Township (T)16N, Range (R) 7E, Sections 1, 2, 11-14 and 24; T17N, R7 E., Sections 1, 2, 11-13, 24, 25, 35, and 36; T18N, R7E, 

Sections 1-3, 10-15, 22-26, 35 and 36; T19N, R7E, Sections 33-36; T16N, R8E, Sections 4-6, 7-9, 15-18, 19-20 and 28-30; T17N, R8E, 

Sections 4-6, 7-9, 16-21, and 28-33; T18N, R8E, Sections 7-9, 16-21, and 28-33; Humboldt Meridian. T45N, R10W, Sections 6 and 7; 

T46N, R10W, Sections 19, 29,and 30-32; T45N, R11W, Sections 1-18; T46N, R11W, Sections 3-10 and 13-36; T47N, R11W, Sections 

7-10, 15-22, and 27-34; T45N, R12W, Sections 1-21; T46N, R12W, Sections 1-36; T47N, R12W, Section 7, 8, and 13-36; Mount Diablo

Meridian. 

United States 

Department of 

Agriculture 

Forest 

Service 

April 2011 

 

Publication 

Number: 

R5-MB-232

Record of Decision 

Thom-Seider Vegetation Management and 

Fuels Reduction Project 

Happy Camp and Oak Knoll Ranger Districts, Klamath National Forest, 

Siskiyou County, California 
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis 

of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental 

status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an 

individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) 

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large 

print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDAs TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD). To file a 

complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., 

Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202)720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal 

opportunity provider and employer. 
Record of Decision for Thom-Seider Vegetation Management and Fuels Reduction Project 

ROD-3 

Table of Contents 

Record of Decision for Thom-Seider Vegetation Management and Fuels Reduction Project ................... 4

Decision ...................................................................................................................................................... 5

Decision Rationale ...................................................................................................................................... 7

Other Alternatives Considered .................................................................................................................... 8

Public Involvement ..................................................................................................................................... 9

Findings Required by Other Laws and Regulations ................................................................................. 11

Administrative Review Opportunities ...................................................................................................... 14

Appendix A: Selected Alternative Treatment Map ................................................................................. 16

Appendix B: Unit Acres and Yarding Systems ....................................................................................... 17

Appendix C: Stand Treatment Table and Associated Design Features ................................................... 20

Appendix D: Additional Documentation Prepared After Publication of the Thom-Seider FEIS in 

October 2009 and Considered for the ROD .............................................................................................. 36

List of Tables 

Table ROD‐1. Key Treatment elements of the Selected Alternative.............................................................................................6

Table ROD‐2. Key Treatment elements of the Selected Alternative...........................................................................................17

Table ROD‐3. Variable Density Thinning ‐ Non‐commercial ......................................................................................................18

Table ROD‐4. Underburning.......................................................................................................................................................18

Table ROD‐5. Other Treatments/Actives ...................................................................................................................................19

Table ROD‐6 Commercially Thinned Stands...............................................................................................................................20

Table ROD‐7 Non‐Commercial Thin Units..................................................................................................................................24

Table ROD‐8 Underburn Units ...................................................................................................................................................26

Table ROD‐9 Other Thinning Treatments...................................................................................................................................28

Table ROD‐10 Design Features and Land Base ..........................................................................................................................29

 

Record of Decision for Thom-Seider Vegetation Management and Fuels Reduction Project 

ROD-4 

Record of Decision for Thom-Seider Vegetation Management and 

Fuels Reduction Project 

Happy Camp and Oak Knoll Ranger Districts, Klamath National Forest 

Siskiyou County, California 

Background 

Land managers for the Klamath National Forest have been planning the Thom-Seider Vegetation 

Management and Fuels Reduction Project (Thom-Seider) for several years to respond to the increasing 

density and fuels hazard evident along the Klamath River between Hamburg and Happy Camp, 

California. Thinning and burning is proposed on about 29,300 acres of National Forest System (NFS) 

land within and adjacent to the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI). Planning of this project was conducted 

under the 2003 Healthy Forest Restoration Act (HFRA). The HFRA was created to reduce administrative 

delays and expedite implementation of projects for community protection such as this project. 

