

influence of existing disturbances in the project area (roads, past timber harvest, and fire), in that 

they dwarf the effects of project proposals. As a result, the difference in risk ratio between 

alternatives is very small for all 7th field watersheds analyzed. Figure 10 displays the change in 

risk ratio between current conditions and Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. Buckhorn, Lower Horse, and 

Middle Creek are the only 7th field watersheds which show a measurable increase in Risk Ratio, 

the largest of which was for Middle Creek in Alternative 2 at 0.07.

In light of the relatively small differences in model outputs for the alternatives, a different way of 

comparing the alternatives is to simply look at the amount of activities with the highest potential 

for triggering landslides. Those alternatives incorporating the most new and existing roads and 

landings would have the highest potential for initiating landslides, and those with the fewest 

would have the lowest potential.

In Alternative 2, the model predicts that temporary roads and landings would produce about 

5,500 cubic yards of landslide sediment compared to about 2,440 for Alternative 3 (landings 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

178

only), and 3,275 for Alternative 4. These values incorporate all 7th field watersheds. The 

associated changes in risk ratio are shown on Figure 10. The large effects from current road 

density, previous timber harvests, and wildfires within the project area overshadow the relatively 

small changes in predicted sediment production from the proposed alternatives.

Figure 9: Risk Ratio by Alternative and 7th Field Watershed

Figure 10: Change in Risk Ratio Associated with Proposed Activities

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

The Horse Creek Project is in compliance with the Forest Plan (USDA 1995a) Standards and 

Guidelines and all applicable law, regulation, and policy.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

179

Heritage Resources

This analysis is a requirement under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 

1966, as amended and is accomplished by the Klamath National Forest (Forest) under the 

Programmatic Agreement Among the USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region (Region 

5), California State Historic Preservation Officer, Nevada State Historic Preservation Officer, 

and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (Regional PA) (USDA 2013b).

Methodology

The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended "requires federal agencies to take 

into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties." This is accomplished 

through a four-step process following 36 CFR Part 800, the implementing regulations for Section 

106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The regulations (36 CFR 800.14(a)) permit 

alternative procedures to be developed through programmatic agreements for meeting Section 

106. The Pacific Southwest Region of the Forest Service (Region 5), which includes the Forest, 

has entered into a programmatic agreement for complying with Section 106. The Regional PA 

allows limited project activities to occur within historic properties without adverse effects, as 

long as standard resource protection measures are applied that are approved under the terms of 

the programmatic agreement.

There are two key factors for analyzing the effects to historic properties. The first factor is 

defining an area of potential effect. 36 CFR 800.16 (d) defines the area of potential effect as the 

"geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause 

alterations in the character or use of historic properties." By identifying where effects are 

anticipated to occur, the scope of the analysis is established. The second factor is determining 

whether historic properties are present or identified within the area of potential effect. 

Identification is a multi-step process that includes pre-field research, field surveys and 

consultation.

Once the area of potential effect is determined and historic properties within the area are 

identified, analyses are conducted to determine what types of effects would cause changes in the 

character, integrity, or use of the historic properties. If no historic properties are identified 

through these processes, then no adverse effects would occur from project activities. If historic 

properties are present and any potential adverse effects can be mitigated through project design 

features or protective measures, then historic properties will not be adversely affected. If historic 

properties are present and cannot be mitigated, then the Forest will consult with the California 

State Historic Preservation Office to resolve the adverse effects.

Analysis Indicators

Indicators for analyzing project effects on historic properties are (1) the number of historic 

properties that are at risk from project activities and (2) the degree to which the integrity of 

historic properties may be diminished by the project activities. Direct and indirect effects, as well 

as the effects of reasonable foreseeable future actions (cumulative effects), that may diminish the 

integrity of historic properties are analyzed.

Historic properties identified as at-risk are those that are significant, retain integrity, and have 

been identified as being susceptible to adverse effects by specific activities of the undertaking. 

The degree an at-risk property's integrity is diminished is indicated by four categories: 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

180

Negligible: The effect on historic properties would be at the lowest level of detection; impacts 

would be minimal without any major consequences.

Minor: The effect on historic properties would be measurable, although minor and centralized 

within a localize area for a site or within a group of sites.

Moderate: The effects on historic properties would be measurable and perceptible. Although the 

action would change or alter the historic property, the effect would not diminish the historic 

property's integrity to a degree in which it would no longer be eligible for inclusion on the 

National Register.

Major: The effects on historic properties would be substantial, noticeable, and permanent. This 

effect would change the eligibility status for any historic property that would be considered 

eligible for the National Register.

Spatial and Temporal Bounding of Analysis Area

Spatial bounding for the analysis of effects of the Horse Creek Project are within the area of 

potential effects as defined by the National Historic Preservation Act and its implementing 

regulations (36 CFR Part 800.16 (d)). The area of potential effect for this project includes areas 

within the defined project boundaries where treatment activities are proposed and areas used in 

support of those activities. The area of potential effect includes all areas that have the potential to 

be affected by project activities.

Temporal bounding for the analysis area is classified in two effects: short and long term. Short 

term effects are defined as those anticipated to occur during or up to five years after project 

implementation. Long term effects would occur after the first five years following 

implementation and continue indefinitely; historic properties are a non-renewable resource in 

which any damage, changes, or alterations are permanent and irreversible.

Affected Environment

The project is located within an area that contains historic properties that are both historic and 

prehistoric. Twenty-seven previously recorded historic properties have been identified within the 

area of potential effect. Approximately 15 to 20 percent of the area of potential effect required 

survey for historic properties. Archaeological surveys are presently being conducted for this 

project and will be completed prior to the signing of the record of decision. It is anticipated that 

additional historic properties will be identified during survey.

At the time of publication no traditional cultural properties, traditional or contemporary use 

areas, or sacred sites have been identified through consultation with the Karuk Tribe, Quartz 

Valley Indian Reservation, The Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians, Shasta Indian Nation, or 

Shasta Nation Inc. Consultation with both federally recognized and non-federally recognized 

tribes is ongoing for the project.

Environmental Consequences

Using the analysis indicators outlined above, each alternative is considered based on the 

proposed management action and their potential level of effects to historic properties. If an 

action alters in any way the characteristics that qualify the property or resource for inclusion on 

the National Register, it is considered to have an effect.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

181

An effect can be direct or indirect, beneficial or adverse. Effects are considered adverse when the 

alterations diminish one or more of the seven elements of a historic property's integrity (location, 

design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, or association). The degree to which the 

integrity is diminished by the proposed actions are classified into four categories that are based 

on relative degree-negligible, minor, moderate, major.

No adverse effect to a historic property occurs when the project has an effect on the resource but 

is not detrimental to the characteristics that qualify the property for inclusion on the National 

Register. A finding of no adverse effect may also be achieved if the effects of the proposed 

project can reasonably be predicted and project design features or standard resource protection 

measures can be employed to avoid or minimize potential adverse effects to historic properties 

(Regional PA, Stipulation 7.8(b)). Standard resource protection measures are provided in the 

Regional PA, Appendix C (USDA 2013b).

Under the National Historic Preservation Act, Section 304 and the Archaeological Resources 

Protection Act of 1979, Section 9a, the disclosure of information revealing the location or 

character of historic or archaeological resources is prohibited when this information would open 

the resources or their settings to a substantial risk of harm, theft, or destruction. Therefore, 

discussion of the effects of this project is generalized to types of historic properties rather than 

individual properties. Project design features are sufficient to protect these resources while not 

disclosing their locations. Management or standard resource protection measures are prescribed 

at the individual property level and are documented in the confidential Archaeological Survey 

Report for this project (R2017-05-05-2332-0).

Alternative 1

Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be no direct effects to archaeological sites because no management actions would 

be implemented. However, there would also be no actions taken within the project area to reduce 

fuels or fire-weakened trees from within and around archaeological sites. Tree-mortality, such as 

that resulting from wildfires, puts historic properties at risk. When trees are left to fall naturally, 

these trees may damage or even destroy site features. The effects of tree fall are often 

compounded by other factors. Erosion can potentially bury or displace cultural deposits 

associated with archaeological sites. Fuel loading if left on the ground puts an archaeological site 

at risk for damage from wildfires. As previously unexposed surfaces become exposed from these 

factors, accelerated decay to components of an archaeological site may occur. Lack of roadside 

hazard treatments may also affect linear archaeological resources through erosion, and blowouts 

where culverts are plugged creating detrimental effects to the character and construction of 

features. Therefore, an indirect adverse effect resulting from Alternative 1 is the continued risk 

of damage to sites from wildfire, tree fall, and erosion. The indirect, short-term effects to 

archaeological resources would be negligible but indirect, long-term effects would be moderate 

to major.

Cumulative Effects

Under Alternative 1, fuels loads will increase through time and consequently increase the 

potential for high intensity and high severity wildfires. High intensity fire within the project area 

would destroy features/components of sites and as fire-weakened trees continue to fall, the 

damage of these effects would continue to accumulate. Additionally, without roadside hazard

treatments increased erosion and plugged culverts may occur. High intensity fire, widespread 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

182

tree fall, erosion and blowouts would result of National Register values to archaeological sites, 

and result in moderate to major effects.

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 2 includes actions that have the potential to affect previously recorded historic 

properties and an unknown number of unrecorded historic properties.

Salvage Harvest and Roadside Hazard Tree Removal

There would be no direct effects to historic properties as a result of salvage harvest and roadside 

hazard tree removal because actions would not be, for the most part, implemented within the 

boundaries of these sites. The Regional PA allows limited project activities to occur within the 

boundaries of certain types of historic properties. For example, hazard tree removal will be 

allowed with the use of on-site standard resource protection measures to mitigate any potential 

adverse effect.

The removal of dead and dying trees from within and adjacent to historic properties results in 

direct and indirect beneficial effects; these effects are moderate to major in both the short and 

long term.

Fuels Management Zones/ Property Buffer and Roadside Fuels Reduction

There would be no direct effects to historic properties as the result of fuels reduction because 

actions would not be, for the most part, implemented within the boundaries of these sites. Some 

types of fuels reduction excluding prescribed fire and pile burning, if occurring within site 

boundaries will be conducted under the provisions of the Regional PA. For example, brush 

would be removed by hand and piled outside of the site boundaries.

The use of standard resource protection measure to reduce or mitigate adverse effects to historic 

properties may however foster conditions that result in indirect effects. Be avoiding or not 

treating within site boundaries, a higher fuel load is left within the site compared to the 

surrounding areas. Any intense fire may damage or destroy combustible artifacts or permanently 

alter materials that are susceptible to heat or flame within a site. Another potential effect from 

not treating within an archaeological site is that it may be more visible to the public which may 

result in looting and vandalism. These indirect adverse effects to historic properties are minor in 

the short term, but moderate to major in the long term.

Site Preparation and Planting

Site preparation and planting activities create significant ground disturbance which result in

direct effects to historic properties if permitted within site boundaries. Standard resource 

protection measures and project design features would be used to prevent these activities from 

occurring within site boundaries. As a result, there would be no direct or indirect adverse effects 

from site preparation and planting, in either the short or long term.

Horse Creek Special Interest Area

Proposed activities for the Horse Creek Special Interest area include hazard tree removal, native 

plant species planting and seeding, and the placement of uprooted or felled snags within the 

channel of Horse Creek. Additional treatments may include the use of explosives for the purpose 

of uprooting and falling trees, as well as for stump obliteration. The proposed activities for the 

special interest area would create significant ground disturbance which result in direct effects to 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

183

historic properties if permitted within site boundaries. The direct effects would be mitigated by 

the application of standard resource protection measures. Indirect effects may occur through the 

use of explosives if permitted near site boundaries; further consultation will be required to 

develop treatment specific protection measures to mitigate any potential adverse effects if 

explosives are used. Replanting and seeding of native vegetation may provide a beneficial, 

indirect effect to historic properties by inhibiting erosion and promoting slope stability. There 

would be no direct effects in the short or long term. Indirect effects may be adverse if sites are 

avoided (long-term) or if explosives are used near sites (short-term); however, beneficial indirect 

effects may result from planting and seeding native species (long-term).

Cumulative Effects

Reducing the likelihood of a high intensity wildfire and the removal of hazard trees through 

proposed actions within the area of potential effect will have a beneficial effect on historic 

properties. When combined with similar types of projects already implemented or implemented 

in the reasonably foreseeable future, the cumulative beneficial effects to historic properties 

would be moderate to major. However, for those historic properties avoided by treatments both 

under the proposed actions and by actions in the reasonable foreseeable future, there would be 

moderate to major cumulative effects.

Comparison of Alternatives

Under Alternative 1, there would be no direct effects to historic properties within the area of 

potential effect because no management actions would be implemented. There would be 

moderate indirect, short-term effects to historic properties, and moderate to major indirect longterm effects to historic properties.

Table 55: Summary of effects by analysis indicators for Alternative 1.

Alternative 1

Indicator Proposed 

Treatments

Direct Effects Indirect Effects Cumulative 

Effects Short Term Long Term Short Term Long Term

Historic 

Properties

None None None Negligible Moderate to 

Major 

(Adverse)

Moderate to Major 

(Adverse)

Under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, there would be no direct effects to historic properties from project 

activities in the short or long term. This would be accomplished through the use standard 

resource protection measures to mitigate potential adverse effects. There would be direct 

beneficial effects as the result of salvage and roadside hazard tree removal. Indirect adverse 

effects are created when historic properties are avoided, thereby creating pockets of untreated 

fuels and hazard trees left behind. These effects are minor in the short term but moderate to 

major in the long term. Indirect beneficial effects result in both the short and long term as the 

likelihood of damage and destruction to resources is decreased when dying trees are salvaged 

and the fuel loads reduced in the surrounding areas.

Reducing the potential of a high intensity wildfire and tree-fall within the area of potential effect, 

combined with similar types of other projects already implemented or implemented in the 

reasonably foreseeable future would result in a cumulatively beneficial effect to historic 

properties that are moderate to major. However, for those historic properties avoided by 

treatments both under the proposed actions and by actions in the reasonably foreseeable future, 

there will be moderate to major cumulative effects.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

184

Table 56: Summary of effects by analysis indicator for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4.

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4

Indicator Proposed 

Treatments

Direct Effects Indirect Effects Cumulative 

Effects Short Term Long Term Short Term Long Term

Historic 

Properties

Salvage/Roadside

Hazard Tree

None None Moderate to 

Major 

(Benefit)

Moderate to 

Major 

(Benefit)

Moderate to 

Major (Benefit)

Historic 

Properties

Fuels 

Management 

Zones/ Fuels 

Reduction

None None Minor to 

Moderate 

(Benefit) 

Minor 

(Adverse)

Minor to 

Moderate 

(Benefit) 

Moderate to 

Major 

(Adverse)

Minor to 

Moderate 

(Benefit) 

Moderate to 

Major (Adverse)

Historic 

Properties

Site Prep and 

Plant

None None None None None

Historic 

Properties

Horse Creek SIA None None Moderate to 

major 

(Adverse)

Moderate to 

major 

(benefit)

Moderate to 

major 

(Adverse)

Moderate to 

Major (Benefit)

Moderate to 

Major (adverse)

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

All alternatives for the project follow applicable heritage resource laws, regulation, policy, and 

the Forest Plan. Documentation of the effects of each alternative in this report meets legal 

compliance. The Forest Plan consistency checklist, displayed on the project website, identifies 

the Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines that apply to this project and related information about 

compliance with the Forest Plan.

The Native American Graves Protection Act of 1990, Executive Order 13007, titled Indian 

Sacred Sites, and Executive Order 13175, titled Consultation and Cooperation with Indian Tribal 

Governments among others, provide direction on the protection of tribal cultural resources in 

federal land management decisions. 

Both federally recognized and non-federally recognized tribes were contacted early in the project 

planning and were engaged throughout the planning process, in accordance with the National 

Historic Preservation Act, National Environmental Policy Act, and other laws, regulations and 

policy. Tribal engagement is summarized in chapter 1, Public Involvement. Consultation was 

conducted with the Karuk Tribe, Quartz Valley Indian Reservation, and the Confederated Tribes 

of Siletz Indians. The Forest conferred with the Shasta Indian Nation and Shasta Nation, Inc.

Written and verbal comments received during tribal consultation were considered when refining 

the proposed action and while developing project alternatives; many tribal concerns were 

incorporated in these alternatives. Consultation with the tribes regarding the proposed project is 

on-going.

Hydrology

This section compares potential effects to hydrologic function and water quality of project 

alternatives. See the project hydrology report for details. Results of the analysis are used to 

verify that project alternatives adhere to existing law, regulation, and policy such as the Clean 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

185

Water Act (specified by Total Maximum Daily Load requirements for the Klamath River) and 

Forest Plan requirements including those related to the Aquatic Conservation Strategy. See 

Aquatic Conservation Strategy Report in the project record posted on the project website.

Methodology

The effects of project alternatives on hydrologic function and water quality are analyzed based 

on existing forest ecosystem analysis documents, recent watershed field surveys, and Geographic 

Information System (GIS) reports and modeling. Ongoing stream channel monitoring to meet 

North Coast Region Water Quality Control Board (Water Board) waiver requirements, and field 

surveys after the 2016 Gap Fire provided current data. Data were synthesized to define existing 

watershed conditions for comparison with total maximum daily load (TMDL) requirements for 

the Klamath River aquatic conservation strategy objectives and desired watershed conditions 

from the Forest Plan. 

The Forest uses standardized cumulative watershed effects (CWE) models (equivalent roaded 

area (ERA), universal soil loss equation (USLE), and mass-wasting (GEO)) to assess effects of 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities as described here and in relevant supporting 

references. Cumulative watershed effects models were used to index watershed disturbance 

(equivalent roaded acres – ERA) and evaluate the effects of soil erosion (universal soil loss 

equation – USLE) and evaluate the potential for mass-wasting (land sliding).

Models were updated to incorporate effects of the 2016 Gap Fire, planned private timber harvest 

plans, and road improvements identified in burned area emergency response (BAER) 

assessments (USDA 2016b). The updates provide a picture of post-fire watershed conditions. 

The potentially ground-disturbing activities and events that are included in the CWE modeling 

for both Forest Service lands and private lands in the project area are vegetation removal, roads 

used for temporary access, log landing construction and enlargement, effects of wildfires and 

suppression efforts, prescribed burning, road improvements, and road decommissioning.

Ground-disturbing activities are assigned coefficients of disturbance in the ERA model to 

represent the disturbance created by a road segment of equal size in area. Effects from vegetation 

management, wildfire, and prescribed fire show naturally reduced disturbance over time for all 

three models (ERA, USLE, and GEO). Sediment yield (cubic yards/acre/year) estimated by the 

USLE occurs in the first winter season, requires a 2-year, 6-hour storm, and recovers to 

background rates within seven years (USDA 2004). Sediment yield (cubic yards/acre/decade) 

estimated by the mass-wasting model depends on a ten-year storm event, and yield recovers to 

background rates in 50 years (USDA 2004).

The models make assumptions regarding the rates of recovery for the processes represented by 

the models. As site re-vegetation provides increased interception, evapotranspiration, ground 

cover, and mechanical strength, the effects of ground disturbing activities lessen. Road and 

landing areas do not recover naturally over time; however, their coefficients of disturbance can 

be reduced if the areas are improved by decommissioning, out sloping, rocking, or crossing 

upgrades.

Model results fall on a continuum. The models are indexed using a “risk ratio.” The threshold of 

concern for the risk ratio for the models is 1.0. The threshold of concern does not represent the 

exact point at which adverse cumulative effects will occur. Rather it serves as a “yellow flag” 

indicating increasing susceptibility for adverse effects to beneficial uses in a watershed (Bell 

2012).
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

186

Analysis Indicators and Measures

Analysis indicators are chosen to be responsive to total maximum daily load (Clean Water Act) 

requirements and the Forest Plan (including aquatic conservation strategy objectives), and to 

demonstrate potential differences between project alternatives with respect to hydrologic 

function and water quality.

Risk to Channel Morphology

The risk to channel morphology is analyzed using the ERA model. From a direct and indirect 

effects standpoint, the change in risk ratio to the ERA model after implementation of the three 

action alternatives will be used to decipher potential risk to channel morphology from proposed 

project activities.

When looking at implementation of just the action alternatives unrelated to the other actions 

occurring in an analysis watershed, little to no change in risk ratio to the ERA model means that 

there is not likely to be a measurable change to peak flows and the channel bed, banks, and 

floodplain will undergo natural modifications that are proportional to the storm events. 

Discernable change in risk ratio to the ERA model indicates that peak flows may be artificially 

increased by the actions taken. The increased peak flow is likely to leave the channel susceptible 

to modifications that are more than would occur under natural conditions.

Risk of Sediment Regime Alteration

The risk to water quality from sediment regime alteration is evaluated using the USLE and GEO 

models as described in the methodology section. From a direct and indirect effects standpoint, 

the change in risk ratio to the USLE and GEO models after implementation of just the three 

action alternatives will be used to decipher potential risk to sediment regime alteration from 

project activities.

Little to no change in risk ratio to the models means that water quality may be affected but the 

beneficial uses in the watershed are still occurring with nuisance interruptions in the natural 

processes. A discernable change in the risk ratios means that water quality is being affected and 

there are interruptions to beneficial uses in the watershed.

Risk of Temperature Regime Alteration

The risk to water quality from temperature regime alteration is assessed by analyzing effects to 

shade in riparian reserves. Vegetation burn severity data are used to assess effects of the 2016 

Gap Fire on vegetation and related reduced shade as a baseline for the analysis of project 

activities. Riparian areas subject to moderate and high vegetation burn severity provide reduced 

shade relative to pre-fire conditions; shade protects water temperatures from solar insolation and 

warming.

The direct and indirect effects of the project on shade are estimated by the amount of riparian 

reserve that is within treatment area where live vegetation is likely to be removed. These areas 

are assumed to have the potential for shade loss. However, shade will not be lost over much of 

the treatment area because the treatments focus on removal of only hazard trees. Though 

imminent to die, large live trees may be felled for safety, so the areas are considered to have the 

potential to lose stream shading.

In general, riparian areas that may have a reduction in shade from fire effects are usually within 

high severity burned areas.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

187

Spatial and Temporal Bounding of Analysis Area

The spatial context for the hydrologic analysis is the project area that includes portions of the 

following three 6th field hydrologic unit (HUC) code watersheds: Horse Creek (HUC # 

180102061004), Bittenbender Creek-Klamath River (HUC # 180102061103), and Kohl CreekKlamath River (HUC # 180102061005;). The 6th field HUC watersheds are the analysis area for 

broad scale effects analysis. The 7th field watersheds are considered small scale for a project area 

of this size. There are eleven 7th field watersheds that are analyzed for this project.

The long-term temporal bounding for this analysis is up to 10 years because recovery of the firedisturbed hydrologic function (from ERA modeling) and surface erosion (from USLE modeling) 

is appreciable in the first decade. The short-term is between two and four years after 

implementation of the actions.

Affected Environment

The following sections describe the existing condition of the affected environment for hydrology 

resources in the Horse Creek Project Area.

Watershed Description

For hydrological analysis purposes, watershed effects were evaluated and presented for each 6th

and 7th field watersheds involved with the project area.

Watershed Condition Class

In 2011, the Forest used the watershed classification and assessment tracking (WCAT) protocol 

(USDA 2011c) to determine the health of its 6th field HUCs. Sixth field HUCs were assessed 

because the Forest Service National Watershed Condition Team, set up in 2007, determined that 

in order to demonstrate improvement in condition class, activities should be tracked at the 

smallest feasible watershed unit, the 6th level hydrologic unit (typically 10,000 to 40,000 acres in 

size).

The results from the analysis indicated that the Horse Creek, Bittenbender Creek-Klamath River, 

and Kohl Creek-Klamath River watersheds are “functioning at risk” (WCC II) 

(http://apps.fs.fed.us/nfs/nrm/wcatt/WCFMapviewer/). In 2016, the 32,968 acre Gap Fire burned 

approximately 23,727 acres, or 61 percent, of the Horse Creek drainage, approximately 6,074 

acres, or 17 percent, of the Bittenbender Creek-Klamath River drainage, and approximately 

3,175 acres, or 18 percent, of the Kohl Creek-Klamath River drainage.

Cumulative Watershed Effects Existing Condition

Table 57 lists the project watersheds’ current risk ratios for the three models.

Table 57: Cumulative Watershed Effects models current conditions (risk ratios) by watershed 

Current Risk Ratio

7th Field Watershed Name USLE1 GEO2 ERA3

Schutts Gulch-Klamath River 0.6 1.2 0.6

Middle Horse Creek 0.7 0.7 1.3

Negro Creek 0.9 0.5 0.8

Tom Martin Creek-Klamath River 0.5 0.5 0.7

Salt Gulch 0.7 0.9 0.8
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

188

Current Risk Ratio

7th Field Watershed Name USLE1 GEO2 ERA3

Sambo Gulch-Klamath River 0.7 0.7 0.5

Lower Horse Creek 1.0 1.0 1.5

Middle Creek 0.9 1.1 2.0

Buckhorn Creek 1.0 0.8 2.0

Collins Creek-Klamath River 1.2 0.8 0.5

Middle Seiad Creek 0.4 0.6 0.6

1- USLE risk ratios are calculated by dividing accelerated sedimentation values due to surface sediment erosion by 

an inference point value of 400 percent. Accelerated sedimentation is figured as “percent over background,” which is 

calculated from ‘current’ model-estimated sediment delivery less background divided by background values.

2- GEO risk ratios are calculated by dividing accelerated sedimentation values due to mass-wasting by an inference 

point value of 200 percent. Accelerated sedimentation is figured as “percent over background,” which is calculated 

from ‘current’ model estimated sediment delivery less background divided by background values.

3- ERA risk ratios are calculated by dividing ERA values by an inference point value equal to the Threshold of 

Concern (TOC) (see the project record for the values and parameters used to calculate them).

Lower Horse Creek, Buckhorn Creek, and Collins Creek-Klamath River are currently over TOC 

for surface soil erosion (USLE risk ratio greater than 1.0), while Middle and Lower Horse 

Creeks, Middle Creek, and Buckhorn Creek have ERA risk ratios over 1.0. Schutts GulchKlamath River, Lower Horse Creek, and Middle Creek are over TOC (GEO risk ratio greater 

than 1.0) for mass wasting (GEO).

Channel Condition

In 2009, the Forest began a pilot study for stream sediment monitoring to be used for the Total 

Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and Water Board timber waiver monitoring requirements, which 

was recently approved by the Water Board in October 2015. The protocol surveys the response 

reaches of 6th field watersheds that have a range of cumulative effects to characterize the existing 

condition and how they correlate to the three CWE models’ estimates (USDA 2009d). Important 

measurements include: average percent surface fines in riffles, average percent subsurface fines 

in riffle crests and gravel patches, and average percent volume of fine sediment filling pools (vstar). 

Middle Horse Creek response reach exceeded reference conditions for three of four sediment 

indices. The mainstem Horse Creek response reach exceeded reference conditions for V-star and 

mean surface fine less than 0.2 millimeter. The Forest sediment monitoring report for 2009 

through 2015 (USDA 2016c) interpreted that effects to water quality were currently adverse in 

Middle Horse Creek, and possibly adverse in the Horse Creek main stem, with human-related 

sediment sources the likely cause in both watersheds. 

Since this data was collected prior to the 2016 Gap Fire, these values will likely remain static or 

change negatively as the watersheds recover from Gap Fire effects.

Riparian Condition

Watersheds involved with the project have a long history of forest management, starting with the 

mining era where trees were harvested to build houses, flumes, and other structures. The forest 

was left to regenerate naturally without the use of modern reforestation techniques. There are 

many locations in Horse Creek where the stream banks were placer mined and dredged, leaving 

tailings in the riparian zone that persist to this day.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

189

The vegetation management activities GIS layer used in cumulative watershed effects modeling 

includes Forest Service and private timber harvest from 1966 to the present. Clear-cut harvesting 

on Forest Service throughout the stream-course riparian reserves was permitted prior to the 

Forest Plan (USDA 1995a). Private timber companies presently clear-cut within the outer portion 

of the riparian zone as defined by the Forest Plan. Results indicate that the Bittenbender CreekKlamath River watershed has seen the largest historical impacts to riparian function. Excluding 

areas affected by wildfire, approximately 18 percent of the stream-course riparian reserves in that 

watershed contain trees that are between 4 to 44 years old. The riparian reserves in the Negro 

Creek, Salt Gulch, and Sambo Gulch-Klamath River 7th field watersheds are almost completely 

intact compared to the other 7th field watersheds which had between 8 and 18 percent of their 

riparian reserves clear-cut harvested.

Water Quality

The mainstem of the Klamath River is 303(d) listed for nutrients, organic enrichment/low 

dissolved oxygen, and mycrocystis (US EPA 2012). All tributaries to the Klamath, including 

Horse Creek are listed as temperature impaired mostly because of human-caused sediment and 

loss of site potential riparian stream shade (California North Coast Region Water Quality Control 

Board 2012). A total maximum daily load (TMDL) action plan for the Mid-Klamath River was 

developed with the Timber Waiver meeting compliance. The Mid-Klamath Hydrologic Area 

(HA) was listed for sediment in 2008. A TMDL for sediment will not be developed until 2025, 

but measures to meet stream temperature impairment are closely tied to sediment.

The California State Water Quality Control Board has used stream shade as an indicator for 

particular reaches meeting Basin Plan standards. The average percent stream shade on the main

stem Horse Creek from the 1989 to 90 survey was 57 percent. The 2002 survey of a short 1.6 

kilometer reach recorded 85 percent stream shade. The Forest has recently developed a stream 

shade monitoring protocol which was approved by the California State Water Quality Control 

Board in September 2010 (USDA 2010). The Horse Creek watershed has an average of 94 

percent stream shade which is 0.4 percent less than potential (USDA 2011d).

The Lower Horse Creek 7th field watershed is the only drainage where over 20 percent of the 

burn intensity was moderate or high. This indicates that the Gap Fire produced localized effects 

to shade in certain project area 7th field watersheds, but not to the point where the 94 percent 

stream shade that existed in the Horse Creek watershed would be detrimentally affected.

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects

Under the no action alternative, none of the proposed vegetation treatment opportunities 

(roadside hazard tree removal, roadside fuels treatments, fuels reduction adjacent to private 

property, development and maintenance of fuel management zones, salvage harvest with site 

preparation and planting, and site preparation and planting (without salvage)) would occur. This 

would include no construction of landings, skid trails, or fuel piles. Further, no restoration work 

within the Horse Creek SIA and no maintenance of existing or construction of new temporary 

roads would occur.

Existing conditions in project area would continue including present conditions for soils, water 

quality and quantity, riparian and, and stream channel condition. As no additional ground-
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

190

disturbing activities would occur, there would be no new, and additional, direct and indirect 

activities (both short and long term). As a result, there would be no change to existing levels of 

direct or indirect impacts (both short and long term) under this alternative.

Alternative 2

Direct and Indirect Effects

Risk to Channel Morphology

Temporary road and landing construction, fuels management and salvage harvest and associated 

mechanical yarding resulting from Alternative 2 have potential to further increase runoff in 

project area analysis watersheds.

Table 58 shows ERA model results comparing the existing condition, which includes effects from 

the 2016 Gap Fire and private timber harvest plans, and effects from activities proposed in 

Alternative 2. Results show that Alternative 2 would not change existing risk ratios by more than 

0.1 in any of project area watersheds.

We will implement measures that would require stream channel buffers, would protect unstable 

riparian reserve lands, implement mechanical equipment slope restrictions for soils with higher 

erosion risks, limit the amount of detrimental soil disturbance in each harvest unit, require 

adequate cover to disturbed areas after implementation, use existing landings and road beds 

where possible, and make temporary roads and landings hydrologically stable at project 

completion. Further, activities would be conducted when soil conditions are appropriate.

We believe implementation of these project design features and BMPs would eliminate channel 

changing effects under alternative 2. ERA results prior to project design feature and BMP 

implementation show essentially no changes from the existing condition. A 0.1 increase in risk 

ratio is within the model error. An increase in risk ratio of at most, 0.1, could not be detected 

through pre and post implementation monitoring. We believe effects may occur at a site specific 

scale but not to the point where alternative 2 would produce channel changing effects. We 

believe, after implementation of project design features and BMPs, the project would be benign 

on the landscape as it relates to channel morphology.

Table 58: ERA model results comparing Alternatives 1 and 2 for project 7th field watersheds.

7th – Field Watershed Name ERA Risk Ratio

Post Fire, No Action

ERA Risk Ratio

Alternative 2

Risk Ratio 

Change

Schutts Gulch-Klamath River 0.6 0.6 0

Middle Horse Creek 1.3 1.3 0

Negro Creek 0.8 0.9 0.1

Tom Martin Creek-Klamath River 0.7 0.7 0

Salt Gulch 0.8 0.9 0.1

Sambo Gulch-Klamath River 0.5 0.5 0

Lower Horse Creek 1.5 1.6 0.1

Middle Creek 2.0 2.1 0.1

Buckhorn Creek 2.0 2.1 0.1

Collins Creek-Klamath River 0.5 0.5 0

Middle Seiad Creek 0.6 0.6 0
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

191

Risk of Sediment Regime Alteration

Results indicate that implementation of Alternative 2 would not change existing risk ratios for 

any of the eleven project area analysis 7th field watersheds for the USLE while GEO results 

indicate that Alternative 2 would change the Lower Horse Creek and Buckhorn Creek 7th field 

watersheds by 0.1. We believe this result is minor and would not be detected through pre and 

post implementation monitoring. Implementation of project design features and BMPs listed in 

Appendix A and Appendix B would further reduce the risk for increased sedimentation. We 

believe implementation of Alternative 2 with appropriate project design features and BMPs 

would not increase sediment risk to project area streams above existing condition.

Risk of Temperature Regime Alteration

The direct and indirect effects of Alternative 2 on shade would be minor as only hazard tree 

removal from the overstory would occur within perennial and late flowing intermittent reaches.

We believe shade in the salvage units have already been affected by the Gap Fire and removal of 

these trees would not further reduce shade.

Further, for this planning exercise, we assumed that every acre within these treatment areas 

would be removed. A percentage of the vegetation would be removed which would, most likely,

be advantageous to riparian vegetation in the future as it would reduce competition and allow for 

vigorous growth for desirable riparian species.

Overall, Horse Creek would have a 4 percent reduction in riparian canopy cover should all 

vegetation canopy be removed by the project. In reality, the removal would be a fraction of this. 

If half the canopy is removed in treatment areas in Horse Creek, then at most, less than 2 percent 

of the canopy in the Horse Creek 6th field watershed would be removed through implementation 

of alternative 2.

We believe this minor removal of canopy (less than 2 percent) could not be correlated to increase 

in stream temperature through pre and post implementation monitoring. We consider this to be 

minor and changes to stream shade through monitoring of the 6th field Horse Creek watershed 

would not be detected.

Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect Effects

Risk to Channel Morphology

The following activities (landing construction, fuels management and salvage harvest and 

associated mechanical yarding) resulting from Alternative 3 have potential to further increase 

runoff in project area analysis watersheds. No temporary road construction is proposed under 

Alternative 3.

Results indicate that Alternative 3 by itself would not change existing risk ratios in eight of 

eleven project analysis watersheds and by 0.1 in the Negro Creek, Salt Gulch and the Lower 

Horse Creek 7th field watersheds.

The ERA Model runs for Alternative 3 indicate that this alternative would have minor impact on 

future disturbance in any of the project analysis watersheds. From modeling results, we believe 

effects specific to alternative 3 could not be detected by pre and post implementation monitoring 

in the field. We believe localized effects may occur but not to the point where current channel 

conditions would be impacted. Therefore, we believe increases to runoff and potential for 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

192

impacts to stream channels from the alternative as proposed, are similar to the existing condition 

and Alternative 2.

Risk of Sediment Regime Alteration

Results indicate that implementation of Alternative 3 would not change existing risk ratios for 

any of the eleven project area analysis 7th field watersheds for either the USLE or GEO results. 

Therefore, we believe the project is minor in regards to sediment regime alteration and would not 

be discernable on the landscape. We believe implementation of Alternative 3 with appropriate 

project design features and BMPs would not increase sediment risk to project area streams above 

existing condition or alternative 2.

Risk of Temperature Regime Alteration

As with alternative 2, Horse Creek is proposed to have a 4 percent reduction in riparian cover. 

This assumes that every tree in ever acre planned for treatment would be removed. In reality the 

removal would be a fraction of this. We believe that, at most, less than 2 percent of Horse Creek 

would be removed through implementation of alternative 2. We consider this to be minor and 

changes to stream shade through monitoring of the 6th field Horse Creek watershed would not be 

detected. We believe stream shade monitoring at the reach or drainage level would not detect 

change to current temperature with implementation of alternative 3.

Alternative 4

Direct and Indirect Effects

Risk to Channel Morphology 

The following activities (temporary road building, landing construction, fuels management and 

salvage harvest and associated mechanical yarding) resulting from Alternative 4 have potential to 

further increase runoff in project area analysis watersheds.

Alternative 4 results are similar to Alternative 3 results. Increases to runoff and potential for 

impacts to stream channels from the alternative as proposed, are minimal and would keep 

conditions at current levels.

Risk of Sediment Regime Alteration

Results indicate that implementation of Alternative 4 would not change existing risk ratios for 

any of the eleven project area analysis 7th field watersheds for the USLE model and by 0.1 in 

Buckhorn Creek for the GEO Model. We believe implementation of Alternative 4 with 

appropriate project design features and BMPs would not increase sediment risk to project area 

streams above existing condition and is similar to the minor effects discussed for alternatives 2 

and 3.

Risk of Temperature Regime Alteration

Horse Creek 6th field watershed is estimated to have approximately 3 percent of the live 

vegetation affected by both the Gap Fire and proposed project activities. Again, this estimate 

does not take into account that all vegetation in these treatment units would not be removed, 

therefore this value would be lower. Results from this exercise make us believe that stream 

temperatures will remain at current levels similar to the existing condition and alternatives 2 and 

3.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

193

Cumulative Effects

Current and future foreseeable actions considered for the analysis within the eleven 7th field 

watersheds can be found in Appendix C. None of the eleven project area analysis watersheds 

have future projects to consider. The Horse Creek Project will be the only future project to 

consider. Therefore, the direct and indirect effects analysis for each of the action alternatives for 

the Horse Creek Project represents the cumulative effects analysis as well.

Risk to Channel Morphology

The ERA Model was used to determine potential changes to channel morphology from existing 

and future project impacts. Direct and indirect effects for the three action alternatives disclosed 

that none of the action alternatives would have effects on channel morphology should project 

design features and BMPs be implemented. Therefore, no cumulative effects to channel 

morphology are anticipated from the action alternatives.

Risk of Sediment Regime Alteration

The USLE and GEO Models were used to determine potential changes to sediment regime from 

existing and future project impacts. Direct and indirect effects for the three action alternatives 

disclosed that none of the action alternatives would have measurable effects on sediment regime 

should project design features and BMPs be implemented. Therefore, no cumulative effects to 

sediment regime are anticipated from any of the action alternatives.

Risk of Temperature Regime Alteration

The risk to water quality from temperature regime alteration is assessed by analyzing effects to 

shade in riparian reserves. Vegetation burn severity data was used to assess effects of the 2016 

Gap Fire on vegetation and related reduced shade as a baseline for the analysis of project 

activities.

The effects of the action alternatives on shade are estimated by the amount of perennial riparian 

reserve that is within treatment areas where hazard trees are likely to be removed. For the Horse 

Creek Project, we assumed these were roadside fuel, private boundary, and fuel management 

zone treatment areas outside of perennial riparian reserves. Shade in the salvage units have 

already been affected by the Gap Fire and removal of these trees would not further reduce shade.

Project area watersheds with less than 20 percent of the live vegetation affected by the fire or 

treatments in the riparian reserves have a low risk of temperature regime alterations. Watersheds 

with between 20 to 50 percent live vegetation affected, or a highly likely landslide likelihood, 

have a moderate risk of temperature regime alteration. Watersheds with more than 50 percent of 

the live vegetation affected, or an almost certain landslide likelihood, have a high risk of 

temperature regime alterations.

For each of the action alternatives, one 7th field watershed was estimated to have between 20 to 

50 percent live vegetation removed. This was the Lower Horse Creek watershed. All other 

watersheds were below the 20 percent threshold for the analysis for all action alternatives.

The larger Horse Creek 6th field watershed is estimated to have either 12 percent or 13 percent of 

the live vegetation affected by both the Gap Fire , based on moderate and high burn severity 

from the Gap Fire, and proposed project activities in each action alternative. This is below the 20 

percent threshold.

Localized shade impacts have occurred in certain 7th field watersheds but not to the point where 

it would affect overall stream temperature in the Horse Creek system over existing condition.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

194

Comparison of Effects

Table 59 summarizes the environmental effects by alternative. There would be no changes to 

direct or indirect and cumulative effects for channel morphology, sediment regime or 

temperature regime under any of the alternatives.

Table 59: Summary comparison of environmental effects to hydrology-related resources.

Indicator Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4

Indicator: Risk 

to Channel 

Morphology by 

7th field HUC 

(ERA Risk 

Ratio)

Schutts GulchKlamath River

below 

threshold

No change from 

alternative 1

No change from 

alternative 1

No change from 

alternative 1

Middle Horse 

Creek

above 

threshold

Negro Creek below 

threshold

Tom Martin CreekKlamath Riverbelow 

threshold

Salt Gulch below 

threshold

Sambo GulchKlamath Riverbelow 

threshold

Lower Horse Creek above 

threshold

Middle Creek above 

threshold

Buckhorn Creek above 

threshold

Collins CreekKlamath Riverbelow 

threshold

Middle Seiad Creek below 

threshold

Indicator: Risk 

to Sediment 

Regime 

Alteration 

(USLE and GEO 

Risk Ratios)

No action Localized, shortterm effects to 

water quality 

from 

sedimentation 

are anticipated. 

Localized, shortterm effects to 

water quality from 

sedimentation are 

anticipated. 

Localized, shortterm effects to 

water quality 

from 

sedimentation 

are anticipated. 

Indicator: Risk 

of Temperature 

Regime 

Alteration

Impacts from the 2016 Gap Fire 

has impacted localized 7th field 

HUC watershed riparian areas 

but not to the point where 

overall shade in the 6th field 

HUC watersheds has impacted 

temperature.

Low risk to 

stream 

temperature 

effects

Low risk to stream 

temperature effects

Low risk to 

stream 

temperature 

effects

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

Clean Water Act

The intent of the Clean Water Act is met on National Forest System land by complying with 

water quality standards developed by the State of California, as authorized by the U.S. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

195

Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to the Federal Clean Water Act of 1972. The PorterCologne Act, California’s corresponding state law, assigns responsibility for protection of water 

quality within North Coast watersheds to the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board 

(Water Board). The Water Board implements and enforces the Porter-Cologne Act, and the 

Water Quality Control Plan for the North Coast Basin (Basin Plan). Water quality objectives are 

outlined in the Basin Plan. The primary purpose for maintaining water quality is to assure that 

the beneficial uses of water are not adversely affected. When water quality objectives are met, 

and beneficial uses protected, then the State considers that a project meets water quality 

standards.

The Forest Service entered into a Management Agency Agreement (1981) with the Water Board 

and State of California requiring the Forest Service to institute a water quality management 

program to meet applicable water quality objectives and protect beneficial uses. Under the 

agreement, implementation of best management practices approved by the State and certified by 

the Environmental Protection Agency is considered sufficient to protect water quality from nonpoint sources of pollution (USFS 2000). Compliance with the Clean Water Act and the water 

quality objectives of the Basin Plan are achieved by meeting the conditions of the Waiver of 

Waste Discharge Requirements for Nonpoint Source Discharges Related to Certain Land 

Management Activities on National Forest System Lands (Water Board Order No. R1-2015-

0021; 2015 Waiver). Compliance with the conditions of the waiver also constitutes compliance 

with the requirements of the Klamath River Total Maximum Daily Load of pollutants.

Prior to implementation of the project, the Forest Service will meet all the relevant conditions for 

the Non-point Source Sediment Discharge Waiver. This will meet the requirements for the Clean 

Water Act, the Total Maximum Daily Load and the Basin Plan. The Standards and Guidelines in 

the Forest Plan are met through project design and analysis (see the Forest Plan Consistency 

Checklist in the project record and the Hydrology Resource Report, available on the project 

website).

The Water Board was informed about progress on the project and the Forest Service responded 

to their scoping comments (see Horse Creek Scoping Outcome Summary on the project website)

and comment period comments (see Response to Comments on the project website). 

Recreation

Methodology

Assessments included an analysis of the appropriate recreation opportunity spectrum place-based 

settings by definition and within the context of the Project area. Additionally, the recreation 

opportunity setting was compared to the Forest Plan Management Area designations. Fieldwork, 

available literature review, professional judgement, and the use of geospatial information system 

software were tools used throughout the analysis.

Assumptions

• All human use within the project area by the general public is assumed to have some 

recreational motivation. 

• Use by the local Horse Creek Community is more focused on a rural lifestyle and 

commodity uses than recreational uses. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

196

• The recreation-oriented public visiting National Forest Lands has an image of what they 

expect to see. Images are generated by an individual’s past experiences with a specific 

landscape, a landscape associated with a region, or landscape similar in appearance to the 

one being viewed. Images can represent knowledgeability, expectedness, romanticism, and 

emotionalism associated with features in an area. Several images may exist simultaneously, 

yet a geographic region tends to have an identifiable image association.

• Aesthetic preferences vary among the public, based on culture, past experiences, and many 

other factors.

• Each landscape unit has its individual capacity to accept alteration without losing its 

inherent visual character. This may be expressed in the screening ability of vegetation and 

landforms, variety of vegetative cover, geologic forms, and water features, and its ability

for vegetation to recover after disturbances.

• Landscapes with little or no variety may be enhanced by alteration.

Analysis Indicators

The analysis indicator for recreation is determining if the proposed project activities will alter the 

Forest Plan-designated recreation opportunity spectrum settings within the project boundary.

Measures

Designated Forest Plan recreation opportunity spectrum classes for the project are recommended 

to generally achieve:

• Rural: Area is characterized by substantially modified natural environment. Resource 

modification and utilization practices are to enhance specific recreation activities and to 

maintain vegetative cover and soil. Sights and sounds of humans are readily evident and the 

interaction between users is often moderate to high. A considerable number of facilities are 

designed for use by a large number of people. Facilities are often provided for special 

activities. Moderate densities are provided far away from developed sites. Facilities for 

intensified motorized use and parking are available.

• Roaded natural: An area characterized by predominantly natural-appearing environments 

with moderate evidences of the sights and sounds of man. Such evidences usually 

harmonize with the natural environment.

Interaction between users may be low to moderate, but with evidence of other users 

prevalent. Resource modification and utilization practices are evident, but harmonize with 

the natural environment.

The recreation opportunity experience level provided would be characterized by the equal 

probability for experiencing affiliation with individuals and groups and for isolation from 

sights and sounds of humans. Opportunities for both motorized and non-motorized forms of 

recreation may be provided.

Spatial and Temporal Bounding of Analysis Area

The spatial bounds for analyzing direct, indirect, and cumulative effects for recreation resources 

are the designated boundaries of the Project area.

Since the recreational opportunity spectrum standards are closely tied to visual quality objectives 

for scenery, the same temporal bounds apply. The temporal scale is defined as three years for
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

197

short term effects, as defined by the Forest Plan, where projects are required to meet defined 

visual quality objective thresholds (retention, partial retention, modification), except for 

maximum modification, which must meet the threshold immediately upon project completion. 

Long term effects are defined as between three and approximately seventy five years.

Affected Environment

Within the Project area, the Recreation Facilities Niche Analysis (USDA 2008) identified two 

recreational settings: Travel-ways and the Siskiyou Crest. The Travel-ways setting primarily 

encompasses the recreational public traveling the State of Jefferson Scenic Byway/California 

State Route 96, and the Klamath Wild and Scenic River corridor. Key recreational experiences 

within the Project area in this setting include driving for pleasure, viewing scenery or wildlife, 

hunting and fishing, camping, collecting forest products, hiking and backpacking, whitewater 

kayaking, rafting, or canoeing, and access to higher elevation recreational experiences.

Thirteen miles of the Klamath Wild and Scenic River traverse the Project area. The Siskiyou 

Crest setting primarily encompasses hikers and backpackers traversing the Pacific Crest Trail, 

which is a Congressionally-designated National Scenic Trail. Approximate use numbers along 

this stretch of the Pacific Crest Trail were estimated using an unofficial hiker’s register kept in 

Seiad Valley, California. Between April and October of 2016, 891 north- and south-bound 

through hikers signed the register. The numbers may have been greater, as not all through-hikers 

might have signed the register. Use numbers are assumed to contain greater accuracy for 

through-hikers, since day hikers along the Pacific Crest Trail would not likely register in Seiad 

Valley, California.

The Pacific Crest Trail traverses approximately two miles within or nearby the project area 

boundary. Road networks interlace public and private timber lands. Overall, recreational settings 

are naturally appearing, with low traffic levels, social encounters, visitor impacts, and site 

management. Industrial activities, such as logging evidence, haul traffic, and active timber sales 

intermittently reduce naturalness, solitude and feeling of remoteness. These recreation settings 

conditions are consistent with the project area’s recreation opportunity spectrum class thresholds 

of roaded natural and rural. Recreation Features are listed in Table 60.

Table 60: Recreation Features

Recreational Feature Feature Description

Blue Heron River Access Klamath River Access

Rocky Point River Access Klamath River Access

O’Neil Creek Campground Developed Campground – Closed*

Sarah Totten Campground Developed Campground

51D004 Dispersed Campsite, on Motor Vehicle Use Map**

51D006 Dispersed Campsite, on Motor Vehicle Use Map**

51D014 Dispersed Campsite, on Motor Vehicle Use Map**

51D015 Dispersed Campsite, on Motor Vehicle Use Map**

Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail National Scenic Trail

*O’Neil Creek Campground will not be included in the analysis; it is not expected to reopen in the reasonably 

foreseeable future. **From the 2012 Oak Knoll Area Motor Vehicle Opportunity Guide. Does not include additional dispersed 

camps not designated on the Motor Vehicle Use Map.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

198

The recreation opportunity spectrum physical settings of “roaded natural” and “rural” are 

consistent with the project area. The majority of the project area is designated “roaded natural”

has a largely natural appearing environment. Resource modifications and utilization practices are 

prevalent. There is a moderate evidence of the sights and sounds of humans, especially on 

private inholdings or along traveled roads. The recreation opportunity spectrum experience 

setting is consistent with the equal probability of experiencing other individuals and groups, or 

experiencing isolation from the sights and sounds of humans away from traveled roads within the 

motorized recreational context.

Concentrated areas of the “rural” recreation opportunity spectrum physical setting are consistent 

with substantially modified natural environments, resource modification, and utilization. The 

experience setting is also consistent with the sights and sounds of humans being readily evident 

and interactions with others visitors ranging from moderate to high, within the motorized 

recreational context.

Environmental Consequences

During implementation, Alternatives 2, 3, 4 would have noticeable localized short-term direct 

effects at all recreation sites in the Project area. Effects would be largely associated with 

harvesting activities, including logging, hauling, noise, dust, and congestion along haul routes. 

There would be localized effects associated with post-harvest activities, such as slash disposal, 

site preparation, and revegetation. All localized short-term effects in intensity, depending on 

proximity to the activity.

Alternative 1

Direct and Indirect Effects

In those areas affected by the 2016 Gap Fire (roads and designated Motor Vehicle Use Map 

dispersed campsites) roadside hazard trees would remain untreated, and would create safety and 

access issues for the public. Forest Order temporary closures may be issued to mitigate hazards, 

and may restrict public access to some, but likely not all recreation locations. Temporary 

closures would displace the public to other available areas either within or outside of the Project 

area.

Potential loss of tree cover in fire-affected areas combined with safety hazards will affect the 

recreation opportunity spectrum setting and may likely affect the recreational experience, and 

subsequently displace recreation use to other available areas temporarily until the area becomes 

shaded and safe to inhabit.

Recreational use or recreation opportunity spectrum settings and experiences would not change 

along the Pacific Crest Trail, developed and river access sites along the Klamath Wild and 

Scenic River as a result of this alternative. Settings were not affected by the fire to the degree 

that perceptions associated with developed camping, river rafting, and hiking pursuits would be 

expected to change.

Cumulative Effects

Private industrial forest lands within the project area have been or are proposed for salvage 

timber harvesting, in response to the 2014 Beaver Fire and 2016 Gap Fires. Operational impacts 

from project activities, such as increased haul traffic, noise, and dust offer impacts to recreational 

users during the time of implementation. Increased haul will be most noticeable along State 

Highway 96. Safety signing is posted during active logging operations to alert the public.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

199

Ongoing and future foreseeable Forest Service projects include the following vegetation 

treatments: roadside salvage, site preparation and tree planting, fuels management and reduction, 

commercial thinning, mastication, hand thinning and piling, and underburning (Appendix B). 

Operational impacts from Forest Service projects are expected to be similar to private lands 

impacts but less intense. Two active livestock grazing allotments are located within the Project 

boundary. Livestock grazing is an ongoing, seasonal use. Public perception of livestock grazing

varies. Rangeland improvements tend to be minimal and typically have little effect on recreation 

resources.

Alternative 2, 3 and 4

Direct and Indirect Effects

The recreating public will see and experience varying degrees of proposed management activities 

in the Project area. Effects to the recreation setting and experience are measured using the 

recreational opportunity spectrum standards. Setting effects are in the recreation opportunity 

spectrum are compatible with the visual quality objectives outlined in the Horse Creek Scenic 

Resources report. Table 61 displays compatibility between the two.

Table 61: Compatibility of visual quality objectives and recreation opportunity spectrum Classes in the 

Project area.

Recreation Opportunity 

Spectrum Class

Visual Quality Objectives

Retention Partial 

Retention

Modification Maximum 

Modification

roaded natural Appearing Normal Normal Normal Inconsistent

Rural Fully Compatible Normal Normal Inconsistent

Some recreation settings would be adversely affected in the short-term from project activities not 

meeting visual quality objectives. The combination of the 2016 Gap Fire, salvage harvest, and 

roadside hazard tree removal may affect the short-term setting quality at dispersed campsites 

51D004 and 51D006. Hazard tree removal along the quarter-mile segment of the Pacific Crest 

Trail adjacent to Forest Road 47N81 is not expected to affect the “roaded natural” recreation 

opportunity spectrum standard in the short term.

The combination of the Gap Fire, roadside hazard tree removal, fuels, and restoration treatments 

in the Horse Creek Special Interest Area will have adverse short-term effects on the roaded 

natural recreation opportunity spectrum standard at dispersed campsite 51D014, as the 

combination of operations will likely make the camp unusable from a safety standpoint until the 

projects are completed. The recreation opportunity spectrum setting may be adversely affected

for Klamath Wild and Scenic River recreational users viewing the combination of proposed 

salvage harvest, ridgeline fuel management zone and property buffer treatments in the vicinity of 

salvage unit 116.49. The “rural recreation” opportunity spectrum standard that applies to the 

stretch of river from where the public would be viewing. The standard is defined as having a 

substantially modified natural environment with a moderate to high expectation of encountering 

other humans on the landscape. However, the area where the treatments are occurring is 

classified as “roaded natural”, which is predominantly a naturally-appearing environment and 

moderate evidence of other humans is expected. Forest Plan Standards and Guideline 11-7 

allows extended times for landscape (i.e., recreation setting) recovery following catastrophic 

events, such as wildfire.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

200

“Roaded natural” recreation opportunity spectrum standards are not expected to be affected at 

Sarah Totten Campground, Rocky Point or Blue Heron River Access sites, or dispersed camp 

51D015.

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects would overall be similar to Alternative 1. However, the public may notice 

an increase in short-term operational impact intensity (haul traffic, noise, dust) when private 

action and additional ongoing and future foreseeable Forest Service projects and being 

implemented during the same timeframe as this project. Safety signing would be posted to advice 

the public for all projects.

Comparison of Alternatives

Alternative 1 may not meet public perceptions of setting and experience in the long term. 

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 may not meet public perceptions of setting and experience in some 

locations in the short term, but may meet them in the long term.

Table 62: Comparison of Alternatives for Recreation

Indicator Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Roaded 

Natural 

Appearing

May not meet 

public perceptions 

of setting and 

experience in long 

term.

May not meet public 

perceptions of setting 

and experience in some 

locations short term, 

may meet perceptions 

in long term.

Same as 

Alternative 2.

Same as 

Alternative 2.

Rural

May not meet 

public perceptions 

of setting and 

experience in long 

term.

May not meet public 

perceptions of setting 

and experience in some 

locations short term, 

may meet perceptions 

in long term.

Same as 

Alternative 2.

Same as 

Alternative 2.

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

This project will help achieve Forest Plan direction to maintain existing recreation opportunity 

spectrum standards. Refer to the Forest Plan consistency checklist for applicable standards and 

guidelines.

Scenery

Methodology

This evaluation applies to current National Forest Landscape Management methodology in 

conjunction with existing Forest Plan direction. It relies on geospatial information system 

analysis, field observations from sensitive viewpoints, modeling to determine visibility of project 

activities, and a literature review of public preferences for scenic quality. This evaluation relies 

on the following assumptions:

• Assumption 1: Wildfires are a natural ecological process that commonly occurs on the 

landscape, and their effects to scenic resources are perceived by the public as natural. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

201

Associated fire suppression activities (hazard tree falling, fire break construction, etc.) are 

also perceived as management activities.

• Assumption 2: The project alternative activities in modification or maximum modification 

visual quality objective areas would typically meet their assigned visual quality objectives. 

Frequently, activities in modification and maximum modification are generally not visible 

from moderate or high sensitivity viewpoints or travel routes (roads or trails).

• Assumption 3: California State Highway 96, Rocky Point River Access, Blue Heron River 

Access, and Sarah Totten Campground were used as a proxy for visibility from the 

Klamath National Wild and Scenic River.

• Assumption 4: Public sensitivity is not necessarily related to aesthetic appeal. Visual 

significance may be conferred to broad landscapes or components that would otherwise 

appear unexceptional. Areas having local, regional, or national cultural significance may 

not be aesthetically scenic, yet their visual character is considered important based on 

cultural values. Therefore, baseline descriptions for visual impact analysis does not

measure the aesthetic appeal, but the indicators of sensitivity help infer the importance of 

an affected landscape.

Scenic resource analysis follows this general process:

• Qualifying the existing landscape character of the Project area. This includes broad 

descriptions of four attributes: Visual Character, Intactness, and Visual Access. Visual 

Character is defined based on the physical features inherent to the project area. Inherent

physical features include ecological and cultural (human) processes, function (land use or 

ecological relationships), and structure (feature patterns, such as natural and irregular 

mosaics of agricultural practices, forests, fields, and cultural development). Note that 

character is not necessarily based on aesthetic appeal, regardless of established regulations, 

plans, or policies, such as public sensitivity. Intactness is the degree to which past actions 

have noticeably and unfavorably changed landscape features, or introduced incompatible 

features that appear incongruent with the inherent character of the area. Visual Access: 

Describes the physical conditions under which it is viewed. Conditions include public 

access to views, type of view (panoramic or focal), and duration.

• Literature review of appropriate forest aesthetics and forest science research in order to 

apply broad, transferrable lessons regarding public preferences towards forested 

environment aesthetics.

• Identifying all Forest plan and post-Forest plan recommended public recreation sites within 

the project area, as well as identified recreation sites outside of the project area with 

potential views of the proposed alternatives.

• Identifying all Forest plan and post-plan recommended high and moderately sensitive travel 

routes (roads and trails) with potential views of proposed alternatives, inside and outside 

the project area boundary. Locations identified in the Forest plan are those public viewing 

areas most affected by the subject action; meaning they have the greatest potential for 

impact intensity due to proximity to the project, visibility, view duration, or other factors. 

The degree of visual sensitivity is based on a collective function of viewer expectations, 

activity, awareness, values, and goals.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

202

• Completing geospatial information system viewshed analyses from all Forest plan and post 

plan identified viewpoints and travel routes to determine proposed project alternative 

visibility.

• Representative views where proposed project alternative will be most noticeable (based on 

proximity, degree, and duration of viewing exposure, as well as views representative of the 

public experience) are selected for detailed analysis.

• Comparing proposed project alternative treatment prescriptions with visual quality 

objective overlay mapping, combined with professional judgement, helps determine the 

amount, degree, intensity, and distribution of visible change (as the change is viewed, 

dependent on the foreground, middleground, and background viewing distance zones); this 

step informs the development of appropriate project design features.

• Develop project design features that meet Forest Plan Visual Quality Objective and Visual 

Resource Management thresholds, in conjunction with meeting additional resource area 

objectives.

Analysis Indicators

According to the Forest Plan, the degree of visual sensitivity in landscape occurs at two levels:

• High Sensitivity: Suggests great potential for the public to react strongly to any lessening 

of visual quality. Concern is expected to be high, because the affected views are rare, 

unique, or in other ways, are special to the region or locale. A highly concerned public is 

assumed to be more aware of any given level of adverse change, and less tolerant than a 

public having little concern. A small modification of the existing landscape may be visually 

distracting to a highly sensitive public and represent a substantial reduction in visual 

quality.

• Moderate Sensitivity: Suggests substantial potential for the public to voice some concern 

over visual impacts of moderate to high intensity. Often the affected views are secondary in 

importance or are similar to others commonly available to the public. Noticeably adverse 

changes would probably be tolerated if the essential landscape character of the views 

remains dominant.

Measures

Forest Plan designated and recommended viewpoints and travel routes

The Forest Plan directs the evaluation of scenic resources from designated and recommended 

viewpoints and travel routes (roads and trails) where the public has the opportunity for extended 

viewing times. Note that the Rocky Point River Access is not included in Forest Plan as a 

designated recreation point for monitoring, but professional judgement was used to include it as 

a monitoring point with a high visual sensitivity designation, due to its location along California 

State Route 96 and the Klamath River Wild and Scenic River corridor.

Distance Zones

Distance zones are important divisions of the landscape being viewed by the public. Foreground 

views generally offer more detail at a smaller scale, in terms of textures, patterns, and forms, 

whereas middleground and background viewing distance zones offer less details, frequently at 

larger scales. In terms of project analysis, distance zones are important based on the proximity of 

project activities to the viewer. As defined:
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

203

• Foreground: The detailed landscape found within 0 to 1⁄4 and 1⁄2 mile from the observer.

• Middleground: The landscape located between 1⁄4 and 1⁄2 miles to 3 to 5 miles from the 

observer.

• Background: The distant landscape located between 3 to 5 miles and infinity.

Visual Quality Objectives

Forest plan identified thresholds for acceptable visual change. Visual quality objectives are 

defined below:

• Retention: Management activities are not visually evident, and may only repeat form, line, 

color, and texture, which are frequently found in the landscape. Changes in their qualities 

of size, amount, intensity, direction, pattern, etc., should not be evident.

• Partial Retention: Management activities are noticeable, but remain visually subordinate to 

the characteristic landscape, and may repeat form, line, color, or texture common in the 

landscape.

• Modification: Vegetation and landform management activities may visually dominate the 

original characteristic landscape; however, they must borrow from the naturallyestablished form, line, color, or texture at a level and scale that the visual appearance of 

the activity mimics those natural features occurring within the surrounding area.

• Maximum Modification: Vegetation and landform management activities may dominate the 

characteristic landscape; however, when viewed in the background zone (3-5 miles), the 

visual appearance must mimic those natural features within the surrounding area or 

character type. When viewed in foreground or middle ground, the activity may not appear 

to completely borrow from the naturally-established form, line, color, or texture.

Management Direction

Scenic resource management direction comes from the Forest Plan primarily under Standards 

and Guidelines for all Management Areas. Project Management Areas and corresponding visual 

quality objectives are as follows:

• Management Area 5 – Late Successional Reserves: Partial Retention Visual Quality 

Objective

• Management Area 7 – Special Interest Areas (Horse Creek Botanical and Condrey 

Mountain Blueschist Geologic Areas): Retention Visual Quality Objective

• Management Area 10 – Riparian Reserves: Partial Retention Visual Quality Objective

• Management Area 11 – Retention Visual Quality Objective

• Management Area 13 – Designated and Recommended Recreational Rivers: Partial 

Retention Visual Quality Objective*

• Management Area 15 – Partial Retention Visual Quality Objective

• Management Area 17 – Modification and Maximum Modification Visual Quality Objective

*For the Klamath Wild and Scenic Designated Recreational River (Management Area 13), the Retention Visual 

Quality Objective supersedes the Partial Retention Visual Quality Objective, as California State Route 96 along this 

segment is designated by the forest as the State of Jefferson Scenic Byway. Because of this forest level designation, 

State Route 96 is also eligible as a state scenic highway.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

204

Spatial and Temporal Bounding of Analysis Area

The spatial bounding includes the viewsheds from the Forest Plan and post-Forest Plan identified 

viewpoints and moderate/high sensitivity travel routes for direct, indirect, and cumulative effects. 

Additionally, a portion of State Route 96 is included, beyond the community of Horse Creek and 

running eastward to just beyond the Klamath River truss bridge. This boundary was extended to 

include the visibility of the proposed project from those traveling west on 96, beginning just 

beyond the Klamath River Bridge. See Table 63 for the list of viewpoints, travel routes, and 

viewing distance zones.

Table 63: Forest Plan viewpoints, recreation points with extended viewing times, roads, trails, visual 

importance level, and viewing distance zone.

Viewpoint, Road, Trail Visual Importance 

Level

Distance Zone

California State Highway 96 High Foreground, Middleground 

County Road 8F001 Moderate Foreground, Middleground

County Road 8F003 Moderate Foreground, Middleground 

Horse Creek Community/Valley High Foreground, Middleground

Klamath Wild and Scenic River High Foreground, Middleground

National Forest Road 47N81 High Foreground, Middleground, Background

National Forest Road 40S01 Moderate, 

Post Forest Plan Foreground, Middleground, Background

Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail High Foreground, Middleground

Rocky Point River Access High Foreground, Middleground

Sarah Totten Campground High Foreground, Middleground

Visual Sensitivity Level: High: High public use, corresponding with a high level of visual scenery interest. Moderate: 

Moderate public use, corresponding with a moderate level of visual scenery interest.

Due to seasonal inaccessibility, geospatial information system mapping determined if portions of 

the Pacific Crest Trail along the Siskiyou Crest outside of the project boundary had potential 

panoramic middleground or background views into the project area. These areas were considered 

but are not included in the analysis for the following reasons:

• Vegetation and landform (or a combination of both) limit views of proposed action 

treatments in the project area; and

• The function of the viewing distance will decrease the clarity of detail seen with proposed 

project area activities. With project design features, professional judgement determines the 

visual result in those areas will meet the partial retention visual quality objective.

Additionally, Blue Heron River Access and O’Neil Creek Campground were not included in the 

analysis. Viewshed analysis determined that Blue Heron River Access had no views of proposed 

project alternatives, and the O’Neil Creek Campground is currently closed, and is not proposed 

to be reopened in the reasonably foreseeable future. The Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail will 

be analyzed for the quarter mile segment alongside National Forest System Road 47N81 where 

roadside hazard tree removal is proposed; however the remainder of the trail was unaffected by 

the Gap Fire, and it was determined through field observation that proposed treatments near the 

Siskiyou Crest will not be seen from the trail corridor due to remaining green tree vegetation. 

The Horse Creek Community and associated valley, although not listed as a Forest Plan point, is 

considered for the effects analysis due to the Forest Plan emphasis on scenic resource 

management as seen from communities, as well as the moderate sensitivity level designations of 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

205

Siskiyou County Roads 8F001 and 8F003. California State Highway 96/State of Jefferson Scenic 

Byway, National Forest Roads 47N81 and 40S01 are also considered due to their respective high 

or moderate sensitivity levels, designated wild and scenic river corridor, or public comment.

The Horse Creek Special Interest Area, although identified as socially-valued in public comment, 

is not considered for scenic resource analysis as the area, although designated, does not have 

strong visual access. This area is located approximately three miles off of State Road 96, with no 

directional signs to guide the public from the highway, nor are there formal or informal 

developed public facilities, such as trails, boundary identification signs, or viewpoints with 

interpretive signs to enhance the recreational experience or interpret the botanical resource. 

However, its designation has ecological values that are biologically intrinsic and are important to 

protect. Therefore, project design features will address proposed restoration alternatives in this 

area in order to meet appropriate Forest plan visual quality objective thresholds.

The temporal scale is defined as three years for short term effects, as defined by the Forest Plan, 

where projects are required to meet defined visual quality objective thresholds (retention, partial 

retention, modification), except for maximum modification, which must meet the threshold 

immediately upon project completion. Long term effects are defined as between three and 

approximately seventy five years. This long time span accounts for the direct and indirect effects 

of forest regrowth in those proposed treatment units with salvage logging and replanting.

Affected Environment

Landscape (Visual) Character

The project area consists of generally moderate topographic landforms with elevations ranging 

from 1,400 feet along the Klamath River at the western project area boundary to approximately 

7,100 feet near Condrey Mountain along the Siskiyou Crest. Landform is influenced by the 

Klamath Wild and Scenic River channel near the southern project area boundary, Horse Creek 

through the middle of the project area, and the Siskiyou Crest at the northern boundary. 

Additionally, three major north-south spur ridgelines that decrease in elevation from the Siskiyou 

Crest down to the Horse Creek Valley dissect the northern project area. From west to east: an 

unnamed ridgeline that includes White Cloud Mountain (a prominent, 4,238-foot landmark seen 

from portions of the Horse Creek Valley), Middle Creek Ridge, and Buckhorn Ridge. 

Hydrologically, Middle Creek and Buckhorn Creek are the major drainages in this northerly 

portion. The east-west Johnny O’Neil ridgeline dissects the southern project area, with the 

Klamath River bounding to the south and Horse Creek bounding to the north.

Approximately 37 percent of the project area is in private ownership, interspersed in a 

checkerboard pattern, with the remaining 63 percent on National Forest System lands. Cultural 

characteristics of the project area include scattered residences, ranches, and outbuildings

interspersed within agricultural pastures or lower elevation forests along the 13 miles of 

California State Route 96/Klamath River corridor and Horse Creek community, although nearly 

all of the Project area has been culturally modified to some degree through past logging and road 

construction on private and National Forest lands. Visible evidence of even-age timber 

management on privately-owned industrial forest land accounts for some of the greater, nonnatural visual contrasts seen on upper Middle Creek and Buckhorn ridges.

Before the 2016 Gap Fire, broad vegetation patterns in lower elevations ranged from 

oak/shrub/grass communities on south/west-facing aspects to alder and oak hardwoods along 

riparian corridors. Low to mid elevations were composed of mixed conifer stands interspersed 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

206

with minor components of madrone, big-leaf maple, and oak hardwoods. Red and white fir 

dominated mid to higher elevations approaching the Siskiyou Crest (cite Silviculture Report).

As seen in available middleground and background views, the Gap Fire created a burn mosaic 

most intense around the southern slopes of White Cloud Mountain, the slopes surrounding the 

Horse Creek valley, and along the lower portions of Middle Creek Ridge. Patchy low/moderate 

to high severity burn mosaics exist around Johnny O’Neil Ridge. Less patchy low/moderate to 

high severity mosaics exist near the Siskiyou Crest.

Intactness

Past even-age timber management on privately-owned industrial forest lands within the project 

area has decreased the intactness of the overall landscape character as seen from 

viewpoints/travel routes in the middle and background viewing distance zones. The introduction 

of high-contrast edges or shapes not natural to the ecologically-evolved landscape, and higher 

concentrations of such even age treatments, such as those seen on upper Middle Creek and 

Buckhorn Ridges increase the appearance of forest canopy fragmentation, by breaking up the 

intactness of naturally-forested slopes.

Visual Access

California State Highway 96/Klamath Wild and Scenic River/Rocky Point River Access/Sarah 

Totten Campground: High public access, as the main travel route and recreation corridor 

between Yreka and Pacific coastal communities. Types of views range between enclosed and 

focal, the former being space surrounded by continuous groupings of trees or landforms, and the 

latter typically restricted to distant peaks and landforms along the road and river corridors. 

Viewing duration is partly based on speed, and affects the level of details noticed in the 

landscape, i.e., the higher the speed, fewer details are noticed. Travelers along 96 would may 

notice fewer details, while those recreating along the Klamath River corridor or at Rocky 

Point/Sarah Totten would be able to absorb more visual information in the landscape.

Horse Creek Community/County Road 8F001/County Road 8F003: moderate public access, 

mostly used by local residents in Horse Creek, or those driving for pleasure on National Forest 

lands. Types of views range from enclosed landscapes in the lower agricultural valley, to 

canopied landscapes driving through portions enclosed overhead by tree crown cover.

Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail/National Forest Roads 47N81/40S01: High public access, 

especially along the trail, and for those driving along the Siskiyou Crest roads. Types of views 

range between panoramic, detail, enclosed, and canopied: Panoramic views are typically of the 

higher elevation areas, or down towards the Klamath River away from the Siskiyou Crest. 

Detailed views mostly apply to hikers and the foreground distance viewing zone, where rates of 

speed and proximity allow for increased scrutiny of all natural details seen in the existing 

landscape, such as lines, forms, colors, and textures. Enclosed views encompass the blueschist 

openings at higher elevations surrounding by continuous and scattered groupings of vegetation, 

and canopied landscapes driving through those portions enclosed overhead by tree crown cover.

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1

This alternative proposes no new management activities in the Project area, and would not 

produce any short or long-term visual contrasts (e.g., the typical seen effects of vegetation 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

207

management), or directly change the Project area’s existing disturbances as viewed from all 

moderate and high sensitive viewpoints and travel corridors.

Direct and Indirect Effects

There would be no direct effects to the visual quality objectives in all distance viewing zones 

from moderate and high sensitivity viewing zones with this alternative as there would be no 

proposed management activities creating visual contrasts.

Long-term indirect effects may include afforestation over the long-term timeframe, on those 

lands unaffected by the Gap Fire. Forested lands affected by the Gap Fire may experience more 

rapid stand-replacing events, such as insect infestation. Additionally, these areas will develop a 

mosaic of fuel loading, as dead trees accumulate over time on the ground. Some fuel loads may 

be high, enabling future stand-replacing wildfires. Public safety may become compromised along 

Project area roads with untreated hazard trees, especially along those high and moderate 

sensitivity travel routes.

Overall, this alternative may affect the indicators through public perception, i.e., the visual 

environment seen resulting from insect infestations, stand-replacing wildfires, and hazard trees 

along Project roads may still be perceived as natural, but may not necessarily be perceived as a 

positive landscape attribute, or necessarily meet expectations of the average public visitor, 

especially in the short term timeframe.

Cumulative Effects

Private industrial forest lands within the project area have been, or are proposed for salvage 

timber harvesting, in response to the 2014 Beaver and 2016 Gap Fires. These operations 

typically remove higher numbers, or all dead trees on the landscape. Depending on the layout 

boundaries, if trees are removed along straight checkerboard boundary lines, these edge contrasts 

may become more noticeable from moderate or high sensitivity viewpoints and travel routes 

throughout the Project area.

Other ongoing and future foreseeable Forest Service projects include the following vegetation 

treatments: roadside salvage, site preparation and tree planting, fuels management and reduction, 

commercial thinning, mastication, hand thinning and piling, and underburning. All projects will 

affect scenery to varying degrees; however, are expected to meet Forest Plan direction and visual 

quality objective thresholds within appropriate timeframes. Additionally, proposed treatments 

would increase forest ecosystem resiliency in the long-term timeframe to future wildfires and 

insect infestations, improving both visual access and visual character.

There would be no cumulative effects based on the above proposed activities in conjunction with 

no proposed activities in this alternative.

Alternative 2

Direct and Indirect Effects

Under Alternatives 2 there would be noticeable localized short-term direct effects associated 

with harvesting activities, such as the sounds of active timber management, hauling, noise, dust, 

and congestion along haul routes, and with post-harvest activities, such as slash disposal, site 

preparation, and revegetation, as well as long-term direct effects, such as stumps, or exposed 

soils. Successful project design feature implementation would not prevent these effects from 

being completely unnoticeable; however, they would minimize the effects to fall within the 

Forest Plan thresholds for visual quality objective standards and guidelines.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

208

Roadside Hazard Tree Removal Treatments

The removal of merchantable and non-merchantable hazard trees along system roads and through 

proposed treatment units would open up the forest understory in the foreground distance zone 

along identified travel routes, especially in those areas where a higher number of hazard trees are 

removed. In those areas where individual or scattered/small groups of trees are removed, there 

would be little direct effect to meeting visual quality objective thresholds. Ground disturbance, 

stumps, and fallen trees left would be noticeable in the short term; however, with the three-year 

recovery period, seasonal leaf and needle cast, weathering of stumps and chips, and vegetation 

regrowth would soften the more immediate visual effects of forest management.

Roadside Fuels Treatment

Treatments would open up the forest understory in the foreground distance zone for 150 feet 

along either side of proposed roads. Dead vegetation up to 18 inches diameter at breast height, 

and live understory vegetation along with live conifers up to 8 inches diameter at breast height, 

would be removed manually or mechanically, and retained conifers would be thinned up to seven 

feet high. Slash would be piled and burned, lop and scattered, or chipped. Felling, pruning, and 

piling vegetation would create short term textural and soil contrasts, and increase views into the 

understory. The three-year recovery period would allow for seasonal leaf and needle casting, 

weathering of stumps and chips, and vegetation regrowth to soften the more immediate visual 

effects of forest management.

Fuels Reduction Adjacent to Private Property

Treatments would open up the forest understory for 500 feet on National Forest System lands 

adjacent to private property. Dead vegetation up to 14 inches diameter at breast height, and live 

understory vegetation along with conifers up to 12 inches diameter at breast height, would be 

removed manually or mechanically, and retained conifers would be thinned up to seven feet 

high. Activity-generated fuels would be disposed of by a variety of manual and mechanical 

treatments. Felling, pruning, piling, and burning vegetation would create short term textural and 

soil contrasts, and increase views into the understory. The three-year recovery period would 

allow for seasonal leaf and needle casting, weathering of stumps and chips, and vegetation 

regrowth to soften the more immediate visual effects of forest management.

Developing and Maintaining Fuels Management Zones

Treatments would occur along strategic ridgelines would be maintained by removing dead 

vegetation up to 18 inches diameter at breast height, and live understory vegetation along with 

live conifers up to 12 inches diameter at breast height. Retained conifers would be pruned up to 

seven feet, and all activity-generated fuels would be disposed up variety of manual and 

mechanical treatments. Felling, pruning, piling, and burning vegetation would create short term 

textural and soil contrasts, and increase views into the understory. Vegetation removal would 

open forest understory views in foreground distance zones, and may create linear contrasts along 

visible ridgelines in middleground and background distance zones. The three-year recovery 

period would allow for seasonal leaf and needle casting, weathering of stumps and chips, and 

vegetation regrowth to soften the more immediate visual effects of forest management for all 

distance zones.

Salvage Harvest, with Site Preparation and Planting

Plantations with standing dead trees 14 inches diameter breast height and greater would be 

considered for salvage, as well as fire-killed and fire-injured trees with a 70 percent or greater 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

209

chance of dying within the next three to five years. All salvage units would be reforested through 

direct planting of nursery-grown seedlings or natural regeneration, and future dense plantations 

will be avoided. The future condition is expected to be a natural mosaic of species and densities. 

Tree removal will vary depending on the burn severity; however, in areas of high tree removal, 

large openings will be created with high line and texture contrasts when contrasted against areas 

of differing burn severity and vegetation densities. Logging systems may further influence visual 

contrasts, especially in those high severity fire areas with little or no living vegetation. Skyline 

systems create linear contrasts from soil disturbance as a result of log skidding along cable 

corridors; ground-based systems create color contrasts from soil disturbance as a result of harvest 

equipment and log skidding. Areas identified for snag and riparian reserve retention will benefit 

scenic resources in all distance zones over the long term by retaining the appearance of the 

burned landscape contrasted with treated areas that will revegetating at a faster rate, creating a 

visually diverse mosaic.

Site Preparation and Planting without Salvage

Plantations with standing dead trees under 16 inches diameter breast height and greater would be 

removed manually or masticated. Dead vegetation would be cut, piled, and burned in preparation 

for revegetation, with some dead vegetation left standing to improve seedling survival in harsher 

environments. Reforestation will occur through direct planting of nursery-grown seedlings or 

natural regeneration, and future dense plantations will be avoided. The future condition is 

expected to be a natural mosaic of species and densities. Tree removal will vary depending on 

the burn severity and site requirements; however, in areas of high tree removal, large openings 

will be created with high line and texture contrasts when contrasted against areas of differing 

burn severity and vegetation densities. Treatment methods may further influence visual contrasts, 

especially in those high severity fire areas with little or no living vegetation. Areas identified for 

snag and riparian reserve retention will benefit scenic resources in all distance zones over the 

long term by retaining the appearance of the burned landscape as treated areas are revegetating, 

creating a visually diverse mosaic.

Restoration Activities in the Horse Creek Special Interest Area

Treatments include roadside hazard tree removal and using some of the trees, with or without 

rootwads attached into the stream channel for riparian fish habitat. Additional treatments include 

planting conifers and hardwoods within the riparian reserves. The entire area was affected by the 

2016 Gap Fire; the upstream half experienced low/moderate fire severity, while the downstream 

half below the Fish Gulch Creek confluence experienced large portions of moderate/high 

severity.

The removal of merchantable and non-merchantable hazard trees along system roads and through 

proposed treatment units would open up the forest understory in the foreground distance zone 

along identified travel routes, especially in those areas where a higher number of hazard trees are 

removed. In those upper areas where individual or scattered/small groups of trees are removed, 

there would be little direct effect to meeting visual quality objective thresholds. Ground 

disturbance, stumps, and fallen trees left would be noticeable in the short term; however, with the 

three-year recovery period, seasonal leaf and needle cast, weathering of stumps and chips, and 

vegetation regrowth would soften the more immediate visual effects of forest management.

Retention and Partial Retention visual quality objectives

Salvage harvest, roadside hazard, roadside fuels, adjacent private property fuels reduction, and 

fuel management zone treatments within retention and partial retention visual quality objective
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

210

areas would likely not meet the objective within three years’ time, especially in those areas 

affected by moderate to high severity fire. This includes the entire LSR land allocation, which 

has a partial retention VQO and other retention or partial retention areas as designated. However, 

the Forest Plan allows an exception under Visual Resource Management Standards and 

Guidelines. Standard and Guideline 11-7 states, “In the case of recovery activities after extreme 

catastrophic events such as intense wildland fires, time periods to achieve the visual quality 

objectives stated in Forest-wide and Management Area Standards and Guidelines may be 

extended. This would be necessary where previously unnoticed scenery alterations are exposed 

to view due to loss of vegetative screening, or during timber salvage activities where recovery of 

forest vegetation is determined to be of greater importance than achievement of visual quality 

objectives within the time periods established.”

Modification and Maximum Modification visual quality objectives

All activities would meet their assigned visual quality objectives within Forest Plan timelines, as 

they are located in either middleground or background distance zones from sensitive viewpoints 

and travel routes, and will appear as natural disturbances, or they will not be visible at all.

High Sensitivity Travel Routes

California State Highway 96/State of Jefferson Scenic Byway: Proposed project activities (fuel 

management zone and private property fuel reduction treatments within view of the highway to 

the west of the Horse Creek community) will not be noticeable, and meet the retention/partial 

retention visual quality objectives. The highway’s curvilinear nature, travel speeds of 55 miles 

per hour, and vegetative screening would limit view durations. Three years’ recovery time would 

allow seasonal leaf and needle cast, weathering of stumps, and revegetation would diminish the 

more immediate effects of forest management.

The combination of private property and fuel management zone treatments adjacent to salvage 

unit 116.49, in combination with high fire severity will be noticeable from Highway 96 and will 

not meet the retention/partial retention visual quality objectives within the established three-year 

timeframe, despite travel speeds and vegetative screening.

Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail: Field observation indicates that proposed treatment units 

near the Siskiyou Crest will not be visible from the trail, with the exception of a one-quarter mile 

portion of proposed roadside hazard tree removal where the trail runs adjacent to Forest Route 

47N81. This localized area was not affected by the Gap Fire, so tree removal is expected to be 

minor, and appropriate project design features will mitigate any affects to meet the retention 

visual quality objective.

National Forest Route 47N81: Roadside hazard tree removal and salvage unit 117.15 are located 

directly adjacent to the road; additionally, the south side of the road was affected by the 2016 

Gap Fire. The combination of the fire, roadside hazard tree removal, and salvage unit 117.15 will 

not meet the retention visual quality objective within the three year timeframe.

Klamath Wild and Scenic River/Rocky Point River Access/Sarah Totten Campground: Proposed 

project activities (fuel management zone and private property fuel reduction treatments within 

view of the highway to the west of the Horse Creek community) would likely be noticeable to 

river recreationists (rafters, kayakers, canoeists, and anglers) because of their proximity and, for 

river recreationists, slower travel speeds. These treatments will meet the retention/partial 

retention visual quality objectives.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

211

The combination of private property and fuel management zone treatments adjacent to salvage 

unit 116.49, in combination with high fire severity will be noticeable by river recreationists and 

will not meet the retention/partial retention visual quality objectives within the established threeyear timeframe.

Horse Creek Community (High Sensitivity) and Moderate Sensitivity Travel Routes

Siskiyou County Road 8F001 and 8F003: The combination of private property and fuel 

management zone treatments adjacent to salvage unit 116.49, in combination with high fire 

severity will be noticeable by Horse Creek residents and travelers along the two county roads, 

and will not meet the retention/partial retention visual quality objectives within the established 

three-year timeframe.

National Forest Route 40S01: Roadside hazard treatments and salvage unit 118.12 will be 

noticeable to travelers along this route; however, these treatments are expected to meet the 

retention/partial retention/modification visual quality objectives within three years’ time due to 

lower fire severity in this area and vegetative screening.

Cumulative Effects

Private industrial forest lands within the project area have been, or are proposed for salvage 

timber harvesting, in response to the 2014 Beaver Fire, and 2016 Gap Fires. These operations 

typically remove higher numbers, or all dead trees on the landscape. Depending on the layout 

boundaries, if trees are removed along straight checkerboard boundary lines, these edge contrasts 

may become more noticeable from moderate or high sensitivity viewpoints and travel routes 

throughout the Project area.

Other ongoing and future foreseeable Forest Service projects include the following vegetation 

treatments: roadside salvage, site preparation and tree planting, fuels management and reduction, 

commercial thinning, mastication, hand thinning and piling, and underburning. All projects will 

affect scenery to varying degrees; however, are expected to meet Forest Plan direction and

Visual Quality Objective thresholds within appropriate timeframes. Additionally, proposed 

treatments would increase forest ecosystem resiliency in the long-term timeframe to future 

wildfires and insect infestations, improving both visual access and visual character.

Overall, the effects of Alternative 2, in conjunction with the private industrial forestland salvage 

efforts collectively will increase overall visual contrasts throughout the Project area, and may 

affect the indicators through public perception, i.e., the visual environment contrasts seen 

collectively may not necessarily be perceived as a positive landscape attribute, or necessarily 

meet expectations of the average public visitor, especially in the short term timeframe. However, 

the design of the project will support long-term scenic resource and forest ecosystem benefits, 

and public perceptions will be met in the long term timeframe.

Potentially affected viewsheds are considered within a larger landscape context under cumulative 

effects. Proposed project alternatives as seen from sensitive viewpoints or travel routes would 

appear visually subordinate to the overall landscape, and would meet or exceed the partial 

retention visual quality objective.

Alternatives 3 and 4

Direct and Indirect Effects

Because of minor differences between alternatives, the effects of Alternative 3 and 4 are the 

same as Alternative 2. The one exception is Alternative 3, where removal of all fourteen 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

212

proposed units along the Siskiyou Crest, would have the same direct, indirect, and cumulative 

effects as Alternative 1.

Cumulative Effects

Same as Alternative 2.

Comparison of Alternatives

Alternative 1 may not meet public perceptions in the long term for moderate or high sensitivity 

viewsheds. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 may not meet public perceptions in the short term, but may 

meet them in the long term. The one exception being along the Siskiyou Crest in Alternative 3, 

where the effects are the same as Alternative 1 because of the lack of treatment in the area.

Table 64: Comparison of alternatives by analysis indicators

Indicator Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Moderate 

Sensitivity

May not meet 

public perceptions 

long term.

May not meet public 

perceptions short 

term, may meet 

perceptions long 

term.

Same as Alternative 

2, except along the 

Siskiyou Crest where 

effects are the same 

as Alternative 1.

Same as 

Alternative 2.

High 

Sensitivity

May not meet 

public perceptions 

long term.

May not meet public 

perceptions short 

term, may meet 

perceptions long 

term.

Same as Alternative 

2, except along the 

Siskiyou Crest where 

effects are the same 

as Alternative 1.

Same as 

Alternative 2.

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

This project would help achieve the Forest Plan desired conditions to perpetuate ecologicallyestablished scenery. Reforestation would accelerate landscape recovery to a diverse forest 

ecosystem, and fuels reduction treatments would reduce the likelihood of future high-intensity 

wildfires.

In the short term, noticeable visual disturbances from proposed treatments, individually or 

collectively, would not meet retention and partial retention visual quality objectives in some 

locations. Although this appears inconsistent with Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines, an 

exception is allowed with Standard and Guideline 11-7, as previously defined. However, in the 

long-term timeframe, the project would meet retention and partial retention visual quality 

objectives as the landscape recovers from the effects of the Gap Fire, and the proposed 

management alternatives selected as part of the Horse Creek Project.

Silviculture

Methodology

Site visits to the project area by foresters and a silviculturist were conducted in October and 

November 2016. Remotely sensed data on vegetation burn severity were field-validated and 

potential treatment areas were identified. Stand data was collected using ocular estimates and 

plot data collection, as needed.

Observations included the following:

• Pre-fire stand condition of vegetation (growth, species composition);
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

213

• Post-fire stand condition of vegetation;

• Availability of natural seed sources on site and within natural seed distribution distance;

• Availability of suitable snags for retention;

• Availability and suitability of hardwoods for retention;

• Plantability (reasonable ability to plant conifers in an area), an estimate of physical effort 

needed to conduct artificial regeneration;

• Regeneration potential, an estimate of the potential for artificial regeneration; and

• Site class, aspect, and elevation estimates as they relate to artificial regeneration attributes 

and regeneration potential.

Stand data was compiled from existing plots in the project area and used to simulate future stand 

conditions based on proposed treatments. The Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS) was used to 

estimate time needed to establish conifer-dominated stands. Northern spotted owl dispersal 

habitat characteristics were used as a threshold for considering a stand to be on a trajectory 

towards late-successional characteristics (diameter at breast height of 11.0 inches, canopy cover 

40 percent, and percentage of conifer composition).

Analysis Indicators

• Acres treated (site prepared and planted) to promote conifer regeneration. Unit of 

measure used to track effects is acres treated (site prepared and planted) to promote 

conifer regeneration.

• Percent of landscape treated to restore a stand of conifers within 60 years. Unit of 

measure used to track effects is percent of moderate to high severity burned landscape 

restored to a mid-seral stand within 60 years.

• Vegetation type regenerated in the short-term, and in the long-term. Unit of measure used 

to track effects are grass, forbs, brush, hardwoods, young conifers, isolated patches of 

conifers, mid-seral conifer stands.

Spatial and Temporal Context

Spatial bounding is limited to units within the project area considered for regeneration treatments 

(including salvage units, and existing plantations) and hazard tree removal along roads (areas 

where regeneration is likely to be affected by the project).

Both short-term and long-term effects will be considered in this analysis. Short-term temporal 

bounding is the time period in which treatments occur from harvest activity, site preparation, and 

planting; this is about one to five years because effects on regeneration will begin to be visible 

during this time period. Long-term temporal bounding is for an estimated 40 to 100 years from 

project implementation and is based on the maximum time for reduction of surface woody fuels 

following fire (Peterson et al. 2015) and computer-generated modeling that showed stand 

conditions approaching the desired late-successional characteristics.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

214

Affected Environment

Before the Gap Fire, vegetation types within the project area generally ranged from an 

oak/brush/grass type, to well-stocked mixed conifers, to Red fir stands. Age classes ranged from 

20 year-old plantations to late-successional forest.

The oak/brush/grass type is typically found on low-elevation sites on shallow, rocky soils located 

on southerly and westerly aspects which exhibit harsher conditions than on northerly and easterly 

aspects. As elevation increases, conifer species become more prevalent, primarily as a function 

of favorable environmental conditions for conifer survival and growth. Deeper, more developed 

soils than those at low elevations supported mixed conifer stands of Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, 

incense cedar, and sugar pine. Higher elevation sites within the project area lend themselves to 

favorable conditions for red fir survival and growth. Hardwood species, including Pacific 

madrone, California black oak, canyon live oak, Oregon white oak, and bigleaf maple are 

generally a minor component of mixed conifer stand composition.

The project is focused on areas that burned with moderate and high vegetation severity. High 

severity areas are characterized by total or near-total conifer crown consumption. Individual trees 

in this condition were either killed or damaged beyond their ability to survive. Within areas of 

moderate burn intensity, some crown consumption has occurred as a result of the fire but these 

areas are characterized by total or near-total crown scorch. The vast majority of crown-scorched 

trees have been killed by the fire or damaged beyond their ability to survive. Within areas of 

light vegetative burn severity, the impacts on conifers were often severe, especially to the smaller 

size and lower crown classes.

The amount of understory vegetation that has been totally consumed or top-killed in the project 

area is a function of fire intensity. On areas burned at moderate to high intensity levels, mortality 

is essentially complete. On areas burned at low-intensity levels, if the fire was hot enough to 

consume the organic layer then understory vegetation, including conifer seedlings and saplings, 

were also killed.

Light-seeded, prolific, early successional weed and grass species, having survived the fire in 

unburned pockets and perimeter areas, will rapidly reinvade burned areas. Well-established 

perennial root or rhizome species will likely re-sprout from existing root systems. Brush species, 

such as manzanita, snowbrush, deerbrush and whitethorn, are well-adapted ecologically to the 

fire-impacted ecosystems (McDonald and Fiddler 1989). Assuming fire intensity and duration at 

less than lethal levels, these species are capable of root collar sprouting. Brush seed, which may 

retain viability for 40 to 150 years in the duff layer, will germinate in potentially large numbers 

for two to three years after fire-scarification (Knapp et al. 2012). Fire top-killed hardwood tree 

species, such as black oak, madrone, and live oak are also capable of root-collar sprouting. These 

species are able to take immediate advantage of a well-established root system, giving them the 

inherent capability to grow rapidly for early site dominance.

Several factors influence the rate of deterioration of fire-killed trees: tree species, species 

characteristics (such as bark thickness or depth of sapwood), tree diameter, rate of growth, age, 

local site conditions, severity of the fire, and time of year the burn took place (Lowell et al. 

1992). Bark provides a protective covering for the cambial layer in a tree. Trees with thinner 

bark are more susceptible to fire damage and tend to deteriorate more rapidly than those with 

thicker bark. Sapwood in all species is susceptible to decay. It is the first merchantable part of 

fire-killed or damaged trees to be degraded by insects, and stain and decay fungi. Large diameter 

trees generally decay slower than small diameter trees, and older trees generally decay slower 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

215

than young trees. Less sapwood volume and decreased growth rates within the sapwood are 

partially the reason. When the effects of diameter and age are combined, a larger diameter tree 

will deteriorate more slowly than a smaller diameter tree if the difference is a result of age and 

not rate of growth. A faster rate of growth may offset this advantage of a large diameter tree 

(Lowell et al. 1992).

Insects (primarily beetles), stain and decay fungi, and weather all act as deterioration agents in 

fire-killed timber. Insect activity usually precedes fungal activity and provides a mechanism for 

introducing fungi that accelerate sapwood deterioration. Fungal decay, once introduced, will 

deteriorate the sapwood ahead of any insect damage. Decay causes reductions in strength 

properties of wood, rendering the wood useless from a structural standpoint, and thus decreasing 

useable log volume. In addition to the deterioration caused by stain, decay, and insects, weather 

checking also contributes to loss. Weather checking is cracks that form vertically in the wood as 

the tree dries out. With time, the cracks go deeper into the log, and the portion of the log that is 

checking is unusable for manufacturing boards.

Fire -killed trees retain market value for approximately two years after the fire; smaller trees and 

smaller logs (less than 14 inches in diameter) lose value much more quickly than larger trees and 

logs (Lowell et al. 1992). The site is well-roaded, making commercial removal of merchantable 

trees feasible. Planting without fuels reduction and site preparation would likely result in the loss 

of conifer plantations before they mature, given the median 8 to 38 year fire return interval of the 

Klamath Province (Skinner et al. 2006).

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1

Direct and Indirect Effects

Under Alternative 1, the entire burned area would be left to recover naturally. Severely burned 

trees that survived the Gap Fire will continue to die for several years due to injuries to crowns 

and cambium tissue from the fire, drought stress and post-insect attack of weakened trees. 

Natural regeneration of coniferous forest may occur in severely burned patches, but it will be 

highly variable. Larger burn patches will regenerate more slowly because of distances from seed 

sources. Zero percent, and no acres, of the landscape that burned at moderate to high severity 

will be treated to achieve mature conifer stands.

Successful natural regeneration in one to two decades, though highly variable, has been 

documented following stand-replacing fires in the Klamath Province within white fir, Douglasfir, and Douglas-fir tanoak stand types (Shatford et al. 2007). Pine and mixed-conifer 

associations were not sampled in the Shatford et al. study. More typically, vegetation is likely to 

go through an extensive time-period of hardwood- and brush-dominated site occupancy (Zhang

et al. 2008). Reforestation will slowly occur naturally but may take many decades to replace 

brushfields (Zhang et al. 2008). In larger patches where the majority of the trees were killed by 

the fire, re-establishment of forest cover would rely on natural regeneration and may take 

decades or longer. For the larger, contiguous areas of high-severity burn, distance from seed 

sources may further delay natural regeneration. 

Overstory and understory vegetation which was killed but not consumed by the fire will remain, 

and over time contribute to higher fuel loadings (Peterson et al. 2015. Given the high residual 

fuel loading, probable length of time required for site dominance by conifers and the fire history, 

it is likely the area will re-burn before fire-resilient trees can become established.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

216

Suitable lands for conifer regeneration will be re-occupied, generally by brush and hardwood 

species. Without salvage, site preparation and planting, severely burned stands will likely be 

replaced by shrubs and brush (Skinner et al. 2006); regeneration of conifers and restoration of 

forested wildlife habitat may take decades.

Lands unsuitable for conifer growth will re-vegetate through natural successional processes. 

Grasses, forbs, brush, and hardwoods will continue to dominate these sites for many years. 

Without reforestation efforts, these areas will re-vegetate primarily as areas of grass, shrubs and 

some hardwoods, resulting in a loss of the conifer forest habitat that previously existed, for an 

indefinite period of time. Conifers will generally consist of scattered individual or small groups 

of ponderosa pine, sugar pine, Douglas-fir, incense cedar, and red fir.

Although natural regeneration of conifer species has occurred elsewhere, following more typical 

wildfire site conditions, the project area larger patches of high severity fire than typical historic 

patterns, resulting in prolonged regeneration periods and variable stocking patterns on unplanted 

sites (Shatford et al. 2007). Assuming large, stand-replacing fires will continue to occur, longlasting early-seral plant communities will increase within the project area primarily because 

more area is burned at higher intensities than historic patterns predict (Skinner et al. 2006).