Implementation of this project is needed to address differences between the existing conditions and the 

desired conditions described in the Klamath National Forest Land and Resources Management Plan 

(Forest Plan; 1995, as amended). The purpose and need for this project is summarized in section 1.3.5 on 

page 12 of the Thom-Seider Vegetation Management and Fuels Reduction Project Final Environmental 

Impact Statement (FEIS). In addition to Forest Plan guidance, the purpose and need includes several of 

the recommendations from non-decision documents such as the Thompson/Seiad/Grider Ecosystem 

Analysis (USDA Forest Service, 1999a), the Klamath National Forest Forest-Wide Late-Successional 

Reserve Assessment (USDA Forest Service 1999), and relevant best available scientific information 

about the principles of effective fuel treatments (FEIS, section 1.3). Stands proposed for treatment are in 

early, mid, and late-mature seral stages. All stands proposed for treatment have high stocking levels, 

which are reducing tree vigor and growth rates. Many stands are losing large Douglas-fir, ponderosa 

pine, and sugar pine as a result of competition with the smaller trees in the stands and bark beetles. 

Many of the stands needing treatment have dense understories that are contributing to high stocking 

levels and an increased risk of damage from stand-replacing wildfire. The purpose and need is to: (1) 

reduce tree density and forest competition in order to maintain/restore forest health and vigor and retain 

the larger trees across the landscape; (2) raise canopy height and reduce surface and ladder fuels to 

reduce potential for crown fire including areas within the WUI, especially directly adjacent to private 

property and communities; and (3) decrease fuels along important access roads to allow ingress and 

egress during fire events, as well as increase effectiveness of roads as safe anchors for fire suppression 

activities. 

This record of decision (ROD) is based upon analysis documented in the FEIS, supporting 

documentation, and subsequent analysis as documented in Appendix D of this ROD. The ROD contains 

minor modifications in treatments since the objection period and some additions to the project record 

since publication of the FEIS (ROD, Appendix D). The FEIS presents the analysis of the proposed 

action alternative and a no action alternative (FEIS, sections 2.2 and 2.3). HFRA allows development of 

a proposed action and additional alternatives depending on the type of project. Several other alternatives 

were considered, but not developed for further analysis, generally because they were outside the scope 

of this HFRA project, were duplicative of the alternatives considered in detail, or included components 

that would cause unnecessary environmental harm (FEIS, section 2.5). Changes between supporting 

documentation and FEIS were minimal; no new alternatives were developed between the Thom-Seider 

Vegetation Management and Fuels Reduction Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and 
Record of Decision for Thom-Seider Vegetation Management and Fuels Reduction Project 

ROD-5 

FEIS (see FEIS, section 1.7). In the DEIS and FEIS reference is made to non-system roads. The record 

of Decision for Motorized Travel Management on the Klamath National Forest prohibits cross-country 

travel and eliminates the category of non-system roads. All references to non-system roads in the DEIS 

and FEIS should be interpreted as being temporary roads on existing roadbeds. 

To view the Thom-Seider ROD, FEIS, or documents or maps associated with this project electronically, 

please visit the Klamath National Forest Website at: http://fs.usda.gov/klamath. Select “land and 

resource management,” select “projects.”, and then select “view a listing of all projects” to navigate to 

this project. The ROD is also available for review at the Happy Camp/Oak Knoll Ranger District office 

(63822 Highway 96, Happy Camp, CA 96039; 530-493-2243) or the Klamath National Forest 

Supervisor’s Office (1312 Fairlane Road, Yreka, CA 96097; 530-842-6131). 

Decision 

Based on my thorough review of the FEIS and supporting documents, I have decided to implement the 

proposed action or alternative 2, as described in section 2.3 of the FEIS, with some minor modifications. 

This modified alternative will from hereafter be referred to as the “selected alternative”. 

For my decision I considered public and agency comments received throughout the HFRA process. 

Minor modifications to the proposed action were agreed upon during the 30-day objection period under 

HFRA (36 CFR part 218, subpart A) and are incorporated into my decision to implement the selected 

alternative as follows: 

Eleven (11) acres of treatment in units 36 and 37 are changed from variable density thinning-commercial 

(helicopter yarding) to underburning only. 

Seventy-five (75) acres of treatment in unit 277 are changed from variable density thinning-commercial 

(helicopter yarding) to non-commercial thinning and underburning. 

These modifications to the selected alternative are minor and are within the scope of the FEIS analysis 

for the proposed action. The 86 total acres of modified treatments in the selected alternative (described 

above) will reduce stand density and ladder fuels and are consistent with the purpose and need of the 

project. Additional information on the objection is documented in Appendix D of this ROD. 

In addition to the modifications to the selected alternative during the objection period, 298 acres of noncommercial thinning and 253 acres of underburning that were analyzed in the FEIS were authorized 

under a separate NEPA Decision. The Grider Pre-commercial Thinning Decision Memo (DM) was 

prepared to implement treatments prior to this decision to implement wildlife habitat improvement 

activities using available funding sources. The DM, which is available at the Happy Camp/Oak Knoll 

District Office was signed June 17, 2010 and incorporated by reference the FEIS analysis and treatments 

for units 195, 196, 205, 312, and A75. Implementation for the units included in the DM began in August 

2010 and is currently on-going. The activities under the DM are being implemented independently from 

those remaining in the FEIS. All potentially connected actions and their cumulative impacts of these 

actions included in both the separate DM and this ROD were all analyzed under the Thom-Seider FEIS 

(40 CFR 1508.25). 

My decision to implement the selected alternative authorizes about 29,300 acres of treatment within the 

132,000-acre project area on National Forest System lands. Treatments include about 22,000 acres (17 

percent of the project area) located primarily within the WUI Defense and Threat Zones; variable 

density thinning on about 1,800 acres; and understory thinning along 77 miles of roads. Please note, the 

Forest Service will permit landowners (upon request) to perform understory thinning and hand piling on 
Record of Decision for Thom-Seider Vegetation Management and Fuels Reduction Project 

ROD-6 

NFS land within 500 feet of their private property after completing a written agreement with the Forest 

Service. See Table 1 in this ROD for a summary of key treatment elements, Appendix A for a map of the 

selected alternative, and Appendix B for associated treatment tables. 

Implementation of the project can begin immediately following this decision and is expected to last ten 

years or more. This landscape scale project is intended to reduce the potential for damaging wildfire and 

maintain and restore older forest habitat over a large area. 

Table ROD-1. Key Treatment elements of the Selected Alternative 

Thinning and Burning Acres* 

Total Acres that would be treated 29,300** 

Portion of the project Within the WUI 99% 

Underburning 22,000 

Roadside Fuels Treatment 2,700 

Private Property Boundary Understory Thinning 6,000 

Variable Density Thinning – Non-commercial 300 

Variable Density Thinning – Commercial 1,500 

Roads and Landings Features 

Temporary roads needed for commercial thinning 9 segments, 1.5 total miles *** 

Landing Sites 208 total landing sites 

Landings that Require New Construction 40 new landings, 14 total acres 

Landings that Require Limited New Construction (on roads or 

existing landing sites) 168 

*Treatment acres and miles are approximate. 

**Overlapping acres that have more than one treatment have been removed. 

***Many of these areas have been previously disturbed or are otherwise devoid of larger trees; fewer 

than 4 acres of new disturbance is proposed. 
Record of Decision for Thom-Seider Vegetation Management and Fuels Reduction Project 

ROD-7 

Decision Rationale 

The FEIS documents the analysis upon which my decision is based. Some key conclusions to support 

the rationale for my decision are described below. 