Although post-fire observations may indicate surprisingly prolific regeneration, even on severely 

burned sites, natural regeneration establishment in local wildfires in the past led to desired 

stocking levels typically only being met around the edges of the fire where a good seed source is 

still intact (Bonnett et al. 2005). The remaining standing dead trees would be a hazard to new 

plantations, forest visitors, and forest workers as dead trees fall or create increased fuel on the 

ground.

The likelihood and time required for conifer regeneration is affected by bark beetle infestations. 

Alternative 1 has a sizeable risk of bark beetle population increases, primarily because all 

stressed trees remain. This results in the maximum potential habitat source for beetles, and the 

maximum potential loss of living trees as the insect population moves into lightly burned areas 

and adjacent green stands. This reduces the potential of having scattered or groups of living 

green trees as potential seed sources. Lesser levels of mortality are anticipated in stands outside 

the fire-affected area than in the project area but some increase in beetle infestation is expected 

among live trees. Experience from previous wildfires indicates that an outbreak can be intense 

for the one to two years post-fire.

Cumulative Effects

Adding the effects of Alternative 1 to those of current and reasonable foreseeable future actions 

listed in Appendix B will provide no measurable cumulative effects to the extent and time 

required for conifer regeneration.

Alternative 2

Direct and Indirect Effects

Salvage Harvest and Reforestation

Salvage harvest, most of which will have subsequent site preparation and planting, will occur on 

an estimated 2,043 acres (five percent of the National Forest System land within the project 

area). Proposed acres of salvage and planting are in areas that primarily burned with high 

severity effects on vegetation. Larger patches of high severity burn areas have very few seedcone capable trees remaining to provide natural seedling capability. Without salvage and 

planting, these areas will likely not regenerate satisfactorily for many decades. The techniques 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

217

used for salvage harvest, site preparation and planting, and the number of acres proposed for 

each technique, are displayed in Chapter 2. For the purposes of this analysis, trees within salvage 

units that have a greater than 70 percent probability of mortality from fire damage are considered 

fire-killed and may be harvested; trees that have greater than 30 percent probability of surviving 

are considered green and will be retained unless they pose an eminent threat to safety or must be 

removed for safe and efficient logging operations. Salvage harvest units boundaries may include 

riparian reserves and patches of green trees that burned with lower severity but these areas will 

not be harvested. Acres salvage harvested and site prepared will be planted with a variety of 

coniferous species to ensure diversity, and will be released from competing vegetation within a 

year or so of being planted. Salvage harvest, followed by site preparation, planting, and release 

gives the highest likelihood of successful conifer regeneration.

With implementation of salvage harvest, some temporary roads will be utilized to access units. 

Grasses and forbs are likely to re-occupy temporary roads within three to five years after use. 

Shrubs, hardwoods and conifer seedlings can become established within two to 10 years 

following road use depending on the vegetation that existed prior to the fire in addition to other 

unknowns such as future fire events or weather occurrences.

If fuels are treated effectively, and the area is planted, the amount of time needed to restore the 

site to a sustainable coniferous forest may be reduced. Removing large trees by salvage is not 

sufficient fuel treatment. Research has shown that plantations established in areas with high slash 

loadings burned severely, while those where residual slash had been adequately treated burned 

with much less intensity or not at all (Thompson et al. 2007; Weatherspoon and Skinner 1995). 

Therefore, effective fuel treatment is an essential component of sustainable reforestation in the 

Klamath Province (Peterson et al. 2015). Research has shown that the quickest way to reestablish 

a coniferous forest after stand replacement fire is by active reforestation (Rose and Haase 2005). 

Aggressive reduction of residual fuels will be necessary to prevent future fire events from 

becoming stand replacing fires that destroy planted seedlings. Research has shown fuel 

treatments increase the likelihood of the planted trees surviving future fires (Weatherspoon and 

Skinner 1995, Omi and Kalabokidis 1991). Heavy residual fuels need to be reduced substantially 

to help assure sustainability of plantations. Follow-up reforestation surveys will be completed to 

assure that the reforestation objectives are achieved.

Since most of the fire-burned areas will be allowed to regenerate naturally (five percent will be 

salvage harvested and another one percent will be site prepared and planted outside salvage 

units), many acres of lands suitable for conifer growth will continue to be understocked or nonstocked by conifers, possibly for decades. These suitable lands will generally be re-occupied by 

brush and hardwood species. Substantial snag stocking will remain on these reforested lands. 

Low-impact site preparation methods, which create fewer suitable planting spots, combined with 

losses inflicted by falling snags, and limited access, results in generally poor chances for conifer 

re-establishment on these sites.

Lands unsuitable for conifer growth will also re-vegetate through natural successional processes. 

Grasses, forbs, brush, and hardwoods will continue to dominate vegetation on these sites.

Conifer Plantation Reforestation outside Salvage Units

In addition to salvage harvest acres site prepared and planted, conifer plantations that became 

non-stocked or understocked as a result of the Gap Fire will be site prepared and planted with 

implementation of Alternative 2. Conifer plantation site preparation and planting, will occur on 

an estimated 458 acres (one percent of National Forest System lands in the project area). 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

218

Proposed acres of site preparation and planting are primarily in high severity burn areas that have 

very few seed-cone capable trees remaining to provide natural seedling capability. Thus, without 

site preparation and planting, these areas will likely not regenerate conifers satisfactorily for 

many decades. Techniques and acres assigned to each technique are displayed in Chapter 2.

Roadside Hazard Tree Removal

Hazard tree removal is not a silvicultural treatment to promote conifer regeneration. Hazard tree 

felling, and where appropriate, removal, is proposed to address public and administrative safety

concerns due to the risk of trees falling onto roads. Where hazard tree removal overlaps with 

proposed salvage harvest units, the effects are the same as salvage effects. Hazard tree removal 

where it does not overlap with proposed salvage harvest units will decrease fuel loading and, 

therefore, potential fuels hazard; this will indirectly promote conifer regeneration. Where seed 

sources are adjacent to roadside hazard removal areas, it is likely that natural regeneration will 

occur.

Cumulative Effects

Under Alternative 2, the Horse Creek Project coupled with past (affected environment), ongoing,

and reasonably foreseeable future actions (Appendix B) would reduce hazardous fuels, increase 

the acres of roadside treatments, and increase the acres of planted conifer stands. Effects 

considered include actions from private lands, portions of the Westside Fire Recovery Project, 

the Johnny O’Neil Late Successional Reserve Habitat Restoration and Fuels Reduction Project, 

the Thom-Seider Vegetation Management and Fuel Reduction Project, the Seiad Creek Legacy 

Roadbed Rehabilitation Project, and grazing allotments. Cumulative effects trend the analysis 

area towards establishing a more resilient forest to the pressures of fire, insects, and disease. 

Cumulative effects will also trend the analysis area towards achieving northern spotted owl

dispersal, foraging, and nesting/roosting habitat characteristics. The objectives of the proposed 

project are similar to those proposed by these overlapping projects which may no longer be 

implemented within the project area due to changes in conditions. However, given the desired 

condition of resilience and fuels reduction, the proposed treatments will beneficially increase the 

magnitude of the effects of these fuels reduction activities.

Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect Effects 

Effects of Alternative 3 will be the same as for Alternative 2 for areas in which salvage harvest is 

implemented (1,192 acres, two percent of the National Forest System lands within the project 

area). Effects of site preparation and planting outside of salvage units are the same as for

Alternative 2. Effects of areas that are not salvage harvested will be the same as those in 

Alternative 1.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects for Alternative 3 are the same as for Alternative 2 for areas in which salvage 

harvest is implemented. Effects of site preparation and planting outside of salvage units are the 

same as for Alternative 2. Effects of areas that are not salvage harvested are the same as those in 

Alternative 1.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

219

Alternative 4

Direct and Indirect Effects

Effects of Alternative 4 will be the same as for Alternative 2 for areas in which salvage harvest is 

implemented (1,679 acres, three percent of the National Forest System lands within the project 

area). Effects of site preparation and planting outside of salvage units are the same as for 

Alternative 2. Effects of areas that are not salvage harvested will be the same as those in 

Alternative 1.

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects for Alternative 4 are the same as for Alternative 2 for areas in which salvage 

harvest is implemented. Effects of site preparation and planting outside of salvage units are the 

same as for Alternative 2. Effects of areas that are not salvage harvested are the same as those in 

Alternative 1.

Comparison of Effects

Since most of the fire-burned areas will be allowed to regenerate naturally (five percent will be 

salvage harvested and another one percent will be site prepared and planted outside salvage 

units), many acres of lands suitable for conifer growth will continue to be understocked or nonstocked by conifers, possibly for decades. Where burned areas are planted and fuels are 

effectively treated, the amount of time needed to restore the site to a sustainable coniferous forest 

may be reduced. Proposed acres of site preparation and planting are primarily in high severity 

burn areas that have very few seed-cone capable trees remaining to provide natural 

seedling capability. Proposed fuels treatments will help assure the sustainability of

plantations. Effects are only incrementally different among the action alternatives, 

differing only by the acres of treatments proposed.

Table 65: Comparison of analysis indicators for each alternative.

Treatments Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Acres treated (site 

prepared and planted) to 

promote conifer 

regeneration

0 2,501 1,650 2,137

Percent of moderate to 

high severity burned 

landscape restored to midseral stand within 60 

years2

0 49 32 42

Type of

vegetation 

likely to 

regenerate in 

short –term 

and long-term

Short-term Grass, forbs, 

brush

Brush, 

hardwoods, 

young 

conifers

Brush, 

hardwoods, 

young 

conifers

Brush, 

hardwoods, 

young conifers

 2 Percentages differ from those published in the DEIS due to reductions in treatment acres after initial analysis. The 

treatment acres are correct, but percentages were recalculated in this document to reflect the changes made to 

treatment acres. These figures are based on percent of landscape treated. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

220

Treatments Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Long-term

Brush, 

hardwoods, 

isolated 

patches of 

conifers

Mid-seral, 

mixed conifer 

and red fir 

stands

Mid-seral, 

mixed conifer 

and red fir 

stands

Mid-seral, 

mixed conifer 

and red fir 

stands

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

Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 are in compliance with law, regulation, policy and the Forest Plan in 

relation to vegetation as displayed in the Forest Plan consistency checklist. Silvicultural 

prescriptions under action alternatives comply with the Forest Plan. Salvage, site preparation and 

planting are all methods for establishing desired conifer stocking with some level of fire resilience 

once seedlings are established.

Socio-Economics

Methodology

Social

Federal data sources are used to provide background information on the social environment of 

Siskiyou County. The Economic Profile System – Human Dimensions Toolbox (USDA USDI 

Headwaters 2016), which compiles statistics from federal data sources, is used as a source of

information for this analysis.

Economic

Economic effects are analyzed using information from a customized Siskiyou County Forest 

Sector Model (Dennis 2012) input-output model. This model is customized to provide a more 

reliable representation of Siskiyou County’s forest sector. The economic impacts of the Horse 

Creek Project are assessed using this model, primarily as a way of comparing the estimated 

economic effects of alternatives. More information on the model is provided in the socioeconomic resource report, available on the project website.

Analysis Indicators

Social Environment

Indicators used for the social analysis include lifestyles, values, beliefs, and health and safety of 

individuals and communities. For this project, there are three measures for evaluating the effects 

of the project on quality of life for Siskiyou County residents:

• The value of using the resources of the Klamath National Forest (Forest), and project area 

in particular, for the benefit of county residents (Siskiyou County Land and Resource 

Management Plan 1996). This will be analyzed using the estimated volume of timber 

products the alternatives will produce.

• Changes to the fire-safe character of communities in the project area. This will be 

analyzed using the acres of fuels treatments in each alternative. It is assumed that fuels 

treatments on national forest lands in the wildland urban interface will have the indirect 

effect of creating more fire-safe communities.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

221

• Safety for Forest workers, firefighters and the public. This is estimated by the number of 

acres on which standing dead trees are removed by salvage harvest and by the number of 

miles of roadside hazard trees removed.

In addition, effects of alternatives will be analyzed in relationship to environmental justice and 

civil rights. Additional information on these policies is provided in the socio-economic resource 

report.

Economic Environment

Economic analysis indicators for this report are:

• Total economic outputs;

• Labor income (wages and proprietor’s income);

• Number of jobs created;

• Revenue generated based on the estimated volume from timber sale units; and

• Estimated project revenue returned to Siskiyou County.

Spatial and Temporal Bounding of Analysis Area

Siskiyou County is used as the spatial analysis area for social and fiscal effects because the 

project area is entirely within the county. The model used to analyze other economic effects 

takes into account impacts within a four-county area including Siskiyou, Shasta, and Trinity 

counties in California, and Jackson County in Oregon, because the project’s direct economic 

effects through the veneer manufacturing, logging, log hauling, and forestry support services are 

realized through this larger area. The project area is used as the spatial analysis area for effects to 

safety because treatments proposed to improve safety are entirely within the project area.

This analysis considers one to five years as the short-term period for effects analysis on social 

and economic indicators. This temporal bounding approximates when treatments will be 

completed and when products from implementation will have entered the wood products market.

Five to ten years is the long-term period for effects analysis on social and economic indicators 

because implementation will be complete.

Affected Environment

Social Environment

In terms of safety, the following conditions describe the affected environment:

• Trees killed or severely burned by wildfire (i.e. snags) are often unstable and at risk for 

falling or snapping off, especially during winter snow, rain, and high wind events.

• Infrastructure (including roads and structures on private property) within the project area 

are surrounded by fire-killed and damaged trees and preexisting hazard trees that may 

restrict access and pose a hazard to the public and Forest workers.

• Dead and dying trees present a safety hazard to firefighters (should the area burn again) 

or others who may recreate or work in these areas.

• Heavy fuel loading from existing fire-killed trees creates high probability of future highintensity wildfires threatens structures and presents a safety hazard to nearby residents 

and firefighters should the area burn again. Progressively increasing fuel loads (where 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

222

potential flame lengths exceed four feet) provides conditions in which fires are resistant 

to suppression tactics.

• The closest communities to this project are Seiad Valley, Horse Creek, Hamburg, and 

Klamath River, California. Social effects of the project, including safety improvements, 

will be most noticeable in these communities and the surrounding rural areas of the 

county. In Siskiyou County, the American Indian population, and people of all races that 

are unemployed or below the poverty level, make up a greater percentage of the 

population in Siskiyou County than in the State of California or the nation as a whole.

• Lifestyles, attitudes, beliefs and values of Siskiyou County residents are similar to those 

of rural residents in other counties in the western United States. Many local residents 

depend on natural resources to support them, and they want forest products to be used for 

the benefit of people in the county.

Economic Environment

Labor income in Siskiyou County has been relatively constant since 1970, with non-labor 

income on a steady rise. From 1970 to 2015, employment grew from 14,085 to 20,842 jobs, a 48

percent increase over 1970. Since 1990, the annual unemployment rate ranged from a low of 7.5 

percent in 2000 to a high of 16.8 percent in 2010. However, unemployment has been on a 

downward trend since 2010 and was reported as 9.4 percent in 2015. Siskiyou County 

unemployment rates tend to be higher than the rest of the United States where since 1990 

average national unemployment rates have ranged from a low of 4 percent in 2000 to a high of 

9.6 percent in 2010 with an average of 5.3 percent in 2015.

In 1998, timber represented more than 7.3 percent of total employment of Siskiyou County, but 

by 2014, timber represented 5.9 percent of total employment, mirroring the national trend. Jobs 

in the timber sector in Siskiyou County decreased to 477 jobs in 2013, a drop of 31 percent from 

1990. An unstable, declining flow of timber from the public land base in the county helps to 

explain the decline in timber-related employment and a sizeable reduction in revenue returned to 

the county.

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1

Social and Economic

Direct and Indirect Effects

Under this alternative no project treatment activities are proposed. The social effects of this 

alternative will be a continuation of the current distribution of jobs among racial and ethnic 

groups. Alternative 1 will not contribute to timber employment jobs and the county’s economic 

situation will not be improved. Although there may be some effects on these populations, there 

will be no disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on 

American Indians or the poor.

The lifestyles, values and beliefs of the people in Siskiyou County will not be changed and the 

request that resources of the Forest be used to benefit local residents will not be fulfilled. The 

concern regarding the fire-safe character of the communities will not be addressed because no 

project-related fuels treatments will be implemented.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

223

The effect on safety of implementing Alternative 1 will be that no burned acres will be treated 

and no miles of roadside hazard trees will be removed in this project at this time. If roadside 

hazard trees are to be treated to remove safety hazards, this will take place in the future and be 

dependent on future budget allocations. This delay will increase the likelihood that forest 

workers, firefighters, or public users of Forest land will be injured by a fire-killed or hazard tree 

as time goes on and the trees deteriorate and fall down. Because no roadside hazard trees will be 

removed in this project at this time, safe travel on roads within the fire area will be hindered year 

after year due to new trees falling into the roads or roads may need to be closed for various 

periods of time to assure public safety which will affect public access to the Forest. Fallen trees 

in the road may also delay the response of firefighting personnel to new wildland fires in and 

around the project area.

Without treatment, hazards would not be abated around critical infrastructure.

• Salvage treatments would not be accomplished. Without salvage harvest, snags would 

continue to decay, break, and fall. This would increase surface fuel loading, which will 

increase the severity and intensity of future fires. Increased fire intensities and dead and 

decaying standing trees would inhibit the effective control of future fires and put fire 

suppression crews at increased risk. (See the Fire and Fuels section in this chapter.)

• Reforestation by planting burned forested areas would not be accomplished with this 

project, since planting crews cannot safely operate in areas of dead and decaying standing 

trees. It is a violation of Office of Safety and Health Administration codes to plant or 

treat hazardous fuels under, or adjacent to, snags. Since there would also be fewer funds 

available from timber contract receipts, the opportunity to restore forested habitat through 

site preparation and reforestation work would be lost.

• In the short term, Forest workers such as firefighters, planters, researchers, and surveyors 

would either risk working in conditions that may subject them to injury or death from 

fallen snags or would not work in the areas because the areas would be deemed unsafe for 

work. In the long term, jack-strawed conditions from fallen snags would impede effective 

travel through areas of high to moderate severity burns, which would put workers at 

increased risk or eliminate their ability to work in the areas.

• In the short and long term, no treatment of hazard trees along roadways and nearby 

infrastructure would increase safety risks to forest workers and the public. The number of 

fallen snags along roadways would be innumerable-–far too many to be addressed by fire 

crews and through permitted public fuelwood removal. To mitigate safety risks to the 

public, Forest Orders may be needed temporarily to close road access to portions of the 

Forest, which would impact public access (see the Recreation section of this chapter).

• In the long term, increased fire intensities and the continued existence of dead and 

decaying standing trees would inhibit the effective control of future fires and put fire 

suppression crews at increased risk. See the Fire and Fuels section of this chapter for 

details.

Cumulative Effects

Ongoing and reasonably foreseeable future actions in the project area are listed in Appendix B.

Some current and reasonably foreseeable future projects, including projects with hazard tree and 

fuels treatments, will improve safety conditions for the public and forest workers. Alternative 1 

would not add to cumulative effects of other present or reasonably foreseeable future projects 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

224

that are planned to improve safety across the landscape. Additionally, because of access issues 

resulting from fallen snags along roadways, difficulties may preclude future projects from either 

continuing or being planned due to the high density of snags within or adjacent to the project 

area. Using fire as a management tool in both the planned (prescribed fire) and unplanned setting 

may not meet desired resource objectives due to future fuel loading potential as well as the 

hazard, cost and time needed to remove decaying hazard trees from planned control lines.

For cumulative social and economic effects of indicators other than safety, all current and 

reasonably foreseeable similar actions within Siskiyou County over the next five years were 

considered; for this analysis, it is assumed that actions in the four-county area will be similar to 

those in Siskiyou County. Future foreseeable actions on National Forest System land within 

Siskiyou County are available on the Forest Service Schedule of Proposed Actions website: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/sopa/. A list of planned Timber Harvest Plans for California can be found 

at: http://calfire.ca.gov/resource_mgt/resource_mgt_forestpractice_thpreviewprocess.php.

Since it is difficult if not impossible to obtain detailed information on the amount of harvest 

expected or the economic value of such harvest, it is assumed that timber harvest on private 

lands will continue at a rate similar to the past.

Adding the social and economic effects of these projects to the effects of Alternative 1 will not 

result in substantial social or economic cumulative effects.

Alternative 2

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects

Social

The social effects of this alternative will include more jobs available for Siskiyou county 

residents from the estimated 156 additional jobs provided and a continuation of the current 

distribution of jobs among racial and ethnic groups. Although there may be some effects on these 

populations, there will be no disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental 

effects on American Indians or the poor.

The lifestyles, values and beliefs of the people in Siskiyou County include some fulfillment of 

the desire that resources of the Forest be used to benefit local residents. The concern regarding 

the fire-safe character of the communities will be addressed through fuels treatments, including 

salvage harvest, fuel management zones, on ridges and adjacent to private property.

Treatments that will improve safety conditions within the project area include: roadside hazard

treatments, hazardous fuels treatments, and salvage harvest treatments. Hazard tree removal 

along about 103 miles of roads are critical for providing safe and effective access for the public 

and forest workers. The removal of fire-killed trees and other hazard trees from around private 

property and roads would also provide fire managers with improved options for effectively 

managing potential future wildfires.

Salvage harvest on about 2,043 acres would reduce safety hazards, promoting improved safety 

conditions for public and forest workers, including but not limited to firefighters, planters, and 

surveyors. Safety conditions and suppression effectiveness for firefighters are improved by 

removing fire-killed trees before they fall and become “jack-strawed.” Removing fire-killed trees 

helps make foot travel feasible and removes fuel build-up.

Roadside fuels treatments (688 acres), treatments within 733 acres of fuel management zones 

(i.e. fuel breaks) and 1,412 acres of fuel treatments adjacent to private property also improve 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

225

safety conditions for firefighters and improve suppression tactics around local communities, 

improving the safety conditions of local residents.

Proposed treatments decrease the likelihood that forest workers, firefighters, or public users of 

Forest land will be injured by a fire-killed or hazard tree as time goes on and the trees deteriorate 

and fall down.

Economic

Economic effects3 of Alternative 2 include an economic output of about $22,900,000, labor 

income value of about $6,200,000, and employment increased by about 156 jobs. Timber 

revenues from implementing this alternative are estimated at $1,950,000 and returns to Siskiyou 

County at about $487,500 based on 25 percent of timber revenue receipts being returned to the 

County. Wholesale veneer value is estimated as $12,400,000, logging costs at $2,700,000 and 

hauling cost at about $1,200,000. Required costs to restore the project landscape through site 

preparation, planting and fuels reduction are estimated as $4,450,000.

Cumulative Effects

As noted above, implementation of Alternative 2 will have measureable social and economic 

effects on Siskiyou County. Adding the social and economic effects of the ongoing and 

reasonable foreseeable future projects to the effects of Alternative 2 will result in noticeable 

social and economic cumulative effects, especially in the timber sector. Since this sector is such 

a small part of the economy of Siskiyou County, overall cumulative effects to the county are not 

expected to be substantial. In terms of safety, treatments proposed in this alternative would 

supplement other present or reasonably foreseeable future projects that are planned to improve

safety across the landscape. Roadside hazard treatments proposed in this project would provide 

access to other future projects within or adjacent to the project area, providing access for 

treatments. Using fire as a management tool in both the planned (prescribed fire) and unplanned 

settings would meet desired resource objectives due to lower future fuel loading potential and 

fewer hazards, providing conditions to improve the likelihood of suppression effectiveness.

Alternative 3

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects

Social

Social effects will be similar to those of Alternative 2 except that (1) safety will be affected by 

about 1,192 acres of salvage logging; and (2) 112 jobs are expected to be created. Effects of this 

alternative to improving safety will be similar to Alternative 2 except that about 1,192 acres will 

have large fuels removed through salvage harvest.

Economic

Economic effects of Alternative 3 include an economic output of about $18,200,000, labor 

income value of about $4,650,000, and employment increased by about 112 jobs. Timber 

revenues from implementing this alternative are estimated at $1,270,000 and returns to Siskiyou 

County at about $317,500 based on 25 percent of timber revenue receipts being returned to the 

County. Wholesale veneer value is estimated as $9,000,000, logging costs at $2,200,000 and 

 3 Differences in economic benefits are more meaningful when compared between alternatives rather than as absolute 

values. Stumpage and product values can fluctuate significantly with market values for burned trees and the amount 

of deterioration. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

226

hauling cost at about $870,000. Required costs to restore the project landscape through site 

preparation, planting and fuels reduction are estimated as $4,025,000.

Cumulative Effects

Same as for Alternative 2.

Alternative 4

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects

Social

Social effects will be similar to those of Alternative 2 except (1) safety will be affected by about 

1,679 acres being salvage logged; (2) 94 jobs are expected to be created; (3) hazard trees will be 

removed along 87 miles of road; and (4) safety will be improved by roadside fuels treatments on 

about 315 acres and fuel management zones on 702 acres. Effects of this alternative to improving 

safety will be similar to Alternative 2 except that 1,679 acres will have large fuels removed 

through salvage harvest.

Economic

Economic effects of Alternative 4 include an economic output of about $20,200,000, labor 

income value of about $5,250,000, and employment increased by about 129 jobs. Timber 

revenues from implementing this alternative are estimated at $1,545,000 and returns to Siskiyou 

County at about $386,500 based on 25 percent of timber revenue receipts being returned to the 

County. Wholesale veneer value is estimated as $10,080,000, logging costs at $2,250,000 and 

hauling cost at about $972,000. Required costs to restore the project landscape through site 

preparation, planting and fuels reduction are estimated as $3,850,000.

Cumulative Effects

Same as for Alternative 2.

Comparison of Effects

Comparisons of the differences between alternatives are more meaningful than estimates of 

actual values or economic outputs, since stumpage values and product values, fluctuate 

substantially with log markets for burned wood and deterioration. The project’s economic effects 

on Siskiyou County and the four-county region will be largest under the Alternative 2, about 30 

percent smaller under Alternative 3 and 19 percent smaller under Alternative 4 than under 

Alternative 2. The relative contributions of timber harvesting and landscape restoration to the 

project’s economic effects are given by their relative monetary values as displayed in the socioeconomic resource report, available on the project website. More information on the relationship 

of logging systems to economics is provided in the Logging Systems Supplement report, 

available on the project website.

Table 66 displays a comparison of the social and economic effects of alternatives.

Table 66: Comparison of Social and Economic Effects of Alternatives.

Indicator Alternative 

1

Alternative 

2

Alternative 3 Alternative 

4

Economic Output $0 $22,900,000 $18,200,000 $20,200,000

Labor Income $0 $6,200,000 $4,650,000 $5,250,000
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

227

Indicator Alternative 

1

Alternative 

2

Alternative 3 Alternative 

4

Employment (Jobs) 0 156 112 129

Timber Sale Revenue $0 $1,950,000 $1,270,000 $1,545,000

Meets local social value for use 

of resources (potential revenue 

to county)

$0 $487,500 $317,500 $386,500

Fuels Management Zone 

(Acres) 0 733 733 702

Roadside Fuels Treatments 

(Acres) 0 688 688 315

Roadside Hazard Tree Removal 

(Miles) 0 103 103 87

Treatment Adjacent to Private 

Property (Acres) 0 1,412 1,412 1,412

Salvage Harvest and Site 

Preparation and Planting 

(Acres)

0 2,043 1,192 1,679

All action alternatives will address priority treatment areas for safety. Consequently, effects to 

safety are only incrementally different among action alternatives, differing only by the acres of 

salvage harvest treatments proposed.

Compliance with law, regulation, policy and the Forest Plan

All alternatives will be consistent with law, regulation, and policy, including Executive Order 

12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and LowIncome Populations (1994), USDA Departmental Regulation 5600-002 on Environmental 

Justice, and the Forest Plan in relation to the social and economic environment as displayed in 

the Forest Plan consistency checklist. Action alternatives are consistent with Siskiyou County 

plans as expressed in the Siskiyou County Comprehensive Land and Resource Management Plan 

(1996).

Soils

Methodology

A unit selection strategy was used to determine which units should have site-specific data 

collected. Selection was based on soil sensitivity and type of management activities planned. 

Soils with high compaction or erosion hazard ratings and areas with evidence of previous 

disturbance received a high priority for field review. Units proposed for ground-based 

commercial harvest, which have the highest probability of impacting the soil resource, were also 

granted a high priority for field review. Field investigation was done by making two to three 

traverses across each unit. Site and soil data was collected from plots along these traverses. The 

following types of existing site disturbances were identified in the field during the traverses: skid 

trails, full bench skid trails, old roads, and old landings. The level of soil disturbance was 

estimated for each soil disturbance type. Soil data noted in the field included shallow soil areas, 

rock outcrops, and areas of surface rock, rock lithology and general soil depths.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

228

Analysis Indicators

The effects of individual management activities on the soil resource (soil productivity and soil 

ecosystem functionality) is guided using the Forest Plan’s Standards and Guidelines and FSM 

2500, Chapter 2550, Supplement 2500-2012-1 (USDA 2012d). Three indicators were chosen that 

best address relevant issues in the project and measure compliance: soil stability, soil organic 

matter, and soil structure.

The unit of measure for each indicator is the number of acres not meeting desired conditions. 

Table 67 describes what constitutes desired conditions for each of the soil indicators. The 

proposed activities for the project were categorized into similar activity types. For example, all 

of the various silviculture treatments that use ground-based equipment were lumped into 

“Ground Based Tractor Logging with Associated Landings.” The projected acres that will not 

meeting desired conditions for each indicator and activity type were determined from data 

collected from previous projects on the Forest using the National Forest Soil Disturbance 

Monitoring Protocol (NFSDMP) (USDA 2009c). A summary of the most recent results from soil 

disturbance monitoring on the Forest are included in the project record (USDA 2012e).

Table 67: Indicator Condition Assessment.

Soil 

Function Indicators

Good

(Meets Desired 

Condition)

Fair

(Partially Meets 

Desired Condition)

Poor 

(Does Not Meet 

Desired Condition)

Support 

for Plant 

Growth 

and Soil 

Hydrologic 

Function

Soil 

Stability

An adequate level of 

soil cover is present 

and signs of erosion 

are not visible or very 

limited in degree and 

extent. Any existing 

erosion control 

measures are effective. 

Generally, soil cover 

level is 50 percent or 

greater and is well 

distributed for soil types 

capable of supporting 

this level.

For minor portions of 

the area, soil cover is 

lacking and/or existing 

erosion control 

measures are 

ineffective. There are 

signs of erosion such 

as pedestals, sheet, rill, 

and/or gully erosion 

visible.

Major portions of the 

area lack soil cover 

and/or lack effective 

erosion control 

measures. Signs of 

erosion such as 

pedestals, sheet, rill, 

and/or gully erosion are 

common.

Support 

for Plant 

Growth

Soil 

Organic 

Matter 

(SOM)

The thickness and color 

of the upper soil layer is 

within the normal range 

of characteristics for the 

site and is distributed 

normally across the 

area. Localized areas 

of displacement may 

have occurred but it will 

not affect the 

productivity for the 

desired plant species.

For minor portions of 

the area, the upper soil 

layer has been 

displaced or removed 

to a depth and area 

large enough to affect 

productivity for the 

desired plant species. 

Generally, an area will 

be considered 

displaced if more than 

one-half of the upper 

soil layer or 4 inches 

(whichever is less) is 

removed from a 

contiguous area larger 

than 100 square foot

Major portions of the 

area have had the 

upper soil layer 

displaced or removed 

to a depth and area 

large enough to affect 

productivity for the 

desired plant species.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

229

Soil 

Function Indicators

Good

(Meets Desired 

Condition)

Fair

(Partially Meets 

Desired Condition)

Poor 

(Does Not Meet 

Desired Condition)

Soil 

Hydrologic 

Function

Soil 

Structure

Visually, soil structure 

and macro-porosity 

(defined here as pores 

1mm or larger) are 

relatively unchanged 

from natural condition 

for nearly all the area. 

Signs of erosion or 

overland flow are 

absent or very limited in 

degree and extent. 

Infiltration and 

permeability capacity of 

the soil is sufficient for 

the local climate.

For minor portions of 

the area: soil structure 

and macro-porosity are 

changed; or platy 

structure and/or 

increased density 

evident; or overland 

flow and signs of 

erosion are visible. 

Infiltration and 

permeability capacity is 

insufficient in localized 

portions of the area.

Major portions of the 

area have reduced 

infiltration and 

permeability capacity 

indicated by soil 

structure and macroporosity changes; or 

platy structure and/or 

increased density; or 

signs of overland flow 

and erosion.

Measures

Compaction Risk Rating

The compaction risk rating is intended to help determine general susceptibility to loss of soil 

productivity from heavy equipment operation. It considers the risk that compaction will occur 

and if compaction would result in productivity loss. It is based on the soil texture and rock 

content (Table 68). It presumes the soil is at field capacity or at a moisture level where the soil is 

most susceptible to a density increase under heavy equipment operation (USDA 2006).

Table 68: Compaction Risk Rating.

Coarse Fragment Content by Volume Soil Texture Hazard Rating

Fragmental (greater than 70 percent) Any Texture Low

Skeletal (35 to 70 percent) Sandy Low

Skeletal (35 to 70 percent) Loamy Moderate

Skeletal (35 to 70 percent) Clayey High

Less than 35 percent Sandy Low

Less than 35 percent Loamy Moderate

Less than 35 percent Silty High

Less than 35 percent Clayey High

Erosion Hazard Rating

The Region 5 Soil Erosion Hazard Rating System was used to rate the risk of soil erosion for all 

soils in the project area. This system uses various physical soil properties along with climate and 

site-specific conditions to rate soils for hazard of sheet and rill erosion. This system is used to 

determine the amount of post-activity surface cover necessary to keep erosion hazard risk low or 

moderate (USDA 1990). In addition to the Erosion Hazard Rating System, the Forest Plan 

describe levels of total soil cover that should be maintained at the stand level to reduce the 

potential of soil erosion (Table 69).
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

230

Table 69: Soil Cover Guidelines for Vegetation and Fuels Management Projects.

Soil Texture Class Slope

(percent)

Minimum Total Soil Cover1

(percent)

Guidelines for Projects Using Tractors

Sandy loam or coarser

0 to 25 70

26 to 35 80

Loam or finer 0 to 452 70

Guidelines for Prescribed Burning Projects

Sandy loam or coarser

0 to 25 60

26 to 45 70

46 80

Loam or finer

0 to 35 50

36 to 60 60

61 70

1 Soil cover consists of low growing live vegetation (less than 12 inches high), rock fragments (greater than 1⁄2 inch in diameter), slash (any size) 

and fine organic matter (charred or not), that is in contact with the soil surface. Fine organic matter refers to the duff, litter, and twigs less than 3 

inches in diameter. 2 Forest Service Manual Title 2521 Klamath Supplement 2 (01/1977).

Spatial and Temporal Bounding of Analysis Area

For all three soil indicators, the analysis area is bounded by the project area where disturbing 

activities take place. The analysis is further bounded in time by the foreseeable future period 

during which effects of this project could persist as detectable, significant effects. Soil cover, as 

it affects soil stability, can recover quickly as needles and other organic debris is deposited on 

the forest floor. The temporal boundary for soil stability is 5 years. Soil organic matter can take 

years to decades to rebuild after it is lost through displacement or erosion. The temporal 

boundary for soil organic matter is 30 years. Once compacted, structure and macroporosity can 

remain affected for decades. The temporal boundary for soil strength and structure is 30 years.

Affected Environment

The majority of the soils in the project area have developed from metavolcanic/metasediment 

and schist parent material with small areas of peridotite and granite bedrock types. Soils formed 

from schist parent material are often part of large dormant landslide deposit and are characterized 

by irregular slopes and hummocky topography. Soils formed from granitic parent material are 

easily erodible because of low clay content. The majority of the soils found on mountain side 

slopes in this project are moderately deep (24 to 40 inches) gravelly to extremely gravelly loams. 

The soils found on dormant landslide and glacial deposits are very deep (60+ inches) gravelly to 

extremely gravelly loams, and gravelly to extremely gravelly loams over clay loams. Found in 

pockets throughout the project area are soils developed from serpentinized parent material found 

within the areas of peridotite. These soils are moderately deep to deep, gravelly to extremely 

gravelly loams with moderate soil productivity.

Erosion hazard rating is a relative measure of the soils’ sensitivity to erosion processes. Soil 

disturbance has the potential to increase the erosion hazard because soil cover is generally 

reduced. Erosion hazard rating was calculated for each of the treatment units to estimate the 

potential erosion hazard for a given soil type. First, a maximum erosion hazard rating was 

calculated for soil that is completely bare to determine the risk of soil loss in areas without 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

231

protection from soil cover. The maximum erosion hazard rating for all treatment areas is 

moderate to very high. The erosion hazard rating for the current conditions of treatment areas 

was then calculated using data collected on existing conditions of soil cover. Current soil erosion 

hazard ratings for soils in treatment areas, based on existing conditions, are low.

The Gap Fire occurred in the vicinity of the project near Seiad Valley, California which is close 

to State Highway 96 up Horse Creek and stopping at the Pacific Crest Trial. Forest Service 

Burned Area Emergency Response (BAER) team earth scientists assessed the incident with a 

whole-watershed approach regardless of ownership. Soil burn severity patterns varied for the fire 

due to varying topography, fuels, and fire behavior. The information from the soils and other 

specialist reports of the Gap Fire BAER report was used in the soils analysis of this project 

(USDA 2016b).

Before the fire part of the Johnny O'Neil Late Successional Reserve Habitat Restoration and Fuel 

Reduction Project is also in the area of the Horse Creek Project.

Field sampling of Horse Creek Project units proposed to be treated using ground based systems 

was done in November of 2016. The average slope within these units ranges from zero to 80 

percent with an overall average of 24 percent. Average existing total soil cover ranges from zero

to 100 percent and averages 54 percent. Existing total soil cover is low as this is a burned area. 

The areas of high burn severity have little to no soil cover, while areas of moderate burn severity 

have higher soil cover due to dead needle cast. The areas of low and unburned soil burn severity 

have higher amounts of soils cover because not all the duff and existing soil cover was consumed 

by the fire. Existing course woody debris (greater than 20 inches diameter logs) in the sampled 

units ranges from zero to 24 logs per acre and averages 10 logs per acre. In areas of high burn 

severity there is little to no course woody debris remaining on the landscape. In areas of 

moderate and low burn severity there are higher than average amounts of course woody debris 

due to tree mortality.

Using the National Forest Soil Disturbance Monitoring Protocol (NFSDMP), approximately 90 

percent of the surveyed units were rated as disturbance class 0 (undisturbed), eight percent were 

rated as class 1, two percent were rated as class 2, and zero percent rated as class 3. The types of 

disturbance that were found include topsoil displacement on old full bench constructed skid 

trails, rutting on old skid trails, and compaction on old skid trails and landings. Desired 

conditions for soil stability were met across the entire project area because soil cover levels were 

very high and no signs of erosion were found. Desired conditions for soil organic matter and soil 

structure were met on an average of 98 percent of the project area.

Calculated from 300 soil plots, approximately eight percent of the treatment area (excluding 

system roads) has been disturbed from past activities. In the treatment area, 94 percent of the 

disturbance is on existing skid trails, two percent on established skyline corridors, 3.3 percent on 

existing skid roads, and 0.7 percent on old established landings. Desired conditions for soil 

stability were met across all treatment areas as no signs of erosion were found outside of the 

existing road system. Full field investigations were conducted in all units proposed for groundbased harvest. The estimated sedimentation rates from the effects of the Gap fire were modeled 

in the soil section of the Gap Fire BAER report (USDA 2016b).

Within the Gap Fire perimeter, 21,114 acres of National Forest land burned – 1,410 acres at high 

severity, 5,457 acres at moderate severity, 9,811 acres at low severity, and 4,150 acres unburned 

or very low severity. The proposed action would treat roadside hazard trees adjacent to 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

232

approximately 103 miles of roads and 7,325 acres of other treatments within the 40,834 acre 

project boundary.

Based on RAVG data, fifteen percent (or 5,900 acres) of the 40,834-acre project area (all 

ownerships) experienced moderate to high severity fire, killing most of the trees. In some 

portions of the fire, ground vegetation, down woody debris, and tree crowns were completely 

consumed by the Gap Fire. Lack of ground cover and crown interception exposes soils to 

raindrop impacts, and increases the amount of precipitation that reaches the ground. Moderate to 

high severity fires can also cause a loss of soil hydrologic function by sealing pores and 

degrading soil structure. Under high severity fire conditions, soils become resistant to water 

infiltration because burned organic material soaks into empty pore spaces in the soils, making the 

soil surface impervious to water, or “hydrophobic”. Once soils become hydrophobic, surface 

runoff and erosion can increase dramatically because rainfall cannot infiltrate the soil. Debris 

flows in a post-fire environment is a common natural phenomenon especially where there are 

large areas of high severity burn. Debris flows are primarily related to a loss of ground 

vegetation, loss of forest canopy and hydrophobic soil conditions. Following the Gap Fire and 

during high intensity winter storm events of late-2016 and early-2017 some debris flows were 

triggered, causing road and other damage within the project area. At this point, the extent of the 

damage is unknown and damage may be ongoing with future storm events this season. 

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1

Direct Effects and Indirect Effects

The no action alternative would have no direct effect on soils, as soil disturbing project activities 

would not take place. Soil cover for erosion protection would not change in the project area. Soil 

organic matter would continue to accumulate faster than decomposition rates, with no additional 

benefit to soil fertility. Soil structure conditions would remain the same in the short-term, with 

very slow long-term natural recovery of old skid trails and landings.

Indirect effects of the no action alternative would be the increased accumulation of organic 

matter in terms of surface and ladder fuels, with a corresponding continual increase in fire 

hazard. Years of fire suppression and past management activities have led to overly dense stands 

which have increased the risk of large-scale high severity wildfire. As fire intensity increases, the 

potential for soil organic matter destruction, nitrogen volatilization, microbial mortality, structure 

and porosity destruction, and inducement of water-repellency are greatly elevated. This can 

severely damage soils and cause long-term declines in soil productivity and hydrologic function. 

In extreme cases, soils cannot be revegetated without management intervention.

The areas of high soil burn severity would continue to have little to no ground cover and would 

greatly contribute to the sedimentation rates. Areas of moderate soil burn severity have areas of 

scorched needles that will act as effective cover under light precipitation but would not be 

effective cover for a large storm event. A model of the sedimentation rates from the Gap fire

affected area can be found in the Gap Fire BAER soils report for two, five, and 10 year storm 

events. A two year storm event model estimated the area to contribute 10 tons an acre for a total 

of 363,156 tons of sediment. A five-year storm event model estimated the area to contribute 22 

tons an acre for a total of 805,633 tons of sediment. A 10-year storm event model estimated the 

area to contribute 29 tons an acre for a total of 1,033,999 tons of sediment.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

233

Cumulative Effects

Past actions including timber harvest and thinning are evident on the landscape in the project 

area and are reflected in the discussion of the affected environment. Since there are no other 

reasonable foreseeable future actions occurring in the project area that will have an effect on 

soils, there will be no cumulative effects of Alternative 1.

Alternative 2

Direct and Indirect Effects

The proposed activities that may impact soil stability, soil organic matter, and soil structure 

desired conditions include ground-based tractor logging, temporary road construction, and 

mastication. Soil stability and soil organic matter are also affected by cable yarding, roadside 

hazard tree removal, and prescribed fire and pile burning. A summary of estimated acres in 

Alternative 2 that do not meet desired conditions for soil stability, soil organic matter, and soil 

structure are in Table 70. The total acres not meeting desired conditions for soil stability, soil 

organic matter, and soil structure are 142, 242, and 89, respectively. This level of disturbance is 

acceptable within the forest plan.

The areas of high (526 acres) and moderate (1,138 acres) soil burn severity that are in treatment 

areas would see an increase in soil cover and soil stabilization approximately 1,664 acres. The 

reduction in sediment would be measureable compared to untreated areas. Ground cover would 

increase by the addition of slash and other material deposited from the logging operations and 

would increase soil stabilization and reduce erosion. The soil disturbance of areas that have a fire 

induced hydrophobic layer in the areas of moderate and high soil burn severity would help 

increase water infiltration. Further stabilization of the soil would occur with the addition of 

project design features such as waterbars. A summary of soil burn severity by harvest unit for 

Alternative 2 can be found in the Soils Report on the project website.

Ground-based tractor logging

Ground based tractor logging with associated landings will result in reduced levels of soil cover 

on skid trails and landings but project design features will reduce the potential for soil erosion. 

Project design features require minimum levels of soil cover depending on slope steepness and 

require cover levels to be met before the fall rainy season. The project design feature that 

prescribes placement of waterbars on skid trails and erosion control on landings will be effective 

in controlling runoff and preventing off-site sedimentation. Additionally, project design features 

limit the slope steepness for operating ground-based logging equipment to slopes less than 35

percent on sandy soils and up to 45 percent on loam textured soils or finer, which will reduce the 

potential for soil erosion on steeper slopes. The amount of soil cover in non-skid trail areas will 

act as sediment filters and prevent skid trail derived sediment from reaching a drainage channel. 

Best management practice (BMP) monitoring of skid trails and landings show that water bars 

and erosion control measures are effective in controlling erosion and preventing sediment from 

reaching a stream course (USDA 2016a). Monitoring from previous projects with ground-based 

tractor logging units indicates that 95 percent of the units meets desired conditions for soil 

stability.

A combination of increased compaction, reduced soil cover, and soil displacement will lead to a 

loss of nutrients on the skid trails and landings in units where ground based tractor logging takes 

place. Project design features including placement of waterbars, slope restrictions on groundbased equipment, and soil cover guidelines were designed to minimize the loss of soil organic 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

234

matter from the unit. Additionally, project design features to protect course woody debris will 

insure these features will provide soil nutrients into the future. Monitoring from previous projects 

with ground-based tractor logging units indicates that 90 percent of the unit meets desired 

conditions for soil organic matter.

Ground-based equipment will cause soil compaction on landings and main skid trails, but with 

proper layout, the level of disturbance can be kept below levels that would impact stand 

productivity. Placing a high priority on reusing existing skid trails will help to ensure that the 

area occupied by skid trails can be minimized. Soil compaction leading to poor soil strength and 

structure would occur on the heavily used portions of main skid trails and landings. On skid trails 

where machinery makes one or two passes, compaction increases only slightly; rooting 

environment and infiltration are not negatively affected. Project design features put limitations 

on the use of ground based equipment during wet weather and saturated soil conditions reducing 

the amount of compaction on skid trails. Monitoring from previous projects with ground-based 

tractor logging units indicates that 95 percent of the units meet desired conditions for soil 

structure.

Ground based logging on burned units will increase soil cover, increase soil organic matter and 

help to stabilize the soil. This will mainly be achieved by logging slash and the implementation 

of project design features that help stabilize the landscape. The amount of soil burn severity acres 

in the ground based logging units for Alternative 2 are as follows 34 acres of unburned, 199 

acres of low intensity burned, 649 acres of moderate intensity burned, and 248 acres of high

intensity burned. The burn severities that are the most at risk of erosion are moderate and high 

which account for 897 acres. Additionally field monitoring of the area has shown that legacy 

skid trails are the area’s most likely to contribute large amounts of sediment therefore 

implementation of best management practices and project design features will help stabilize 

these legacy systems on approximately 1,131 acres of the project area for tractor based logging 

in Alternative 2.

Skyline logging

Skyline cable logging would result in small amounts of soil displacement in the yarding corridors 

from the tail end of the log dragging on the soil surface. This log dragging usually does not occur 

over the entire corridor length. The cable corridor can vary from six to eight feet wide and would 

have an area in the center of the corridor that is down cut nine to 12 inches deep (past field 

observations and BMP monitoring). When properly water barred, no significant erosion would 

leave the harvest units. Soil compaction and reduced soil porosity would be minimal to none. 

Monitoring of previous projects with cable logging units indicates that desired conditions for soil 

stability, soil organic matter, and soil structure are met across 97, 96, and 100 percent of units, 

respectively.

Skyline logging on burned units will increase soil cover, increase soil organic matter and help to 

stabilize the soil. This will mainly be achieved by logging slash and the implementation of 

project design features that help stabilize the landscape. The amount of soil burn severity acres in 

the skyline based logging units for Alternative 2 are as follows 10 acres of unburned, 125 acres 

of low intensity burned, 489 acres of moderate intensity burn, and 278 acres of high intensity 

burned. The burn severities that are the most at risk of erosion are moderate and high intensities

which account for 767 acres. Additionally field monitoring of the area has shown that cable 

yarding corridors are the most likely to contribute large amounts of sediment; therefore,

implementation of best management practices and project design features will help stabilize 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

235

these legacy systems on approximately 902 acres of the project area for skyline based logging for 

Alternative 2.

Site Preparation and Planting

Site preparation and planting will not add to the existing disturbance nor will it add to the 

disturbance caused by salvage activities except where mastication is used.

Mastication

Machine mastication should maintain the high levels of existing cover by cutting the existing live 

and dead standing material into smaller pieces and letting it fall to the soil surface. Machine 

mastication will have a slight impact to soil organic matter because fine surface fuels will be 

increased with minimal disturbance to the topsoil. Machine traveling over masticated materials 

reduces the potential for soil compaction. Slight increases in compaction would occur in travel 

access corridors around the unit. Monitoring of previous projects with mastication units indicates 

that desired conditions for soil structure and soil organic matter are met across 95 percent of 

units and soil structure desired conditions are met across 100 percent of units.

Machine mastication is expected to be used in some site preparation and planting units. Machine 

mastication will not be used on 100 percent of these treatments but for the purpose of this report 

mastication disturbance was estimated on 100 percent of these treatments.

Roadside Fuels Treatments, Fuels Treatments Adjacent to Private Property, and Fuel 

Management Zones

Prescribed fire and pile burning can alter microbial communities in a forest stand by increasing 

the temperature of the post burn soil surface or by changing the availability of organic substrates. 