The selected alternative meets the purpose and need of this project as follows: 

Thinning within about 10,500 acres is proposed to reduce stand density to below the threshold of 

imminent mortality and includes about 1,500 acres of commercial thinning and 9,000 acres of noncommercial thinning in Late-Successional Reserves (LSR), along strategic roadsides, and within 500 

feet of the surrounding private property. This thinning would maintain stand vigor and reduce the risk of 

infestation by several insects and diseases, including bark beetles. Thinning of the smaller trees 

decreases competition on the larger and older trees for water and nutrients and consequently older trees 

are more likely to be maintained in the stands for a longer period of time. Similarly, thinning in 

combination with the fuel treatments within the LSR would improve the probability that early and midsuccessional stands will develop into late-successional stands. Proposed treatments within the LSR 

would maintain an average canopy cover of 60 percent in commercially thinned stands to sustain habitat 

after thinning. About 650 acres of commercial thinning will result in stand densities that are kept below 

the zone of imminent mortality for 20 years or more. The majority of thinning, which is mostly noncommercial thinning, would reduce density to below this level for 10 to 20 years. 

The selected alternative will reduce the potential of crown fire from an existing 83 percent of the project 

area down to 66 percent of the project area. Within the WUI, treatments will decrease the potential 

crown fire potential on 25,465 acres, a 21 percent reduction. The reduction will be achieved through the 

10,500 acres of thinning mentioned above and approximately 22,000 acres of underburning. These 

activities will reduce the surface and ladder fuels in all treatment units. 

Approximately 2,700 acres of non-commercial thinning within the project will be along strategic access 

roads. Combined with other stand treatments, underburning, and the variable density thinning along 

these roads, this decision would reduce crown fire potential along 77 miles of access roads used for 

ingress and egress. The treatments would also provide improved effectiveness of the roads to use as 

holding lines during future wildfires. 

I recognize the selected alternative will thin about 379 acres within mid to late mature forest using cable 

systems, including about 248 acres planned in LSRs. Nine segments (1.5 miles) of new temporary roads 

are proposed, resulting in about four acres of new disturbance that may result in the loss of some larger 

trees. Commercial thinning below 60 percent canopy cover is planned on 535 acres in Matrix (FEIS, 

Table 10, p. 43), so only 0.6 percent of about 83,000 acres considered mid-and late-successional forest 

within the analysis area will be thinned to below 60 percent canopy cover. The selected alternative will 

maintain adequate habitat for Threatened species such as the northern spotted owl (NSO) (FEIS, section 

3.10). Several design features apply to LSR, NSO core areas, and Critical Habitat (FEIS, section 2.3.8). 

Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects were addressed for each resource area potentially affected by the 

project. Analysis in the FEIS included interrelated and interdependent actions such as temporary roads 

and landings. The project record, including the FEIS, specialist reports, and other supporting 

documentation documents the scientific information considered for this decision. Scientific information 

considered includes, but is not limited to, papers, reports, literature reviews, review citations, peer 

reviews, science consistency reviews, opposing views, and results of ground-based observations, which 

were considered to ensure the use of best available science for this project and analysis. 
Record of Decision for Thom-Seider Vegetation Management and Fuels Reduction Project 

ROD-8 

All practical means to avoid or minimize environmental harm from the selected alternative have been 

adopted through project design features (ROD, Appendix C), incorporation of the best management 

practices (FEIS, Appendix B), and monitoring (FEIS, section 2.4.9). 

The Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) regulations require that records of decision specify “the 

alternative or alternatives which were considered to be environmentally preferable” (40 CFR 1505.2 

(b)). Ordinarily this means the alternative that causes the least damage to the biological and physical 

environment; it also means the alternative that best protects, preserves, and enhances historical, cultural, 

and natural resources. The environmentally preferable alternative must be one of the alternatives 

analyzed in the FEIS. Pursuant to the regulations, I identify the selected alternative, the modified 

proposed action, as the environmentally preferable alternative, because it will enhance forest health, 

reduce the potential for stand-replacing wildfire, protect and enhance wildlife habitat, and reduce 

potential for damaging fire behavior within the project area, especially the WUI. 

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

toward the desired conditions, and comply with standards and guidelines for Forest-wide management 

direction (FEIS, section 1.2.1). The selected alternative is consistent with applicable laws, regulations, 

and policies (FEIS, section 3.9). See Findings Required by Other Law and Regulation (ROD, p. 6) for 

more detail. 