Soil heating during the burn results in a substantial short-term loss of microbial biomass or a 

shift in community structure. These changes, and their duration are the result of the interactions 

of fuel load, fuel moisture content, weather conditions, landscape position, light-up sequence, 

and resulting fire behavior and resident time combined with heat transfer variability within the 

soil profile (Busse 2005). The low and moderate burn severities that are prescribed for this 

project will have short term impacts to soil organic matter and microbial communities. These 

impacts will not affect the long term productivity of the project area. If burn severities are kept to 

low and moderate levels, soil organic matter desired conditions are expected to be met for 

prescribed fire and pile burning treatments. Recent soil cover monitoring of prescribed fire on 

the Forest for the BMP monitoring report has shown that post-burn soil cover exceed levels 

prescribed in standard and guides (USDA 2016a). If soil cover guidelines are followed, soil 

stability desired conditions are expected to be met for prescribed fire and pile burning treatments.

Temporary roads and landings

New temporary roads and existing roadbeds that are going to be used as temporary roads would 

be cleared and graded; this would reduce soil cover levels during project operations. Erosion 

from temporary roads will be mitigated by grading to out-slope and covering with slash, if 

needed, after the harvest season (prior to the first winter after use and prior to additional winters 

if used for more than one harvest season). Temporary roads will be hydrologically stabilized and 

closed after project completion, mitigating long-term erosion in the project area. With erosion 

control features in place before the start of the wet season, soil stability desired conditions are 

expected to be met for 95 percent of temporary roads.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

236

New temporary roads and temporary roads on existing roadbeds may have the upper soil layer 

displaced or removed when the road bed is cleared, to allow log truck and equipment access. 

Additionally, new temporary roads and temporary roads on existing roads beds will have 

increased soil strength and cause reductions in infiltration and permeability. Research studies 

have shown that forest roads disrupt the physical environment through increased compaction and 

reduced porosity (Trombulak and Frissell 2005). The loss of soil organic matter and increases in 

soil strength will limit the growth of trees growing next to temporary roads, but because these 

roads occupy only a minor part of the project area, stand productivity will not be affected. While 

soil compaction will reduce infiltration and permeability, slash cover will reduce overland flow 

and prevent soil erosion. Temporary roads and landings are not expected to meet desired 

conditions for soil organic matter and soil structure but subsoiling some temporary roads will 

reduce the recovery time to return to desired conditions.

Monitoring from previous projects on the Forest has shown an increase in compaction, reduction 

in soil cover, and soil displacement leading to a loss of nutrients and reduced infiltration on the 

landings and temporary roads. Landings and temporary roads, therefore, do not meet desired 

conditions for soil organic matter and soil structure because the majority of these areas have the 

upper soil layer displaced or compacted enough to affect hydrologic function and productivity 

for the desired plant species.

The potential negative effects of landings and temporary roads are reduced through project 

design features that prevent damage from occurring, reduce the risk of further damage, and 

restore areas after damage has occurred. Impacts are prevented by limiting the extent of landings 

and main skid trail to 15 percent of units and ground-based equipment operation is restricted 

during periods of wet weather. The risk of future negative impacts is reduced by blocking access 

and hydrologically stabilizing landings and temporary roads. Finally, restoration of soil functions 

on landings and temporary roads will occur by subsoiling and seeding where it is practical to do 

so.

For Alternative 2 there are 2.18 miles of new temporary road and 2.44 miles of temporary road 

on existing roadbed. For the purpose of this report landings were included in the road disturbance 

(a 50-foot buffer is put on all temporary roads in GIS to get an acre estimate for the disturbance 

estimate table).

Cumulative Effects

Past actions including timber harvest and thinning are evident on the landscape in the project 

area and are reflected in the discussion of the affected environment. It is expected that 142 acres 

will not meet the soil stability desired conditions this makes up 0.35 percent of the project area. 

Soil cover, as it affects soil stability, can recover quickly as needles and other organic debris is 

deposited on the forest floor. Marinating adequate soil cover and other BMP’s after treatment

will minimize the effects to soil stability. The projected disturbance of soil organic matter is 242

acres which make up 0.60 percent of the project. This is only an initial disturbance as treatment 

of the units will increase the amount of organic material in contact with the soil allowing for reaccumulation of soil organic material. The projected disturbance of soil structure is 89 acres 

which is 0.22 percent of the project area. The level of disturbance to the structure of the soil is 

not significant enough to impact the productivity of the treatment area. Adding the effects of 

Alternative 2 to the effects of past and present actions is not expected to have substantial 

negative effects on soil desired conditions and, therefore, no substantial negative cumulative 

effects will occur. The number of acres not meeting the desired conditions are within an 

acceptable level.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

237

Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect Effects

The proposed activities that may impact soil stability, soil organic matter, and soil structure 

desired conditions include ground-based tractor logging, temporary road construction, and 

mastication. Soil stability and soil organic matter are also affected by cable yarding, roadside 

hazard tree removal, and prescribed fire and pile burning. A summary of estimated acres in 

Alternative 3 that do not meet desired conditions for soil stability, soil organic matter, and soil 

structure are in Table 70.

The total acres not meeting desired conditions for soil stability, soil organic matter, and soil 

structure are 89, 133, and 34, respectively. This level of disturbance is acceptable within the 

forest plan.

The areas of high (418 acres) and moderate (657 acres) soil burn severity that are in treatment 

areas would see an increase in soil cover and soil stabilization, approximately 1,076 acres. The 

reduction in sediment would be measureable compared to untreated areas. Ground cover would 

increase by the addition of slash and other material deposited from the logging operations and 

would increase soil stabilization and reduce erosion. The soil disturbance of areas that have a fire 

induced hydrophobic layer in the areas of moderate and high soil burn severity would help 

increase water infiltration. Further stabilization of the soil would occur with the addition of 

project design features such as waterbars. A summary of soil burn severity by harvest unit for 

Alternative 3 can be found in the Soils Report on the project website.

Ground Based

Effects of ground based logging for Alternative 3 will be similar to those of Alternative 2. 

However the disturbance will be 922 acres less than Alternative 2.

Skyline

Effects of skyline logging for Alternative 3 will be similar to those of Alternative 2. However the 

disturbance will be 202 acres less than Alternative 2.

Temporary roads and landings

There will be no effects of temporary roads and landings in Alternative 3 as there are no 

temporary roads or landings being proposed to the project area.

Roadside Fuels Treatments, Fuels Treatments Adjacent to Private Property, and Fuel 

Management Zones

The fuels treatments for Alternative 3 are the same as for Alternative 2.

Cumulative Effects

Past actions including timber harvest and thinning are evident on the landscape in the project 

area and are reflected in the discussion of the affected environment. It is expected that 89 acres 

will not meet the soil stability desired conditions this makes up 0.22 percent of the project area. 

Soil cover, as it affects soil stability, can recover quickly as needles and other organic debris is 

deposited on the forest floor. Marinating adequate soil cover and other BMP’s after treatment 

will minimize the effects to soil stability. The projected disturbance of soil organic matter is 133 

acres which make up 0.33 percent of the project area. This is only an initial disturbance as 

treatment of the units will increase the amount of organic material in contact with the soil 

allowing for re-accumulation of soil organic material. The projected disturbance of soil structure 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

238

is 34 acres which is 0.08 percent of the project area. The level of disturbance to the structure of 

the soil is not significant enough to impact the productivity of the treatment area. Adding the 

effects of Alternative 3 to the effects of past and present actions is not expected to have 

substantial negative effects on soil desired conditions and, therefore, no substantial negative 

cumulative effects will occur. The number of acres not meeting the desired conditions are within 

an acceptable level.

Alternative 4

Direct and Indirect Effects

The proposed activities that may impact soil stability, soil organic matter, and soil structure 

desired conditions include ground-based tractor logging, temporary road construction, and 

mastication. Soil stability and soil organic matter are also affected by cable yarding, roadside 

hazard tree removal, and prescribed fire and pile burning. A summary of estimated acres in 

Alternative 4 that do not meet desired conditions for soil stability, soil organic matter, and soil 

structure are in Table 70. The total acres not meeting desired conditions for soil stability, soil 

organic matter, and soil structure are 126, 211, and 75, respectively. This level of disturbance is 

acceptable within the forest plan.

The areas of high (487 acres) and moderate (914 acres) soil burn severity that are in treatment 

areas would see an increase in soil cover and soil stabilization approximately 1,401 acres. The 

reduction in sediment would be measureable compared to untreated areas. Ground cover would 

increase by the addition of slash and other material deposited from the logging operations and 

would increase soil stabilization and reduce erosion. The soil disturbance of areas that have a fire 

induced hydrophobic layer in the areas of moderate and high soil burn severity would help 

increase water infiltration. Further stabilization of the soil would occur with the addition of 

project design features such as waterbars. A summary of soil burn severity by harvest unit for 

Alternative 4 can be found in of the Soils resource report on the project website.

Ground Based

Effects of ground-based logging for Alternative 4 will be similar to those of Alternative 2. 

However the disturbance would be 258 acres less than Alternative 2.

Skyline

Effects of skyline logging for Alternative 4 will be similar to those of Alternative 2. However the 

disturbance would be 107 acres less than Alternative 2.

Temporary roads and landings

For Alternative 4 there is 1.5 miles of new temporary road and 1.82 miles (12 acres) of 

temporary roads on existing roadbed. For the purpose of this report landings were included in the 

road disturbance.

Roadside Fuels Treatments, Fuels Treatments Adjacent to Private Property, and Fuel 

Management Zones

The fuels treatments for Alternative 4 are the same as for Alternative 2 except that there are 32 

fewer acres of fuel management zones.

Cumulative Effects

Past actions including timber harvest and thinning are evident on the landscape in the project 

area and are reflected in the discussion of the affected environment. It is expected that 126 acres 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

239

will not meet the soil stability desired conditions this makes up 0.31 percent of the project area. 

Soil cover, as it affects soil stability, can recover quickly as needles and other organic debris is 

deposited on the forest floor. Marinating adequate soil cover and other BMP’s after treatment 

will minimize the effects to soil stability. The projected disturbance of soil organic matter is 211 

acres which make up 0.52 percent of the project. This is only an initial disturbance as treatment 

of the units will increase the amount of organic material in contact with the soil allowing for reaccumulation of soil organic material. The projected disturbance of soil structure is 75 acres 

which is 0.19 percent of the project area. The level of disturbance to the structure of the soil is 

not significant enough to impact the productivity of the treatment area. Adding the effects of 

Alternative 4 to the effects of past and present actions is not expected to have substantial 

negative effects on soil desired conditions and, therefore, no substantial negative cumulative 

effects will occur. The number of acres not meeting the desired conditions are within an 

acceptable level.

Comparison of Effects

There would be no direct effects of Alternative 1 as soil disturbing project activities would not 

take place. Soil cover for erosion protection would not change in the project area. Soil organic 

matter would continue to accumulate faster than decomposition rates, with no additional benefit 

to soil fertility. Soil structure conditions would remain the same in the short-term, with very slow 

long-term natural recovery of old skid trails and landings.

For Alternative 2, the total acres not meeting desired conditions for soil stability, soil organic 

matter, and soil structure are 142 (0.35 percent), 242 (0.60 percent), and 89 (0.22 percent);

(Table 70) respectively. The majority of the acres not meeting desired conditions are a result of 

ground-based tractor logging and associated landings construction. To a lesser degree, skyline 

logging tree removal contributes to the total acres not meeting desired conditions.

For Alternative 3, the total acres not meeting desired conditions for soil stability, soil organic 

matter, and soil structure are 89 (0.22 percent), 133 (0.33 percent), and 34 (0.08 percent); (Table 

70) respectively. The majority of acres not meeting desired conditions are a result of groundbased tractor logging and associated landings construction. To a lesser degree, skyline logging 

tree removal contributes to the total acres not meeting desired conditions.

For Alternative 4, the total acres not meeting desired conditions for soil stability, soil organic 

matter, and soil structure are 126 (0.31 percent), 211 (0.52 percent), and 75 (0.19 percent);

(Table 70) respectively. The majority of acres not meeting desired conditions are a result of 

ground-based tractor logging and associated landings construction. To a lesser degree, skyline 

logging tree removal contributes to the total acres not meeting desired conditions.

For Alternative 2, implementation of project design features will reduce the potential for 

negative effects from soil disturbing activities. Alternative 2 will maintain adequate soil cover, 

protect soil organic matter, and maintain soil structure at levels sufficient to protect soil 

productivity and prevent soil erosion. The acres that do not meet desired conditions will be minor 

compared to the total treatment acres in the project. For Alternative 2, the percent of the total 

project area not meeting desired conditions for soil stability, soil organic matter, and soil 

structure is 0.35 percent, 0.60 percent, and 0.22 percent, respectively.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

240

Table 70: Estimated acres not meeting desired conditions for soil indicators and activity.

Activity

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Estimated 

Percent Not 

Meeting Desired 

Conditions 

Determined from 

Disturbance 

Monitoring on 

the Forest

Acres Not 

Meeting Desired 

Conditions 

(Estimated)

Acres Not 

Meeting Desired 

Conditions 

(Estimated)

Acres Not 

Meeting Desired 

Conditions 

(Estimated)

Ground Based Tractor Logging

Soil Stability 5 80 34 67

Soil Organic Matter 10 160 68 134

Soil Structure 5 80 34 67

Skyline Logging

Soil Stability 3 38 32 35

Soil Organic Matter 4 50 42 46

Soil Structure 0 0 0 0

Site Preparation and Planting

Soil Stability 0 0 0 0

Soil Organic Matter 0 0 0 0

Soil Structure 0 0 0 0

Mastication

Soil Stability 5 23 23 23

Soil Organic Matter 5 23 23 23

Soil Structure 0 0 0 0

Roadside Fuels Treatments, Fuels Treatments Adjacent to Private Property and Fuel Management 

Zones

Soil Stability 0 0 0 0

Soil Organic Matter 0 0 0 0

Soil Structure 0 0 0 0

Re-opened Roads on Existing Roadbeds and Landings

Soil Stability 5 0.85 0 0.6

Soil Organic Matter 100 17 0 12

Soil Structure 100 17 0 12

New Temporary Roads and Landings

Soil Stability 5 0.45 0 0.4

Soil Organic Matter 100 9 0 8

Soil Structure 100 9 0 8

Total Acres of the Project Area Not Meeting Desired Conditions

Soil Stability 142 89 126

Soil Organic Matter 242 133 211
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

241

Activity

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Estimated 

Percent Not 

Meeting Desired 

Conditions 

Determined from 

Disturbance 

Monitoring on 

the Forest

Acres Not 

Meeting Desired 

Conditions 

(Estimated)

Acres Not 

Meeting Desired 

Conditions 

(Estimated)

Acres Not 

Meeting Desired 

Conditions 

(Estimated)

Soil Structure 89 34 75

Total Percent Acres of the Project Area Not Meeting Desired Conditions

Soil Stability 0.35 percent 0.22 percent 0.31 percent

Soil Organic Matter 0.6 percent 0.33 percent 0.52 percent

Soil Structure 0.22 percent 0.08 percent 0.19 percent

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

Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines for soils will be met for all alternatives. The number of 

acres that do not meet desired conditions for soil structure, soil organic matter, and soil structure 

is minor in relation to the project area, and is reduced to the extent possible with project design 

features.

Wild and Scenic Rivers

The Klamath Wild and Scenic River was designated in 1981 as a National Wild and Scenic 

River. Wild and Scenic Rivers provide for the preservation of rivers and their outstandingly 

remarkable values. Under the Wild and Scenic River Act, these rivers are to be preserved in a 

free-flowing condition and protected for the benefit and enjoyment of future generations. It 

classified the river segments within the project area as “Recreational”, meaning that they may be 

readily accessed by road or railroad, may have some development along the shorelines, and may 

have undergone some impoundment or past diversion.

A small portion of the Scott Wild and Scenic River also exist within the Project boundary. 

However, since project activities will not affect this river corridor, no effects will be analyzed for 

project alternatives.

The Forest Plan Management Goals for Management Area 13 (designated and recommended 

recreational rivers) are as follows:

• Preserve the recreational river in a free-flowing condition. Protect the river and the 

immediate environment for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future generations.

• Protect and enhance the outstandingly remarkable value(s) for which the river(s) are, or 

would be designated, while providing for public recreation and resource uses that do not 

adversely impact or degrade those values.

• Manage recreation activities to assure that the character and quality of recreation will not 

cause adverse impacts on the resource values for which the rivers were designated or 

recommended.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

242

• The desired future condition for designated and recommended Wild and Scenic Rivers: the 

waterway remains generally natural and riverine in appearance. The physical and biological 

integrity of the aquatic system is maintained. Habitat for anadromous and resident fish 

species is in good condition, capable of supporting viable populations of indigenous 

species. The river area may be developed for the full range of agricultural and forestry 

practices, show evidence of past and ongoing timber harvest, or include some residential, 

commercial, or similar development.

Within the wild and scenic corridor, recreational values will not be affected by the project, other 

than potential scenery effects; therefore, those values will not be evaluated here. This report will 

summarize compliance with water quality, fisheries, and scenic resources pertinent to Klamath 

River wild and scenic river values. Refer to the Recreation and Scenic sections of the EIS or the 

associated resource reports for more detail.

Methodology

Project activities were evaluated using field review, geospatial analysis, and professional 

judgement for potential affects to:

• Free-flowing conditions

• Water quality

• Identified outstandingly remarkable value(s)

• Scenic Resources

Select information on resource effects for water quality, fisheries, and scenic resources were 

taken from their respective specialist reports. Refer to those reports for complete details.

Analysis Indicators

Indicators are identified for each of the values listed below to be protected or maintained:

Free-Flowing Conditions

As applied to any river or section of a river, means existing or flowing in a natural condition 

without impoundment, diversion, straightening, rip-rapping, or other modification of the 

waterway. The indicator here is determination if project alternatives would be located within the 

bed and banks of the river, and obstruct or alter any portion of the existing free-flowing river 

characteristics.

Water Quantity and Quality

Water quantity and quality must be sufficient to protect river values.

• Indicators: Response to total maximum daily load (Clean Water Act) requirements, Forest 

Plan (to include Aquatic Conservation Strategy) objectives, and demonstrating project 

alternative differences with respect to hydrologic function and water quality.

Outstandingly Remarkable Value

Each river shall be managed to protect and enhance the values for which the river was 

designated, while providing for public recreation and resource uses which do not adversely 

impact or degrade those values. For the Klamath Wild and Scenic River, fisheries is the one 

outstandingly remarkable value for which it was designated.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

243

• Indicators, Fisheries: Water temperature, sediment, large woody debris.

Scenic Resources

• Indicator: Visual Sensitivity. The Klamath Wild and Scenic River corridor is considered 

high sensitivity, which suggests great potential for the public to react strongly to any 

lessening of visual quality.

Measures

Free-Flowing Conditions

Measuring the effect to river flows.

Water Quality

Determination of risk to channel morphology, risk of sediment regime alteration, risk of 

temperature regime alteration, trend of riparian function.

Outstandingly Remarkable Value (Fisheries)

Summaries of measures provided below. Refer to the Aquatics Resources Report for complete 

details.

Water temperature:

Instantaneous temperature measurements for 1st to 3rd order streams, when evaluated against 

established temperatures or temperature ranges, indicate those streams as, “properly 

functioning”, “at risk”, and “not properly functioning.”

Maximum weekly maximum temperature measurements for 4th to 5th order streams, when 

evaluated against specific temperatures or temperature ranges, indicate those streams as, 

“properly functioning”, “at risk”, and “not properly functioning.”

Sediment:

Substrate character measures the percentage of fines in spawning habitat, and the percentage of 

cobble embeddedness against established percentages or percentage ranges to indicate those 

streams as, “properly functioning”, “at risk”, and “not properly functioning.”

Large Woody Debris:

“Properly functioning” streams indicate an average of 20 pieces of large wood or more per mile 

in stream channels.

“At risk” streams indicate stream channels already meeting the minimums for “properly 

functioning”, but the future recruitment potential of large woody debris into stream channels will 

be at levels lower than can meet the “properly functioning” standard.

“Not properly functioning” streams are those that do not meet the “properly functioning” 

standard combined with a lack of future large woody debris recruitment.

Scenic Resources

Evaluation of potential project alternative impacts along the river corridor are measured from the 

following locations: Rocky Point River Access, Sarah Totten Campground, and the Horse Creek

Community bridges (Siskiyou County 8F001 and 8F003).

Forest Plan Standard and Guideline MA 13-6 states that for recreational river designations, 

management activities must meet the partial retention visual quality objective within the river 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

244

corridor, in the foreground beyond the corridor, and middleground beyond the corridor. 

However, since State Route 96 is also designated as the State of Jefferson Scenic Byway, 

management activities must meet the retention visual quality objective within the quarter mile 

boundary of the wild and scenic corridor. The partial retention visual quality objective outlined 

in MA 13-6 applies outside of the quarter mile boundary.

Distance zones:

• Foreground: The detailed landscape found within 0 to 1⁄4 and 1⁄2 mile from the observer.

• Middleground: The landscape located between 1⁄4 and 1⁄2 miles to 3 to 5 miles from the 

observer.

Visual quality objectives: Forest plan identified thresholds for acceptable visual change.

• Retention: Management activities are not visually evident, and may only repeat form, line, 

color, and texture, which are frequently found in the landscape. Changes in their qualities 

of size, amount, intensity, direction, pattern, etc., should not be evident.

• Partial Retention: Management activities are noticeable, but remain visually subordinate to 

the characteristic landscape, and may repeat form, line, color, or texture common in the 

landscape.

Spatial and Temporal Bounding of Analysis Area

The spatial analysis for free-flowing, water quality, and outstandingly remarkable value is within 

the banks of the river corridor. Since only the watersheds at the 5th field scale intersect both the 

project area (and its effects) at the Klamath River, only effects notable at the 5th field scale are 

relevant to the Wild and Scenic River analysis for the Klamath River.

Additional spatial bounding for project alternatives outside of the banks includes the quarter mile 

wild and scenic river boundary in the foreground distance zone, and up to two miles in the 

middleground distance zone. Note that the middleground boundary will take into any account 

potential seen project activities; however, project topography and vegetative screening will very 

likely limit the viewing distance of most middleground areas to approximately one mile or less.

Affected Environment

The Klamath Wild and Scenic River was designated by the Secretary of the Interior in 1981, 

along with the Scott and North Fork Salmon Rivers, for their outstandingly remarkable 

anadromous fisheries values. Approximately 13 miles of the Klamath Wild and Scenic traverses 

the Project area. The 2007 Klamath National Forest Recreation Facilities Niche Analysis 

designated the area along the river corridor with a Travelways setting. This primarily 

encompasses the public traveling State Route 96/State of Jefferson Scenic Byway. The Key 

recreational experiences within the corridor include driving for pleasure, viewing scenery or 

wildlife, whitewater kayaking, rafting, or canoeing, developed and dispersed camping, and 

angling.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

245

Environmental Consequences

Alternative 1

Direct and Indirect Effects

Since no proposed project treatments are proposed, there would be no effects to free-flowing 

conditions, water quality, or scenic resources as a result of this alternative. For fisheries, channel 

morphology risk levels range from low to high; sediment risk ratios range from low to moderate; 

temperature regime within range of variability; riparian function ranges from poor to good.

Cumulative Effects

Salvage timber harvest on private industrial forest lands is not expected to affect any areas within 

the Klamath Wild and Scenic corridor. Operational impacts from project activities, such as 

increased haul traffic, noise, and dust offer short-term impacts to recreational users. Increased 

haul will be most noticeable along State Route 96.

Other ongoing and future foreseeable Forest Service projects include the following vegetation 

treatments: roadside salvage, site preparation and tree planting, fuels management and reduction, 

commercial thinning, mastication, hand thinning and piling, and underburning. Operational 

impacts from Forest Service projects are expected to be similar to private lands impacts, but 

diminished in intensity, and would have no cumulative effect to free-flowing conditions, water 

quality, or scenic resources in combination with Alternative 1.

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4

Direct and Indirect Effects

Free-Flowing Conditions

Section 7 of the Wild and Scenic River Act does not apply to this project, as this section is only 

pertinent to water resource projects, such as dams, water conduits, reservoirs, hydropower 

projects, powerhouses, or transmission lines, and does not directly affect the bed and bank of the 

Wild and Scenic river. In 1984, the “water resource project” definition was evaluated for its use 

within the Wild and Scenic River Act, and the Forest Service clarified that timber harvesting or 

similar activities would not be subject to Section 7 review unless it resulted in an obstruction or 

modification of the free-flowing river characteristics.

Therefore, for all alternatives, no treatments are proposed within the banks of the Klamath Wild 

and Scenic River, and therefore will have no effect on free-flowing conditions.

Water Quantity and Quality

The hydrology effects summarized below are for the 7th field watershed. Alternatives 2, 3, or 4 

will not change the risk to channel morphology for nine of the ten 7th field watersheds. 

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 will change the risk ratio of one watershed, Middle Creek, from 

moderate to high (or from 1.4 to 1.6), which is a small to negligible increase. Alternatives 2, 3, 

and 4 will result in localized, short-term effects to water quality from sedimentation; however,

with project design and best management practices water quality is expected to remain at 

existing levels for all action alternatives. Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would result in a low risk to 

stream temperature effects; riparian function trend is anticipated to remain stable. Indicators for 

water quantity and quality show little to no overall change as a result of this project at the 7th

field watershed scale. Impacts to the Klamath River from this project are only at the 5th field 

watershed scale, and therefore, would be less evident than described here.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

246

Outstandingly Remarkable Value (Fisheries)

There are neutral or no effects to habitat or species for large woody debris, water temperature, or 

sediment indicators at the 5th field scale, which includes the main stem of the Klamath River.

Scenic Resources

Only a portion of one salvage harvest unit, roadside hazard tree removal, fuels reduction adjacent 

to private property, fuel management zone treatments are proposed within the Wild and Scenic 

River corridor. All but the one salvage harvest unit (116.49) will meet the retention and partial 

retention visual quality objectives. The combination of salvage harvest, adjacent private property 

fuels reduction, and fuel management zone treatments surrounding unit 116.49 within the 

retention and partial retention visual quality objective designation and Wild and Scenic River 

corridor would likely not meet the objective within three years’ time, especially because a 

majority of the eastern-facing slope, which is visible from the river, was affected by moderate to 

high severity fire.

The Forest Plan allows an exception under Visual Resource Management Standards and 

Guidelines 11-7 that allows recovery time beyond three years in the case of catastrophic events. 

Refer to the Scenic Resources Report for greater detail.

Cumulative Effects

No current or reasonably foreseeable future actions are located in the Klamath River Wild and 

Scenic River corridor. Therefore, the additive effect from the proposed action alternatives is not 

anticipated to have any cumulative effects to the Wild and Scenic River Act “protect and 

enhance” standards.

Comparison of Alternatives

Table 71: Comparison of Alternatives

Indicator Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Free-Flowing: Effect to 

river flow characteristics No effect No effect No effect No effect

Water Quality: 

Determination of risk to 

Channel Morphology, Risk 

of Sediment Regime 

Alteration, Risk of 

Temperature Regime 

Alteration, Trend of 

Riparian Function

Channel 

morphology risk 

levels range from 

low to high; 

sediment risk ratios 

range from low to 

moderate; 

temperature regime 

within range of 

variability; riparian 

function ranges from 

poor to good

No change of risk 

to channel 

morphology for 9 

of 10 watersheds; 

water quality 

remain at existing 

levels; low risk to 

stream 

temperature; 

riparian function 

trend stable

Same as 

Alternative 2

Same as 

Alternative 2

Fisheries: Sediment, 

stream temperature, large 

wood

No effect No effect No effect No effect

Scenic Resources: Rocky 

Point/Sarah Totten 

Campgrounds

No effect No effect No effect No effect

Scenic Resources: 

Siskiyou County 8F001 No effect Adverse effect* Adverse 

effect*

Adverse 

effect*
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

247

Indicator Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

and 8F003 bridges in 

Horse Creek

* The Forest Plan allows an exception under Visual Resource Management Standards and Guidelines 11-7 that 

allows recovery time beyond three years in the case of catastrophic events. Refer to the Scenic Resources Report for 

greater detail.

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

All Wild and Scenic Rivers Act protection requirements would be met for the Project. Freeflowing conditions, water quality, and the outstandingly remarkable value will be protected or 

maintained, and the Recreational River classification will be maintained.

All action alternatives will meet the retention and partial retention visual quality objectives as 

seen from the Rocky Point River Access and Sarah Totten Campground. All action alternatives 

would not likely meet retention and partial retention within three years’ time, when viewed from 

the river corridor (as seen from the Siskiyou County 8F001 and 8F003 bridges over the river). 

This is the result of the moderate/high intensity fire along the eastern slope, where salvage unit 

116.49 is proposed, in combination with fuel management zone and private property fuel 

reduction treatments. Restoration of this portion of the landscape will occur over the long-term 

timeframe as defined in the Scenic Resources Report; these timeframes are allowed under Forest 

Plan Standard and Guideline direction following catastrophic events.

Wildlife Resources

Methodology

Methodology for the analysis included field review, review of the latest scientific research and 

literature, GIS analysis, and local expertise for the consideration of direct, indirect and 

cumulative effects. The Treatment Units boundaries reflect the physical project footprint where 

proposed vegetation and prescribed fire would occur. The Project Area is represented by the 

legal descriptions within which treatments are proposed. The Analysis Area represents the 

biologically relevant area that could be directly and indirectly affected by the project. The 

analysis area is typically different for each species.

Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species per the Endangered Species Act

The threatened, endangered, and proposed species were identified using information provided by 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as described in the Wildlife Resource Report. After review of 

this information, it was determined that the northern spotted owl along with its critical habitat

may be affected by the project actions.

Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species

Species identified as sensitive by the Southwest Pacific Regional Forester (USDA 2013a) were 

assessed for whether the species range overlapped the project area and habitat is likely to exist in 

the project area. If both were true, then the species is analyzed for the project.

Forest Sensitive Species are plant and animal species identified by a Regional Forester for which 

population viability is a concern. This concern is based on 1) a significant current or predicted 

downward trends in population numbers or density and 2) a significant current or predicted 

downward trends in habitat capability that would reduce a species' existing distribution. More 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

248

information on how known locations and habitat conditions of these species were determined is 

provided in the Wildlife Resource Report.

Management Indicator Species

The Forest Plan requires an analysis of impacts of projects on habitat conditions associated with 

species associations and related management indicator species. Each species association is 

intended to represent a particular habitat type and, even though some species many occur in more 

than one habitat type, each species will only be analyzed for the association it is representing. It 

is not the intent of this analysis to fully analyze all the needs for each species within an 

association; rather this analysis will present the potential effects to the habitat type. More 

information is available in the Wildlife Resource Report and Management Indicator Species 

reports, available on the project website.

Survey and Manage Species

Activities proposed in the Horse Creek Project are evaluated by effects on survey and manage 

species. In determining which survey and manage species that may be affected by the Horse 

Creek Project is a step-wise process was used; the process is described in the survey and manage 

resource report, available on the project website.

Migratory Birds

A Memorandum of Understanding between the USDA Forest Service and the USDI Fish and 

Wildlife Service promotes the conservation of migratory birds by directing agencies to evaluate 

the effects of proposed actions on migratory birds. For the Forest, the migratory bird species of 

management concern include species listed under the Endangered Species Act as threatened or 

endangered, species designated by the Regional Forester as sensitive species, and species listed

in the Forest Plan as management indicator species for project level assessment. More 

information is available in the Wildlife Resource Report and Migratory Bird Analysis, both 

available on the project website.

Rapid Assessment of Vegetation Condition (RAVG) after wildfire and habitat data

For the post-fire assessment of habitat, we used data provided by a vegetation burn severity 

model known as rapid assessment of vegetation condition after wildfire (RAVG) to estimate the 

level of fire effects to wildlife habitat. The RAVG data displays the tree basal area loss due to 

fire throughout the burned area. Therefore, in any given spot in the fire perimeter, we can 

estimate the fire effects to the vegetation using the RAVG level of basal area loss. For this 

analysis the RAVG data were split into five classes: (1) no burn (zero percent); (2) very low (less 

than 0 to 25 percent); (3) low (25 to 50 percent); (4) moderate (50 to 75 percent); and (5) high 

(75 to 100 percent basal area loss) to represent the fire severity.

Using the RAVG data and the habitat GIS data, we can identify each area of habitat with a 

specific level of basal area loss. Then we compared the GIS habitat layer and RAVG accuracy 

through multiple field visits in 2016. The field review resulted in determining these data were 

sufficient for estimating the potential effects of the project.

Forest Plan Guidance

One of the primary purposes of the Forest Plan is to guide land management through the 

adherence to standards and guidelines. Forest Plan standards and guidelines (both forest-wide 

and specific to management areas) were developed to assure compliance with law, regulation and 

policy. Information from the Forest Plan that is pertinent to species that occur in the Horse Creek
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

249

project area, treatment area or analysis area is displayed below; this information was used in 

developing analysis indicators.

Analysis Indicators

The following analysis indicators were developed to estimate the direct, indirect, and cumulative 

effects for each Forest Service sensitive species, survey and manage, management indicator 

species, migratory birds, and northern spotted owl analyzed in this project.

Table 72: Forest Service Sensitive Species and northern spotted owl analyzed for this project and the 

corresponding analysis indicator.

Species Analysis Indicator

Northern spotted owl and critical 

habitat (Endangered)

Risk to reproduction

Change in critical habitat

Regional Forester’s Sensitive 

Species Analysis Indicator

Bald eagle Level of disturbance to nest sites

Risk to future potential nest trees

Northern goshawk Level of disturbance to nest site

Risk to reproduction

Fisher, Marten, and Wolverine Level of habitat connectivity

Change in fisher home range

Pallid bat, Townsend’s big-eared 

bat, and Fringed myotis Risk of disturbance

Willow flycatcher Level of habitat alteration

Great gray owl Level of habitat alteration

Siskiyou mountain salamander Risk of habitat disturbance

Tehama chaparral snail Risk of habitat disturbance

Western bumble bee Level of habitat disturbance

Management Indicator Species Analysis Indicator

Snag associated and hardwood 

associated species Level of habitat change

Survey and Manage Analysis Indicator

All survey and manage species 

that may occur in the project area Level of site disturbance

Migratory Birds Analysis Indicator

All relevant bird species Consistency with migratory bird memorandum of understanding

Measures

Threatened, Endangered, or Proposed under Endangered Species Act

Northern Spotted Owl (NSO)

NSO Habitat types

Suitable NSO habitat is commonly separated into nesting/roosting, foraging, and dispersal 

habitat; these habitat types are described in detail in the NSO Recovery Plan (USDI 2011). 

Nesting/roosting is generally described as mid- to late-seral forests that contain stands of large 

trees with high canopy cover, multilayered canopies, and nesting platforms. Foraging habitat can 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

250

be described as slightly reduced canopy cover, fewer large trees, and enough space for NSO to 

maneuver through the trees for hunting prey when compared to nesting/roosting habitat. 

Dispersal habitat contains a moderate level of canopy closure and trees large enough to provide 

shelter and potential foraging opportunities for traveling NSO, but does not contain adequate 

amounts of other essential habitat components for long term NSO occupation, reproduction or 

survival. Determination of NSO habitat suitability also considers many factors including size of 

stand and adjacency to other habitat types which owls may use. For this analysis, suitable habitat 

is defined as stated above in this paragraph and is generally referencing nesting/roosting and 

foraging habitat unless otherwise specified.

Habitat that was considered suitable before the Gap fire, and that burned at moderate and high 

fire severity, may be identified as “post-fire foraging” (PFF) habitat. Post-fire foraging habitat

was delineated to capture the potential for continued use by NSO of previously suitable habitat, 

at least until the ultimate deterioration of the burned habitat and loss of standing dead trees. Even 

with the loss of canopy cover and key habitat components generally associated with suitable 

habitat, moderate- and high-severity burned areas can still provide foraging opportunity for NSO 

after the fire, depending on many factors including patch size, edge type, burn severity, and 

proximity to suitable unburned habitat and known owl sites (Bond et al. 2002, Bond et al. 2009; 

Clark 2007, Clark et al. 2011, and Clark et al. 2013). The GIS vegetation layer provided the 

baseline of suitable habitat that existed prior to the fire (i.e., pre-fire nesting/roosting and 

foraging). Post-fire foraging habitat was then determined by applying the RAVG data to the prefire suitable habitat. Post-fire foraging was delineated where moderate fire severity or high fire 

severity occurred in pre-fire nesting/roosting and foraging habitat. Because a large portion of 

PFF is forest that burned at the highest severity and therefore contains minimal amounts of 

structure or cover, it was anticipated that NSO would be less likely to use PFF when compared to 

suitable habitat.

Analysis Indicator #1 – Risk to reproduction

The amount of suitable habitat within both the home range and core has been shown to influence 

NSO productivity and survivorship (Bart 1995, Franklin et al. 2000, Dugger et al. 2005). Based 

on results of these studies, the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service has concluded that significant 

effects to reproduction are not likely to occur if management activities retain a higher proportion 

(at least half, or 250 acres) of the core area’s high quality habitat and 1,086 acres of suitable 

habitat in the home range (outside the core) (USDI 2009) because core areas falling below these 

habitat acre levels may affect the productivity and survival of NSO. Older forest is more likely 

than other vegetation classes to provide NSO with suitable structures for perching and nesting, a 

stable, moderate microclimate at nest and roost sites, and visual screening from both predators 

and prey.

Recent research has argued the value of fire-affected nesting, roosting, and foraging habitat in 

NSO activity centers (Bond et al. 2009, Roberts et al. 2011, Lee et al. 2012, and Lee et al. 2013). 

The research indicates variability and a high level of uncertainty in the degree to which spotted 

owls use post-fire landscapes but suggests that fire-affected habitat could be used for foraging. 

Despite these uncertainties and the fact that fire-affected NSO habitat does not meet the 

described habitat characteristics in the 2011 NSO Recovery Plan (USDI 2011), 2012 NSO 

Revised Critical Habitat Rule (USDI 2012), or many other research documents, fire-affected 

habitat is assessed within the NSO activity center as potential foraging opportunity.

This analysis calculates the change in NSO habitat (nesting/roosting, foraging, or dispersal 

habitat) within the nesting core and home range resulting from all alternatives. The changes in 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

251

NSO habitat are analyzed and compared to the suggested levels of habitat as described by the 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (USDI 2009), published research, and professional judgment.

Assumptions

• Occupancy and reproduction success is based on the amount and quality of habitat in the 

activity center;

• Habitat burned at low (less than 50 percent basal area removed per RAVG data) severity 

still functions as it did pre-fire;

• Pre-fire nesting/roosting and foraging habitat that burned at moderate severity (50 to 75 

percent basal area removed) and high severity (75 to 100 percent basal are removed per 

RAVG data) is typed as post-fire foraging;

• Even though the value of fire-affected habitat (PFF) to spotted owls is unclear when 

compared to foraging habitat, the research shows PFF may be used for foraging

opportunity;

• Roadside treatment in existing NSO habitat would result in degrading habitat thus habitat 

remains functioning at the current habitat type after treatment;

• Roadside plus fuels treatment in existing NSO habitat would result in downgrading habitat 

thus habitat would drop down one habitat type level. For example, an area of 

nesting/roosting habitat that receives a roadside and fuels treatment would result in this 

area becoming foraging habitat after treatment;

• Landing construction would result in the downgrade of habitat for the footprint of the 

landing.

Spatial and Temporal Bounds

For NSO territories, NSO habitat is evaluated at two spatial scales: 1) home range and 2) core 

areas. Based on the median home range estimate for NSO pairs in the Klamath Province, we are 

using a 1.3 mile-radius home range and 0.5-mile radius core for evaluating habitat conditions of 

and potential impacts to home ranges and core around the nest location (Thomas et al. 1990; 

USDI 1992, USDI 2009). The core and home range analysis is limited to the activity centers 

where the home ranges overlap possible project actions (treatment areas).

The effects analysis temporal bounding is presented as short-term and long-term. The short-term 

(five years) covers the time during implementation and the period of time when the majority of 

the snags would likely remain standing. The long-term (greater than 20 years) includes the time 

when the snags would likely start falling resulting in changes to the physical structure in areas 

that burned at moderate and high fire severity.

Criteria for assessing risk to NSO reproduction

The desired condition for this analysis indicator is to minimize the amount of NSO habitat 

affected by the project actions. The amount of NSO habitat is assessed for all known activity 

centers and these acres of habitat are interpreted into four categories based on the criteria below.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

252

Table 73: Criteria used for NSO risk to reproduction analysis indicator.

Risk to 

Reproduction Criteria1

Very Low

In the core, >400 acres of NRF and PFF (≥250 NR must occur in the core), 

AND

In the home range, >935 acres of NRF and PFF

Low

In the core, >250 acres being NRF and PFF (≥150 NR must occur in the core), 

AND

In the home range, >1,086 acres NRF and PFF

Moderate In core and home range, 665 to 1,336 acres of NRF and PFF (≥500 acres 

NRF must occur in core and home range combined)

High In core and home range, <665 acres of NRF and PFF

1Core – 0.5 mile radius from the center of the activity center. Home range – 0.5 to 1.3 mile radius from the center of 

the activity center.

Risk to reproduction is split into four categories representing the relative levels of effects 

resulting from the alternatives. Using the existing quality and amount of habitat within the 

activity center (composed of core and home range), the acres of nesting/roosting and foraging 

were calculated as the existing condition and the activity center is placed into one of the four 

categories. Then each alternative’s effects on habitat is calculated and compared to the existing 

condition. Note that an activity center cannot have a reduction in risk. For example, an activity 

center that meets the conditions of a moderate level given the existing habitat condition can only 

remain as moderate or increase to high risk based on the actions of each alternative. However, an 

activity center currently at high risk would continue to be at high risk regardless of the level of 

effects resulting from each alternative.

A high risk means that reproduction is not likely to occur in the activity center because the low 

number of habitat acres occurring in the core and home range. Moderate level represents the 

activity centers in which NSO are likely to have difficulty in finding resources and would likely 

need to transverse openings (areas without overstory tree canopy) or use areas of low habitat 

quality to find enough resources. These challenges may result in lower survival or reproduction 

potential for the pair occupying moderate level activity centers. However, moderate level activity 

centers may shift to high risk regardless of this project because of delayed tree mortality. 

Delayed tree mortality may reduce the amount of tree canopy that would result in current habitat 

being reduced in quality to the point that suitable habitat may become PFF. However, for this 

analysis, habitat is assessed based on the current conditions and not on potential delayed tree 

mortality.

Low level activity centers have enough habitat in the core and home range to likely support 

reproduction but the habitat may not be distributed in large patches. Generally, many of the 

active activity centers on the Forest can be described as containing similar amount of habitat as 

described for the “low” level category. The final category, very low risk, represents the quality 

and distribution habitat that has been associated with successful reproduction over the species

range; these conditions are not common on the Forest because the patches of nesting/roosting are 

relatively small and are spatially separated.

Analysis Indicator #2 – Changes to Critical Habitat

Within fire-prone areas such as those found on the Forest, resource agencies planning vegetation 

management in critical habitat for the NSO are encouraged to ameliorate current threats of 

ongoing habitat loss from uncharacteristic fires and vegetation change that are largely related to 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

253

past fire exclusion (USDI 2012). Resource agencies are also encouraged to work toward 

maintaining or enhancing the characteristics of older forest and providing large habitat blocks 

and associated interior forest conditions. Regional variations should be taken into account; on the 

Forest this means providing mosaics of interior habitats and edges to provide for the diversity of 

prey for NSO.

Critical habitat is generally described as the specific geographic area occupied by the species at 

the time of listing plus areas that contain the physical and biological features that are essential to 

the conservation of endangered and threatened species and may need special management or 

protection. Instead of providing general recommendations that cover the entire critical habitat 

area, critical habitat is split into units and subunits to provide specific recommendations because 

theses may provide different functions to aid in the recovery of the species. For the spotted owl, 

the Horse Creek Project overlaps a portion of the Klamath (KL) East (E) 6 and 7. KLE6 and 

KLE7 are intended to enhance or protect existing essential biological or physical features, reduce 

the loss of habitat to wildfire, reduce change in habitat as a result of fire exclusion, and buffer 

competition with barred owls; however the primary function for these subunits is to support the 

survival, reproduction, and dispersal (USDI 2012).

The 2012 critical habitat unit (CHU) designation identifies the primary constituent elements

(PCEs) for NSO as those physical and biological features that support nesting, roosting, foraging, 

and dispersal. Specifically the PCEs for the NSO are summarized in the critical habitat rule 

(USDI 2012):

1. Forest types that support the northern spotted owl across its geographic range. Within the 

Klamath Province, these include mixed conifer/mixed conifer-hardwood, mixed 

evergreen, Douglas-fir, white fir, and Shasta red fir. These forest types may be in early-, 

mid- or late-seral stages;

2. Nesting, roosting;

3. Foraging habitat; and

4. Dispersal habitat.

In the following analysis, primary constituent element categories as PCEs 1, 2, 3 and 4 with 

subdivisions are discussed as appropriate. This document only evaluates project effects in 

relation to the 2012 critical habitat ruling and supersedes, as appropriate, any previous analysis 

of critical habitat effects. More information on primary constituent elements is available in the 

Wildlife resource report, available on the project website.

Assumptions

• Roadside treatment in existing NSO habitat would result in degrading habitat; thus, habitat 

would remain functioning at the current habitat type after treatment.

• Roadside plus fuels treatment in existing NSO habitat would result in downgrading habitat;

thus, habitat would drop down one habitat type level. For example, an area of 

nesting/roosting habitat that receives a roadside and fuels treatment would result in this 

area becoming foraging habitat after treatment.

• Landing construction would result in the loss of habitat for the footprint of the landing.

Spatial and Temporal Bounds
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

254

The spatial bound for this analysis is the portion of the critical habitat unit that occurs within the 

project area. Temporal bounds would be the same as for the NSO.

Criteria for assessing NSO Critical Habitat analysis

The analysis estimates the number of critical habitat acres affected by each alternative. Given the 

types of treatment proposed for this project, we focus the reporting of effects on habitat as 

degraded, downgraded, or removed. Degraded means the effects on the habitat are minimal and 

the habitat remains functional at the same level prior to treatment. Downgraded means the 

habitat has been affected to the point where it would not continue to function at its initial level 

and it would drop down one level in habitat type. For example, foraging habitat receives 

treatments that results in removing canopy cover and structure to the point that the foraging 

habitat functions as dispersal habitat. Removed means the once-functional habitat is not habitat 

after treatment.

Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species

Bald Eagle

Analysis Indicator #1 – Level of Disturbance

Assumptions for eagle disturbance analysis

• All eagle nests have been found in the project area.

• Nesting eagles would respond to the same level of noise equally.

• Noise disturbance is a function of distance from the nest site.

• Roadside hazard and salvage treatment can remove potential future nest snags.

Spatial and Temporal Bounds

The spatial bound is the known eagle nests plus a 1,500-foot buffer. The temporal bound for the 

short-term is the time during implementation (about five years) during the reproductive period 

(January 1 to August 1) and long-term is 20 years.

Criteria for assessing eagle disturbance

The level of disturbance appears to be related to the distance from a nest site. Loud noises further 

from the nest site will have lower disturbance than the same noise closer to the nest. Disturbance 

is assessed as a distance from the known nest sites. Any treatment unit that overlaps the buffers 

presented below is given a level of disturbance.

Table 74: Criteria for eagle disturbance analysis indicator.

Level of Disturbance Distance from nest site

High Less than 1,000 feet of nest site

Moderate 1,000 to 1,500 feet of nest site

Low Greater than 1,500 feet of nest site

For this analysis, a high level of disturbance would likely result in an eagle pair abandoning the 

nest which is more likely a worst case scenario. Moderate level of disturbance would result in the 

adults leaving the nest for a short period of time and may result in delayed feeding of young or 

not incubating the egg(s). Low level of disturbance may result in the adult eagles displaying 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

255

behavior of acknowledging the human activity but the adults continue to incubate the egg(s) or 

feed offspring.

Analysis Indicator #2 – Risk to future nest trees for known eagle nest sites

Assumptions for risk to future nest trees for known nest sites

• All eagle nests have been located in the project area.

• All nesting habitat within the analysis area has equal distribution and quality of potential 

nest trees.

• Nest tree selection is contained within the analysis area (see below in spatial and temporal 

bounds section).

• Roadside hazard and salvage treatments remove the size class trees that may provide for 

future nest trees.

Criteria for assessing risk to future nest trees for known eagle nests

Eagles in the project area have nested in the same drainage for many years but these drainages 

typically contain only a few trees that meet the physical requirements for supporting a nest. Trees 

that meet the characteristics of potential future nest trees typically occur in dense mature forest 

or somewhat isolated individual trees.

Spatial and Temporal Bounds

The spatial bounds are nests within the project area plus 0.5 mile buffer and the area between the 

buffer and the Klamath and Scott rivers. This bounding provides an analysis area for each nest 

by encompassing the nest tree and the area likely to contain a future nest tree. The temporal 

bounds for the short-term is the time during implementation (about five years) and long term is 

20 years.

Table 75: Criteria for risk to future nest trees for known eagle nests analysis indicator.

Level of Risk Criteria

Low Less than 10 percent removal of nesting habitat

Moderate Greater than or equal to 10 to 25 percent removal of nesting habitat

High Greater than 25 percent removal of nesting habitat

A low level of risk would result in a distribution of potential nest trees likely providing ample 

opportunity for a new nest site. Moderate level of risk would result in fewer potential nest trees. 

High level of risk may result in the eagle not finding another nest tree within the near area of the 

current nest tree; thus, the eagles may need to move to another drainage to find a nest tree.

Northern Goshawk

Analysis Indicator #1 – Level of Disturbance

Goshawks generally exhibit a high level of vulnerability during the incubation stage. Therefore, 

the Forest Plan interim standards call for a noise disturbance buffer of 0.25 mile buffer around 

nest sites (page 4-29) and restriction of noise in this zone from March 1 to August 31 during the 

annual reproductive period.

Assumptions for goshawk disturbance analysis

• All goshawk territories have been located in the project area.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

256

• Nesting goshawk respond to the same level of noise equally.

• Noise disturbance is a function of distance from the nest site.

Spatial and Temporal Bounds

The spatial bound is a 0.25 buffer around known nest sites. The short-term temporal bound is the 

time including implementation (about five years). The long-term temporal bound is 20 years.

Criteria for assessing goshawk disturbance

For the purposes of this analysis, a low level of disturbance represents the range between no 

disturbance and a low level of disturbance. The level of disturbance appears to be related to the 

distance from a nest site. Loud noises further from the nest site should have lower disturbance 

than the same noise closer to the nest. Disturbance is assessed as a distance from the known nest 

sites. Any treatment unit that overlaps the buffers presented below are given a level of 

disturbance.

Table 76: Criteria for goshawk disturbance analysis indicator.

Level of Disturbance Distance from nest site

High Less than 500 feet of nest site

Moderate 500 feet to 0.25 mile of nest site

Low Greater than 0.25 mile of nest site

Low level of disturbance means that the nesting goshawk would likely not respond to the noise;

thus, the noise would likely not reduce the likelihood of the success of the nest. Moderate level 

of disturbance would likely result in one of the adults alarm calling and possibly fly toward the 

noise thus reducing the time spent foraging to feed the offspring or incubating egg(s). A high 

level of disturbance would likely result in both adults moving towards the disturbance and 

displaying aggressive behavior. High level of disturbance could result in the nest being 

abandoned.

Analysis Indicator #2 – Risk to reproduction

Assumptions for goshawk disturbance analysis

• Goshawk habitat that burned at high severity doesn’t contain the habitat attributes 

associated with goshawk nesting (e.g. dense tree canopy cover) or foraging habitat (e.g. 

understory for prey species habitat); thus, this area is classified as non-habitat.

• Level of risk categories presented below accurately represent the effects to goshawk 

nesting success.

Spatial and Temporal Bounds

The spatial bound for this analysis indicator is limited to known goshawk territories (one mile 

buffer) in the project area. The temporal bounds are the same as for goshawk level of 

disturbance.

Criteria for assessing the risk to goshawk reproduction

A small amount of habitat or a reduction in habitat quality can influence the success or the future 

occupancy of the goshawk nests. However, there is no minimum level of habitat to describe the 

point where a nest would no longer provide the necessary resources. The recommended habitat 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

257

quality and distribution in the Forest Plan provides estimates based on successful nests; however,

this doesn’t mean that territories with less habitat cannot produce offspring.

Table 77: Criteria for risk to goshawk reproduction analysis indicator.

Level of Risk Amount of habitat 

High Primary nest zone (0.5 mile radius around nest site)

Maintain 100 to 199 acres of nesting habitat with greater than or 

equal to 60 percent canopy cover

Maintain greater than equal to 204 acres of forested habitat with 

greater than or equal to 40 percent canopy cover and small openings

Foraging habitat zone (0.5 to 1.0 mile radius around nest side)

Maintain the 1,506 acres can be a mix of opening and forested age 

classes

Moderate Primary nest zone (0.5 mile radius around nest site)

Maintain 200 to 300 acres of nesting habitat with greater than or 

equal to 60 percent canopy cover

Maintain greater than or equal to 100 acres of forested habitat with 

greater than or equal to 40 percent canopy cover and small openings

Foraging habitat zone (0.5 to 1.0 mile radius around nest side)

Maintain greater than or equal to 750 acres of forested habitat with 

greater than or equal to 40 percent canopy cover

The remaining 756 acres can be a mix of opening and forested age 

classes

Low Primary nest zone (0.5 mile radius around nest site)

Maintain greater than or equal to 300 acres of nesting habitat with 

greater than or equal to 60 percent canopy cover

Maintain greater than or equal to 204 acres of forested habitat with 

greater than or equal to 40 percent canopy cover and small openings

Foraging habitat zone (0.5 to 1.0 mile radius around nest side)

Maintain greater than or equal to 900 acres of forested habitat with 

greater than or equal to 40 percent canopy cover

The remaining 606 acres can be a mix of opening and forested age 

classes

A high level of risk may result in a nesting pair of goshawks not finding enough resources to 

successfully produce offspring and contribute to the population. A moderate risk may provide 

enough habitat to raise offspring, but the pair may spend more time foraging for food which may 

still affect nests. A low level of risk should provide enough habitat and diversity of habitat to 

find sufficient resources to produce a successful nest.

Fisher, Marten, and Wolverine

Assumptions for fisher, marten, and wolverine habitat use

• Fisher, marten, and wolverines appear to use similar habitat characteristics but different 

preferences in elevation range and subsequent available plant species.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

258

Table 78: Habitat characteristics for fisher, marten, and wolverine habitat types.

Habitat type1 Habitat Characteristics

Denning/resting Greater than 50 percent canopy cover

Large live and dead trees

Large woody debris

Foraging Greater than or equal to 40 to 50 percent canopy cover

May lack denning trees

Movement Greater than or equal to 20 percent overhead cover regardless of tree size

1Habitat types are a nested hierarchal scheme with denning/resting habitat at the highest quality followed by foraging 

and movement. For example, movement can occur in denning/resting and foraging, but denning/resting activities are 

not expected to occur in movement habitat.

Analysis Indicator #1 - Habitat Connectivity

Assumptions for fisher, marten, and wolverine connectivity analysis

• Fisher, marten, and wolverine habitat is used as described above.

• Large openings (areas with no overhead cover) between habitat patches reduces habitat 

connectivity.

• Fisher, marten, and wolverine likely avoid crossing openings without snags and coarse 

woody debris greater than 600 feet in width.

• Fisher, marten, and wolverine likely avoid crossing openings without physical structure 

(e.g. trees, snags, or coarse woody debris) greater than 160 feet in width.

• Pre-fire denning/resting and foraging habitat that burned at moderate and high severity 

(greater than 50 percent basal area loss) becomes movement habitat for the purposes of this 

analysis.

• Movement habitat that burned at moderate and high severity (greater than 50 percent basal 

area loss) is considered non-habitat.

Spatial and Temporal Bounds

The spatial bound is the 7th field watersheds that overlap any proposed actions. Depending on the 

sex, the fisher’s average home range is 4.7 to 36 square miles, the marten’s home range is 1 to 6 

square miles, and the wolverine’s home range is 38 to 347 square miles with the closest located 

study to the project area reporting an average of 130 square miles (Ruggiero et al. 1994). The 7th

field watersheds in the analysis area range in size from 3.3 to 16.7 square miles. The 7th field size 

overlaps the range of fisher and marten home range but it doesn’t match well with wolverine. 

Wolverines occupy high elevation habitat but need to move through lower elevations to reach 

other patches of high elevation habitat; most of the project area is below the elevation needed to 

make up the home range. Therefore, the smaller scale analysis would capture the effects to 

wolverine movements mostly outside the home range for the wolverine.

The short-term temporal bound is the time during implementation (about five years). The longterm is greater than 20 years to represent the time when the snags would begin to fall over.

Criteria for assessing fisher, marten, and wolverine connectivity 

Since the fisher, marten, and wolverine have an overlap in general habitat use, one habitat layer 

is used for this analysis. In addition, the fisher and marten appear to be similarly vulnerable to 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

259

predation; thus, the analysis incorporates distances of opening crossed by fisher and marten as 

reported (Heinemeyer 2002). The amount of denning/resting, foraging and movement habitat is 

assessed for connectivity, but these acres of habitat is interpreted by splitting the size of the 

openings into four categories based on the criteria below. Connectivity is a relative measure 

based on current conditions; for example, a 7th field watershed with a low level of connectivity 

prior to the project would remain at a low level unless the project results in reducing the 

connectivity to the very low level of connectivity.

Table 79: Criteria for fisher, marten, and wolverine connectivity analysis.

Connectivity Criteria

High Average distance between habitat patches is less than 160 feet within 7th field 

watershed

Moderate Average distance between habitat patches is 160 to 460 feet within 7th field watershed

Low Average distance between habitat patches is 460 to 600 feet within 7th field watershed

Very Low Average distance between habitat patches is greater than 600 feet within 7th field 

watershed

The four habitat connectivity categories represent a relative change in habitat conditions from the 

existing conditions. High habitat connectivity means that there is abundant amount of cover for 

fisher, marten, and wolverine to move within the 7th field watershed with few to no large 

openings. Moderate connectivity provides some challenge moving in the 7th field because there 

are larger openings; these create increasing risk to mortality and extra expense of energy to 

deviate around large openings. Low connectivity presents even more of a challenge because 

these species would likely need to shift to a territory with more contiguous placement of habitat. 

The final category, very low, represents a situation where the openings exceed the distance that 

fisher or marten is likely to traverse, likely resulting in the fisher, marten, or wolverine having a 

high level of difficulty in moving through the 7th field watershed.

Analysis indicator #2 – Change in Fisher Home Range

Assumptions for fisher home range analysis

• The average home range size of a female fisher is about 5,000 acres and the watershed 

represents a home range;

• Home ranges must contain habitat characteristics as described in the table below;

• All pre-fire habitat that received moderate fire severity (greater than 50 percent basal loss) 

would reduce in habitat quality:

• Pre-fire denning/resting and foraging habitat would become movement habitat;

• Pre-fire movement habitat would become non-habitat.

Spatial and temporal bounds

The spatial bound is the 7th field watersheds that intersect any proposed actions. The size of a 7th

field watershed fits within the home range of a female fisher and is a natural division in the 

landscape. Temporal bounds are the same as for habitat connectivity.

Criteria for assessing change to fisher home range
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

260

The desired condition is to maintain all the potential female fisher home ranges in the project 

area. Several potential fisher home ranges have been affected by fire resulting in a reduction in 

amount and distribution of fisher denning/resting and foraging habitat and the project may 

further reduce the amount of habitat. For fisher home ranges with a high risk, the amount of 

habitat is likely less than ideal and consequently, a fisher in a high risk home range may have 

more challenges to find sufficient resources. Low risk means that the fisher home range likely 

has sufficient amounts of habitat to meet the needs of a female fisher.

Table 80: Criteria for fisher home range.

Female fisher home range Proportion of habitat within 7th field watershed

Low risk to home range Each watershed contains

At least 50 percent of the watershed contains denning/resting and 

foraging habitat, AND

Up to 50 percent of the watershed contains movement habitat and 

fire-affected habitat, AND

No more than 20 percent of the watershed contains non-habitat 

(less than 20 percent canopy cover).

High risk to home range Each watershed contains:

Less than 50 percent of the watershed contain denning/resting or 

foraging habitat, OR

Greater than 20 percent of the watershed contain less than 20 

percent canopy cover (except fire-affected denning/resting and 

foraging habitat which is combined with movement habitat)

Pallid Bat, Townsend’s Big-eared Bat, and Fringed Myotis

Analysis Indicator #1 – Risk of Disturbance

Assumptions for pallid bat, fringed myotis, and Townsend’s big-eared bat disturbance analysis

• All the areas that may produce caves and cave-like structures that may contain hibernacula 

and maternity sites have been identified for the analysis.

• Fringed myotis, pallid bat and Townsend’s big-eared bat are equally negatively affected by 

disturbance.

Spatial and temporal bounds

The spatial bound for these bat species is 0.25 mile around all potential hibernacula and 

maternities within the project area. The temporal bounds is about five years for the short-term 

and greater than 20 years for the long-term.

Criteria for assessing disturbance to bat hibernaculum or maternity

This analysis evaluates the activities proposed to occur within the given buffer distances that 

would create prolonged noise. The acres of activity occurring within each buffer will be 

displayed.

Table 81: Risk of disturbance to bat hibernaculum or maternity.

Risk of Disturbance Buffer and disturbance

High Prolonged activities within less than 250 feet of potential hibernacula or 

maternity site
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

261

Risk of Disturbance Buffer and disturbance

Moderate Prolonged activities within 250 to 1,320 feet of potential hibernacula or 

maternity site

Low Prolonged activities within greater than 1,320 feet of potential hibernacula or 

maternity site

High risk of disturbance could reach a level of disturbance that may result in a maternity being 

abandoned with the fate of the offspring likely dependent on their age, if present. High 

disturbance of hibernaculum would likely result in all bat ages leaving the warmth of the cave to 

the colder outside that could result in bat death, if present. Moderate risk of disturbance is not 

likely to affect the maternity or hibernaculum but may disturb individuals coming and going 

from the cave (excluding the winter months). Low risk of disturbance would be potentially 

disturbing very few individuals from a foraging area but not likely to disturba hibernaculum or 

maternity.

Willow Flycatcher

Analysis Indicator #1 – Habitat alteration

Research that links the effect of habitat alteration on population viability of willow flycatcher is 

rare; however, it can be assumed that the loss of nesting habitat translates into less area for 

possible reproduction. Research has connected the average size of a territory, important habitat 

components, and susceptibility to disturbance (Eckhardt 1979, Sanders and Flett 1989, Whitfield 

et al. 1997). For most projects, it is difficult to translate the number of territories actually 

affected by the proposed activities, but it can be assumed based on the average size of territories 

that even one acre of riparian habitat could affect willow flycatchers. Therefore, small changes in 

habitat associated with reproduction could have measurable effects on the willow flycatcher, if 

present.

Assumptions for willow flycatcher habitat alteration analysis

• High severity fire-affected riparian habitat is considered non-habitat.

• Vegetation management outside riparian reserves or wet meadows would not affect habitat 

quality.

• The proportion of habitat removed is proportional to the level of population effects.

• Flycatchers are associated with 3rd order streams and greater, springs, and headwaters that 

contain willows.

• Salvage harvest would not occur in riparian reserves.

• Plantations are unlikely to contain flycatcher habitat.

• Hazard tree removal may occur in riparian reserves, but would not remove flycatcher 

habitat.

• For cumulative effects:

o Forest projects would retain willow/alder vegetation in riparian reserves and wet 

meadows because of project design features.

o Non-Forest Service projects are not subject to the same restrictions as the Forest thus it 

is assumed that these projects may remove willow/alder in the projected riparian 

reserve buffers.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

262

Spatial and temporal bounds

The spatial bound is defined by drainages in the project area that contain riparian reserves in 3rd

order streams or greater using resident fish distribution as a proxy within the project area plus 

wet meadows. The temporal bound in the short-term is about five years and long-term is 20 

years.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

263

Criteria for assessing willow flycatcher habitat alteration

This analysis estimates the amount of habitat disturbed in riparian reserves or wet meadows by 

the proposed activities; the level of effect is presented in acres and in proportion of habitat 

affected based on the 7th field scale.

Table 82: Level of habitat alteration for willow flycatcher habitat.

Level of Habitat Alteration Estimated proportion of habitat affected in 7th field watershed

High Greater than 10 percent of the habitat disturbed

Moderate 5 to 10 percent of the habitat disturbed

Low Less than 5 percent of the habitat disturbed

High level of habitat alteration would likely affect flycatcher reproduction given the patchy 

distribution of habitat. Moderate level would likely affect a small number of territories but may 

have localized effects on the population. Low of habitat alteration may still affect individuals but 

the population would likely not be affected.

Great Gray Owl

Analysis Indicator #1 – Habitat alteration

The effect of habitat alteration on population viability is rare, but it can be assumed that the loss 

of nesting habitat or nest trees would likely result in presenting less opportunity for great gray 

owls to find a nest site. There are no recorded nest sites in the project area nor on the Klamath 

National Forest, but using the habitat characteristics described in the research nesting habitat 

may exist on the higher elevation portion of the project area. This high elevation area has several 

open meadows and patches of larger red-fir.

Assumptions for great gray owl nesting habitat alteration analysis

• Moderate and high severity fire would result in reducing canopy cover below nesting 

habitat levels; and

• Nesting habitat is generally larger mixed conifer forest that provides dense canopy cover 

(greater than 60 percent) and occurs within 0.2 mile of a meadow greater than five acres in 

size.

Spatial and temporal bounds

The spatial bound is defined by the meadows within the project area plus 0.2-mile buffers. The 

temporal bound in the short-term is about five years and long-term is 20 years.

Criteria for assessing nesting habitat alteration

The desired condition is to retain patches of large trees that are adjacent to open meadows for 

foraging. This analysis estimates the amount of nesting habitat disturbed by the proposed actions 

and the level of effect is presented in acres and in proportion of habitat affected.

Siskiyou Mountain Salamander

Analysis Indicator #1 – Habitat alteration

The Siskiyou Mountain salamander range overlaps the project area. Portions of the project area 

have been surveyed prior years for the species as part of a strategic survey effort that targeted 

areas that were more likely to contain the species or project level surveys. Surveys have 

identified a few sites in the project area. However, many of these known sites have been affected 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

264

by fire. Treatment is proposed in areas that burned at high severity and have lost most or all the 

canopy cover. Even though canopy cover is likely a critical component for Siskiyou Mountain 

salamander habitat, this analysis assumes that known sites are likely occupied and would be 

protected along with any additional sites located in the project.

Assumptions for Siskiyou Mountain salamander habitat alteration analysis

• Salamanders site are likely occupied despite the effects of the fire;

• Surveys have identified all occupied habitat.

Spatial and temporal bounds

The spatial bound is the project area. The temporal bound in the short-term is the time during 

implementation about five years. The long-term is greater than 20 years.

Criteria for assessing Siskiyou Mountain salamander habitat alteration

This analysis uses prior survey data to identify known site locations and estimate the level of 

ground disturbance to known sites based on the treatments for each alternative. The amount of 

disturbance would equate to a risk level. Since this species doesn’t move far, we would buffer 

each known location by 130 feet to represent a maximum distance a salamander might move.

Table 83: Level of Risk to Siskiyou Mountain salamander habitat.

Level of Risk Proportion of known sites

High Greater than 25 percent of known sites disturbed by proposed 

activities

Moderate 20 to 25 percent of known sites disturbed by proposed activities

Low Less than 20 percent of known sites disturbed by proposed 

activities

A high proportion (greater than 25 percent) of known sites affected by equipment or associated 

activities may result in greatly affecting the population. The moderate level may present effects 

to localized areas and would still affect the population but a lower magnitude. Low risk would 

still affect individuals but it would likely not affect the population.

Tehama Chaparral Snail

Analysis Indicator #1 – Likelihood of Dispersal

Tehama chaparral snails appear to be most susceptible to a loss of canopy cover, reduction of 

woody debris, and talus compaction. Most of the proposed activities in this project would occur 

in high severity fire-affected forest which has little to no live canopy remaining. These high fire 

severity affected areas would likely not support snail populations and these snails would likely 

disperse to less affected habitat. Given the circumstances of the fire-affected habitat and criteria 

set for harvest of dead and dying trees, woody debris is an appropriate and necessary structure 

for aiding dispersing snails.

Assumptions for Tehama chaparral snail dispersal analysis

• Species occurs in talus within hardwood/conifer mixed forest.

• Woody debris (greater than or equal to 12 inches diameter) would help snails within fireaffected habitat disperse to favorable habitat.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

265

• Both snags (standing dead trees) and down wood would be counted in the criteria based on 

modeled results.

• Pre-fire habitat that burned at high severity (75 to 100 percent basal area loss) is considered 

non-habitat.

Spatial and Temporal scale

Spatial scale is the extent of talus. The temporal scale is about five years the time for 

implementation. Long-term is greater than 20 years.

Criteria for assessing Tehama chaparral snail habitat alteration

This analysis uses pre-fire GIS habitat layer and known sites where snails have been located to 

identify treatment units that may contain snails. The amount of woody debris would equate to the 

likelihood of snails being able to disperse. The available research doesn’t provide a specific level 

of woody debris that would provide high likelihood of dispersal. However, given the length of 

12-inch diameter trees (assumed to be 60 feet) and the width of a square acre (208 feet), seven 

logs laid end to end would cross a square acre twice (420 feet).

Table 84: Likelihood of dispersal for Tehama chaparral snail.

Likelihood of Dispersal Greater than or equal to 12 inch diameter logs per acre

High Greater than 7 logs per acre

Moderate 5 to 7 logs per acre

Low Less than 5 logs per acre

High likelihood of dispersal means that there would be a sufficient amount of woody debris to 

provide cover and moist conditions for snails to move from one location to another. Moderate 

likelihood of dispersal would provide enough woody debris for snails to move through part of 

the area, but would likely present open areas that would impede their movement or lower 

survival. Low likelihood of dispersal would provide little continuous cover thus would lower 

survival of individuals possibly to the point of severing connectivity between populations of 

snails.

Western Bumble Bee

Analysis Indicator #1 - Habitat disturbance

The western bumble bee is sensitive to habitat disturbance. In the project area, high quality bee 

habitat is likely to occur in the meadows where several species of flowering plants occur. The 

meadows also likely offer higher density of plants to provide additional structure and small 

animal burrows. Heavy equipment and tree harvest are the most likely source of ground 

disturbance in this project.

Assumptions for bumble bee habitat disturbance analysis

• Bumble bee nest sites and overwinter sites only occur in meadows with a density of one 

colony per 2,070 feet radius.

• Disturbance outside the meadows would not influence the success of a bee colony or 

overwinter site.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

266

• The acres of meadow disturbance represent the level of potential disturbance to a bee 

colony resulting from ground disturbance even though we don’t know the location of the 

colonies or if any colonies exist in the meadows within the project area.

Spatial and Temporal scale

The spatial bound is the meadows contained within the project area. The temporal bound in the 

short-term is about five years (during the period when implementation is expected to occur) and 

long-term is 20 years.

Criteria for assessing western bumble bee habitat disturbance

Disturbance can occur from many different sources; many of the sources of disturbance would 

not result in the loss of a nest site but disturbance may result in the bees unnecessarily expending 

energy to respond to the disturbance. However, disturbance can result in the loss of a nest, 

especially if the nest is above the ground within treatment units. The project area has not been 

thoroughly surveyed for bumble bees and it isn’t practical to do so. Therefore, the analysis uses 

the amount of area affected by treatment in areas most likely to contain a colony to assess the 

level of effects to bumble bees.

Table 85: Level of disturbance for western bumble bee

Level of Disturbance Acres of meadow habitat disturbed per 7th field watershed

High Greater than equal to 5 acres

Moderate 1 to 4 acres

Low Less than 1 acre

The actual location and distribution of bumble bee colonies is not known. This analysis is 

assuming that each meadow could contain a colony. Treatment that occurs in five or more acres 

of meadow habitat within a given watershed has a high level of disturbance that would result in 

affecting at least one bee colony where reproduction would be compromised. Moderate level of 

disturbance would result in removing flowering plants through operations disturbance of the 

vegetation or preventing bees using an area because of human activities. This would result in 

bees traveling further to find food resources, if a colony is present within close proximity of the 

treatment. A low level of disturbance would be an interruption of bee activities lasting a few 

hours.

Management Indicator Species

Snag and Hardwood Habitat Associations

Analysis Indicator #1 – Level of snag or hardwood habitat change

Reduction in habitat can affect the number and distribution of the snag or hardwood associated 

species. This analysis estimates the change in snag and hardwood habitat within the analysis 

area.

Assumptions for snag or hardwood habitat change analysis

• For the species within the hardwood species association, high fire severity removed 

hardwood habitat and these areas would not provide habitat for the western gray squirrel 

and acorn woodpecker.

• Roadside hazard and salvage treatment would degrade snag associated species habitat.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

267

• Cumulative effects of projects considered for this analysis on lands not managed by the 

Forest are considered a removal of snag and hardwood habitat.

• Cumulative effects of projects occurring on Forest Service land considered for this analysis 

are considered to degrade habitat.

Criteria for assessing snag or hardwood habitat change

The MIS habitat distribution measurement is based on the California Wildlife Habitat 

Relationship system. Spatial ecological and vegetation layers were created using remote sensing 

imagery; the accuracy of this data was confirmed using aerial photos and on-the-ground 

verification. Overlaying treatment prescriptions for a defined treatment unit with the defined 

habitat resulted in estimating the acres of habitat affected by the treatment and the levels of 

effects to the habitat.

Survey and Manage Species

Analysis Indicator #1 – Level of site disturbance

The survey and manage species in this analysis appear to be affected by changes in the microsite 

conditions that may result from changes in vegetation due to land management or wildfire. Each 

alternative was evaluated in terms of how it would meet the requirements of the species-specific 

management recommendations, if known sites are present, and how the project would be 

consistent with the 2001 Record of Decision (USDA 2001a) and the 2001, 2002, and 2003 

Annual Species Review. The indicator for this analysis is consistency with the survey and 

manage standards and guides, as amended.

Assumptions for analysis

• Areas that burned at moderate and high fire severity resulted in eliminating tree canopy 

cover and understory vegetation. These areas also had much of the ground litter component 

consumed by the fire.

• Areas that burned at low fire severity reduced the amount of understory vegetation and 

ground litter, but the overstory tree canopy is similar to the pre-fire conditions.

• Siskiyou Mountain salamander sites are likely to persist despite fire severity.

• All known locations for these survey and manage species were captured in the CNDDB 

and NRIS.

Spatial and Temporal Bounding of Analysis Area

For all action alternatives, the spatial bounds for analysis are limited to the known sites that may 

be directly or indirectly affected by the project.

The short-term temporal bound for analysis is limited to the expected period of time for 

implementation, which is about five years. Long-term effects is analyzed for 20 years.

Criteria for assessing site disturbance

Disturbance can result from several different sources during implementation of the project. This 

analysis determines whether the project would result in causing significant negative impact on 

the species habitat or the persistence of the species in the project area.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

268

Migratory Bird Species

Analysis Indicator #1 – Consistency with the Migratory Bird Act Memorandum of 

Understanding

The purpose of this section is to demonstrate the compliance of this project with the 

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the USDA Forest Service and the USDI Fish 

and Wildlife Service to Promote the Conservation of Migratory Bird (2008). Therefore, the 

analysis indicator for this report is ensuring compliance with the MOU is obtained and, if not, 

what mitigations are developed in cooperation with USDI Fish and Wildlife Service for the 

project to ensure the conservation of migratory birds as explained in the MOU.

Spatial and Temporal Bounding of Analysis Area

The spatial and temporal bounds for this analysis are dependent of the bird species being 

analyzed primarily because of the variation between species. Generally, the spatial analysis area 

covers at least the project area using naturally occurring features such as watersheds to describe 

the spatial bounds. The temporal bounds generally includes the time of implementation as the 

short term while the long term may include the time needed for habitat to regenerate.

Affected Environment

Threatened, Endangered, or Proposed under Endangered Species Act

Northern Spotted Owl

There are twenty two NSO activity centers that may be affected by the project actions. The 

survey effort in the project area has varied over the past two decades but all of the activity 

centers have been surveyed at least one year since 2008 except upper Buckhorn. Given the 

survey data, thirteen of these twenty two activity centers have been active at least one year over 

the past 10 years. There are a few activity centers that have not been active in recent years but 

there have been NSO detections in close proximity and within the same drainage as these nonactive sites; this may suggest that the owls have moved from one location to a nearby location.

The analysis area is about 65,000 acres in size; the analysis area contains about 7,800 acres of 

nesting/roosting, 12,750 acres of foraging, and 12,000 acres of dispersal habitat after the Gap 

Fire. The analysis area is larger than the project area because it represents a more biologically 

relevant scale for NSO. In addition to NSO habitat (nesting, roosting, foraging, and dispersal), 

there are about 2,900 acres of post-fire foraging area. The remaining half of the analysis area 

(about 29,550 acres) represents the other types of vegetation (e.g., oak woodland or young 

conifer forest) that don’t NSO habitat.

Analysis Indicator #1 – Risk to Reproduction

Based on remaining habitat in known cores and home ranges, two activity centers are in the 

“high” risk level because they have very little habitat remaining in the core or home range. These

activity centers have less than 550 acres of nesting/roosting, foraging, post-fire foraging

combined within the entire home range. They experienced a large amount of disturbance over the 

past few decades including the recent Gap and Beaver fires. Given the low level of habitat and 

the distribution of the remaining habitat, these activity centers are far less likely to contain 

sufficient habitat to support reproduction when compared to the sites that contain high level of 

habitat (i.e., have a very low risk level). The majority of the activity centers are within the 

moderate risk level which represents the activity centers that could support reproduction but,
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

269

given the low level of habitat, these activity centers likely need all their remaining habitat. The 

nine activity centers that are in the low and very low risk category are likely very similar in the 

capability to provide sufficient habitat to support reproduction.

Table 86: The level of risk to NSO reproduction given the current condition of the core and home range for 

known activity centers.

Risk to Reproduction Number of NSO Core/Home Range

Very Low 2

Low 7

Moderate 11

High 2

Analysis Indicator #2 - Change in NSO Critical Habitat

The analysis area overlaps two NSO critical habitat subunits: Klamath East 6 and 7 as shown on 

the following table.

Table 87: Current number of NSO Critical Habitat acres for Analysis Indicator 2.

Critical 

Habitat 

Subunit

Critical Habitat area in 

Analysis Area (acre)

NSO habitat types Post-Fire 

Foraging 

(acre)

Nesting/roosting 

(acre)

Foraging 

(acre)

Dispersal 

(acre)

KLE6 14,364 4,330 3,813 1,836 682

KLE7 3,544 976 552 684 432

Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species

Bald Eagle

Analysis Indicator #1 – Level of Disturbance to Nest Sites

The eagle nest in the project area is located along highway 96 in the southern portion of the 

project area. Although we don’t know for certain, the current level of noise within 0.25 mile of 

the nest is likely more related to noise from vehicle traffic along the highway which likely varies 

in the amount noise produced depending on the type of vehicle and level of traffic. Commercial 

trucks that use an engine or exhaust break may create some of the more frequent, louder noise. 

This noise likely has little to no effect on the eagles because the birds are likely accustomed to 

the noise.

Analysis Indicator #2 – Risk to Future Potential Nest Trees

The Gap Fire did burn within 0.5 mile of the nest but this fire did not burn into the area of the 

nest tree. The nest area (0.5-mile radius around the nest site) contains about 322 acres of trees 

large enough to support a future nest tree (analysis indicator one) if a tree presented the desired 

characteristics.

Northern Goshawk

Analysis Indicator #1 – Level of Disturbance at the Nest Site

The most likely source of disturbance to the goshawk nests is vehicle traffic along roadways. The 

roads that occur near (0.25 mile) these nest sites are likely driven occasionally by noncommercial vehicles. Although we don’t know for certain, these nest sites likely experience 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

270

infrequent vehicles and very few load noises given the proximity to houses and roads and 

maintenance level of the roads.

Analysis Indicator #2 – Risk to Reproduction

There are seven goshawk territories within the project area. All seven territories were affected by 

the Gap Fire at varying levels, but none of these territories overlap the Beaver Fire perimeter – a 

wildfire that occurred in 2014. Middle Creek and Hamburg Gulch territories had about 240 acres 

of nesting and foraging habitat burned in each territory at moderate and high fire severity. Each 

of the other five territories experienced less than 60 acres of nesting and foraging habitat burned 

at moderate or high fire severity. Given the changes to the habitat, only one of the seven 

territories meet the Forest Plan standard and guideline (page 4-29) habitat minimums; this 

territory is mostly outside the Gap fire perimeter and received only small changes in habitat 

abundance due to the fire.

Fisher, Marten, and Wolverine

Analysis Indicator #1 – Habitat Connectivity

The current habitat connectivity for the seventeen watersheds analyzed for this project is not 

within the desired condition of high habitat connectivity. These watersheds have many small 

openings that appear to be naturally occurring as meadows or areas that are barren of vegetation 

while there are several other openings likely created by wildfires and land management. All of 

these openings contribute to lower levels of habitat connectivity for this analysis. Given the 

existing openings in the seventeen watersheds, there are four watersheds with very low or low 

level of habitat connectivity and eight watersheds with a moderate level of habitat connectivity. 

The four watersheds with very low or low habitat connectivity are expected to present fisher, 

marten, or wolverine with larger openings to cross on average which may result in individuals

expending more energy to go around openings as they travel across the watershed when 

compared to the other eight watersheds with moderate habitat connectivity.

Analysis Indicator #2 – Fisher Home Range

Seventeen watersheds were analyzed for this project and only two watersheds (East Fork Horse 

Creek and Middle Horse Creek) contained enough habitat to meet the home range criteria. The 

remaining thirteen watersheds didn’t have enough denning/resting and foraging habitats to meet 

the criteria for a fisher home range.

Townsend’s bat, Pallid bat, and Fringed Myotis

Analysis Indicator 1 – Risk of Disturbance

The project area contains no known bat hibernaculum or maternity roost sites but there is one 

record of a roost site along the Klamath River. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife 

database has one record of a Townsend’s big-eared bat along the edge of the project area but 

there are no records for the fringed myotis or pallid bat in the project area. However, these bat 

species may use open buildings, bridges, mines, or caves. There are a few bridges in the project 

area that may provide the structure for a bat roost, but besides the one record, no bats have been 

recorded in the area of these bridges. The project area contains a few non-active mines with 

varying amounts of collapse, but these mines may have enough space for a bat roost. There a few 

possible caves in the project area that provide an opening for a bat roost, but these caves likely 

don’t provide the micro-climate conditions that are associated with known bat roost sites. 

Although the occurrence of a bat hibernaculum or maternity roost is unlikely to occur in the 

project area, caves and cave-like structures provide the opportunity for bat use. In the analysis 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

271

area, there are 10 sites identified containing a cave, mine, or the potential to contain either of 

these structures.

Willow Flycatcher

Analysis Indicator #1 – Level of habitat alteration

The distribution and amount of willow flycatcher reproduction is not well known on the Forest 

but reproduction is possible given the habitat in riparian reserves and meadows. Although some

riparian habitat was burned at high severity by the Gap Fire, many of the waterways have 

relatively mild fire effects. Observations of the drainages that received a greater amount of high 

severity fire indicated that they generally had patches of willow habitat consumed by the fire 

while other areas that were lightly fire affected; the affects to the willows varied. The effects of 

the Gap Fire on potential willow flycatcher habitat is mixed and patchy in most areas while 

completely removing habitat in a few areas.

Siskiyou Mountain Salamander

Analysis Indicator #1 – Risk to Habitat Disturbance

The Siskiyou Mountain salamander has a narrow species range and the project area occurs in the 

eastern part of the range. There are six known sites within the project area. Four of the six sites 

have experienced high and moderate fire severity fire from the Gap Fire which resulted in 

removing all or most of the tree canopy cover. Since occupied salamander sites are associated 

with dense conifer canopy cover that creates cool, moist conditions, the changes to tree canopy 

cover would likely create conditions at the sites that are hotter and drier. The change in 

temperature and moisture would likely make conditions more difficult for the salamanders to 

persist, but any vegetation and large woody debris may offset these conditions. Despite the 

changes in vegetation, these sites are likely to be still occupied.

Tehama Chaparral Snail

Analysis Indicator #1 – Risk of Habitat Disturbance

The Tehama chaparral snail is not common on the Forest but has been found in talus habitat with 

conifer or hardwood tree canopy cover. There is one known site inside the Gap Fire perimeter. 

Generally, known sites are located close to riparian areas. The area outside the riparian areas can 

be much drier and the riparian areas are likely important for this species. Given the burn severity 

of the Gap Fire and this species’ possible association with riparian habitat, there may be pockets 

of remaining high quality habitat.

Western Bumble Bee

Analysis Indicator #1 - Habitat disturbance

In the project area, high quality bee habitat is likely to occur in the meadows where several 

species of flowering plants occur. The meadows also offer higher density of plants to provide 

additional structure and small animal burrows.

Survey and Manage Species

Analysis Indicator #1 – Level of site disturbance

An amendment to the Northwest Forest Plan included a list of survey and manage species 

associated with late-successional habitat for which a level of protection is provided (USDA 

USDI 2001a). Since the time of this amendment, new information has shown many of these 

survey and manage species (mollusk and salamander species) occur in areas outside of late-
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

272

successional forest, probably because other habitats can provide similar micro-site conditions. 

None of the survey and manage species on the Forest are associated with high-severity burned 

forest. Prior to the Gap fire, a small portion of the moderate and high severity burned area in the 

project area likely provided survey and manage habitat However, without canopy cover, 

decaying large coarse woody debris, and leaf litter to provide micro-site conditions, habitat 

conditions are not favorable for these species.

The habitat affected by moderate and high severity fire is not likely to provide the needed microsite conditions for these species given the lack of canopy cover and understory vegetation; 

therefore, habitat for the Trinity shoulderband is not located in these areas. High severity fire 

typically kills all the trees and consumes most of the small vegetation resulting in no canopy 

cover, few charred pieces of woody debris, and many snags, creating a hotter, dryer condition 

that is not conducive habitat for mollusk or salamander species. Moderate severity fire-affected 

habitat may provide some canopy cover but most or all the understory and litter and duff has 

been consumed by the fire, thus creating unfavorable habitat conditions.

For the talus associated species, like the Siskiyou Mountain salamander, Tehama chaparral snail, 

and Siskiyou sideband, the effects from the moderate and high fire severity might be less than for 

the species that are more closely associated with vegetation conditions. The Siskiyou Mountain 

salamander can move deep into the talus during a fire event and may avoid direct mortality. The 

salamander can likely use the talus to maintain microsite conditions even though the vegetation 

cover may be very low. The Tehama chaparral snail and Siskiyou sideband may receive some 

protection from the talus during a fire event but these species are not likely to move deeper into 

the talus like a salamander to avoid the direct effects of a fire.

The Tehama chaparral snail and Siskiyou sideband snail may survive a wildfire if individuals 

were within the talus at the time of the fire and the severity and intensity of the fire was low. 

These two species are not known to use the talus like the Siskiyou Mountain salamander which 

moves through the talus profile. These snails live at or very near the surface of the ground and

are more dependent on vegetation conditions to provide the microsite conditions needed to 

survive. Areas that burned at moderate and high severity are not likely to provide much, if any, 

cover, and the ground litter was likely consumed by the Gap Fire.

The Trinity shoulderband, Klamath sideband, hooded lancetooth, yellow-based sideband, or 

great gray owl have not been detected within the project area although some habitat exists for 

these species.

Migratory Birds

Analysis Indicator #1 – Consistency with the Migratory Bird Act MOU

The project area provides a diversity of habitat for migratory birds but much of the habitat in the 

project area has been affected by fire. The Gap Fire resulted in burning habitat for some species 

(e.g. willow flycatcher, bald eagle, acorn woodpecker, and northern spotted owl) at moderate and 

high fire severity while creating abundant habitat for others (e.g., snag associated species). The 

bird species that are most likely affected by the Gap and Beaver fires are associated with latesuccessional conifer forest habitat; these species had relatively few patches of habitat that burned 

at moderate and high fire severity that resulted in most, if not all, trees dying. 

Even though the Gap Fire removed forested habitat, the fire also provided some benefits. Early 

serial associated species and snag associated species now have hundreds of additional acres of 

habitat. The snag associated species like the black-backed woodpecker typically focus on dense 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

273

conifer forest that received high severity fire while other snag associated species like the downy 

woodpecker may benefit from the less severely fire-affected forest habitat.

Summary of Habitat and Species Analyzed

Species that are threatened, endangered, or proposed for federal listing, sensitive, or survey and 

manage are listed in the table below. These species are identified because the species was 

detected within or near the project area and the project area contains their habitat.

Table 88: Threatened, endangered, or proposed ESA species, sensitive species, and survey and manage 

species in that likely occur within the project area, based on known occurrences or presence of suitable 

habitat.

Species Status General Habitat 

Description

Known to Occur in 

Analysis Area? Occurrence

Northern 

spotted owl

Federally 

listed 

threatened 

under ESA

Nests in complex forested 

habitats with multilayered canopies, large 

overstory trees, snags, 

and downed wood

22 known or 

suspected territories 

and 2012 designated 

critical habitat

Known to occur 

in analysis area

Siskiyou 

Mountain 

salamander

Forest Service 

sensitive and 

survey and 

manage

Strongly associated with 

talus and rock slopes 

typically on north aspect 

slopes

Six known sites but 

species could occur in 

other areas based on 

available habitat

Known to occur 

in analysis area

Willow 

flycatcher

Forest Service 

sensitive

Associated with dense 

thickets of willows 

commonly nears water 

source

Known locations along 

lower reach of Horse 

Creek but species 

could occur in other 

areas based on 

available habitat

Known to occur 

in analysis area

Bald eagle Forest Service 

sensitive

Nests in conifer forests 

containing old-growth 

components typically 

within one mile of water

One known nest site 

plus individuals have 

been observed 

roosting and foraging 

along the Klamath 

River

Known to occur 

in analysis area

Northern 

goshawk

Forest Service 

sensitive

Nests in dense, midmature and late 

successional conifer 

forests

Seven known 

territories

Known to occur 

in analysis area

Great gray 

owl

Forest Service 

sensitive

Typically found in close 

proximity to montane 

meadows and wet 

meadows. Nests in red fir 

and mixed conifer using 

other species’ nests or 

broken tops

No known locations; 

habitat does exist in 

the northern most 

portion of the project

No detections, 

but could occur 

in analysis area

Wolverine Forest Service 

sensitive and 

Federally 

proposed 

threatened

Use meadows, forests, 

riparian habitats and 

montane chaparral; 

mature, structurally 

complex high elevation 

conifer and mixed coniferhardwood forests

No known locations, 

but species could 

occur based on 

available habitat

No detections, 

but could occur 

in analysis area
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

274

Species Status General Habitat 

Description

Known to Occur in 

Analysis Area? Occurrence

Fisher Forest Service 

sensitive

Mature, structurally 

complex conifer and 

mixed conifer-hardwood 

forests; require multiple 

rest sites that are often 

tree cavities, 

squirrel/raptor nests, 

mistletoe platforms or 

brush piles

Greater than 10 

known observations; 

species assumed 

present due to 

availability of suitable 

denning/resting/foragi

ng habitat

Known to occur 

in analysis area

Pacific 

marten 

Forest Service 

sensitive

High-elevation true fir 

stands; use large logs, 

snags and live trees for 

denning/resting

No known locations; 

small amount of 

habitat present in the 

Project Area

No detections, 

but could occur 

in analysis area

Pallid Bat Forest Service 

sensitive

Utilizes a variety of arid 

and or wooded habitats 

often in association with 

caves for roosting; will 

use caves, large trees, 

mines, buildings and 

bridges for roosting

No known locations, 

but occurrence is likely 

based on available 

snag habitat; large 

rocky outcrops, a few 

caves or mines are 

within the project

No detections, 

but likely occur 

in analysis area

Townsend’s 

big-eared bat

Forest Service 

sensitive

Variety of wooded habitat 

often in association with 

caves for roosting; will 

use caves, large trees, 

mines, buildings and 

bridges for roosting

One known locations, 

but occurrence is likely 

based on available 

snag habitat; a few 

caves or mines are 

within the project

One detections, 

but likely occur 

in analysis area

Fringedtailed myotisForest Service 

sensitive

Variety of wooded habitat 

often in association with 

caves for roosting; will 

use caves, large trees, 

mines, buildings and 

bridges for roosting

No known locations, 

but occurrence is likely 

based on available 

snag habitat; a few 

caves or mines within 

the project

No detections, 

but likely occur 

in analysis area

Western 

bumble bee

Forest Service 

sensitive

Generalist pollen and 

nectar forager in 

meadows with abundant 

small mammal burrows

No known locations, 

but potential habitat in 

the project area

No detections, 

but likely occur 

in analysis area

Tehama 

chaparral 

snail

Forest Service 

sensitive AND 

survey and 

manage

Deciduous leaf litter and 

woody debris near talus 

within mature forested 

habitat

One known location 

but species could 

occur based on 

available habitat

Known to occur 

in analysis area

Klamath 

shoulderband

Survey and 

manage

Typically found in 

hardwood/conifer mixed 

forest with herbaceous 

vegetation, rocky or talus 

areas

No known locations 

but species could 

occur based on 

available habitat

No detections, 

but could occur 

in analysis area

Siskiyou 

sideband

Survey and 

manage

Rock talus with 

herbaceous vegetation 

and canopy cover within 

riparian area

No known locations 

but species could 

occur based on 

available habitat

No detections, 

but could occur 

in analysis area
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

275

Species Status General Habitat 

Description

Known to Occur in 

Analysis Area? Occurrence

Hooded 

lancetooth

Survey and 

manage

Moist late-seral, closed 

canopy forest in riparian 

areas

No known locations 

but species could 

occur based on 

available habitat

No detections, 

but could occur 

in analysis area

Yellow-based 

sideband

Survey and 

manage

Late-successional conifer 

forest with canopy 

closure, woody debris, 

and rock talus

No known locations 

but species could 

occur based on 

available habitat

No detections, 

but could occur 

in analysis area

The reptile and amphibians (except Siskiyou Mountain salamander) are analyzed in the Aquatic 

Resources section and related resource report. Management indicator species for which there is 

habitat in the project area are listed in the following table along with the reasons for their 

selection.

Table 89: Management Indicator Species (MIS) relevant to the Project.

Association Habitat Association Reason for Selection as MIS

Hardwood Species Association

Acorn woodpecker Oak woodlands with associated 

large conifers

Indicator for diversity of oak 

species and large conifers

Western gray squirrel Mature hardwood and mixed 

hardwood-conifer

Indicator for mature hardwood 

and mixed conifer-hardwood

Snag Species Association

Red-breasted sapsucker Mid- to late- seral mixed conifer 

and riparian deciduous

Indicator of snags as a habitat 

element and of other species 

which depend on sapwells for 

food

Hairy woodpecker Riparian deciduous habitats with 

large trees for cavities

Indicator of snags as a habitat 

element and of other species 

which depend on woodpeckers 

for cavities or as prey

Vaux’s swift Late-successional forests with 

large hollow snags

Indicator of large snags as a 

habitat element

Downy woodpecker Riparian deciduous habitats Indicator of snags as a habitat 

element and for other species 

which depend on woodpeckers 

for cavities or as prey

Pileated woodpecker Late-successional coniferous 

forests

Indicator of snags as a habitat 

element and for other species 

which depend on woodpeckers 

for cavities or as prey

White-headed woodpecker Ponderosa pine and high 

elevation mixed-conifer

Indicator of snags as a habitat 

element and for other species 

which depend on woodpeckers 

for cavities or as prey
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

276

Environmental Consequences

Threatened, Endangered, or Proposed under Endangered Species Act

Northern Spotted Owl (NSO)

Alternative 1

Direct and Indirect Effects

Most of the NSO activity centers (21 of the 22 activity centers) analyzed in this project have 

been affected by the Gap Fire. The fire resulted in a range of effects to the habitat from an 

underburn that reduced the understory vegetation in suitable habitat to the spots of high fire 

severity that killed most, if not all, the vegetation including the overstory tree canopy. The 

response of NSOs to the change in habitat as a result of wildfire will likely vary. Some activity 

centers may shift the territory a short distance to better habitat, the territory may not be active for 

no clear reason, or the activity center may continue to appear to function similarly to the pre-fire 

conditions.

The risk to reproduction analysis indicator is intended to be a relative measure of possible effects 

resulting from the project. This measure is based on the amount of existing habitat minus any 

habitat that might be removed or downgraded by the actions within each alternative. Alternative 

1 would not affect any NSO habitat. All the activity centers affected by the fire in this project 

would continue to accumulate fuels resulting from the dead trees falling over. Regeneration of 

habitat would likely take more than 100 years to develop into high quality NSO habitat as long 

as higher severity fire doesn’t interrupt forest development. The slow habitat development is 

especially difficult for the two activity centers with a high risk to reproduction level that were 

heavily affected by the fire; the amount of remaining habitat is not likely to provide the needs for 

reproducing NSO. The activity centers with moderate level of risk to reproduction may also have 

difficulty reproducing because, even though the home range contains a fair number of suitable 

habitat acres, the habitat has been more fragmented by the fire which creates conditions where 

NSO may need to travel longer distances or cross non-habitat. This could affect survival and/or 

reproduction. For analysis indicator 1, Alternative 1 would have a low risk to NSO reproduction.

NSO critical habitat overlaps a large portion of the Gap Fire and consequently, several acres of 

critical habitat were burned at moderate and high fire severity. The loss of critical habitat is often 

coinciding with the loss of the better NSO habitat. Alternative 1 would not affect NSO critical 

habitat. The lack of treatment would retain all the remaining habitat and important high quality 

wildlife habitat structures (e.g. large trees or snags and coarse woody debris) to aid in the 

development of NSO habitat by providing physical structure as the stand regenerates. Since NSO 

and their prey are associated with large trees/snags and logs, Alternative 1 would maintain all 

large trees/snags and coarse woody debris. However, the lack of treatment would not aid in 

reducing fuels that would likely increase the potential of these areas experiencing fire levels that 

may interrupt habitat regeneration.

The lack of treatment also results in a lack of tree planting. Planting can play an important part in 

expediting the forest regeneration and NSO critical habitat. The lack of tree planting and fuels 

treatments is likely to increase the amount of time needed for NSO habitat regeneration.

Cumulative Effects

Adding the indirect effects of this alternative, which were measured through analyzing the 

current conditions qualitatively, to the effects of other projects would provide a measure of 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

277

cumulative effects. For analysis indicator 1, the cumulative effects would result in no change in 

risk to reproduction. The cumulative effects reduced the amount of habitat in six activity centers 

but the cumulative effects did not result in changing the risk level.

For analysis indicator 2, the addition of the effects of other projects to the direct and indirect 

effects for Alternative 1 would result in 15 acres of NSO critical habitat being affected. These 15 

acres represent nesting, roosting, or foraging habitat that have been affected by other projects to 

the point that the habitat would function at a lower level of habitat or become non-habitat. For 

analysis indicator 2, the cumulative effect is on about 15 acres of critical habitat in subunits 

KLE6 and KLE7.