Other Alternatives Considered 

The FEIS analyzed a no action alternative (Alternative 1) in detail. Based on public comment, ten other 

alternatives were considered, but eliminated from detailed study (FEIS, section 2.5). These ten 

alternatives in their entirety were determined to be either outside the scope of the need for the project, 

had included components that would cause unnecessary environmental harm, or were duplicative of 

alternatives or portions of alternatives considered in detail. A number of elements from several of the 

alternatives were incorporated into alternative 2 and later, the selected alternative. 

Under alternative 1, no treatment was proposed and current management plans would continue to guide 

management of the project area. In summary, selection of alternative 1 would not meet the purpose and 

need because: 

 There would be no reduction in forest density. Density related mortality would increase, bark 

beetle related mortality would increase, and disease presence and impacts would increase. 

Many of the larger and older trees within the stands would be lost, including stands within 

the LSR. The development of early- and mid-successional stands into old-growth would be 

slowed, if not stopped, and old-growth components in the stands would be reduced. 

 Currently, 83 percent of the project area has the potential for crown fire. Surface and ladder 

fuels and consequent crown fire potential would continue to increase beyond the current 

condition. About 86 percent (89,500 acres) of the WUI is associated with crown fire 

potential, which could lead to moderate to severe burning in the event of a wildland fire. The 

potential for crown fire within WUI, especially adjacent to private property and communities, 

would not be directly addressed or mitigated. 

 Fuels would not be treated along access roads. These roads are used as safe anchors for fire 

suppression activities and allow ingress and egress during fire events. Therefore, the effective 

use of these roads for these purposes would continue to decline as vegetation continues to 

grow and ground fuels accumulate. 
Record of Decision for Thom-Seider Vegetation Management and Fuels Reduction Project 

ROD-9 

For a comparison of environmental impacts between alternative 1 and alternative 2, please refer to Table 

10 on page 42 of the FEIS. The thinning treatments under the selected alternative has been reduced by 

approximately 86 acres as compared to alternative 2 as documented on page 5 of this ROD, however the 

environmental impacts remain essentially the same and the comparative percentages of treatments 

overall have not changed. 

Public Involvement 

Project development and planning has been on-going for several years. The communities and forests 

associated with this project have been known to be susceptible to damaging wildfire for some time. The 

Forest Service worked with Siskiyou County; Seiad Valley Fire Safe Council; industry groups; 

environmental groups; local residents; federal, state, and local agencies; the Karuk tribe; and the general 

public to develop a proposed action that would best address the project’s purpose and need and meet 

Forest Plan direction, while addressing the concerns of interested and affected parties. Local landowners 

within the project area were contacted along with other interested people. Public meetings were held in 

2007 and 2008 to explain the proposed action, answer questions, and hear comments. The Forest Service 

received over 150 correspondences pertaining to the project by March 2008. The letters indicated a 

diversity of interests associated with the proposed action. 

In response to the comments received, the Forest Service hosted two days of field collaboration 

meetings in July 2008 to address points of disagreement about the proposed action. The district ranger 

and other Forest Service staff discussed the project with interested and affected parties and made several 

modifications to the proposed action. 

The draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) for this project was distributed in spring of 2009 and 

eight letters were received during the comment period. Comments on the DEIS indicated there was still 

controversy over the project. Three environmental groups, the Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Center 

(KSWild), the Klamath Forest Alliance (KFA), and the Environmental Protection Information Center 

(EPIC), sought canopy retention requirements, reduced acreage for commercial thinning, additional 

diameter limitations, and road decommissioning (FEIS Appendix C, pgs.319-335). Several alternatives 

were considered that addressed these concerns, but were not developed in detail (FEIS, sections 2.51, 

2.52 through 2.54 and 2.59). Based upon discussion and comments received, the largest concern for 

these groups appeared to be that at least 60 percent canopy cover be retained post harvest in four units 

(totaling 50 acres) outside of LSR that currently contain late-successional forest characteristics. After the 

thinning prescriptions were refined and riparian buffers were marked on the ground, the Forest Service 

determined that a majority of those acres would retain 60 percent canopy after treatment; the remaining 

acres were on dryer sites with a larger percentage of pine that will benefit from the heavier thinning. 