Alternative 2

Direct and Indirect Effects

Treatments would occur in the home ranges of all 22 activity centers; the level of effects vary 

between activity centers. For analysis indicator 1, a “very low” risk is desired, but only two 

activity centers met the “very low” criteria before treatment and the effects of implementing 

Alternative 2 do not change the risk level for these two activity centers. However, three of the 

seven activity centers in the “low” risk level would have an increased risk level as a result of 

Alternative 2; the risk level would increase from “low” to “moderate.” Although these three 

activity centers would experience the majority of the effects to habitat in the home range, the 

cause of the change in risk level in this alternative is a result of the project removing or 

downgrading habitat within the core area. The eleven activity centers with a “moderate” risk 

before treatment would not change in risk level; these eleven activity centers would remain as a 

“moderate” risk despite the treatments in Alternative 2. The two activity centers with a “high” 

risk level would remain as a “high” risk despite changes in habitat acres as a result of Alternative 

2.

Alternative 2 would result in the downgrade or removal of critical habitat within both NSO

critical habitat subunits (KLE6 and KLE7). For analysis indicator 2, the project would affect 

about 582 acres of critical habitat in KLE6 while KLE7 would have about 18 acres of critical 

habitat downgraded or removed. Comparing the amount of critical habitat affected within the 

analysis area, this alternative would affect about six percent of the critical habitat in KLE6 and 

less than one percent of critical habitat in KLE7.

Cumulative Effects

The direct and indirect effects of Alternative 2 plus the effects resulting from other actions 

within the analysis area did not change the risk level for any of the activity centers (analysis 

indicator 1). Generally, the activity centers with several acres of effects from other projects were 

either identified with a “high” risk level and consequently can’t be elevated in risk beyond high 

or the combination of effects from this alternative and effects from other projects did not affect 

enough habitat to change the risk level.

For analysis indicator 2, the cumulative effect of adding the effects of this alternative (about 600 

acres of critical habitat downgraded or removed) to the effects of other projects (about 28 acres 

of critical habitat downgraded or removed) would downgrade or remove about 628 acres of 

critical habitat totaling about four percent of the critical habitat in the analysis area.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

278

Table 90: Change in Critical Habitat Acres for Alternative 2 (Analysis Indicator 2).

Critical Habitat 

Subunit

Acres of 

Critical 

Habitat in 

Analysis Area

Acres of 

Nesting/roosting1

downgraded or 

removed

Acres of 

Foraging1

downgraded or 

removed

Acres of 

Dispersal 

emoved1

KLE6 14,364 158 266 158

KLE7 3,544 No change 6 12

Total 17,908 Downgrading or 

Removal of 158 

(Downgrading or 

Removal of 161)

Downgrading or 

Removal of 272 

(Downgrading or 

Removal of 292)

Removal of 170

(Removal of 175)

1The acres presented in the parentheses are the acres downgraded or removed by the alternative and other projects

combined.

Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect Effects

When compared to Alternative 2, Alternative 3 would have fewer acres of treatment but most of 

the reduced treatment occurs in areas that are outside of the activity centers. For analysis 

indicator 1, Alternative 3 would result in affecting the same three activity centers as Alternative 

2. These three activity centers would go from a “low” risk level to a “moderate” risk level and,

consequently, these activity centers are estimated to have an increased challenge of finding 

resources for reproduction.

For analysis indicator 2, the effects of Alternative 3 on critical habitat are the same as Alternative 

2 because the reduced amount of treatment occurring in Alternative 3 occurred outside critical 

habitat.

Cumulative Effects

For analysis indicator 1, the direct and indirect effects of Alternative 3 plus effects resulting from 

other actions within the analysis area did not change the risk level for any of the activity centers 

beyond the risk level due to this alternative.

For analysis indicator 2, the cumulative effects for Alternative 3 would result in the same effects 

described for Alternative 2. The reduced treatment acres in Alternative 3 occur outside of critical 

habitat.

Table 91: Change in Critical Habitat Acres for Alternative 3 (Analysis Indicator 2).

Critical Habitat 

Subunit

Acres of 

Critical 

Habitat in 

Analysis Area

Acres of 

Nesting/roosting1

downgraded or 

removed

Acres of 

Foraging1

downgraded or 

removed

Acres of 

Dispersal 

removed1

KLE6 14,364 158 266 158

KLE7 3,544 No change 6 12

Total 17,908 Downgrading or 

Removal of 158 

(Downgrading or 

Removal of 161)

Downgrading or 

Removal of 272 

(Downgrading or 

Removal of 292)

Removal of 170 

(Removal of 175)

1The acres presented in the parentheses are the acres downgraded or removed by the alternative and other projects

combined.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

279

Alternative 4

Direct and Indirect Effects

Unlike Alternative 2 and 3, Alternative 4 would not result in changing the risk level for any of 

the 22 activity centers. Each activity center would have the same risk level after treatment as the 

activity centers have prior to treatment. For analysis indicator 1, Alternative 4 would not result in 

any change in risk level for the 22 activity centers.

Alternative 4 would have less effects on critical habitat than Alternative 2. For analysis indicator 

2, Alternative 4 would result in affecting 457 fewer acres when compared to Alternative 2. The 

change in prescription of the fuels treatments in areas of NSO habitat along with reducing 

treatment footprint in this alternative would greatly reduce the effects to critical habitat.

Cumulative Effects

For analysis indicator 1, the direct and indirect effects of Alternative 4 plus the effects resulting 

from other actions within the analysis area did not change the risk level for any of the activity 

centers; all 22 activity centers would have the same risk level as described in the existing 

condition.

For analysis indicator 2, the cumulative effects for Alternative 4 would result in fewer acres of 

critical habitat being affected than described for Alternative 2. The difference between 

Alternative 2 and Alternative 4 is a result of Alternative 4 having a reduced acreage of treatment

within critical habitat.

Table 92: Change in Critical Habitat Acres for Alternative 4 (Analysis Indicator 2).

Critical Habitat 

Subunit

Acres of 

Critical 

Habitat in 

Analysis Area

Acres of 

Nesting/roosting1

downgraded or 

removed

Acres of 

Foraging1

downgraded or 

removed

Acres of 

Dispersalremoved1

KLE6 14,364 37 60 46

KLE7 3,544 No change No change No change

Total 17,908 Downgrading or 

Removal of 37 

(Downgrading or 

Removal of 40)

Downgrading or 

Removal of 60 

(Downgrading or 

Removal of 80)

Removal of 46 

(Removal of 51)

1The acres presented in the parentheses are the acres downgraded or removed by the alternative and other projects

combined.

Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species

Bald Eagle

Alternative 1

Direct and Indirect Effects

The eagle nest site near the project area would likely continue to provide nesting opportunity as a 

result of Alternative 1. For analysis indicator 1, the lack of treatment would have no effect on 

disturbing nesting eagles in the short- or long-term. The current nesting tree would likely 

continue to stand and other possible nesting trees are available near the current nest site; thus,

this alternative would result in no effect on future possible nest trees. In the long-term, the nest 

tree may still be standing and other possible nest trees would be available.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

280

Cumulative Effects

For analysis indicator 1, there were no direct or indirect effects of this alternative on the bald 

eagle so there are no cumulative effects.

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4

Direct and Indirect Effects

The only nest in the project area is located about one mile from the closest proposed treatment 

unit. Given the distance of the treatment from the nest site, any noise produced during 

implementation of the project is not likely to disturb the nest site. For analysis indicator 1, the 

level of possible disturbance is low.

There is no treatment within Alternatives 2, 3, or 4 that occur within the nest area. The lack of 

any treatment within the nest area is expected to result in retaining all the existing current and 

future potential nest trees. Therefore, Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would result in no effect for 

analysis indicator 2.

Cumulative Effects

The possible amount of noise produced from Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 plus noise produced from 

other projects would result in no change in the possible level of disturbance. There are no 

treatments s from this project or other projects within 1,500 feet of the nest site. Therefore, the 

cumulative effects of these alternatives plus other projects would result in a low level of possible 

disturbance for analysis indicator 1.

For analysis indicator 2, Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would result in no effect to current or future 

potential nest trees so there are no cumulative effects.

Northern Goshawk

Alternative 1

Direct and Indirect Effects

The seven goshawk nests that may be affected by this project have been affected by the Gap Fire

which resulted in lowering the amount of habitat. For analysis indicator 1, only one nest (Horse 

Creek) has sufficient habitat to have a low level of risk to reproduction while the remaining six 

nests have moderate or high risk levels. Without treatment, these seven nests would continue to 

provide the same nesting opportunity. The six nest sites would continue to have challenges and 

habitat regeneration would likely occur over the next several decades as long as wildfire doesn’t 

interrupt habitat regeneration.

For analysis indicator 2, this alternative would not disturb any of the goshawk nests. In the longterm, the lack of disturbance is expected to continue.

Table 93: Level of risk to goshawk reproduction for Alternative 1.

Nest name Level of Risk to Reproduction 

Buckhorn Moderate

Buckhorn Camp Moderate

Hamburg Gulch High

Horse Creek Low

Lightning Gulch Moderate
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

281

Nest name Level of Risk to Reproduction 

Middle Creek Moderate

Panther Moderate

Cumulative Effects

For analysis indicators 1 and 2, there were not any direct or indirect effects of this alternative on 

northern goshawk so there are no cumulative effects.

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would have treatment within 0.25 mile of a nest site for five of the seven 

goshawk territories. However, a project design feature would be used to restrict the timing of the 

actions within 0.25 mile of a nest site to avoid disturbance to nesting goshawks during the 

sensitive part of nesting. Therefore, Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would have a low risk of disturbing 

known goshawk nests (analysis indicator 1).

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would downgrade or remove habitat in all seven goshawk territories. 

Alternative 2 would downgrade or remove the most habitat in all seven goshawk territories when 

compared to Alternatives 3 and 4. Alternative 3 has less treatment in the Buckhorn and Buckhorn 

Camp territories than Alternative 2 but the effects to the five remaining territories would be 

similar to Alternative 2. Alternative 4 has the least amount of habitat that would be downgraded 

or removed when compared to Alternatives 2 and 3. Despite the differences in the amount of 

habitat downgraded or removed between alternatives, the risk level to goshawk reproduction 

(analysis indicator 2) does not change for any of the territories in Alternatives 2, 3, or 4.

Cumulative Effects

The direct and indirect effects along with the effects of other project actions occurring within the 

analysis area could have the potential to produce loud, continuous noise. This project and the 

other projects on the Forest use a project design feature that restricts the timing of operations 

when the actions occurs within 0.25 miles of an active goshawk nest. Although we don’t know 

whether the actions occurring on private land restrict timing of operations near goshawk nests, 

the current private land actions do not occur within 0.25 miles of known nest sites so the 

possibility of noise disturbance of a nest from private land actions is low. Therefore, the 

cumulative effects for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would be a low likelihood of disturbance (analysis 

indicator 1).

The direct and indirect effects plus the effects resulting from other projects within the analysis 

area would change the risk level to reproduction for one territory – Buckhorn. The Buckhorn 

territory would go from a moderate risk to a high risk level (analysis indicator 2).

Fisher, Marten, and Wolverine

Alternative 1

Direct and Indirect Effects

Fisher, marten, and wolverine are forest dependent species that are strongly associated with older 

forests with dense canopy cover. The Gap Fire affected a portion of this habitat on the Forest. 

The high severity burned forest is not likely to provide much use by these species since most of 

the vegetation cover has been removed. A lack of overhead cover resulting from the fire is likely 

to challenge the movements of fisher and marten immediately after the fire but, as the snags start 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

282

to fall over along with shrub growth, the area may provide enough physical structure for fisher 

and marten to move across these openings with more cover. The loss of cover would affect 

marten and fisher much more than wolverine.

One of the more important factors for fisher and marten home ranges is sufficient 

denning/resting habitat. Denning/resting habitat affected by moderate and high severity wildfires 

would take many years to regenerate. In the short-term, protection of existing denning/resting 

habitat from future moderate and high severity wildfire is important to conserve important 

habitat. Unfortunately, Alternative 1 would not help to speed up the regeneration or reduce the 

fuels. The fuels would continue to accumulate and likely create conditions that would increase 

the likelihood of future high severity fire possibly threatening more denning/resting habitat and 

increase fragmentation of home ranges. Alternative 1 would not affect the habitat connectivity 

for these species or the amount of habitat needed for a fisher home range (analysis indicator 1).

Table 94: Current level of fisher, marten, and wolverine habitat connectivity (analysis indicator 1)

Level of Habitat Connectivity Number of 7th field watersheds

High 0

Moderate 8

Low 2

Very Low 2

Alternative 1 would not directly change the number of fisher home ranges in the analysis area 

(analysis indicator 2) over the short-term. The two fisher home ranges are likely to persist as 

long as another wildfire does not reduce the amount of high quality habitat over the long-term. 

Alternative 1 would not remove any fuels that could reduce the likelihood of large scale high 

severity fire.

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1 would have indirect effects on the risk level of fisher, marten, and wolverine 

habitat connectivity. The lack of treatment may affect the rate of habitat development and risk of 

future high severity fire consuming more habitat. Loss of habitat to high severity fire can result 

in more fragmented habitat that can negatively affect habitat connectivity until vegetation 

regenerates to provide cover. These direct and indirect effects were estimated through analyzing 

the current conditions qualitatively so the cumulative effects analysis is measuring the other 

project effects on the analysis indicator. The addition of the effects of no treatments and effects 

of other projects would result in five 7th watersheds ( Sambo Gulch, Middle Creek and Schutts 

Gulch) would be reduced from moderate to low habitat connectivity and Buckhorn and Lower 

Horse Creek would be reduced from low to very low habitat connectivity. Although other 

watersheds had increased openings in habitat as a result of this alternative and effects of other 

projects, no other watersheds shifted in a lower connectivity level.

Alternative 1 would have indirect effects on the risk on fisher home range. The lack of treatment 

may affect the rate of habitat development and the risk of future high severity fire consuming 

more habitat. The addition of effects of this alternative and other projects would result in 

reducing the amount of fisher habitat in twelve watersheds but none the watersheds had a large 

enough effect to shift the watershed from one risk level to the next. Therefore, the cumulative 

effects would not result in changing any of the fisher home ranges.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

283

Alternative 2

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 2 would result in decreasing habitat connectivity in the Lower Horse Creek drainage. 

Alternative 2 would create more openings in Lower Horse Creek that would result in reducing 

the habitat connectivity from low to very low habitat connectivity (analysis indicator 1). The 

other eleven drainages analyzed for this project would remain at the same connectivity level 

despite the many openings created by Alternative 2.

Alternative 2 would not result in reducing the home range level for the East Fork Horse Creek 

and Middle Horse Creek representative home ranges. Although Alternative 2 would affect the 

amount of habitat within these two drainages, the amount of habitat affected would not result in 

these two drainages falling below the habitat levels associated with the representative home 

ranges for analysis indicator 2.

Cumulative Effects

For analysis indicator 1, the direct and indirect effects of Alternative 2 plus the estimated effects 

resulting from other projects in the analysis area would result in reducing the level of 

connectivity for five drainages. Sambo Gulch, Middle Creek and Schutts Gulch would be 

reduced from moderate to low habitat connectivity and Buckhorn Creek and Lower Horse Creek

would be reduced from low to very low habitat connectivity. The remaining seven drainages 

would not change in the level of habitat connectivity for analysis indicator 1.

For analysis indicator 2, the direct and indirect effects of Alternative 2 plus the estimated effects 

resulting from other projects in the analysis area would not result in reducing habitat to the point 

that Middle Horse Creek drainage may not provide sufficient resources to support a fisher home 

range. Although the Lower Horse Creek home ranges are affected by other projects, the amount 

of habitat affected would not be enough to drop below the limits for analysis indicator 2.

Alternative 3 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 3 would result in the same effect as Alternative 2 for analysis indicator 1. Lower 

Horse Creek drainage would experience a reduction in the habitat connectivity level from low to 

very low habitat connectivity.

Alternative 3 would result in the same effect as Alternative 2 for analysis indicator 2. The 

number of acres affected by Alternative 3 is less than Alternative 2 but the amount of habitat 

affected in East Fork Horse Creek and Middle Horse Creek was not enough to drop below the 

limits for analysis indicator 2.

Cumulative Effects

For analysis indicator 1, the direct and indirect effects of Alternative 3 plus the estimated effects 

resulting from other projects in the analysis area would result in reducing the level of habitat 

connectivity is the same drainages as those presented in Alternative 2.

For analysis indicator 2, the direct and indirect effects of Alternative 3 plus the estimated effects 

resulting from other projects in the analysis area would result in effects as those described in 

Alternative 2.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

284

Alternative 4

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 4 would not result in changing the habitat connectivity level for any of the twelve 

drainages. Alternative 4 would create openings in the analysis area but these openings would not 

reach the size of openings within any one drainage that would result in a change in the level of 

habitat connectivity for analysis indicator 1.

Alternative 4 would result in the same effect as Alternative 2 for analysis indicator 2. The 

number of acres affected by Alternative 4 is less than Alternatives 2 and 3 but the amount of 

habitat affected in East Fork Horse Creek and Middle Horse Creek was not enough to drop 

below the limits for analysis indicator 2.

Cumulative Effects

For analysis indicator 1, the direct and indirect effects of Alternative 4 plus the estimated effects 

resulting from other projects in the analysis area would result in reducing the level of habitat 

connectivity is the same as those presented in Alternative 2.

For analysis indicator 2, the direct and indirect effects of Alternative 4 plus the estimated effects 

resulting from other projects in the analysis area would result in effects as those described in 

Alternative 2.

Townsend’s bat, Pallid bat, and Fringed Myotis

Alternative 1

Direct and Indirect Effects

The Gap Fire could have affected maternity or hibernacula by consuming vegetation near the 

opening of these possible sites. The loss of vegetation may not affect the site directly but the loss 

of vegetation could change the air flow in a maternity or hibernacula and subsequently micro-site 

conditions that may result in the loss of the site functionality. Bats need specific micro-site 

conditions (e.g., temperature and humidity) for a cave or cave-like structure to be a maternity or 

hibernacula; any change in those conditions could result in the site becoming too cold to raise 

offspring or rest during the cold months.

Any roost sites that retained the micro-climate conditions necessary to support a hibernacula or 

maternity would likely continue to provide those services. For Alternative 1, the lack of 

treatment would not affect bats. The rate of forest regeneration would be slow without treatment 

but bats would be able to continue to use the abundant source of snags. Alternative 1 would not 

result in disturbing any hibernaculum or maternity sites. Therefore, for analysis indicator 1, the 

risk of disturbance is no effect.

Cumulative Effects

For analysis indicator 1, Alternative 1 would not have any effects on the Townsend’s big-eared 

bat, fringed myotis, and pallid bat so there are no cumulative effects.

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4

Direct and Indirect Effects

All the action alternatives have similar direct and indirect effects for analysis indicator 1. Six of 

the ten sites would have a low or moderate risk of disturbing a possible bat maternity or 

hibernacula. The other four sites would occur within close enough distance of treatments that 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

285

noise could be produced to affect these sites, if the sites exist. The project actions are more likely 

to occur during the summer and fall months (timing of actions occurs outside the typical time of 

hibernacula use) when a possible hibernacula would not be disturbed. The treatments could 

disturb a maternity, if present, because maternities are typically active from about April to 

August but are most sensitive during the early spring when the offspring are not capable of 

flight.

Although unlikely, the four sites with a moderate risk of disturbance could be affected by project 

treatments; more realistically, since the treatments are likely to occur more than 250 feet from a

possible site, the treatments are more likely to disrupt foraging bats and not the actual maternity, 

if it exists. Therefore, the sites with potential cave or cave-like structures in the six sites with a 

high risk of disturbance are likely the most vulnerable to project treatments. Maternities are not 

common because bats need specific cave environment conditions; although there are a few 

possible caves or cave-like structures in the project area, very few of these sites are likely to meet 

the criteria. Therefore, the six cave-like structures that may or may not provide the characteristics 

of a maternity are likely an overestimate but, for the purposes of analysis indicator 1, these six 

sites are considered to be at a high risk for disturbance. In the short-term, six sites are likely to 

experience an elevated level of noise during implementation that may occur over a few days 

within a given year. In the long-term, these sites would likely not experience disturbance from 

this project.

Cumulative Effects

For analysis indicator 1, the direct and indirect effects of Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 plus the 

estimated effects resulting from other projects in the analysis area would result in increasing the 

risk level for two sites from “moderate” to a “high” risk level.

Willow Flycatcher

Alternative 1

Direct and Indirect Effects

The willow flycatcher is more dependent on live riparian vegetation than on snags or dead trees;

the loss of live vegetation to fire would likely affect the number of possible areas for nesting. 

Alternative 1 would not change the current condition of the habitat. The flycatcher would 

continue to use the remaining areas of habitat, if present. Burned forest is likely not beneficial to 

flycatchers so the retention of these features would likely not affect this species. In the longterm, the habitat would regenerate and possibly produce willow or alder patches for flycatchers. 

For analysis indicator 1, the lack of action in this alternative would have no effect on risk to 

habitat alternation.

Cumulative Effects

There are no direct or indirect effects of Alternative 1 on the willow flycatcher so there are no 

cumulative effects.

Alternative 2, 3, and 4

Direct and Indirect Effects

The level of direct and indirect effects on willow flycatcher habitat in Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 is

the same because the same treatment that overlaps flycatcher habitat occurs in each of these

alternatives. Six of the twelve 7th field watersheds in the analysis area contain habitat that is 

affected by these alternatives. Although the fuels treatments are not targeting live vegetation, the 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

286

treatment may reduce the quality of flycatcher habitat and, consequently, most of the effects 

would result from the fuels treatments.

For analysis indicator 1, Salt Gulch is the only drainage with a “high” level of habitat alteration 

for Alternatives 2, 3, and 4; this drainage happens to contain a small amount of habitat and most 

of this habitat would be affected by the alternatives. Middle Creek, Middle Horse Creek, and 

Lower Horse Creek would have a few acres of habitat affected by Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 so 

these three drainages would have a “moderate” level of habitat alteration. The remaining 

drainages may have a few acres affected so these two drainages are estimated to have a “low” 

level of habitat alteration.

Cumulative Effects

For analysis indicator 1, the direct and indirect effects of Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 plus the 

estimated effects resulting from other projects in the analysis area would result in increasing the 

habitat alteration level for one drainage (Tom Martin Creek and Lower Horse Creek). Tom 

Martin went from “low” to a “high” and Lower Horse Creek went from “moderate” to “high” 

level. The direct and indirect effects for this 7th field watershed are very small but the actions 

occurring in other projects increased the number of acres affected to a high level.

Great Gray Owl

Alternative 1

Direct and Indirect Effects

The great gray owl is associated with high elevation conifer forests near meadows. Alternative 1 

would not affect owl habitat. Any great gray owls would continue to use the area in its current 

state. The portion of nesting habitat burned at moderate or high fire severity would provide many 

snags and some of those snags would likely have a broken top to provide a nest structure but 

nesting may be limited in these conditions with the lack of canopy cover. Areas of conifer forest 

that burned at lower fire severity may have resulted in creating a few snags while maintaining 

sufficient canopy cover. In the long-term, the portion of nesting habitat affected by lower fire 

severity would likely continue to provide nesting habitat. For analysis indicator 1, the lack of 

treatment would have no effect on nesting habitat alternation for great gray owls.

Cumulative Effects

There are no direct or indirect effects of this alternative to great gray owl so there are no 

cumulative effects.

Alternative 2

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 2 would result in affecting great gray owl nesting habitat. About 250 acres of nesting 

habitat would receive treatment that could reduce the number of snags and a portion of those 

snags could contain the physical features that could provide nesting structure. Alternative 2 

would affect about 15 percent of the possible nesting habitat in the analysis area. For analysis 

indicator 1, Alternative 2 would result in a moderate level of nesting habitat alteration.

Cumulative Effects

For analysis indicator 1, the direct and indirect effects of Alternative 2 plus the estimated effects 

resulting from other projects in the analysis area would result in affecting the same number of 

acres as the direct and indirect effects. There are about eleven acres of action within the analysis 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

287

area that are occurring as a result of other projects but these eleven acres do not occur within 

nesting habitat so there would be no additional effect to nesting habitat. For analysis indicator 1, 

Alternative 2 would result in a moderate level of habitat alteration.

Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 3 would result in affecting about 50 fewer acres of great gray owl nesting habitat 

than Alternative 2. This would result in 50 fewer acres where the number of snags would be 

reduced. Alternative 3 would affect about 12 percent of the possible nesting habitat in the 

analysis area. For analysis indicator 1, Alternative 3 would result in a moderate level of nesting 

habitat alteration.

Cumulative Effects

For analysis indicator 1, the direct and indirect effects of Alternative 3 plus the estimated effects 

resulting from other projects in the analysis area would result in affecting the same number of 

acres as the direct and indirect effects. There are about eleven acres of action within the analysis 

area that are occurring as a result of other projects but these eleven acres do not occur within 

nesting habitat so there would not be additional effect to nesting habitat. For analysis indicator 1, 

Alternative 3 would result in a moderate level of habitat alteration.

Alternative 4 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 4 has a very similar level of effects as Alternative 2. Alternative 4 would result in 

affecting about five fewer acres of great gray owl nesting habitat than Alternative 2. This would 

result in five fewer acres where the number of snags would be reduced. Alternative 4 would 

affect about 14 percent of the possible nesting habitat in the analysis area. For analysis indicator 

1, Alternative 4 would result in a moderate level of nesting habitat alteration.

Cumulative Effects

For analysis indicator 1, the direct and indirect effects of Alternative 4 plus the estimated effects 

resulting from other projects in the analysis area would result in affecting the same number of 

acres as the direct and indirect effects. There are about eleven acres of action within the analysis 

area that are occurring as a result of other projects, but these eleven acres do not occur within 

nesting habitat so there would be not additional effect to nesting habitat. For analysis indicator 1, 

Alternative 4 would result in a moderate level of habitat alteration.

Siskiyou Mountain Salamander

Alternative 1

Direct and Indirect Effects

The Siskiyou Mountain salamander needs cool, moist talus habitat typically created by dense 

conifer canopy on northerly aspect slopes. Alternative 1 would not change the current habitat 

condition. The moderate and high severity burned habitat is likely to have little to no canopy 

cover but any canopy cover would be retained in this alternative. In addition, the talus habitat 

would not be disturbed by implementation activity that may compact the talus. These 

salamanders rely on the small spaces between the pieces of talus to move deeper or shallower in 

the talus profile to reach desired temperature and moisture. For analysis indicator 1, the risk of 

habitat disturbance is no effect.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

288

Cumulative Effects

For analysis indicator 1, direct or indirect effects of this alternative had no effect on Siskiyou 

Mountain salamander so there are no cumulative effects.

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 have a similar level of effects on salamander habitat disturbance. For this 

project, salvage harvest may have the greatest potential of affecting salamander sites with the use 

of heavy equipment or other project actions that may directly indirectly affect habitat. Tractors 

used for harvesting trees would likely have the most opportunity to compact salamander habitat 

followed by cable yarding corridors where several logs are basically dragged over the same 

ground. Overall compaction of talus habitat would likely result in the site not being able to 

provide the physical characteristics that are consistent with the needs of the salamanders. In 

order to reduce the effects to salamander habitat, a project design feature was developed for 

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 to exclude action from the salamander sites and, consequently, avoid 

compaction of the salamander sites. Therefore, for analysis indicator 1, Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 

would a low level of risk to salamander habitat.

Cumulative Effects

For analysis indicator 1, the direct and indirect effects of Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 plus the 

estimated effects resulting from other projects in the analysis area may result in increasing the 

risk level for salamanders, especially when the effects of actions on private lands are added to 

the effects of these alternatives. All of the Forest’s projects in the analysis area contain a project 

design feature to protect known salamander sites but these types of protections may or may not 

be used on private land. Given that there are no previously known locations of the species within 

the proposed salvage harvest on private land, it is likely that the action on private land would not 

measurably increase the risk to salamander habitat thus the cumulative effect would result in a 

low risk to salamander habitat.

Tehama Chaparral Snail

Alternative 1

Direct and Indirect Effects

The Tehama chaparral snail is generally associated with talus in conifer and hardwood mixed 

habitat near riparian reserves. Alternative 1 would not affect any habitat in the project area. The 

species would likely have some patches of habitat where canopy cover and micro-site conditions 

would provide for the needs of several individuals. The existing woody debris which would 

likely be supplemented by the abundant dead trees would provide small areas of possible refugia 

for dispersing snails. The lack of habitat disturbance would also help any remaining habitat to 

continue to provide future habitat when canopy cover regenerates. For analysis indicator 1, there 

would be no effect on the likelihood of snails dispersing.

Cumulative Effects

There are no direct or indirect effects of Alternative 1 on Tehama chaparral snail so there are no 

cumulative effects.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

289

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 have similar effects on Tehama chaparral snail dispersal. These snails 

likely need physical structure to provide cooler and moisture conditions during dispersal and this 

is likely more important for snails dispersing across areas without canopy cover. Woody debris 

typically greater than 12 inches in diameter scattered across an area is likely important for 

dispersing snails especially if there is no canopy cover. Salvage harvest would be the most likely 

action that could result in removing woody debris over an area. To ensure there is sufficient 

woody debris in the salvage harvest units, project design features were developed to retain 

woody debris in the unit; salvage harvest would be excluded from the sites where the species was 

known to occur. In addition, the project was designed to retain live trees in salvage harvest units

(future woody debris) and dead trees within patches specifically identified within the salvage 

units to complement the existing riparian reserves. Therefore, Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 would 

result in having a high likelihood of dispersal.

Cumulative Effects

For analysis indicator 1, the direct and indirect effects of Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 plus the 

estimated effects resulting from other projects in the analysis area may have a reduced likelihood 

of dispersal depending on the actions occurring on private land. There are no previously known 

locations of the species occurring within the proposed private land salvage. Given this 

information, it is likely that the cumulative effects would not measurably change the level of 

effects; thus, the likelihood of dispersal is high for Tehama chaparral snails.

Western Bumble Bee

Alternative 1

Direct and Indirect Effects

The meadow habitat in the project area experienced varying fire severity resulting from the Gap 

Fire. According to the burn severity data, most of the meadows burned at low severity; thus it, is 

likely that many of the meadows contain some vegetation which may provide basic structure for 

a nest site. The areas that burned at moderate severity or less are likely to produce flowering 

plants the spring following the fire. Alternative 1 would not affect bumble bee habitat. The 

existing meadow habitat would provide nesting and foraging opportunity for the bumble bee. 

There would be no effect on bumble bee nest disturbance.

Cumulative Effects

There wouldn’t be any direct or indirect effects on western bumble bee from Alternative 1 so 

there are no cumulative effects.

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 have similar effects on the level of disturbance on the western bumble 

bee. Although treatment is not likely to occur in wet meadows, there are several meadows that 

may not be wet. In order to capture the potential effects of each alternative, it is assumed that any 

meadow occurring in the treatment unit may be disturbed by implementation of the project. 

Given this situation, there is one drainage with possible high level of disturbance (Buckhorn 

Creek) and there is one drainage that would have a moderate level of disturbance (Middle 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

290

Creek). There are two drainages (Collins Creek and Tom Martin Creek that would have a low 

level of disturbance.

Cumulative Effects

The direct and indirect effects of Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 plus the estimated effects resulting from 

other projects in the analysis area provides some cumulative effects that vary between the 

drainages. Buckhorn would have a high level of disturbance from the alternatives, the addition of 

the other projects occurring in this drainage would increase the amount of disturbance. However,

the highest level of disturbance is “high” So adding the effects of other projects to the effects of 

the alternatives would not change the disturbance level. Middle Creek, Collins Creek, or Tom 

Martin Creek would not change in the level of disturbance as a result of the cumulative effects. 

Management Indicator Species

Snag Associated and Hardwood Associated Species

Alternative 1

Direct and Indirect Effects

Snag Species Association

In this alternative, there would be no removal of trees, road construction, or any other activities 

associated with the project. Potential negative effects of no treatments would be high fuel loads 

and risk of future high severity fire adjacent to remaining habitat or within regenerating habitat. 

Positive effects would include the total retention of snags which are important habitat features; 

this is true especially within remaining late seral closed canopy coniferous habitat.

Implementing this alternative would result in snag associated species having an abundant source 

and variety of snags. Black-backed woodpeckers, if present, would have the maximum available 

habitat produced by the high intensity fire. Other snag associated species like the Vaux’s swift 

and downy woodpecker would have a possible increase in more open stands of snags or creation 

of new snag habitat. Secondary cavity nesters, however, may have a reduction in older snags as 

those tend to burn up or fall over as a result of the fire; in the long-term; however, these species 

would likely have an abundant source of previously excavated snags. Alternative 1 would have 

no effect on the amount of level of snag habitat change for the snag associated species.

Hardwood Species Association

Hardwood associated species are expected to have a difficult time using moderate and high 

severity fire-affected hardwood stands to meet their needs. Hardwood associated species are 

completely or partly dependent on hardwood mast as a food source. Without a food source, gray 

squirrels and acorn woodpecker would likely leave these highly fire-affected habitats to occupy 

areas with live trees but gray squirrels are likely to have a greater tolerance for this disturbance. 

In the long-term, some of the hardwood species would re-sprout; these trees would provide 

future hardwood habitat, if fire doesn’t return in the near future. Without fuels treatments and 

anticipated high fuel loads within or adjacent to the hardwood stands, many of the hardwood 

stands may have another fire that would prevent these stands from developing into a hardwood 

forest. Alternative 1 would have no effect on the amount of hardwood habitat change for the 

hardwood associated species.

Cumulative Effects

Snag Species Association
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

291

In the long-term, the lack of treatment would allow the large amount of fuels to continue to build 

up and possibly create a condition for high severity fire. Any live trees or snags are likely to 

remain in a similar condition and habitat would not be affected by this project. Other projects in 

the analysis area are expected to affect habitat to the point that the habitat may not function as 

habitat after treatment. Adding the effects of Alternative 1 to those of other projects, about 1,872

acres of the 20,640 acres of snag habitat in the analysis area would be affected by actions 

considered within the cumulative effects. These acres represent the footprint of habitat and not 

the acres for each species because some of the woodpecker species habitat overlaps. These 

affected acres represent about nine percent of the habitat within the analysis area.

Hardwood Species Association

Adding the effects of Alternative 1 to the effects other projects, the cumulative effects would be 

removal of about 197 acres of the 3,140 acres hardwood habitat in the analysis area (about six

percent) but far more could be affected if high severity fire returns as a consequence of no 

treatment.

Alternative 2

Direct and Indirect Effects

Snag Species Association

The percent of snag associated species habitat affected by Alternative 2 varies between species; 

about 4,130 acres or 20 percent of snag associated species habitat would be affected by roadside 

hazard and salvage treatments. The removal of dead and dying trees would result in fewer trees 

or snags for these species in which to create cavities. According to the Forest Plan (USDA 

1995a) and associated EIS (USDA 1995c), about 5 snags/acres averaged over 100 acres with 

varying decay and size class should be retained for “good” habitat to support snag associated 

species. The other treatments would likely have minor effects on snag associated species habitat. 

Given the project design features, snags would be retained within the salvage units of varying 

sizes and decay classes (where possible). Soft decay class snags are trees that have been dead for 

several years and have been decomposing since death; thus, these pose safety hazards during 

implementation and some of these snags would likely need to be felled. However, these snags 

with more advanced decay would be retained in the unit if possible to do safely.

In roadside hazard treatment units, snag retention would be contradictory to the purpose and 

need of the project. The project would reduce human safety hazards along roadways; any 

retention of trees that are dead, likely to die, and are likely to fall on the road could create safety 

hazards. Any trees within the roadside hazard treatment unit that do not pose a human hazard 

would be retained, thus providing potential current or future snags.

Despite the project design features, the salvage treatment units alone may not provide five snags 

on every acre but the project would meet the five snags per acre on average over 100 acres. 

Therefore, Alternative 2 is likely to provide a sufficient number of snags of varying decay 

classes and provide a habitat level of “good” snag associated habitat.

Hardwood Species Association

The hardwood associated species would be affected by Alternative 2. About 180 acres of 

hardwood habitat exists in the roadside and salvage treatment units. The roadside hazard

treatment unit is a standard buffer distance from the road based on possible tree height and 

topography; it is not likely that all trees within the treatment unit would be removed, especially 

hardwoods. However, it is difficult to estimate the true amount of hardwoods that might be 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

292

retained in the hazard tree treatment unit so we are assuming, for this analysis, that all hardwood 

trees that are dead, dying, or likely to die within a short period of time would be removed even 

though this is likely to be an overestimate.

About 10 acres of hardwood habitat occurs in the salvage units and these acres are arranged in 

small pockets. The salvage treatment is focused on removing conifer trees and there is no 

intention to remove any hardwoods; however, for various reasons during implementation, the 

hardwoods may be damaged. Even though it is likely that most of these 10 acres of hardwood 

habitat would not be changed by the project activities, we are assuming for analysis purposes that 

all 10 acres would be removed in Alternative 2. Given these assumptions, about six percent of 

the hardwood habitat would be removed by Alternative 2.

Cumulative Effects

Snag Species Association

The direct and indirect effects (about 4,130 acres) of Alternative 2 plus effects resulting from 

other projects within the analysis area resulted in about 1,872 additional acres of snag habitat 

being affected. These effects total about 6,002 acres or about 29 percent of the estimated snag 

associated species habitat within the project area. However, most of the projects contributing to 

cumulative effects occur on lands not managed by the Forest; any snag retention on those lands 

is difficult to estimate. Since the Forest projects must meet the same Forest Plan standards and 

guidelines as this project, the affected acres occurring on land managed by the Forest would meet 

the “good” level of snag habitat. 

Hardwood Species Association

The direct and indirect effects (180 acres) of Alternative 2 plus effects resulting from other 

projects within the analysis area resulted in about 20 additional acres of hardwood habitat being 

affected. These cumulative effects total about 377 acres or about 12 percent of the estimated 

hardwood habitat within the project area. The hardwood habitat on lands not managed by the 

Forest is assumed to be removed for the purposes of this analysis. 

Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect Effects

Snag Species Association

Alternative 3 has a reduced level of effects on habitat when compared to Alternative 2 because 

Alternative 3 is proposing a reduced number of salvage harvest acres. Alternative 3 would affect 

about 3,615 acres or about 17 percent of the total snag habitat by the proposed salvage and 

roadside hazard treatments. Given that Alternative 3 would follow the same project design 

features associated with snag retention as Alternative 2, and Alternative 3 would harvest fewer 

acres of salvage harvest units, Alternative 3 would have fewer acres of snag habitat affected than 

Alternative 2. Therefore, Alternative 3 would provide a sufficient number of snags of varying 

decay classes thus providing a habitat level of “good” snag associated habitat.

Hardwood Species Association

Alternative 3 would result in affecting about 175 acres of hardwood habitat. Like Alternative 2, 

these effects are based on the analysis assumption that all hardwoods that are dead, dying, or 

likely to die within a short period of time will be removed in roadside hazard treatments and that

the hardwoods in salvage units may be damaged but are likely to remain in the treatment unit.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

293

Cumulative Effects

For Alternative 3, the direct and indirect effects plus the effects resulting from other projects 

occurring in the analysis area are cumulatively about 5,487 acres or about 26 percent of the snag

associated species habitat being affected.

For Alternative 3, the direct and indirect effects plus the effects resulting from other projects 

occurring in the analysis area are cumulatively about 372 acres or about 12 percent of the 

hardwood associated species habitat being affected.

Alternative 4

Direct and Indirect Effects

Snag Species Association

Alternatives 4 has a reduced level of effects on habitat when compared to Alternative 2 because 

Alternative 4 is proposing a reduced number of salvage harvest acres. For analysis indicator 1, 

Alternative 4 would affect about 3,520 acres or about 17 percent of the total snag habitat by the 

proposed salvage and roadside hazard treatments. Given that Alternative 4 would follow the 

same project design features associated with snag retention as Alternative 2, and Alternative 4 

would harvest fewer acres of salvage harvest units, Alternative 4 would have fewer acres of snag 

habitat affected than Alternative 2. Therefore, Alternatives 4 would provide a sufficient number 

of snags of varying decay classes thus providing a habitat level of “good” snag associated 

habitat.

Hardwood Species Association

Alternative 4 would result in affecting about 160 acres of hardwood habitat. Like Alternative 2, 

Alternative 4 estimates of effects are based on assumptions that all hardwood trees that are dead, 

dying, or likely to die within a short period of time would be cut, this is likely to overestimate

hardwood loss. 

Cumulative Effects

For Alternative 4, the direct and indirect effects plus the effects resulting from other projects 

occurring in the analysis area are cumulatively about 5,392 acres or about 26 percent of the snag

associated species habitat being affected.

For Alternative 4, the direct and indirect effects plus the effects resulting from other projects 

occurring in the analysis area are cumulatively about 357 acres or about 11 percent of the 

hardwood associated species habitat being affected.

Survey and Manage Species

Alternative 1

Direct and Indirect Effects

No sites would be affected in this alternative. The lack of treatment would not affect the current 

canopy cover, coarse woody debris, or leaf litter/duff which are important habitat components. In 

the short-term, the snags and limited down wood in high fire severity affected habitat would 

continue to provide hot, dry conditions for these species. In the moderate fire severity affected 

habitat, the small amount of canopy cover would likely decrease in the short-term with delayed 

tree mortality; this would creating hotter and drier conditions possibly similar to the high severity 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

294

fire affected habitat. Areas that were not affected by wildfire and contain these species would not 

be affected by this alternative.

In the long-term, the abundant source of snags would provide a source of woody debris for many 

years. Woody debris is an important habitat component for the species in this analysis, especially 

for providing additional ground cover and possibly creating cooler and moister conditions. The 

coarse woody debris, in conjunction with regenerating trees, may provide micro-site conditions 

in the long-term (20 years) but the regeneration of the desired survey and manage habitat (dense, 

late-seral forest) would take much more time (beyond the long-term time span for this analysis).

Cumulative Effects

Complying with the survey and manage standards and guidelines in Alternative 1 would not 

create any direct or indirect effects. Without direct or indirect effects, there are no cumulative 

effects.

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4

Direct and Indirect Effects

The effects on Siskiyou Mountain salamander and Tehama chaparral snail sites have been 

discussed under sensitive species. Known sites for the Siskiyou Mountain salamander occur 

within a salvage harvest unit (one site) and roadside hazard units (three sites). One known site 

for the Tehama chaparral snail occurs within a roadside hazard unit. Hazard treatments along 

roads would be abated if they occur in known sites and the Record of Decision and Standards 

and Guides for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation 

Measures Standards and Guidelines (USDA USDI 2001a) allows for hazard abatement in known 

sites. The one salamander site in the salvage harvest would be protected as described in the 

standards and guidelines (USDA USDI 2001a).

No known sites occur within site preparation and planting units, roadside fuels, fuels adjacent to 

private land, and fuel management zones. Pre-disturbance surveys would not be conducted in 

these units.

Therefore, pre-disturbance surveys would be evaluated for salvage units, road construction, and 

landings within stands over 80 years of age that contain existing habitat for species and the 

decision of the Responsible Official.

Cumulative Effects

Complying with the survey and manage standards and guidelines in Alternatives 2, 3, and 4

would not create any direct or indirect effects. Without direct or indirect effects, there are no 

cumulative effects.

Migratory Birds

Alternative 1

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1 would have no direct or indirect effect on the compliance with the MOU between 

the USDA Forest Service and USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. Bird species affected by the fires 

would continue to be threatened by the possible re-occurring fires that may affect unburned 

habitat. Bird species associated with snags and early seral habitat would have abundant habitat 

and predicted future fires would add to this already abundant habitat.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

295

Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1 would have no direct or indirect effects on complying with the MOU, thus no 

cumulative effects.

Alternatives 2, 3 and 4

Direct and Indirect Effects

The project is intended to implement direction contained within the Forest Plan. Opportunities to 

promote conservation of migratory birds and their habitats in the project area were considered 

during development and design of this project.

For the Horse Creek Project, the long-term benefit to those species that are associated with 

forested conditions (and their key habitats) is an accelerated rate of recovery of the coniferous 

overstory that was removed with the high intensity fire in the Gap Fire. Key habitat components 

that were present before the fire are no longer present in a portion of the fire that burned with 

high and moderate severity which resulted in a high rate of mortality of both the understory and 

overstory vegetation. The effects of the project on migratory bird habitat are assessed in more 

detail in the Wildlife resource report and associated reports, available on the project website.

Since the project area consists of moderate and high severity burned mixed conifer forest, the 

bird species most likely to incur short- and/or long-term effects would be snag associated 

species, particularly post-fire dependent habitat specialists. While many of these species are not 

considered migratory, there are some migratory secondary cavity nesters that rely on cavities 

excavated by primary cavity nesters.

Salvage harvest has impacts on the suitability of post-fire habitat for snag associated species. 

Areas that are harvested may decrease in suitability for some species, but not for all. No salvage 

unit would be left completely devoid of snags, and so should not necessarily be considered as 

habitat lost. Instead, the resulting stand may provide habitat for aerial foragers (such as downy

woodpeckers) that require more open areas between snags, rather than wood/bark foragers (such 

as black-backed woodpeckers) that require more available foraging substrate (i.e. snags or dying 

trees), which would be available in the remaining untreated portions of the project area.

For migratory bird species associated with post-fire snag habitat, abundant habitat is available 

throughout the Forest. Not all habitat burned with high or moderate severity will be removed 

(more than 1,500 acres of high to moderate severity wildfire resulting from the Gap Fire will be 

retained). Habitat modification from the proposed project would not cause a measurable negative 

impact to migratory bird populations due to the small amount of acreage where project activities 

would occur in relation to the overall available habitat on the Forest.

Cumulative Effects

The project is likely to directly or indirectly affect many acres of migratory bird habitat. The 

other Forest projects in the project area are subjected to the same standards and guidelines in the 

Forest Plan as this project. There are several hundred acres of salvage harvest on private land 

distributed within the project area that would add to the effects but these effects occur on private 

land that would likely not diminish the quality of habitat on the Forest. Despite the effects 

occurring on private land, the direct and indirect effects of these alternatives plus the effects of 

other projects would cumulatively result in this project meeting the MOU.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

296

Comparison of Alternatives

Table 95: Comparison of all alternatives for risk to NSO reproduction (Analysis Indicator 1).

Number of NSO activity 

centers at each Risk 

Level Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Very Low 2 2 2 2

Low 7 4 4 7

Moderate 11 14 14 11

High 2 2 2 2

Table 96: Comparison of all alternatives for change NSO critical habitat (Analysis Indicator 2).

Alternative 11 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Acres of nesting/roosting 

downgraded or removed 0 (0) 158 (161) 158 (161) 37 (40)

Acres of foraging 

downgraded or removed 0 (0) 272 (292) 272 (292) 60 (80)

Acres of dispersal 

removed 0 (0) 170 (175) 170 (175) 46 (51)

TOTAL 0 (0) 600 (628) 600 (628) 143 (171)

Table 97: Comparison of management indicator species associations for each alternative.

Species Association Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Snag Association 0 acres (1,872

acres)

4,130 acres 

(6,002 acres)

3,615 acres 

(5,4874 acres)

3,520 acres 

(5,392 acres)

Hardwood Association 0 acres

(197 acres)

180 acres

(377 acres)

175 acres

(372 acres)

160 acres

(357 acres)

Table 98: Summary of action alternatives effects on each sensitive species.

Species

Determination 

Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Bald eagle No Effect No Effect No Effect

Northern 

goshawk

May impact individuals, but 

is not likely to result in a 

trend toward federal listing

Same as Alternative 2. Same as Alternative 2.

Willow 

flycatcher

May impact individuals, but 

is not likely to result in a 

trend toward federal listing

Same as Alternative 2. Same as Alternative 2.

Fisher May impact individuals, but 

is not likely to result in a 

trend toward federal listing

Same as Alternative 2. Same as Alternative 2.

Marten May impact individuals, but 

is not likely to result in a 

trend toward federal listing

Same as Alternative 2. Same as Alternative 2.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

297

Species

Determination 

Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Wolverine May impact individuals, but 

is not likely to result in a 

trend toward federal listing

Same as Alternative 2. Same as Alternative 2.

Pallid bat May impact individuals, but 

is not likely to result in a 

trend toward federal listing

Same as Alternative 2. Same as Alternative 2.

Townsend’s 

big-eared 

bat

May impact individuals, but 

is not likely to result in a 

trend toward federal listing

Same as Alternative 2. Same as Alternative 2.

Fringed 

myotis

May impact individuals, but 

is not likely to result in a 

trend toward federal listing

Same as Alternative 2. Same as Alternative 2.

Great gray 

owl

May impact individuals, but 

is not likely to result in a 

trend toward federal listing

Same as Alternative 2. Same as Alternative 2.

Siskiyou 

Mountain 

salamander

May impact individuals, but 

is not likely to result in a 

trend toward federal listing

Same as Alternative 2. Same as Alternative 2.

Tehama 

chaparral 

snail

May impact individuals, but 

is not likely to result in a 

trend toward federal listing

Same as Alternative 2. Same as Alternative 2.

Western 

bumble bee

May impact individuals, but 

is not likely to result in a 

trend toward federal listing

Same as Alternative 2. Same as Alternative 2.

Table 99: Determination for survey and manage species that may occur within the project area

Species Alternative 1 Alternative 2, 3, and 4

Siskiyou Mountain 

salamander No Effect

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 will not cause significant 

negative impact on the species habitat or the persistence 

of the species in the project area.

Trinity 

shoulderband No Effect

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 will not cause significant 

negative impact on the species habitat or the persistence 

of the species in the project area.

Siskiyou sideband No Effect

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 will not cause significant 

negative impact on the species habitat or the persistence 

of the species in the project area.

Tehama chaparral 

snail No Effect

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 will not cause significant 

negative impact on the species habitat or the persistence 

of the species in the project area.

Hooded lancetooth No Effect

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 will not cause significant 

negative impact on the species habitat or the persistence 

of the species in the project area.

Yellow-based 

sideband No Effect

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 will not cause significant 

negative impact on the species habitat or the persistence 

of the species in the project area.

Great gray owl No Effect

Alternatives 2, 3, and 4 will not cause significant 

negative impact on the species habitat or the persistence 

of the species in the project area.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

298

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

All alternatives meet the Forest Plan and applicable law, regulation and policy regarding 

wildlife. See the Forest Plan consistency checklist for more information.

Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity

NEPA requires consideration of “the relationship between short-term uses of man’s environment 

and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity” (40 CFR 1502.16). As 

declared by the Congress, this includes using all practicable means and measures, including 

financial and technical assistance, in a manner calculated to foster and promote the general 

welfare, to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive 

harmony, and fulfill the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future 

generations of Americans (NEPA Section 101).

Short-term uses are those that occur within the first few years of project implementation. Longterm productivity refers to the capability of the land and resources to continue producing goods 

and services long after the project is complete. Harvesting or salvaging of standing trees can be 

considered a short-term use of a renewable resource. Trees can be reestablished and grow if the 

long-term productivity of the land is maintained. Long-term productivity is maintained through 

application of management requirements described in Chapter 2, in particular those applicable to 

soil and water resources.

The action alternatives (2, 3, and 4) all would provide for the long-term productivity of the 

project area through removal of biomass and other fuel reduction actions creating a resilient 

forest where areas can recover from future fire effects naturally. Harvesting or salvaging 

standing trees will generate short-term economic returns through the sale of salvage timber, as 

well as providing for worker and public safety in the most critical areas within a short timeframe.

Unavoidable Adverse Effects

Implementation of any of the alternatives would result in some unavoidable adverse 

environmental effects. Although formation of the alternatives included avoidance of some 

effects, other adverse effects could occur that cannot be completely mitigated. The 

environmental consequences section for each resource area discusses these effects.

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources

Irreversible commitments of resources are those that cannot be regained, such as the extinction 

of a species or the removal of a mined ore. No irreversible commitments of resources would 

result from implementation of any of the alternatives because no permanent, irreversible resource 

loss would occur.

Irretrievable commitments are those that are lost for a period of time such as the temporary loss 

of timber productivity in forested areas that are kept clear for use as a power line right-of-way or 

road. Irretrievable losses can be regained over time. Implementation of all action alternatives 

would not irretrievably commit resources, but help in the long-term recovery of the landscape.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

299

Legal and Regulatory Compliance

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) requires that all major federal actions 

significantly affecting the human environment be analyzed to determine the magnitude and 

intensity of those impacts and that the results be shared with the public and the public given 

opportunity to comment. The regulations implementing NEPA further require that to the fullest 

extent possible, agencies shall prepare EISs concurrently with and integrated with environmental

analyses and related surveys and studies required by the Endangered Species Act of 1973, the 

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, and other environmental review laws and executive 

orders. Other laws and regulations that apply to this project are described below. 

Clean Water Act

The Clean Water Act, as amended, regulates the dredging and filling of freshwater and coastal 

wetlands. Section 404 (33 USC 1344) of the Clean Water Act prohibits the discharge of dredged 

or fill material into waters (including wetlands) of the United States without first obtaining a 

permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Wetlands are regulated in accordance with 

federal Non-Tidal Wetlands Regulations (Section 40). No dredging or filing is proposed as part 

of any action alterative considered under this project, and no permits are required. The Horse 

Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration project is in compliance with the Clean 

Water Act. Temperature is the relevant water quality objective for this project as defined in the 

North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board’s Water Quality Control Plan Basin Plan 

(California 1993). The Basin Plan is available on the web (see Literature Cited section below). 

Project-specific best management practices to maintain water quality for those beneficial uses 

during project implementation are contained in Appendix C. The project-specific best 

management practices will be used to meet water quality objectives specified in the Basin Plan 

as discussed in this FEIS and the Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration 

Project fisheries and water quality resource reports, available on the project website.

The project is also in compliance with the National Forest Management Act of 1976 as 

implemented by the Forest Plan, particularly to the requirements of the Aquatic Conservation 

Strategy. Disclosure of compliance with the Aquatic Conservation Strategy is available in the 

project record on the project website. More information on compliance with the Klamath 

National Forest Plan is found in the Forest Plan Consistency Checklist on the project website.

Clean Air Act

The Clean Air Act of 1970, as amended, provides for the protection and enhancement of the 

nation’s air resources. No exceeding of federal or state ambient air quality standards is expected 

to result from any action alternative considered in this project, as disclosed in Chapter 3 – Air 

Quality section.

Environmental Justice (Executive Order 12898)

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

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

Although there are a high proportion of lower income people living in the vicinity of the project 

area as compared to other areas of California, as well as a number of tribal groups of Native 

Americans, the action alternatives will have no adverse effects on human health or the 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

300

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

there will be no disproportionate effects on minorities or low income population.

Non-native Invasive Species (Executive Order 13112)

This executive order 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 action 

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 risk of harm in conjunction with the actions. Project design 

features minimize the environmental effects of action alternatives, as disclosed in Chapter 3 of 

the botany section, and meet the requirements of this executive order.

National Historic Preservation Act

Consultation with federally-recognized tribes was initiated in accordance with the Region 5 

Programmatic Agreement, National Historic Preservation Act, and other laws and regulations. 

The action alternatives proposed will not result in any negative impacts to cultural resource sites. 

This project is in compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.

Federally Recognized Tribes were contacted early in project planning in accordance with the 

Region 5 Programmatic Agreement, National Historic Preservation Act, and other laws and 

regulations. No concerns were expressed regarding the proposed action. Implementation of 

project design features will protect any cultural resources. Scoping did not reveal any concerns 

from the public in this regard.

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act

The effects of this project on wild and scenic rivers are disclosed in Chapter 3 – Wild and Scenic 

River section. Action alternatives will not adversely affect the Klamath Wild and Scenic River.

Endangered Species Act

Compliance with the Endangered Species Act is disclosed in the Wildlife and Aquatic Resources 

sections of this chapter and related resource reports. Consultation with the National Fisheries 

Marine Service for fisheries has been completed and a Letter of Concurrence on the effects of the 

Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration project received. Consultation with 

the U.S. Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service for wildlife species is ongoing.

Energy Requirements, Conservation Potential, Depletable Resource 

Requirements

Consumption of fossil fuels will occur with the action alternatives during logging and hauling 

trees that have been cut, and during the hydrologic stabilization of temporary roads on existing 

and new roadbeds. No unusual requirements are included in action alternatives nor do 

opportunities exist to conserve energy at a large scale. Application of standards and guidelines 

from the Forest Plan for soils, and design features identified in Chapter 2, will conserve soil 

productivity. Supporting information can be found in the soils report, incorporated by reference 

and available on the project website. The project is consistent with the Northern Spotted Owl

Recovery Plan as disclosed in Chapter 3 – Wildlife section.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

301

National Forest Management Act

Consistency with the Forest Plan meets the requirements of compliance with the National Forest 

Management Act. Consistency with the Forest Plan is disclosed throughout Chapter 3 of this 

document and in the Forest Plan Consistency Table, available on the project website.

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.

Possible Conflicts with Other Land Use Plans

The action alternatives are entirely on National Forest System lands. The action alternatives are 

not in conflict with planning objectives for Siskiyou County or local Indian tribes as discussed in 

Chapter 3 and in referenced resource reports.

Incomplete or Unavailable Information

Applicable scientific information is discussed in the resource sections of this chapter and related 

resource reports. The unavailability of definitive scientific information is discussed in the 

Climate Change and Wildlife sections of this chapter. Incomplete or unavailable information will 

not influence the disclosure of effects on other resources in this project.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

302

This page intentionally left blank.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

303

Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination

This chapter includes a section for Preparers and Contributors followed by a section for 

Distribution of the EIS.

Preparers and Contributors

The Forest Service consulted the following individuals, Federal, State, and local agencies, tribes 

and other organizations during the development of this environmental impact statement:

Interdisciplinary Team Members

Lisa Bousfield

Team Lead

Education: Bachelor of Science in Forest Management, Oregon State University

Qualifications: Klamath National Forest District Environmental Coordinator 2015 to 

2017, Klamath National Forest Forester 2003 to 2015. I have led and served on 

interdisciplinary NEPA teams since 2003.

Lauren McChesney

Environmental Coordinator

Education: Bachelor of Science in Biology, SUNY Cortland; Master of Science in 

Marine-Estuarine-Environmental Science, University of Maryland; Master of 

International Development, University of Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public and 

International Affairs; Juris Doctor, University of Pittsburgh School of Law.

Qualifications: Klamath National Forest Environmental Coordinator 2016 to 2017, 

Salmon/Scott River Ranger District NEPA Planner 2013 to 2016. Served on 

interdisciplinary NEPA teams since 2013.

Elspeth Gustavson

Writer/Editor

Education: Master of Science in Forest Ecosystems and Society, Oregon State 

University; Bachelor of Science in Political Science, University of Utah.

Qualifications: Klamath National Forest NEPA Planner since 2016; Nevada 

Conservation Corps Director at the Great Basin Institute from 2015-2016; Fellow for the 

U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Natural Resources 2014-2015; Research 

and Teaching Assistant in forest management and policy at Oregon State University 

2012-2014.

Clint Isbell

Fuels Planner

Education: Master of Science in Natural Resources with an emphasis in Fire Ecology and 

Restoration Ecology form the University of Idaho. Bachelor of Science in Natural 

Resources from California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

304

Qualification: I have served as a Fire Ecologist and worked on numerous NEPA projects 

as a fire and fuels specialist over the past ten years. I also have worked operationally on 

fires over the past 16 years and hold many fire qualifications.

Jeff Paulo

Silviculturist

Education: Graduated from Humboldt State University in 1976 with a Bachelor of 

Science-Forest Management.

Qualifications: 35 years of service in the US Forest Service in various capacities as 

Forestry Technician, Prep Forester, Reforestation TSI Forester, interdisciplinary team 

leader, NEPA planner, and Certified Silviculturist. Served on the Modoc National Forest, 

Chequamegon National Forest, and Shasta-Trinity National Forests.

Chad Bell

Wildlife Biologist

Education: Master of Science in wildlife biology, Humboldt State University and 

Bachelor of Science in wildlife biology, University of Montana.

Qualifications: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as a refuge biologist from 2008 to 2013 

and Forest Service as a wildlife biologist from 2013 to current.

Jon Grunbaum

District Fisheries Biologist

Education: Diablo Valley College, 1985, Associates of Art in General Education. 

Humboldt State University, 1989, Bachelors of Science in Fisheries Science. Oregon 

State University, 1996, Masters of Science in Fisheries Science.

Qualifications: Aquatic and Land Interaction research group at the US Forest Service 

Pacific Northwest Research Station, 1989 to 1994. Klamath National Forest fisheries 

biologist, since April 1994.

Zachariah C. Rodriguez

Heritage Specialist

Education: Bachelor of Science in Anthropology, Southern Oregon University, Master of 

Arts Candidate in Anthropology, Western Michigan University.

Qualifications: Klamath National Forest District Archaeologist 2012 to 2014, Northern 

California Resources Center Archaeologist 2014 to 2015, Klamath National Forest 

District Archaeologist 2015 to 2017. I have served on interdisciplinary NAPA teams 

since 2013.

Derek Beal

Forest Geologist

Education: Master of Science in Applied Geosciences, University of Washington, 

Bachelor of Science in Earth and Space Science: Geology, University of Washington.

Qualifications: Forest Geologist for Klamath National Forest since January 2017.

Juan delaFuente
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

305

Geologist

Education: Bachelor’s Degree in Geology, University of California, Los Angeles, 1966

Qualifications: District and Forest Geologist on the Klamath National Forest from 1971 

to 2009, and Northern Province Geologist for the US Forest Service Region 5 from 2009 

to 2017. I have conducted assessments of geologic hazards and resources related to 

management activities on lands managed by the US Forest Service. The focus this work 

has been on identifying and mitigating landslide hazards, and promoting healthy 

watersheds. I have many years of experience observing how watersheds react after 

wildfires and logging activities, and have presented numerous abstracts summarizing 

these observations at meetings of the American Geophysical Union, and of the 

Geological Society of America.

Will Tripp

Forest Soils Scientist

Education: Associates of Agriculture Science Northwestern Community College, 

Sheridan Wyoming 2006. Bachelors in Agroecology with a minor in Soils University of 

Wyoming, Laramie Wyoming 2010.

Qualifications: Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey Lyman 

Wyoming summer 2009. Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey 

Stephenville TX June 2010 to February 2016. Forest Soil Scientist Klamath National 

Forest February 2016 to Present.

Chad Hermandorfer

Hydrologist

Education: Bachelor of Science, Environmental Science, Bowling Green State 

University, Master of Science Candidate, Natural Resources/Watershed Management, 

Humboldt State University 

Qualifications: Uinta National Forest Hydrologist 2000 to 2003, Forest Service 

Enterprise Program Hydrologist 2003 to present. I have participated on Interdisciplinary 

NEPA Teams since 2002.

Jen Ford

CWE Modeling and Hydrology Input

Education: Bachelor of Science in Watershed Science, Colorado State University

Qualifications: District Hydrologist on the Happy Camp Oak Knoll Ranger District June 

2016 to present.

Dave Bowden

Botanist

Education: Bachelor of Science in Environmental Studies: Conservation Biology, 

College of Idaho. Additional coursework - Oregon State University, Southern Oregon 

University.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

306

Qualifications: Klamath National Forest District Botanist 2016 to 2017, OkanoganWenatchee National Forest Botany Technician 2010 to 2016, I have worked as a botanist 

since 2008.

Karl Dietzler

Scenery, Recreation, and Wild and Scenic Rivers

Education: Bachelor of Science in Natural Resources, University of Massachusetts, 

Amherst; Master of Landscape Architecture, University of Oregon; Master of Science, 

Historic Preservation, University of Oregon.

Qualifications: Klamath National Forest, Landscape Architect 2015 to 2017, Willamette 

National Forest, Recreation Planner 2011 to 2015. Colville National Forest, Student 

Career Experience Intern, Recreation, Lands, and Minerals Program, 2009-2010.

Nick Dennis

Economics

Education: Ph.D. in Wildland Resource Science, University of California, Berkeley. M.S. 

in Forest Science, University of Wisconsin at Madison. Bachelor of Science in Forest 

Science, University of Wisconsin at Madison.

Qualifications: Socioeconomic analyst and forester, ICF International, Mt. Shasta, CA. 

2008 to the present. Professional forester, The Hearst Corporation, McCloud, CA. 2000-

2008. Socioeconomic analyst and forester, Jones and Stokes Associates, Sacramento, CA. 

1987-2000. Forest economist, The John Muir Institute, Berkeley, CA. 1981-1986.

Mike Hupp

Climate Change, Air Quality, Regional Ecosystem Office

Education: Bachelor of Science in Forest Management, University of Missouri 

Qualifications: Currently employed as a Senior Analyst and NEPA Specialist, North 

State Resources (NSR) and as an independent Registered Professional Forester in 

California. Prior to employment with NSR, Mr. Hupp worked for the Forest Service in 

various positions in Oregon and northern California including ranger district staff officer, 

project team leader, forest planning team leader, forest staff officer for planning and 

administration and district ranger.

Gregg Bousfield

Timber Management Officer, Social Economics

Education: Bachelor of Science in Forestry and Master of Science in Natural Resources, 

Watershed Management both from Humboldt State University.

Qualifications: Hydrologist 2007-2015, Forester 2015-present. Nine years of professional 

experience in project-level planning and analysis leading to a Decision Memo, Decision 

Notice/FONSI or Record of Decision. Nine years of experience in project implementation 

and monitoring.

Joseph Dock Chastain

Forester, Logging Systems

Education: Bachelor of Science in Forestry, Humboldt State University.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

307

Qualifications: Klamath National Forest District Forester from 2015 to 2017. Sale Area 

Layout and Harvesting Institute graduate 2016.I have led and served on interdisciplinary 

NEPA teams since 2016.

Charlotte Corbett

GIS Specialist

Education: Training in Geospatial Information Systems that includes classroom and 

online training and webinars that include GIS analysis. 

Qualifications: Twenty two years in the Forest Service as a Biological, Forestry, and 

Cartographic Technician and GIS Specialist. Twenty months as a Biological Technician 

for the Rocky Mountain Research Station, Flagstaff AZ. Experience working with teams 

include Integrated Inventory System, Forest Plan Revision, a Categorical Exclusion 

project and Travel Management.

Margaret Boland

Sociologist

Education: Graduated from the University of Michigan in 1963 with a Masters of Art in 

Sociology; graduated from the University of Michigan in 1959 with a Bachelor of Arts in 

Sociology.

Qualification: Twenty-five years in the Forest Service as a sociologist, planner, 

environmental coordinator, and line officer. Eight years with Northern California 

Resource Center as an environmental coordination trainer.

Reviewers

Roger Siemers, Silviculture

Erin Lonergan, Botany

Bobbie Miller, Fisheries

Distribution of the Environmental Impact Statement

Copies have been sent to the following Federal agencies as required. Letters concerning the 

availability of the document on the project website have been sent to federally recognized and 

other tribes, State and local governments, and organizations representing a wide range of views.

Federal, State, and Local Agencies and Governments

Federal Agencies

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Director, Planning and Review

Army Corp of Engineers

Chief of Naval Operations (N45), Energy and Environmental Readiness Division

Deputy Director APHIS PPD/EAD

Director OEPC

Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

308

Federal Aviation Administration

Federal Highway Administration

National Marine Fisheries Service

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service

National Agricultural Library

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Pacific Division CESPD-CMP

US Coast Guard, Energy, Director, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance

US Coast Guard, Commandant CG-47

US Fish and Wildlife Service

State Agencies

California Water Resources Control Board

California DFW (Shasta Valley Wildlife Area)

California State of Division of Highways

State Elected Officials:

Senator Ted Gaines, Dave Meurer, District Rep.

Local Agencies

Siskiyou County Natural Resources

CALFIRE

Siskiyou County Board of Supervisors Elected Officials:

Ray A. Haupt – District 5

Organizations:

Fire Safe Councils (Seiad Valley and Horse Creek)

American Forest Resource Council

Timber Products Company

Klamath Siskiyou Wildland Center

Klamath Forest Alliance

Environmental Protection Information Center

Center for Biological Diversity

California Forestry Association

California Deer Association

Quail Unlimited

Jefferson State Wildlife Consulting

Northern California Resource Council
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

309

Roseburg Forest Products

Trinity River Lumber

Fruit Growers

LDMA-AU Inc.

Mid Klamath Watershed Council

Tribes

Federally Recognized Tribes:

Quartz Valley Indian Reservation

Confederated Tribes of Grand Ronde

Confederated Tribes of Siletz

Karuk Tribe

Other Tribes:

Shasta Tribe Inc.

Shasta Indian Nation

Others:

All individuals who provided information during the scoping period received notification of the 

availability of the draft environmental impact statement and the opportunity to comment. All 

individuals who provided information during the comment period will receive notification of the 

availability of this final environmental impact statement and the opportunity to object. A list of 

these individuals is available on the project website.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

310

References

Literature Cited

Agee, James. K. 1993. Fire ecology of Pacific Northwest Forests. Island Press, Washington DC.

Agee, James. K. 2007. Steward's Fork: A Sustainable Future for the Klamath Mountains. University of 

California Press. Berkeley. 

Anderson, P. and B. Palik. 2011. Silviculture for Climate Change. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Climate Change Resource Center. www.fs.usda.gov/ccrc/topics/silviculture

Angwin, P.A., D.R. Cluck, P.J. Zambino, B.W. Oblinger, and W.C. Woodruff. 2012. Report #RO-12-01 

“Hazard Tree Guidelines for Forest Service Facilities and Roads in the Pacific Southwest 

Region.” Vallejo, CA.

Bart, J., 1995. Amount of suitable habitat and viability of northern spotted owls. Conservation 

Biology, 9(4), pp.943-946.

Bell. A. 2012. Summary of Cumulative Watershed Effects Modeling Process, Klamath National Forest. 

Yreka, CA.

Beschta, R.L. C.A. Frissell, R. Gresswell, R. Hauer, J.R. Karr, G.W. Minshall, D.A. Perry, and J.J. 

Rhodes. 1995. “Wildfire and Salvage Logging: Recommendations for Ecologically Sound PostFire Treatments on Federal Lands in the West.”

Bond, M.L., D.E. Lee, R.B., J.P. Ward, Jr. 2009. Habitat selection and use by California spotted owls in a 

post-fire landscape. Journal of Wildlife Management 73:1116-1124.

Bond, M.L., R.J. Gutierrez, A.B. Franklin, W.S. LaHaye, C.A. May, and M.E. Seamans. 2002. Short-term 

effects of wildfires on spotted owl survival, site fidelity, mate fidelity, and reproductive success. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin (30) 1022-1026.

Bonnet, V.H., A.W. Schoettle, and W.D. Shepperd. 2005. Post fire environmental conditions influence the 

spatial patterns of regeneration for Pinus ponderosa. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 35: 37-

47.

Brown, J. K., Reinhardt, E. D., and Kramer, K. A. 2003. Coarse Woody Debris: Managing Benefits and 

Fire Hazard in the Recovering Forest. Rocky Mountain Research Station. Ogden: US Department 

of Agriculture.

Busse, M.D., Hubbert, K.R., Fiddler, G.O., Shestak, C.J., Powers, R.F. 2005. Lethal temperatures during 

burning of masticated forest residues. International Journal of Wildland Fire. 14: 267–276.

Butz, Ramona J. and Hugh Safford. 2011. A Summary of Current Trends and Probable Future Trends in 

Climate and Climate-driven Processes for the Klamath National Forest and Surrounding Lands. 

US Forest Service, Unpublished. 

Byram, G.M. 1959. Combustion of Forest Fuels. In Forest Fire: Control and Use. Edited by K.P. Davis. 

Mcgraw-Hill, New York. pp. 61-89.

California Air Resource Board. 2012. Almanac Emissions Projection Data – 2012 Estimated Annual 

Average Emissions: Northeast Plateau Air Basin. Retrieved on 16 April 2014 from 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

311

http://www.arb.ca.gov/app/emsinv/2013/emssumcat_query.php?F_YR=2012&F_DIV=-

4&F_SEASON=A&SP=2013&F_AREA=AB&F_AB=NEP#8

Clark, D. A., Anthony, R. G., and Andrews, L. S. 2011. Survival rates of northern spotted owls in post-fire 

landscapes of southwest Oregon. Journal of Raptor Research, 45(1), 38-47.

Clark, D.A. 2007. Demography and Habitat Selection of Northern Spotted Owls in Post-Fire Landscapes 

of Southwestern Oregon. M.S. Thesis. Oregon State University. 218pp.

Clark, D.A., R.G. Anthony, L.S. Andrews. 2013. Relationship between wildfire, salvage logging, and 

occupancy of nesting territories by northern spotted owls. The Journal of Wildlife Management 

77(4):672–688; 2013. 

Cohen, J. D. 2008. The Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Problem. Forest History Today. Fall 2008.

Connaughton, J.L. 2005. Guidance on the Consideration of Past Actions in Cumulative Effects Analysis. 

Council on Environmental Quality, Washington, DC.

Cover, M., J. de la Fuente, J., and V. Resh. 2010. Catastrophic Disturbances in Headwater Streams: The 

Long-term Ecological Effects of Debris Flows and Debris Floods in the Klamath Mountain, 

Northern California. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 

de la Fuente, J., Bousfield, G., Bell, A. 2009. Differences in Landslides and Debris Flows Associated with 

Winter Storms of 2005 and 1997 on the Klamath National Forest, Central Klamath Mountains, 

California. The Geological Society of America 2009 Annual Meeting. Portland Oregon18-21 

October, 2009. Abstract #118-3.

de la Fuente, Juan and Don Elder. 1998. The Flood of 1997 Klamath National Forest. Phase I Final 

Report: November 24, 1998. Klamath National Forest Supervisor’s Office, Yreka, California.

Dennis, N. 2012. The Siskiyou County Forest Sector Model. Prepared for Siskiyou County Board of 

Supervisors. Yreka, CA.

Donato, D.C., J.B. Fontaine, J.L, W.D, J.B. Kauffman, and B.E. Law. 2006. Post-wildfire logging hinders 

regeneration and increases fire risk. Science 2006, January 20; 311 (5759):352.

Dugger, K. M., Wagner, F., Anthony, R. G., and Olson, G. S. 2005. The relationship between habitat 

characteristics and demographic performance of northern spotted owls in southern Oregon. The 

Condor, 107(4), 863-878.

Eckhardt, R.C., 1979. The adaptive syndromes of two guilds of insectivorous birds in the Colorado Rocky 

Mountains. Ecological Monographs, 49(2), pp.129-149.

Finney, M.A. 2006. An Overview of FlamMap Fire Modeling Capabilities. USDA Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station, P-41, 13. Retrieved from Fire, Fuel, and Smoke Science Program.

Finney, M.A. 2007. A computational method for optimizing fuel treatment locations. International Journal 

of Wildland Fire, 16, pp. 702–711.

Franklin, A.B., D.R. Anderson, R.J. Gutierrez and K.P. Burnham. 2000. Climate change, habitat quality, 

and fitness in northern spotted owl populations in northwestern California. Ecological 

Monographs 70:539-590. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

312

Heinemeyer, K. S. 2002. Translating individual movements into population patterns: American martens in 

fragmented forest landscapes. Santa Cruz, CA: University of California-Santa Cruz. 300p. Ph. D. 

Hood, S. 2010. Mitigating Old Tree Mortality in Long-Unburned, fire-Dependent Forests: A Synthesis. 

Rocky Mountain Research Station. Fort Collins: USDA Forest Service.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: 

Fourth assessment report, climate change 2007. Synthesis Report. 

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-syr.htm. 

Jackson, M., Roering, J. 2009. Post-fire geomorphic response in steep, forested landscapes: Oregon Coast 

Range, USA. Quaternary Geology.

Joyce, L.A. and R. Birdsey, editors. 2000. The impact of climate change on America's forests: A technical 

document supporting the 2000 USDA Forest Service RPA Assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRSGTR-59. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station. 

Knapp, E.E., 2015. Long-term dead wood changes in a Sierra Nevada mixed conifer forest: Habitat and 

fire hazard implications. Forest Ecology and Management, 339, pp.87-95.

Knapp, Eric E., Weatherspoon, C. Philip, and Carl N. Skinner. 2012. Shrub seedbanks in mixed conifer 

forests of northern California and the role of fire in regulating abundance. Fire Ecology vol 8. 

Issue 1, pp 32-48.

Lee, D. E., Bond, M. L., Borchert, M. I., and Tanner, R. 2013. Influence of fire and salvage logging on 

site occupancy of spotted owls in the San Bernardino and San Jacinto Mountains of southern 

California. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 77(7), 1327-1341.

Lee, D.E, Bond M.L., Siegel R.B. 2012. Dynamics of California Spotted Owl breeding-season site 

occupancy in burned forests. The Condor. 114:792-802. 

Lowell, Eini; E., Willits, S. Krahmer, R. 1992. Deterioration of Fire-Killed and Fire-Damaged Timber in 

the Western United States. PNW-GTR-292. 27pp. Rose, R. and D.L. Hasse. 2005. Rapid response 

reforestation: studies in fire reforestation. RMRS-P-35. USDA Forest Service Proceedings.

McDonald, Philip M., and Gary O. Fiddler. 1989. Competing vegetation in ponderosa pine plantations: 

ecology and control. PSW-GTR-113. USDA, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range 

Experiment Station, 28 pp.

McGinnis, T. W., Keely, J. E., Stephens, S. L., and Roller, G. B. (2010). Fuel buildup and potential fire 

behavior after stand-replacing fires, logging fire-killed trees and herbicide shrub removal in 

Sierra Nevada forests. Forest Ecology and Management, 22-35.

McIver, J.D. and R. Ottmar. 2007. Fuel mass and stand structure after post-fire logging of a severely 

burned ponderosa pine forest in northeastern Oregon. Forest Ecology and Management 238 

(2007) pp. 268-279.

Millar. C., N. Stephenson, and S. Stephens. 2007. Climate Change and Forests of the Future: Managing in 

the Face of Uncertainty. Ecological Applications.

Mondry, Z.J. 2004. 1997 Flooding in Three Northern California Klamath Mountain Streams: Geomorphic 

Effectiveness and Sediment and Large Wood Budgets. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

313

Monsanto, P. G. and Agee, J. K. 2008. Long-term post-wildfire dynamics of coarse woody debris after 

salvage logging and implications for soil heating in dry forest of the eastern Cascades, 

Washington. Forest Ecology and Management, 3952-3961.

Morrison, P.H. and F.J. Swanson. 1990. Fire History and Pattern in a Cascade Range Landscape, General 

Technical Report PNW-GTR-254.

National Wildfire Coordinating Group. 1994. Intermediate Wildland Fire Behavior. National Interagency 

Fire Center.

National Wildland Coordination Group. 2006. Incident Response Pocket Guide. National Interagency Fire 

Center.

North Coast Region Water Quality Control Board. 2010. Final staff report for the Klamath River total 

maximum daily loads (TMDLs) addressing temperature, dissolved oxygen, nutrient, and 

microcystin impairments in California, with the proposed site specific dissolved oxygen 

objectives for the Klamath River in California and the Klamath River and Lost River 

Implementation plans. Accessed at 

http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/303dlists2006/epa/r1_06_303d_reqtm 

dls.pdf

North Coast Region Water Quality Control Board. 2011. Water Quality Control Plan for the North Coast 

Region, May 2011. Santa Rosa, CA.

North Coast Region Water Quality Control Board. 2015. California Regional Water Quality Control 

Board, Order No. R1-2015-0021, Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements for Nonpoint Source 

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

Lands North Coast Region

Nowicki, B. 2002.The Community Protection Zone: Defending Houses and Communities from the Threat 

of Forest Fire. Center for Biological Diversity. Unpublished.

Odion, D. C., Frost, E. J., Stritholt, J. R., Hong, J. D., and Moritz, M. A. 2004. Patterns of Fire Severity 

and Forest Conditions in the Western Klamath Mountains. Conservation Biology, 927-936.

Omi, P. N., and Kalabokidis, K. D. 1991. Fire damage on extensively vs. intensively managed forest 

stands within the North Fork Fire, 1988. Northwest Science, 65(4).

Peterson, D. L., Agee, J. K., Aplet, G. H., Dykstra, D. P., Graham, R. T., Lehmkuhl, J. F., and Stuart, J. D. 

2009. Effects of Timber Harvest Following Wildfire in Western North America. Portland: USDA -

Forest Service.

Peterson, D. W. and Harrod, R. J. 2010. Fuel succession, post-fire logging, and future fire behavior: 

addressing the "reburn problem." Joint Fire Science Program. Retrieved from 

https://www.firescience.gov/projects/06-3-4-16/project/06-3-4-16_final_report_-_jfsp_06-3-4-

16_-_peterson_et_al.pdf

Peterson, D. W., Dodson, E. K. and Harrod, R.J. 2015. Post-fire logging reduces surface woody fuels up 

to four decades following wildfire. Forest Ecology and Management, 84-91.

Reinhardt, E. and Crookston, N.L., 2003. The fire and fuels extension to the forest vegetation simulator.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

314

Reinhardt, E., Keane, R., Brown, J. 1997. First Order Fire Effects Model: FOFEM 4.0 User’s Guide. 

USDA, US Forest Service. Intermountain Research Station General Technical Report. INT-GTR344.

Ritchie, M. W., Knapp, E. E., and Skinner, C. N. 2012. Snag longevity and surface fuel accumulation 

following post-fire logging in a ponderosa pine dominated forest. Forest Ecology and 

Management, 113-122.

Roberts, S.L., van Wagtendonk, J.W., Miles, A.K. and Kelt, D.A., 2011. Effects of fire on spotted owl site 

occupancy in a late-successional forest. Biological Conservation, 144(1), pp.610-619.

Rose, R. and D.L. Hasse. 2005. Rapid response reforestation: studies in fire reforestation. RMRS-P-35. 

USDA Forest Service Proceedings.

Ruggiero, L. F., K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, J.L. Lyon, W.J. Zielinski, tech. eds. 1994. The Scientific Basis 

for Conserving Forest Carnivores: American Marten, Fisher, Lynx and Wolverine in the Western 

United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-254. Ft. Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 184 p

Sanders, S.D. and Flett, M.A., 1989. Montane riparian habitat and willow flycatchers: threats to a 

sensitive environment and species.

Schmidt, D.A., Taylor, A.H., Skinner, C.N. 2008. The influence of fuels treatments and landscape 

arrangements on simulated fire behavior, Southern Cascade range, California. Forest Ecology and 

Management 255 (2008) 3170-3184.

Scott, J.H. and E.D. Reinhardt. 2001. Assessing Crown Fire Potential by Linking Models of Surface and 

Crown Fire Behavior. Fort Collings: USDA Forest Service.

Shatford, J.P.A., D.E. Hibbs, and K.J. Puettman. 2007. Conifer Regeneration after forest fire in the 

Klamath-Siskiyous: how much, how soon? Journal of Forestry. April/May 2007: 139-146.

Siskiyou County, CA. 1996. Siskiyou County Comprehensive Land and Resource Management Plan. 

Yreka, CA.

Skinner, C.N., 2002. Influence of fire on the dynamics of dead woody material in forests of California and 

Southwestern Oregon. In: Laudenslayer Jr., W.F., Shea, P.J., Valentine, B.E., Weatherspoon, C.P., 

Lisle (Tech. Coordinators.), Proceedings of the Symposium on the Ecology and Management of 

Dead Wood in Western Forests, Reno, NV, 2–4 November 1999. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. PSW-GTR-181, pp. 445–454.

Skinner, Carl N., Taylor, Alan H., Agee, James K. 2006. Klamath Mountains Bioregion. In: Sugihara, Neil 

G., Van Wagtendonk, Jan W., Shaffer, Kevin E., Fites-Kaufman, Joann, Thode, Andrea E. (eds.) 

Fire in California’s ecosystems.170-194. 

Smith, C.L. and Cluck, D.R. 2011. Report #RO-11-01 Marking Guidelines for Fire-Injured Trees in 

California. 

Stephens, S.L. 2004. Fuel loads, snag abundance, and snag recruitment in an unmanaged Jeffrey pine–

mixed conifer forest in northwestern Mexico. Forest Ecology and Management, 199(1), pp.103-

113.

Stewart, G.H. 1989. The dynamics of old-growth Pseudotsuga forests in the western Cascade Range, 

Oregon, USA. Vegetatio, 82 (1), pp. 79-94.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

315

Taylor, A. H. and Skinner, C. N. 1998. Fire history and landscape dynamics in a late-successional reserve, 

Klamath Mountains, California, USA. Forest Ecology and Management, 285-301.

Taylor, A. H. and Skinner, C. N. 2003. Spatial Patterns and Controls on Historical Fire Regimes and 

Forest Structure in the Klamath Mountains. Ecological Applications, 704-719.

Thomas J.W., Forsman E.D., Lint J.B., Meslow E.C., Noon B.R., Verner J. 1990. A Conservation Strategy 

for the Northern Spotted Owl. Portland (OR): Interagency Scientific Committee to address the 

conservation of the northern spotted owl. USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land 

Management, National Park Service, and Fish and Wildlife Service.

Thompson, J.R., T.A. Spies and L.M. Ganio. 2007. Reburn severity in managed and unmanaged 

vegetation in a large wildfire. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Volume 104, 

No.25: 10743-10748.

Trombulak, S.C. and C.A. Frissell. 2000. Review of Ecological Effects of Roads on Terrestrial and 

Aquatic Communities. Conservation Biology, Vol. 14, No. 1, pages 18–3. February. Accessed at 

http://trc.ucdavis.edu/catoft/eve11/Protected/PDF/lit/Trombulak_Frissell_2000.pdf

Trombulak, S.C. and C.A. Frissell. 2005. Review of Ecological Effects of Roads on Terrestrial and 

Aquatic Communities. Conservation Biology, Volume 14, No. 1, pages 18-30.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2012. Final California 2012 Integrated Report (303(d) 

List/305(b) Report), Supporting Information. Final USEPA Final Approval: June 26, 2015 

http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/integrated2012.shtml

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2013. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and 

Sink: 1990-2011. EPA 430-R-13-001. 

U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP).2 014. Climate Change Impacts in the United States: 

The Third National Climate Assessment. U.S. National Climate Assessment.

USDA Forest Service, 2016d. Klamath National Forest Road Sediment Source Inventory. Klamath 

National Forest, Yreka, California.

USDA Forest Service, 1990. Soil erosion hazard rating. Soil and Water Conservation Handbook, Ch. 50, 

R-5 FSH 2509.22, R5 Amend. 2. PSW Region, Vallejo, California

USDA Forest Service, 2002. Klamath National Forest, Wet Weather Operations Standards. Yreka, CA. 

USDA Forest Service, 2006. Proposed Compaction Risk Rating, Version 1. Region 5. 24p.

USDA Forest Service, 2007. Record of Decision, Horse Heli. Klamath National Forest. Yreka, CA.

USDA Forest Service, 2012a. Record of Decision, Johnny O’Neil Late Successional Reserve Habitat 

Restoration and Fuel Reduction Project. Klamath National Forest. Yreka, CA.

USDA Forest Service, 2012d. R5 Supplement to FSM 2550- Soil Management. USDA-Forest Service, 

Pacific SW Region, Vallejo, California.10p.

USDA Forest Service, 2012e. Klamath National Forest Soil Monitoring Report 2012. Klamath National 

Forest Supervisors Office. 5p.

USDA Forest Service, 2016a. Klamath National Forest Best Management Practices 2015 Fiscal Year. 

Klamath National Forest Supervisors Office.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

316

USDA Forest Service, 2016c. Streambed Sediment Conditions on the Klamath National Forest 2009 to 

2015. Klamath National Forest Supervisors Office. Yreka, CA.

USDA Forest Service. 1993. Salmon Sub-basin Sediment Analysis. Internal Document by Juan de la 

Fuente and Polly Haessig.

USDA Forest Service. 1995a. (updated through 2010). Land and Resource Management Plan: Klamath 

National Forest. Yreka, CA.

USDA Forest Service. 1995b. A Desk Reference for NEPA Air Quality Analysis. 

USDA Forest Service. 1995c. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Land and Resource 

Management Plan for the Klamath National Forest. Yreka, CA.

USDA Forest Service. 1995d. Record of Decision for the Land and Resource Management Plan for the 

Klamath National Forest. Yreka, CA.

USDA Forest Service. 1999. Klamath National Forest Forestwide Late-Successional Reserve Assessment. 

Yreka, CA.

USDA Forest Service. 2002a. Horse Creek Ecosystem Analysis. Accessed at 

https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5402914.pdf 

USDA Forest Service. 2003. Klamath National Forest Fish Passage Inventory. Klamath National Forest 

Supervisors Office, Yreka, California.

USDA Forest Service. 2004. Cumulative Watershed Effects Analysis Quantitative Models for Surface 

Erosion, Mass Wasting and ERA/TOC; Prepared by Don Elder and Mark Reichert, Klamath 

National Forest, February 9, 2004.

USDA Forest Service. 2008. Recreation Facility Analysis 5-year Program of Work and Programmatic 

Results of Implementation. Klamath National Forest. July 16, 2008. Yreka, CA.

USDA Forest Service. 2009a. Regional Forester’s letter on naturally occurring asbestos.

USDA Forest Service. 2009b. Climate Change Considerations in Project-Level NEPA Analysis. 

Washington Office. 

USDA Forest Service. 2009c. Forest Soil Disturbance Monitoring Protocol. Gen. Tech Report WO-82a.

USDA Forest Service. 2009d. Response Reaches Stream Monitoring Field Guide. Klamath National 

Forest. July 8, 2009. Yreka, CA.

USDA Forest Service. 2010. Klamath National Forest Sediment and Shade Monitoring Plan and Quality 

Assurance Project Plan. September 28, 2010. Yreka, CA.

USDA Forest Service. 2011a. Pacific Southwest Region Water Quality Management for Forested Lands 

in California.

USDA Forest Service. 2011b. National Roadmap for Responding to Climate Change. FS-957B. 

USDA Forest Service. 2011c. Watershed Condition Classification Technical Guide.

USDA Forest Service. 2011d. Stream Shade Monitoring on the Klamath National Forest, 2010. March 14, 

2011.Yreka, CA.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

317

USDA Forest Service. 2012b. An Introduction to the Geology of the Klamath, Mendocino, Shasta Trinity, 

and Six Rivers National Forests in Northwestern California. Internal Report by: Don Elder, Juan 

de la Fuente, Angie Bell, Ryan Mikulovsky, Melanie Stevens, Fred Levitan. 23 pp and map 

packet.

USDA Forest Service. 2012c. National Best Management Practices for Water Quality Management on 

National Forest System Lands. 

USDA Forest Service. 2013a. Pacific Southwest Region Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List, July 

3, 2013 (updated September 9, 2013). Vallejo, CA.

USDA Forest Service. 2013b. Programmatic Agreement Among U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Pacific 

Southwest Region (Region 5), California State Historic Preservation Officer, Nevada State 

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

Processes for Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for 

Management of Historic Properties by the National Forests of the Pacific Southwest Region.

USDA Forest Service. 2014. ExistingVegNorCoastEast_1998_2007_v1.Pacific Southwest Region 

Remote Sensing Lab. Publication Date: 20140404

USDA Forest Service. 2015. Stream temperature monitoring on the Klamath National Forest: 1989 –

2015. National Resources Information System (NRIS).

USDA Forest Service. 2016b. Gap Fire Burned Area Emergency Response (BAER) and associate 

Geology, Soils, and Hydrology Reports. Internal documents.

USDA USDC USDI. 2004. Analytical Process for Developing Biological Assessments for Federal 

Actions Affecting Fish within the Northwest Forest Plan Area. Accessed at 

http://www.blm.gov/or/esa/reports/Analytical_Process_110504.doc

USDA USDI Headwaters. 2016. Economic Profile System-Human Dimensions Toolkit. A Profile of 

Socioeconomic Measures, Selected Geographies: Siskiyou County, CA.

http://headwaterseconomics.org/wphw/wp-content/eps-profiles/06093%20-

%20Siskiyou%20County%20CA%20Measures.pdf

USDA USDI. 1994. Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land 

Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl and Standards 

and Guidelines for Management of Habitat for Late-Successional and Old-Growth Forest Related 

Species Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl (Northwest Forest Plan). Portland, OR.

USDA USDI. 2001a. Record of Decision and Standards and Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey 

and Manage, Protection Buffer, and Other Mitigation Measures. Portland, OR.

USDA USDI. 2001b. 10-Year Comprehensive Strategy: A collaborative approach for reducing wildland 

fire risks to communities and the environment. U.S. Department of Interior and U.S. Department 

of Agriculture. August 2001. 21 pp. http://www.fireplan.gov/reports/7-19-en.pdf

USDC NMFS. 2014. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2014. Final Recovery Plan for the Southern 

Oregon/Northern. California Coast Evolutionarily Significant Unit. Accessed at 

http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/protected_species/salmon_steelhead/recovery_planning_

and_implementation/southern_oregon_northern_california_coast/southern_oregon_northern_calif

ornia_coast_recovery_plan_documents.html
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

318

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1992. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: determination of 

critical habitat for the northern spotted owl. Federal Register vol.50 no.10 pg. 1796-1838.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2009. Regulatory and scientific basis for US Fish and Wildlife Service 

guidance for evaluation of take for northern spotted owls on private timberlands in California’s 

northern interior region. pp.78.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Revised recovery plan for the northern spotted owl (Strix 

occidentalis caurina). US Department of Interior, Portland, Oregon, USA.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2012. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of 

Revised Critical Habitat for the Northern Spotted Owl; Final Rule. 50 CFR Part 17, 194 pp.

Weatherspoon, C.P. and C.N. Skinner. 1995. An assessment of factors associated with damage to tree 

crowns from the 1987 wildfires in northern California. Forest Science, Volume 41, No. 3: 430-

451.

Whitfield, M.J., Enos, K.M. and Rowe, S.P., 1997. Is Brown-headed Cowbird trapping effective for 

managing populations of the endangered Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Studies in Avian 

Biology, 18, pp.260-266.

Zhang, J., J. Webster, R.F. Powers and J. Mills. 2008. Reforestation after the Fountain Fire in northern 

California; an untold success story. Journal of Forestry. December, 2008, pp. 425-430.

Zhao, F., Sweitzer, R., Guo, Q, Kelly, M. 2012. Characterizing habitats associated with fisher den 

structures in the southern Sierra Nevada, California using discrete return radar. Forest Ecology 

and Management. 

Ziemer, R. 1981. Erosion and Sediment Transport in Pacific Rim Steeplands. IAHS Publication. No 132. 

Ziemer, R. 1981. The role of vegetation in the stability of forested slopes. Pacific Southwest 

Research Station, Arcata, CA.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

319

Glossary

Term Definition

Activity Centers (ACs) 

(Northern Spotted Owl)

The area that includes the Northern Spotted Owl home range and 

core area. 

Anadromous Fish The species of fish, commonly salmon and steelhead, born in fresh 

water, migrate to the ocean to mature, and return to fresh water to 

lay eggs (spawn).

Aquatic Conservation Strategy 

(ACS)

A strategy developed to restore and maintain the ecological health

of watersheds and aquatic ecosystems contained within them on

public lands. 

Area of Potential Effects (APE) The area within which project activities are expected to occur that 

may affect historic properties. 

Basal Area The area of a section of land that is occupied by the cross-section 

of tree trunks and stems at their base.

Best Management Practices

(BMPs)

A codified series of about 100 practices for protecting water quality 

when conducting forest management activities. BMPs are 

referenced in R5 FSH 2509.22, Soil and Water Conservation 

Handbook; Chapter 10, Water Quality Management Handbook.

Best Management Practices

Evaluation Program (BMPEP)

A program for monitoring and evaluating the implementation and 

effectiveness of application of BMPs. 

Broadcast Burning Prescribed burning of the understory of an area.

Burned Area Emergency 

Response (BAER)

A Forest Service activity of immediate post-wildfire response to 

assess and reduce the risk of loss of human life, property damage, 

and adverse effects to critical natural and cultural resources from 

threats caused by the fire. 

Burned Area Reflectance 

Classification (BARC) A model using pre- and post- fire satellite imagery to derive a 

preliminary classification using of landscape change as a result of 

a wildfire that, after field verification, will become soil burn severity. 

Clear-cut Logging 

(clearcutting)

An even-aged management silvicultural system applied to green 

forest stands for the purpose of regenerating a new age class. 

Trees are selected and removed in groups up to 40 acres in size 

followed by artificial or natural regeneration.

Coarse Woody Debris (CWD) Woody material at least 20-inches in diameter from whatever 

source that is dead and lying on the forest floor. Term used for 

terrestrial species habitat.

Code of Federal Regulations 

(CFRs)

A codification of the general and permanent rules published in the 

Federal Register by the Executive departments and agencies of 

the Federal Government.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

320

Term Definition

Connected Actions Actions that: (i) automatically trigger other actions which may 

require environmental impact statements; (ii) cannot or will not 

proceed unless other actions are taken previously or 

simultaneously; or, (iii) are interdependent parts of a larger action 

and depend on the larger action for their justification (40 CFR 

1508.25).

Connectivity The degree to which the landscape facilitates animal movement 

and other ecological flows. The linkage of similar but separated 

vegetation stands by patches, corridors, or “stepping stones” of like 

vegetation. This term can also refer to the degree to which similar 

habitats are linked. 

Core Area (Northern Spotted 

Owl)

An area defined by a 0.5-mile radius around a NSO activity center 

that owls use most often, especially during the nesting season.

Critical Habitat Areas designated for the survival and recovery of federally listed 

threatened or endangered species.

Cumulative Effects Those effects resulting from incremental effects of actions, when 

added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions, regardless of what agency or person undertakes such 

other actions.

Cumulative Watershed Effects

(CWE)

A model for Cumulative Watershed Effects with three components: 

Equivalent Roaded Acres (ERA), sediment delivery from surface 

erosion (Universal Soil Loss Equation or USLE), and sediment 

delivery from mass wasting (GEO). The model quantifies 

disturbances and land sensitivity at the watershed scale (usually 

the 7th field watershed scale but also at larger scales). The 

estimated results fall on a continuum. As disturbances increase 

over time and space, at some point the risk of initiating or 

contributing to existing adverse cumulative watershed impacts 

becomes a cause for concern. Concern thresholds have been 

identified for each component based on field observations in the 

Forest. The CWE models may measure the additive direct and 

indirect effects of various activities within an alternative but may 

also be used to add the effects of alternative actions for a project to 

the effects of reasonably foreseeable future actions.

Decommissioned Road Road that has been administratively removed from the National 

Forest Transportation System. Many such roads have undergone 

activities that result in the stabilization and restoration of unneeded 

roads or trails to a more natural state (FSM 7703.2(1)).

Degrade (Habitat) The habitat characteristics will be affected but it will still function as 

the pre-treatment habitat. 

Diameter at Breast Height 

(DBH) The diameter of a tree trunk 4.5 feet above the ground. 

Direct Effects Those effects occurring at the same time and place as the initial

cause or action. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

321

Term Definition

Dispersal Habitat Northern Spotted Owl habitat that where there is a moderate level 

of canopy closure (compared to nesting/roosting) and trees large 

enough to provide shelter and potential foraging opportunities for 

traveling NSO.

Downgrade (Habitat) Habitat prior to treatment will no longer function as that type of 

habitat but will function as a lower quality habitat. 

Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement (DEIS)

A detailed written statement as required by section 102(2) (C) of 

the NEPA (40 CFR 1508.11) that is released to governmental 

agencies and the general public for review and comment.

Egress A route that provides a way out of an area. 

Endangered Species Those plant or animal species that are in danger of extinction 

throughout all or a significant portion of their range. Endangered 

species are identified by the Secretary of the Interior in accordance 

with the Endangered Species Act of 1973.

Environmental Justice The state (or condition) which all populations are provided the 

opportunity to comment before decisions are rendered on, are 

allowed to share in the benefits of, are not excluded from, and are 

not affected in a disproportionately high and adverse manner by 

government programs and activities affecting human health or the 

environment.

Equivalent Roaded Acres 

(ERA) Refer to Cumulative Watershed Effects.

Erosion Hazard Rating (EHR) A rating system used to classify the relative vulnerability of soil to 

erosion.

Fire Behavior The variable characteristics of an active flaming front.

Fire Hazard A fuel complex, defined by volume, type condition, arrangement, 

and location, that determines the degree of ease of ignition and of 

resistance to control.

Fire Perimeter The entire outer edge or boundary of a fire.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

322

Term Definition

Fire Regime The combination of fire frequency, predictability, intensity, 

seasonality, and distinctive characteristics of fire in an ecosystem. 

Agee (1993) defines three broad categories of fire severity “based 

on the physical characters of fire and the fire adaptations of 

vegetation:”

Low Severity Fire Regime: Effect of typical fire is benign. Fires are 

frequent (often < 20 years), of low intensity, and the ecosystems 

have dominant vegetation well adapted to survive fire.

Mixed Severity Fire Regime: Fires are of intermediate frequency 

(25-100 years), range from low to high intensity, and have 

vegetation with a wide range of adaptation. 

High Severity Fire Regime: Fires are usually infrequent (often >100 

years) but may be of high intensity, most vegetation is at least topkilled.

Fire Return Interval Number of years between two successive fires in a specified area.

Fire Severity The level of effects of fire on the post burn landscape. In most 

cases when the term fire behavior is used to indicate fire severity, it 

adds the qualifier “problem fire behavior”.

Fireline A corridor, which has been cleared of organic material to expose 

mineral soil. Firelines may be constructed by hand or by 

mechanical equipment (e.g., dozers).

Fish-Bearing Streams Fish-bearing streams are distinguished from intermittent streams 

by the presence of any species of fish for any duration. Many 

intermittent streams may be used as spawning and rearing 

streams, refuge areas during flood events in larger rivers and 

streams, or travel routes for fish emigrating from lakes.

Flame Length The length of flame measured in feet. Increased flame lengths 

increase resistance to control and likelihood of torching events and 

crown fires.

Foraging Habitat (F) Northern Spotted Owl habitat where the canopy cover is slightly 

less than Nesting/Roosting habitat with fewer large trees but still 

enough space in the understory for Northern Spotted Owl to 

maneuver through the trees for hunting prey.

Fuel Management Zones A system of linear or mosaic patch treatments of forest or shrub 

vegetation designed and treated to reduce fire spread, intensity, 

and create barriers to fire spread.

Geologic Riparian Reserves Refer to Unstable Lands. 

Ground Cover Natural organic and inorganic material that covers the watershed 

ground surface in sufficient quantity to allow a satisfactory rate of 

water infiltration to replenish ground water and limit erosion to 

natural rates. Ground cover usually consists of perennial 

vegetation, forest floor litter and duff, rock, downed wood, or similar 

erosion resistant material.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

323

Term Definition

Habitat Connectivity Refer to Connectivity. 

Hand Piling The piling of limbs and branches by hand for burning at a later 

time.

Hazard Tree A standing tree that presents a hazard to people due to conditions 

such as deterioration of or damage to the root system, trunk, stem, 

or limbs or the direction or lean of the tree (29 CFR 1910.266(c); 

FSH 6709.11, glossary).

High Hazard Potential Hazard tree rating is defined in the Hazard Tree Guidelines for 

Forest Service Facilities and Roads in the Pacific Southwest 

Region (Report #RO-12-01). The hazard potential is determined by 

the probability of the tree falling or part of the tree falling and the 

potential effect of the tree falling. A high hazard potential requires 

prompt removal of the tree or part of the tree (mitigation). 

Home Range (Northern 

Spotted Owl)

An area defined by a 1.3-mile radius around a NSO activity center 

within which owls forage, nest, and roost.

Hydrologic Riparian Reserves Riparian reserves associated with intermittent stream channels, 

perennial stream channels, wetlands or springs. 

Hydrologic Stabilization Activities that ensure that roads and trails will not contribute 

negative effects to water sources. Methods for hydrologic 

stabilization include water-barring, removing culverts, covering and 

seeding as stated in Best Management Practices.

Indirect Effects Those effects occurring later in time or that are spatially removed

from the activity.

Ingress A route that allows access into an area. 

Inner Gorges Slopes greater than 65 percent which occur along rivers and 

streams.

Intermittent Stream Any non-permanent flowing drainage feature having (1) a definable 

channel and (2) evidence of annual scour or deposition. This 

includes what are sometimes referred to as ephemeral streams if 

they meet these two physical criteria. Some intermittent streams 

flow after July 1 and are termed “late-flowing” intermittent streams.

Inventoried Roadless Area Areas identified in a set of inventoried roadless area maps, 

contained in Forest Service Roadless Area Conservation, Final 

Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2, dated November 

2000, which are held at the National headquarters office of the 

Forest Service, or any subsequent update or revision of those 

maps.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

324

Term Definition

Irretrievable A term that applies to the loss of production, harvest, or use of 

natural resources. For example, some or all of the timber 

production from an area is lost irretrievably while an area is serving 

as a winter sports site. The production lost is irretrievable, but the 

action is not irreversible. If the use changes, it is possible to 

resume timber production.

Irreversible A term that describes the loss of future options. Applies primarily to 

the effects of use of nonrenewable resources, such as minerals or 

cultural resources, or to those factors, such as soil productivity that 

are renewable only over long periods of time

Issue Point of discussion, debate, or dispute about the environmental

effects of the proposed action.

Landslide Risk The intersection of the likelihood of a landslide event and the 

consequences of a landslide event. The analysis is on the 7th field 

watershed scale. 

Large Woody Debris Woody material, at least 24” in diameter and 50 feet long, that is 

dead and lying on the forest floor. Term used for aquatic habitat.

Late Successional Reserve

(LSR)

Large blocks of habitat that are distributed across the range of the 

northern spotted owl and spaced closely enough to facilitate 

dispersal of owls. Late successional reserves are managed to 

provide habitat for late successional and “old growth” species.

Limited Operating Periods 

(LOPs)

Specified dates that restrict management activities (1) near known 

wildlife nesting sites or un-surveyed suitable nesting habitat during 

the breeding season; or (2) restrict equipment use during periods 

of wet weather to minimize or avoid sedimentation into streams 

(also known as periods when wet weather operating standards 

(WWOS) will apply).

Maintenance Level Defines the level of service provided by, and maintenance required 

for, a specific road, consistent with road management objectives 

and maintenance criteria.

Maintenance Level 1 Road Roads that have been placed in storage between intermittent uses. 

A Maintenance Level 1 road is closed to vehicular traffic but may 

be available and suitable for non-motorized uses.

Maintenance Level 2 Road Roads open for use by high clearance vehicles. Traffic is normally 

minor, usually consisting of one or a combination of administrative, 

permitted, dispersed recreation, or other specialized uses. 

Passenger cars are discouraged or prohibited.

Maintenance Level 3 Road Roads open and maintained for travel by a prudent driver in a 

standard passenger car. Roads in this maintenance level are 

typically low speed with single lanes and turnouts. 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

325

Term Definition

Maintenance Level 4 Road Roads that provide a moderate degree of user comfort and 

convenience at moderate travel speeds. Most level 4 roads are 

double lane and aggregate surfaced, but may single lane, paved 

and/or dust abated.

Maintenance Level 5 Road Roads that provide a high degree of user comfort and 

convenience. These roads are normally double lane, paved 

facilities. Some may be aggregate surfaced and dust abated.

Management Area (MA) A distinct geographical area with specified objectives and

prescriptions. 

Moderate Hazard Potential Hazard tree rating is defined in the Hazard Tree Guidelines for 

Forest Service Facilities and Roads in the Pacific Southwest 

Region (Report #RO-12-01). The hazard potential is determined by 

the probability of the tree falling or part of the tree falling and the 

potential effect of the tree falling. A moderate hazard potential 

requires the documentation and tag and map the tree (monitor) or 

the removal of the hazard tree (mitigate). 

Monitoring Process of collecting information to evaluate if objective and

anticipated or assumed results of a management plan are being

realized or if implementation is proceeding as planned. 

National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA)

Codifies the national policy of encouraging harmony between 

humans and the environment by promoting efforts to prevent or 

eliminate damage to the environment, thereby enriching our 

understanding of ecological systems and natural resources. It 

declares the federal government to be responsible for: (a) 

coordinating programs and plans regarding environmental 

protection; (b) using an interdisciplinary approach to decisionmaking; (c) developing methods to ensure that non-quantifiable 

amenity values are included economic analyses; and (d) including 

in every recommendation, report on proposals for legislation, or 

other major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the 

environment a detailed environmental impact statement (EIS).

National Forest Management 

Act (NFMA)

An amendment to the Resource Planning Act providing direction 

for the development of land and resource management plans for 

each national forest.

National Forest System Land Consists of units of federally owned forest, range and related lands 

united into a nationally significant system dedicated to the longterm benefit for present and future generations. The NFS includes 

all national forest lands acquired through purchase, exchange, 

donation or other means; the national grasslands; and other lands, 

waters or interests which are administered by the Forest Service.

National Forest Transportation 

System (NFTS)

The system of National Forest System roads, National Forest 

System trails, and airfields on National Forest System lands (36 

CFR 212).
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

326

Term Definition

Naturally Occurring Asbestos Natural geologic occurrence of various types of asbestos minerals 

that pose a potential health risk if released into the air through 

ground-disturbing activities.

Nesting/Roosting Habitat (NR 

or N/F)

Northern Spotted Owl habitat that is in mid- to late-seral forests 

that contain stands of large trees with high canopy cover (≥60%), 

multilayered canopies, and nesting platforms.

Non-native Invasive Species Any plant or plant product that can directly or indirectly injure or 

cause damage to crops (including nursery stock or plant products), 

livestock, poultry, or other interests of agriculture, irrigation, 

navigation, the natural resources of the United States, the public 

health, or the environment.

Noxious Weed See Non-native Invasive Species.

One-hour Fuels Fine flashy fuels, dried herbaceous plants or round wood less than 

1/4" diameter. Also includes the uppermost layer of litter on the 

forest floor. 

One-hundred-hour Fuels 1" to 3" diameter sticks and brush.

Outstanding Remarkable 

Value

A river-related value must be a unique, rare, or exemplary feature 

that is significant at a comparative regional or national scale.

Perennial Stream A stream which normally flows throughout the year.

Plantation A group of trees that have been planted together.

Post-fire Foraging Habitat 

(PFF)

Foraging habitat that burned at moderate and high vegetation 

severity or nesting/roosting that burned at high severity.

Prescribed Fire or Prescribed 

Burning

A type of fuel treatment whereby fire is intentionally set in wildland 

fuels under prescribed conditions and circumstances.

Primary Constituent Elements 

(PCE)

The physical and biological features that provide the essential life 

history requirements of the species.

Project Design Features (PDF) Mitigations developed and incorporated into the alternatives 

considered in detail to minimize or eliminate negative effects of the 

project, and protect and promote late successional habitat, 

consistent with the Forest Plan. 

Rapid Assessment of 

Vegetation Conditions (RAVG) 

after wildfire

The product is generated for National Forest Service lands 

(including wilderness) to provide information that can assist postfire vegetation management planning designed to address a 

number of management objectives. The product provided to the 

Forest are Map and GIS products showing location of basal area 

loss within fire perimeter. Summary table of vegetation affected by 

the fire, separated into four classes of basal area loss. Refer to 

Vegetation Burn Severity for description of categories of severity. 

Reforested/Reforestation The natural or artificial restocking of an area with trees.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

327

Term Definition

Regeneration The act of renewing tree cover by establishing young trees 

naturally or artificially-generally, promptly after the previous stand 

or forest has been removed.

Release Release treatments include manually removing competing plants 

or water uptake from competing plant.

Removal of Habitat Habitat prior to treatment is lost and will no longer function as 

habitat (for Northern Spotted Owl and other species) after 

treatment.

Resistance to Control The relative difficulty of constructing and holding a control line as 

affected by resistance to line construction and fire behavior; also 

called “difficulty of control.”

Riparian Reserves (Unstable 

Lands (Geologic) and 

Hydrologic)

A land allocation in the Forest Plan that includes an aquatic 

ecosystem and the adjacent upland areas directly affecting it. It 

also includes unstable and potentially unstable lands that are not 

associated with aquatic areas. Specific standards and guidelines 

provide direction for these areas as outlined in Management Area 

10 of the Forest Plan. For the purposes of this project, a hydrologic 

riparian reserve includes areas associated with bodies of water 

(primarily streams) and inner gorges that may be associated with 

streams, and geologic riparian reserves are associated with factors 

such as unstable lands but do not include inner gorges.

Risk Ratios (For Cumulative 

Watershed Effects Models)

The amount of the disturbance in the watershed relative to the 

hydrologic or sediment inference point.

Roadless Area Refer to Inventoried Roadless Areas.

Salvage Harvest (salvage 

logging)

The removal of dead trees after a natural event (for example, after 

a wildfire) to remove hazards to public safety, capture the 

economic value of burned trees, and/or remove excessive fuel 

accumulation. Dead trees (or snags) exceeding those needed by 

other resources (e.g. for wildlife habitat) are removed. Although 

some salvage harvested areas may appear similar to clearcuts, the 

different is that salvage trees are dead and their size and location 

were determined by the natural event. Salvage harvest is also a 

fuels reduction activity that will over time, help protect the 

remaining adjacent late-successional habitat and promote the latesuccessional character by accelerating the regeneration to a 

forested stand that will eventually regain late-successional 

characteristics.

Scenic Character The aggregate of features and traits that form the individual scenic 

nature of an area.

Sensitive Species Plant or animal species which are susceptible to habitat changes 

or impacts from management activities. The official designation is 

made by the USDA Forest Service at the regional level and is not 

part of the designation of threatened or endangered species made 

by the U.S. Fish And Wildlife Service.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

328

Term Definition

Site Preparation The removal or reduction of competing vegetation or logging 

debris, to prepare the area for planting and to promote the growth 

and survival of desired tree species.

Snag A standing dead or dying tree that has lost most of its branches, or 

the standing portion of a broken-off tree. Snags provide cavities for 

nesting, perches, and feeding sites for wildlife.

Snag Retention Areas where snags will be left on site and standing where they do 

not pose a hazard to implementers.

Soil Burn Severity The effect of a fire on ground surface characteristics, described in 

terms of char depth, organic matter loss, altered color and 

structure of soil, and reduced infiltration. Soil burn severity is 

measured in high, moderate and low classes based upon the 

degree of effects.

Soil Organic Matter The amount of organic matter within the mineral soil, indicated by 

the color and thickness of the upper soil horizon, is within the 

normal range of characteristics for the site, and is distributed 

normally across the area. The upper soil horizon is not displaced or 

eroded to the degree or extent that soil productivity is decreased 

for the desired vegetation. 

Soil Stability An adequate level of soil cover is maintained to prevent 

accelerated erosion, and erosion prevention measures are 

effectively implemented following soil disturbing activities. Effective 

soil cover includes organic surface materials, living vegetation less 

than 3 feet tall (grasses, forbs and low growing shrubs), surface 

rock fragments larger than 3⁄4 inch, or where needed applied 

mulches.

Soil Structure State of having pores or holes in the soil that hold air or water; 

permeability

Stand A group of trees that occupies a specific area and is similar in 

species, age and condition.

Standard and Guideline A principle requiring a specific level of attainment, a rule to 

measure against.

Subsoiling Mechanical lifting and shattering of the layer of soil beneath the 

topsoil in order to reduce soil density and strength, improve 

moisture infiltration and retention, and increase root penetration in 

the soil.

Suitable Lands Land where the harvest activities could occur without causing 

irreversible damage to soil or watershed.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

329

Term Definition

Surface Organic Matter The amount of organic material on top of the mineral soil is 

maintained at levels to sustain soil microorganisms and provide for 

nutrient cycling. Organic materials may range in size from 

amorphous and fine organic matter that makes up the O horizon, 

needles and twigs, to coarser materials such as branches and 

logs. 

Temporary Roads Roads authorized by contract, permit, lease, other written

authorization, or emergency operation, not intended to be a part of

the forest transportation system and not necessary for long-term

resource management (36 CFR 212.1).

Ten-hour Fuels Needle cast and small dead/downed material primarily fuels < 1” 

diameter. 

Underburning Prescribed burning of the understory.

Understory Vegetation Vegetation (trees or shrubs) growing under the canopy formed by 

taller trees.

Universal Soil Loss Equation 

(USLE) Refer to Cumulative Watershed Effects.

Unstable Lands Riparian reserves associated with active landslides (including earth 

flows), inner gorges, toe zones of dormant landslides, or steepweathered granitic lands. 

Unsuitable Lands Forest land withdrawn from timber utilization by statute or 

administrative regulation or identified as not appropriate for timber

production in the forest planning process, i.e., irreversible soils 

damage and non-reforestable in five years.

Vegetation Burn Severity The effect of a fire on vegetation, often described by the degree of 

scorch, consumption, and mortality of vegetation. Vegetation burn 

severity is measured by classes of canopy mortality or basal area 

loss.

Viewshed A total landscape seen or potentially seen from specific points on a 

logical part of a travel route or water body.

Watershed: The entire land area that drains to a specific point.

5th field watershed: A watershed that is usually more than 40,000 

acres in size.

6th field watershed: A watershed that ranges from about 10,000 to 

40,000 acres in size.

7th field watershed: A watershed or drainage that ranges from 

about 2,500 to 10,000 acres in size.

Wild and Scenic River A river that is either already designated or proposed for 

designation because of its free flowing condition and outstanding 

remarkable values.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

330

Term Definition

Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) Commonly referred to as the WUI (woo-ee). This is an area, or 

zone, where structures and other human development meet or 

intermingle with undeveloped wildland or vegetative fuels. It 

generally extends out for 1.5 miles from the edge of developed 

private land into the wildland.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

331

Index

B

Best management practices... 40, 54, 71, 72, 158, 168, 

234, 298, 317, 321

Burned area emergency response ....70, 95, 101, 144, 149, 

167, 169, 170, 173, 185, 231, 232, 317

C

Carbon dioxide equivalent..... 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82

Carbon sequestration ...............................................106

Coho salmon.... 18, 35, 56, 136, 142, 150, 151, 158, 169, 

174

Critical habitat 35, 93, 146, 158, 247, 249, 252, 253, 254, 

268, 272, 275, 276, 277, 278, 295

Cumulative watershed effects144, 145, 149, 150, 152, 

157, 170, 172, 174, 175, 185, 187, 189, 318, 319, 325, 

327

D

Debris flow................... 147, 153, 169, 172, 173, 174, 232

Decommissioning......................................................185

E

Erosion hazard rating ....................... 70, 227, 229, 230, 319

F

Fuel management zone ... 38, 39, 42, 64, 68, 78, 96, 99, 

128, 130, 189, 193, 199, 209, 210, 211, 224, 226, 235, 

237, 238, 240, 246, 247, 293, 320

G

Gap Fire.. 4, 8, 9, 14, 15, 19, 24, 30, 34, 90, 92, 94, 95, 97, 

99, 101, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 118, 119, 120, 

121, 122, 123, 125, 126, 128, 144, 145, 149, 151, 152, 

153, 154, 155, 157, 158, 163, 167, 169, 170, 173, 185, 

187, 188, 189, 193, 198, 199, 204, 205, 206, 207, 209, 

210, 211, 212, 214, 215, 217, 231, 232, 250, 267, 268, 

269, 270, 271, 272, 275, 279, 281, 283, 288, 294, 295

General forest..................8, 9, 10, 13, 15, 31, 32, 33, 36, 37

Greenhouse gas....... 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 105, 106

H

Hazard tree...14, 18, 19, 20, 28, 29, 31, 34, 35, 38, 52, 55, 

63, 65, 71, 96, 97, 98, 99, 106, 145, 155, 158, 159, 164, 

165, 166, 168, 176, 182, 183, 199, 201, 207, 208, 209, 

210, 213, 218, 221, 223, 224, 225, 226, 261, 291, 321, 

323

Hazardous fuels..........................................218, 223, 224

I

Inventoried roadless areas ........13, 19, 20, 29, 31, 325

K

Karuk Alternative......................61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67

L

Landings... 25, 35, 44, 48, 49, 51, 52, 53, 56, 102, 144, 153, 

154, 155, 156, 157, 160, 161, 162, 164, 166, 170, 171, 

175, 177, 189, 227, 228, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 

237, 238, 239, 240, 251, 253, 294

Landslides .... 43, 50, 65, 145, 147, 149, 151, 152, 161, 162, 

164, 166, 172, 173, 174, 175, 177, 322, 327

Late successional reserve ..9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, 59, 68, 69, 

203, 218, 231, 322

N

Non-native invasive species.....89, 90, 92, 94, 99, 100, 

102, 105, 299, 324

Northern spotted owl....11, 14, 25, 38, 42, 69, 71, 82, 213, 

218, 247, 249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254, 267, 268, 271, 

272, 275, 276, 278, 295, 300, 317, 318, 319, 320, 321, 

322, 324, 325

P

Preferred alternative ....................................... 2, 21, 22, 37

Private property8, 15, 18, 19, 21, 27, 29, 30, 38, 39, 42, 57, 

62, 64, 68, 73, 78, 108, 110, 126, 129, 130, 131, 154, 

175, 189, 208, 209, 210, 211, 221, 224, 227, 235, 237, 

238, 240, 246, 247

Project design feature 24, 25, 40, 42, 43, 56, 71, 72, 75, 

89, 94, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 105, 149, 163, 168, 170, 

171, 172, 174, 175, 176, 179, 181, 182, 202, 204, 205, 

207, 210, 233, 234, 236, 237, 238, 239, 241, 261, 280, 

287, 288, 290, 291, 292, 299, 324

R

Reforestation 20, 33, 61, 66, 93, 103, 106, 124, 155, 156, 

160, 161, 162, 164, 166, 174, 175, 188, 209, 212, 215, 

216, 217, 223, 302, 324

Retention visual quality objective 10, 12, 16, 17, 203, 

204, 209, 210, 211, 212, 243, 246, 247

Riparian reserves.viii, 2, 3, 9, 10, 11, 17, 18, 20, 21, 27, 28, 

29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 43, 44, 48, 49, 50, 55, 65, 71, 82, 84, 

96, 97, 98, 125, 133, 141, 142, 143, 145, 149, 152, 153, 

154, 156, 158, 159, 161, 162, 164, 166, 168, 174, 189, 

193, 203, 209, 217, 261, 262, 270, 287, 288, 320, 321, 

325, 327
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

332

Roadside hazard 6, 18, 19, 25, 27, 28, 36, 38, 42, 43, 57, 

58, 59, 62, 73, 78, 96, 97, 99, 144, 170, 175, 181, 182, 

183, 189, 198, 199, 204, 208, 209, 210, 211, 218, 221, 

223, 224, 225, 227, 231, 233, 237, 238, 246, 254, 255, 

266, 290, 291, 292, 293

S

Safety.... 8, 15, 31, 35, 55, 57, 59, 61, 62, 65, 108, 110, 112, 

123, 124, 126, 128, 129, 171, 198, 199, 200, 207, 217, 

218, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 290, 291, 

297, 325

Salvage... 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 30, 31, 39, 42, 59, 61, 62, 64, 

65, 68, 70, 73, 78, 80, 106, 155, 156, 160, 161, 162, 164, 

166, 182, 208, 209, 216, 217, 220, 223, 224, 227, 245, 

261, 288, 294, 325

Site preparation 16, 18, 20, 21, 27, 30, 33, 39, 62, 66, 73, 

106, 124, 128, 130, 145, 148, 170, 174, 175, 182, 189, 

198, 199, 207, 208, 209, 211, 213, 215, 216, 217, 218, 

219, 220, 223, 225, 226, 227, 235, 240, 245, 293, 326

Snag 21, 31, 33, 59, 70, 108, 109, 123, 124, 125, 127, 128, 

209, 217, 249, 265, 266, 271, 272, 273, 274, 289, 290, 

291, 292, 293, 294, 295, 326

Soil stability...98, 108, 228, 230, 231, 233, 234, 235, 236, 

237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 326

Special interest area.. 10, 11, 18, 20, 21, 27, 34, 35, 39, 42, 

62, 66, 72, 73, 91, 94, 144, 154, 168, 170, 172, 175, 182, 

199, 203, 205, 209

T

Temporary roads... 21, 25, 31, 36, 42, 43, 44, 48, 51, 57, 

58, 62, 65, 73, 96, 97, 98, 102, 103, 128, 144, 161, 168, 

170, 171, 175, 177, 189, 190, 191, 192, 217, 233, 235, 

236, 237, 238, 240, 300, 327

U

Unstable land........................ 43, 44, 50, 175, 320, 325, 327

W

Wild and Scenic River......57, 197, 198, 199, 201, 202, 204, 

205, 206, 210, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 299, 

304, 327

Wilderness............................................................20, 31, 76

Wildland urban interface .....14, 15, 108, 109, 110, 116, 

117, 118, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 220, 328
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

333

Appendix A – Project Maps

Figure 11: Alternative 2 Proposed Treatments Map.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

334

Figure 12: Alternative 3 Proposed Treatments Map.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

335

Figure 13: Alternative 4 Proposed Treatments Map.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

336

Figure 14: Karuk Alternative Proposed Treatments Map.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

337

Figure 15: Wildland urban interface - defense, home ignition, and threat zones.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

338

Figure 16. Alternative 2 proposed actions with management areas.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

339

Figure 17. Alternative 3 proposed actions with management areas
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

340

Figure 18: Alternative 4 proposed actions with management areas.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

341

Figure 19: Karuk Alternative proposed actions with management areas.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

342

Figure 20: 2017 Storm damage sites within project area.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

343

Figure 21: Alternative 2 proposed action fish ranges.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

344

Figure 22: Alternative 3 proposed action fish ranges.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

345

Figure 23: Alternative 4 fish ranges.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

346

Figure 24: Fuel management zones comparison.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

347

Appendix B – Actions Considered for Cumulative 

Effects

Current and future foreseeable actions considered for analysis within the fifteen 7th field 

watersheds (Table B-1) that intersect the Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest 

Restoration Project (Horse Creek Project) boundary are listed below. Actions considered for 

cumulative effects can vary by resource. See Chapter 3 for details. Ongoing and future 

foreseeable actions are discussed in separate sections. The stage of each project is listed in 

parenthesis. For the purpose of this project, it is assumed that private Timber Harvest Plans 

(THPs) submitted between 2012 and the present are still ongoing and will be analyzed under 

cumulative effects; THPs submitted prior to 2012 are considered past actions. Cumulative effects 

analysis will also consider recent and current Notice of Emergency Timber Operations for the 

2014 Beaver Fire and the 2016 Gap Fire.

Table B-1: The fifteen 7th field watersheds that intersect the Horse Creek Project boundary.

7th Field Watersheds

Jaynes Canyon Doggett Creek

East Fork Horse Creek Middle Horse Creek

Salt Gulch Middle Creek

Buckhorn Creek Lower Horse Creek

Kohl Creek Collins Creek-Klamath River

Sambo Gulch-Klamath River Middle Seiad Creek

Tom Martin Creek-Klamath River Negro Creek

Schutts Gulch-Klamath River

Ongoing Actions (Klamath National Forest)

Westside Fire Recovery Project – Signed February 2016

The Beaver Fire lies on the north side of the Klamath River and is adjacent to the community of 

Klamath River. Much of the Beaver Fire area is in checkerboard ownership where alternating 

sections are either privately owned or part of the Klamath National Forest. Most of the fire-killed 

or damaged trees on private land were salvaged in the spring and early summer of 2015. Project 

was developed to address the following needs: 1) A need for worker and public safety and 

access; 2) A need for safe conditions for firefighters performing fire suppression for community 

protection; 3) A need for restored and fire-resilient forested ecosystems; and 4) A need for a 

project that is economically viable, meeting project objectives and benefiting our local 

communities. Ongoing actions are located in the following: Township 46 North, Range 8 West, 

Sections 2 to 7 and 9 to 11; Township 46 North, Range 9 West, Sections 1 to 13 and 18; 

Township 46 North, Range 10 West, Sections 1 to 3 and 10 to 15; Township 47 North, Range 8 

West, Sections 4 to 10,15 to 22 and 27 to 35; Township 47 North, Range 9 West, Sections 1, 9 to 

17 and 20 to 36; and Township 47 North, Range 10 West, Sections 25 and 34 to 36; Mount 

Diablo Meridian.

Within the 15 watersheds that bound the cumulative effects analysis the following treatments 

have not been implemented:

• About 12 miles of roadside hazard salvage;
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

348

• About 400 acres of site preparation and tree planting;

• About 700 acres of fuels management zones;

• About 200 acres of roadside fuels reduction; and

• About 160 acres of WUI fuels reduction units.

Johnny O’Neil Late Successional Reserve Habitat Restoration and Fuels 

Reduction Project:

This project is located north of Horse Creek, Hamburg, and Seiad Valley, in Siskiyou County, 

California, within Township 47 North, Range 11 West, Sections 15 and 22 to 27; Township 47 

North, Range 10 West, Sections 20 and 30; Township 46 North, Range 11 West, Sections 1 to 3 

and 10 to 15; and Township 46 North, Range 10 West, Sections 6 and 18, Mount Diablo 

Meridian. This project proposes to retain and promote the development of late-successional 

habitat and reduce the risk of large, high severity wildfires to move toward more ecologically 

resilient conditions on approximately 7,280 acres of the Johnny O’Neil Late Successional 

Reserve. Proposed treatments include a combination of under-burning, mastication and thinning 

of small trees, and thinning of larger trees using variable density thinning techniques.

Ongoing activities include:

• About 600 out of 950 acres of commercial thinning included in the Johnny O’Neil 

Stewardship Contract will be carried forward for treatment. To date none of these stands 

have been commercially thinned.

• About 300 acres of areas identified for mastication thinning will be carried forward for 

treatment. To date none of these have been treated.

• About 80 acres of hand thin and pile units have not been implemented to date.

• About 400 acres of hand thin and pile units have been partially implemented with only 

the hand piles left to be burned.

• About 1,100 acres of underburning units located outside of the Gap Fire perimeter will be 

considered for implementation.

Thom-Seider Vegetation Management and Fuel Reduction Project:

This project is located in between Hamburg and Happy Camp, in Siskiyou County, California 

within Township 16 North, Range 7 East, Sections 1, 2, 11 to 14 and 24; Township 17 North, 

Range 7 East, Sections 1, 2, 11 to 13, 24, 25, 35, and 36; Township 18 North, Range 7 East, 

Sections 1 to 3, 10 to 15, 22 to 26, 35 and 36; Township 19 North, Range 7 East, Sections 33 36; 

Township 16 North, Range 8 East, Sections 4 to 6, 7 to 9, 15 to 18, 19 to20 and 28 to 30; 

Township 17 North, Range 8 East, Sections 4 to 6, 7 to 9, 16 to 21, and 28 to 33; Township 18

North, Range 8 East, Sections 7 to 9, 16 to 21, and 28 to 33; Humboldt Meridian. Township 45

North, Range 10 West, Sections 6 and 7; Township 46 North, Range 10 West, Sections 19, 

29,and 30 to 32; Township 45 North, Range 11 West, Sections 1 to 18; Township 46 North, 

Range 11 West, Sections 3 to 10 and 13 to 36; Township 47 North, Range 11 West, Sections 7 to 

10, 15 to 22, and 27 to 34; Township 45 North, Range 12 West, Sections 1 to 21; Township 46

North, Range 12 West, Sections 1 to 36; Township 47 North, Range 12 West, Sections 7, 8, and 

13 to 36; Mount Diablo Meridian. The project is intended to reduce the potential for highseverity wildland fires to harm people private and public land, and older forest habitats by 
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

349

responding to the increasing density and fuels hazard evident along the Klamath River between 

Hamburg and Happy Camp, California. Treatments include thinning and understory burning on 

29,300 acres within and adjacent to the wildland urban interface.

Ongoing activities include:

• About 3,781 acres of underburning units located outside of the Gap Fire perimeter will be 

considered for implementation.

• About 219 acres of hand thin, pile, and burn units have not been implemented to date.

Seiad Creek Legacy Roadbed Rehabilitation Project:

The project is located about two miles northeast of Seiad Valley, California in Siskiyou County: 

Township 46 North, Range 11 West, Sections 5, 7, and 8; Township 47 North, Range 11 West, 

Sections 18, 20, 27, 28, 32 to 34; and Township 47 North, Range 12 West, Section 13, Mount 

Diablo Meridian. The project will remediate 40 legacy sites located along 5.8 miles of existing 

roadbeds within the Seiad Creek watershed, tributary to the Klamath River.

Livestock Grazing Allotment:

There are two active livestock grazing allotments within the Horse Creek Project area.

Allotments are managed using an Adaptive Management Strategy intended to move or maintain 

Forest resources toward desired condition and Forest plan objectives. Table B-2 provides the 

name, status, use period, and permitted number of cattle for each active livestock grazing 

allotment within the Project area.

Table B-2. Active Livestock Grazing Allotments within the Horse Creek Project area.

Allotment 

Name

Status Use Period Permitted 

Cattle (Pairs)

Notes

Dry Lake active 4/15 to 10/15 116 This includes cattle permitted on both FS and 

private lands. Overlaps the project boundary in 

the far NE Corner.

5/10 to 10/15 54

Horse Creek active 4/15 to 10/15 101 This includes cattle permitted on both FS and 

private lands. Overlaps most of the project

boundary. Grazing permit will be modified in 

2017 to adjust for fire effects.

Ongoing Actions (Private)

Non-industrial Timber Harvest Management Plans:

The following are tree planting, herbicide application and fuels reduction projects proposed for 

funding under the California Forest Improvement Program.

CFIP Year 7th Field Watershed Private Property 

Owners

Acres

2017 Lower Horse Creek Dennis D. and Carol 

L. Lawrence

28

2017 Buckhorn Creek Dennis Lang and 

Michele Treuscorff

21
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

350

Timber Harvest Plans (THP):

Since 2012 three Timber Harvest Plans have been approved within the fifteen 7th field

watersheds intersecting the Horse Creek Project area.

Table B-3 lists the year the THP was submitted, the THP number, timber owner, the acreage for 

which they have THP’s in place and the 7th field watershed that they are located in.

Table B-3: Potentially active Timber Harvest Plans within fifteen 7th field watersheds intersecting the Horse 

Creek Project area.

THP Year THP # 7th Field Watershed Timber Owner Acresa

2014 2-14-089-SIS Doggett Creek; Jaynes 

Canyon

Michigan California Timber Co 190

2013 2-13-041-SIS Doggett Creek Fruit Growers Supply Co. 1,070

2011b 2-11-085-SIS Collins Creek-Klamath 

River; Sambo GulchKlamath River

Michigan California Timber Co 184

Total 1,444

a – This estimate only includes acres within the fifteen 7th field watersheds considered for cumulative effects.

b – THP 2-11-085-SIS was considered since it was not approved until 2012.

Emergency Timber Operations:

The following table summarizes Notices of Emergency Timber Operations (NETO) submitted to 

the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection in response to the recent 2014 Beaver 

and 2016 Gap Fires.

Table B-4: Recent Emergency Timber Operations within the fifteen 7th field watersheds intersecting the 

Horse Creek Project area.

NETO Year EM # 7th Field Watershed Timber Owner Acresa

2017 2.17EM.019.SIS Lower Horse Creek Michael Morgan 355

2017 2.17EM.016.SIS Lower Horse Creek Gary L. Rainey Sr. and Karen S. 

Rainey

21

2017 2.17EM.015.SIS Middle Creek; Lower Horse 

Creek

Richard True and Mary Ann 

Hartshorn

128

2017 2.17EM.014.SIS Buckhorn Creek Dennis Lang and Michele 

Treuscorff

28

2017 2.17EM.013.SIS Middle Creek Fruit Grower Supply Company 970

2017 2.17EM.012.SIS Sambo Gulch-Klamath 

River; Lower Horse Creek

Fruit Grower Supply Company 603

2017 2.17EM.011.SIS Middle Creek Fruit Grower Supply Company 82

2017 2.17EM.010.SIS Buckhorn Creek Fruit Grower Supply Company 1,207
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

351

2017 2.17EM.009.SIS Lower Horse Creek Robert Rainey 173

2017 2.17EM.008.SIS Middle Creek Michael J and Donna J Strong 8

2017 2.17EM.007.SIS Lower Horse Creek Dennis and Carol Lawrence 49

2017 2.17EM.006.SIS Middle Creek Nancy May Scaeffer Revocable 

Trust

7

2017 2.17EM.005.SIS Middle Creek John M. Huston Trustee 80

2017 2.17EM.004.SIS Lower Horse Creek E B Development Corporation 113

2017 2.17EM.001.SIS Lower Horse Creek Ryan and Jessica Mannix 31

2016 2.16EM.041.SIS Lower Horse Creek Trudi Rainey 29

2016 2.16EM.039.SIS Lower Horse Creek; Sambo 

Gulch-Klamath River

Fruit Growers Supply Co 196

2016 2.16EM.038.SIS Buckhorn Creek; Middle 

Creek; Lower Horse Creek

Christian Futures Inc. 337

2016 2.16EM.037.SIS Buckhorn Creek Fruit Growers Supply Co. 434

2015 2.15EM.110.SIS Doggett Creek Fruit Growers Supply Co. 50

2015 2.15EM.099.SIS Doggett Creek Fruit Growers Supply Co 273

2015 2.15EM.096.SIS Doggett Creek Fruit Growers Supply Co 78

2015 2.15EM.071.SIS Buckhorn Creek; Collins 

Creek-Klamath River

Steven Knight 83

2015 2.15EM.068.SIS Collins Creek-Klamath River Walter Moody 37

2015 2.15EM.064.SIS Buckhorn Creek William Peters 65

2015 2.15EM.060.SIS Collins Creek-Klamath River Walter Moody 174

2015 2.15EM.059.SIS Doggett Creek Fruit Growers Supply Co 163

2015 2.15EM.057.SIS Doggett Creek Fruit Growers Supply Co 32

2015 2.15EM.054.SIS Doggett Creek; Kohl Creek Fruit Growers Supply Co 293

2015 2.15EM.051.SIS Doggett Creek Fruit Growers Supply Co 212

2015 2.15EM.050.SIS Kohl Creek Fruit Growers Supply Co 338

2015 2.15EM.047.SIS Kohl Creek Fruit Growers Supply Co 245

2015 2.15EM.030.SIS Doggett Creek Fruit Growers Supply Co 17
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

352

2015 2.15EM.017.SIS Doggett Creek Fruit Growers Supply Co 135

2015 2.15EM.008.SIS Collins Creek-Klamath River Klamath Botanicals Inc. 65

2015 2.15EM.007.SIS Collins Creek-Klamath River Noah’s Ark Wilderness Retreats 

Inc.

118

2014 2.14EM.108.SIS Doggett Creek Fruit Growers Supply Co 117

2014 2.14EM.099.SIS Buckhorn Creek; Collins 

Creek-Klamath River

Steven Knight 151

2014 2.14EM.084.SIS Buckhorn Creek; Kohl Creek Fruit Growers Supply Co 492

2014 2.14EM.083.SIS Doggett Creek Fruit Growers Supply Co 272

2014 2.14EM.062.SIS Doggett Creek Fruit Growers Supply Co 44

2014 2.14EM.060.SIS Buckhorn Creek; Doggett 

Creek; Kohl Creek

Fruit Growers Supply Co 71

2014 2.14EM.052.SIS Doggett Creek Fruit Growers Supply Co 265

2014 2.14EM.050.SIS Doggett Creek Michigan-California Timber Co. 30

2014 2.14EM.047.SIS Collins Creek-Klamath 

River; Kohl Creek

Crawford Trust 302

Total 8,973

a – Acres were derived by digitizing hardcopy maps received by the California Department of Forestry and Fire 

Protection, clipped to the fifteen 7th field watersheds. Therefore acres may not exactly match was reported in the 

NETO documentation.

Future Foreseeable Actions (Klamath National Forest)

Coho Salmon Off-Channel Ponds Project

The Fish Gulch project site (7 acres): Township 46 North Range 11 West Section 12 – Mount 

Diablo Meridian, Horse Creek 6th field watershed and Lower Horse Creek 7th field watershed, 

2,000 foot elevation, Horse Creek, California. The project would restore refugia habitat for Coho 

salmon and create or enhance wetland habitat. Signed decision should occur before the signing 

of this project and implementation would start fall 2017.

Future Foreseeable Actions (Fruit Growers Supply Company)

Table B-4 includes all notices emergency timber operations (NETO) approved by Cal Fire to 

date. However, communications with Fruit Growers Supply Company indicates that they will be 

submitting additional NETOs to Cal Fire for the remainder of their lands affected by the 2016 

Gap Fire. Spatial analysis indicates that Fruit Growers Supply Company could submit additional 

NETOs for about 2,000 acres in Middle Creek, about 1,400 acre in Buckhorn Creek and about 

600 acres in Sambo Gulch-Klamath River.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

353

Past Projects – 10 years

Horse Heli – Signed December 2007

The Horse Heli project is located within the headwaters of Doggett, Kohl, Buckhorn, and Middle 

Creeks approximately 25 miles northwest of Yreka, California. The legal description is: 

Township 47 North, Range 9 West, Sections 19, 20 and 30; and Township 47 North, Range 10 

West, Sections 11, 13, 14, 15, 22, and 24, Mount Diablo Meridian. The purposes of the proposed 

action are to help restore and maintain healthy forest ecosystems that are resistant to catastrophic 

events, provide timber in the short term, and contribute to a non-declining flow of timber in the 

long term. The need for treatment was identified in the Horse Creek Watershed Analysis by 

comparing the existing condition with the desired condition described in the Forest Plan. An 

interdisciplinary team visited areas in the assessment area to identify areas that were a high 

priority for moving towards the desired condition.

Checkerboard Roadside Hazard Tree Removal – Signed July 2009

Hazard tree removal located along 155 miles of National Forest System maintenance level 

2, 3, 4, and 5 roads, within the McKinney-Horse Creek and Beaver Creek 5th Field 

Watersheds on the Oak Knoll Ranger District of the Klamath National Forest. Township 47 

North, Range 11 West, Sections 14, 22 to 27 and 34 to 36; Township 46 North, Range 11 

West, Sections 1 to 3 and 10 to 15; Township 47 North, Range 10 West, Sections 8 to 

13, 15, 18, 20, 22, 26, 28 to 34, and 36; Township 46 North, Range 10 West, Sections 4, 

7, 8, 18, and 20; Township 48 North, Range 9 West, Sections 13 to 16, 22, 24, 26, 28, 31, 

32, and 36; Township 46 North, Range 9 West, Sections 2 to 4, 6, and 10; Township 48 

North, Range 8 West, Sections 18, 20, 21, 28, 29, 30, and 32; Township 47 North, Range 8 

West, Sections 6, 8, 18, 19, 30 and 31; and Township 46 North, Range 8 West, Section 6; 

Mt. Diablo Meridian (Siskiyou County, CA).

Fish Meadow Restoration Project - Signed October 2011

This project was located about 2 miles north of Horse Creek, California in T 47N, R 10W, 

Sections 32 and 33, Mt. Diablo Meridian. The project treated about 200 acres by thinning 

conifers less than nine inches in diameter at breast height, with follow-up hand piling and 

burning of activities generated material.

Horse Creek Road Rehab – Signed May 2012

This project was located about 2 miles northwest of Horse Creek, California in T 46N, R 

10W, Section 7, T 46N, R 11W, Sections 1, 2 and 12, T 47N, R 11W, Section 35. The project 

improved drainage on about 3 miles of Forest Service road 46N50 to restore natural flow 

patterns, minimize surface erosion, and reduce the potential for the creek to erode the road 

fill.

Seiad Creek Road Rehabilitation Project – Signed December 2012

This project was located about 2 miles northeast of Seiad Valley, California in T 47N, R 

11W, Sections 8, 9, 16, 20, 21, 27 – 29, and 32 – 34, T 46N, R 11W, Sections 4 and 5, Mt 

Diablo Meridian. The project treated legacy sediment sources along 13 miles of Forest 

Service roads 46N50, 46N60, and 48N20. The purpose of the project is to improve 

watershed conditions by reducing the risk of catastrophic failures, preventing stream 

diversions and stabilizing road prism landslides, and reducing chronic road surface and 

inboard ditch erosion.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

354

Goff Fire Fuels Reduction Project – Signed December 2014

This project was location on Forest Service lands adjacent to roads, powerlines and private lands 

around Seiad Valley, California in T 46N, R 11W Sections 5, 6; T 46N, R 12W. Sections 1, 2, 3, 

4, 5, 10, 11, 12; T 47N, R 11W. Sections 20, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33; and T 47N, R 12W. Sections 32, 

33, 36, Mt. Diablo Meridian. Treatments occurred on about 228 acres including thinning of small 

diameter trees (up to 9” in diameter at breast height of conifers and up to 7” diameter at breast 

height of hardwoods and brush), slashing, mastication, chipping, burning piles, and falling and 

leaving or removing snags.

Seiad Creek Road Rehab Project Phase 2 – Signed March 2015

This project was located about 3 miles northeast of Seiad Valley, California in T 47N, R 

11W, Sections 9, 10, 15, 16, 21, 22, 27, and 28, Mt Diablo Meridian. The project 

implemented road stormproofing activities that maintained or improved road surface 

drainage, stabilized road prism landslides, and upgraded road stream crossings to prevent 

diversion and pass the 100-year flow event either through a culvert or over the top of the fill 

without failure. Stormproofing activities primarily occurred at 27 sites along 5.6 miles of Forest 

Service roads 47N72, 47N72A, 47N74, and 47N76.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

355

Appendix C – Best Management Practices

The following BMPs taken from the “USDA National Best Management Practices for Water 

Quality Management on National Forest System Lands, Vol. 1 National Core BMP Technical 

Guide” were considered in the effects analysis for the three action alternatives proposed for the 

Horse Creek Project.

Table C-1: Best Management Practices, taken from the “USDA National Best Management Practices for Water 

Quality Management on National Forest System Lands, Vol. 1 National Core BMP Technical Guide” to be 

implemented for the Horse Creek Project.

BMP Number BMP Description

Fire-2. Use of Prescribed 

Fire

Avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects of prescribed fire and 

associated activities on soil, water quality, and riparian resources that 

may result from excessive soil disturbance as well as inputs of ash, 

sediment, nutrients, and debris.

Road-2. Road Location and 

Design

Locate and design roads to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to 

soil, water quality, and riparian resources.

Road-3. Road Construction 

and Reconstruction

Avoid or minimize adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian 

resources from erosion, sediment, and other pollutant delivery during 

road construction or reconstruction.

Road-4. Road Operations 

and Maintenance

Avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and 

riparian resources by controlling road use and operations and providing 

adequate and appropriate maintenance to minimize sediment production 

and other pollutants during the useful life of the road.

Road-5. Temporary Roads Avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and 

riparian resources from the construction and use of temporary roads.

Road-6. Road Storage and 

Decommissioning

Avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and 

riparian resources by storing closed roads not needed for at least 1 year 

(Intermittent Stored Service) and decommissioning unneeded roads in a 

hydrologically stable manner to eliminate hydrologic connectivity, restore 

natural flow patterns, and minimize soil erosion.

Road-7. Stream Crossings Avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and 

riparian resources when constructing, reconstructing, or maintaining 

temporary and permanent water-body crossings.

Road-9. Parking and 

Staging Areas

Avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and 

riparian resources when constructing and maintaining parking and 

staging areas.

Road-10. Equipment 

Refueling and Servicing

Avoid or minimize adverse effects to soil, water quality, and riparian 

resources from fuels, lubricants, cleaners, and other harmful materials 

discharging into nearby surface waters or infiltrating through soils to 

contaminate groundwater resources during equipment refueling and 

servicing activities.

Veg-2. Erosion Prevention 

and Control

Avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and 

riparian resources by implementing measures to control surface erosion, 

gully formation, mass slope failure, and resulting sediment movement 

before, during, and after mechanical vegetation treatments.

Veg-3. Aquatic 

Management Zones

Avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and 

riparian resources when conducting mechanical vegetation treatment 

activities in the AMZ.

Veg-4. Ground-Based

Skidding and Yarding 

Operations

Avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and 

riparian resources during ground-based skidding and yarding operations 

by minimizing site disturbance and controlling the introduction of 

sediment, nutrients, and chemical pollutants to waterbodies.
Final Environmental Impact Statement Horse Creek Community Protection and Forest Restoration Project

356

BMP Number BMP Description

Veg-5. Cable and Aerial 

Yarding Operations

Avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and 

riparian resources during cable and aerial yarding operations by 

minimizing site disturbance and controlling the introduction of sediment, 

nutrients, and chemical pollutants to waterbodies.

Veg-6. Landings Avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and 

riparian resources from the construction and use of log landings.

Veg-8. Mechanical Site 

Treatment

Avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to soil, water quality, and 

riparian resources by controlling the introduction of sediment, nutrients, 

chemical, or other pollutants to waterbodies during mechanical site 

treatment.

BMPs that address timber harvesting, vegetation management and fuels reduction, streamside 

management zones, forest roads, prescribed burning, and landings taken from the “R5 FSH 

2509.22 - SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION HANDBOOK” (USDA Forest Service 2011)

were also considered in the effects analysis for the three action alternatives proposed for the 

Horse Creek Project. This document can be found in the hydrology planning record.

There is overlap between the “USDA National Best Management Practices for Water Quality 

Management on National Forest System Lands, Vol. 1 National Core BMP Technical Guide” 

and the “R5 FSH 2509.22 - SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION HANDBOOK.” We 

considered both documents in planning this project.