This condition was accepted during the objection process (see Appendix D of this ROD for more 

information on the objection). The commercial thinning component for one 75-acre helicopter unit in 

LSR was also eliminated during resolution of the Thom-Seider objection. Originally, approximately 

5,000 acres that could be commercially thinned were identified within the Thom-Seider project area. 

After review by specialists in 2007 and public scoping, around 3,500 acres of thinning were eliminated 

from the project for a variety of environmental and economic reasons. As the product market continued 

to decline making more units economically infeasible and additional project design features were 

developed, the project commercial thinning was reduced to around 1,600 acres (the selected alternative 

was further reduced to approximately1,500 acres during settlement of the objection) within a 132,000-

acre project area. Because thinning followed by post-harvest fuel treatment has been shown to be the 

most effective way to reduce the risk of stand damage during wildfire (FEIS, section 3.3.1), the Forest 
Record of Decision for Thom-Seider Vegetation Management and Fuels Reduction Project 

ROD-10 

Service chose not to further reduce the commercial thinning acreage. A diameter limit of 20 inches was 

included in the project for all LSR units. Outside of LSR units, constraints such as diameter limits would 

have reduced the ability to site-specifically treat each stand in the most effective way possible and to 

best meet the project purpose and need. The largest trees are more likely to be maintained in the stands 

after thinning and fuels treatment with the reduction in both density and fire hazard. An additional 

diameter limit was not adopted during the objection process and this was accepted by the objectors. 

Road density was also a concern. Although road decommissioning is outside the scope of this HFRA 

project, during the objection process, an agreement was reached between the Forest Service and the 

objectors that a field trip would be conducted to review additional opportunities in the Thom-Seider 

project area for decommissioning or storm proofing. 

Oregon Wild submitted a comment letter with many general suggestions for considerations in planning 

fuels reduction and forest health restoration thinning projects. The letter did not make any specific 

references to or recommendations for this project. 

American Forest Resource Council (AFRC) expressed concern about economic viability and 

effectiveness of the project and suggested alternatives for improvement (heavier cutting, removing of 

some larger trees). An alternative was considered that addressed these concerns. The potential annual 

growth increase and timber volume production of such an alternative was analyzed, however an 

alternative was not fully developed (FEIS, section 2.5.5). Some elements of their recommendations were 

incorporated into alternative 2 in treatment units where a sustained flow of timber products is a 

management goal and heavier thinning would better meet the project purpose and need. In other 

management areas, recommendations were not consistent with project objectives or mitigations for other 

forest resources such as the northern spotted owl (NSO), fisheries, and a few sensitive plant species. 

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) discussed the range of alternatives in their 

comment letter and acknowledged that the Forest Service may have elected to limit the number of 

alternatives as allowed under the HFRA. The EPA did recommend the development of another 

alternative that reduced thinning and underburning to minimize adverse environmental impacts. The 

Forest Service chose to modify the original proposed action to address environmental concerns about the 

project rather than develop other alternatives. Within the 132,000 acre project area, the selected 

alternative proposes commercial thinning on only 1,500 acres. The remainder of the thinning will be 

mostly understory thinning or thinning from below of trees less than about twelve inches diameter at 

breast height (DBH); two-thirds of this thinning would be directly adjacent to private property (ROD, 

Table 1). The 22,000 acres of underburning will be implemented over a period of ten years or more. 

Further reductions in treatment acreage or intensity to further minimize adverse short-term effects could 

render the project less economical, feasible, or effective. The selected alternative is consistent with 

Forest Plan and project goals and objectives and minimizes impacts to the greatest extent that is 

practical. The Forest Service did address requests from the EPA for additional information and some 

minor edits (FEIS, Appendix C, p. 340-345). 

Upon receipt of comments from the California State North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board 

(NCRWQCB), a meeting with the Forest Service was held. As a result of this meeting, a Forest-wide 

monitoring proposal was developed. 

Following the release of the DEIS, the Forest Service met with local resident Chris Anderson to discuss 

and resolve his concerns about healthy forest densities and fuels reduction. 
Record of Decision for Thom-Seider Vegetation Management and Fuels Reduction Project 

ROD-11 

In compliance with the HFRA process, the FEIS was published and made available to the public for an 

objection period, beginning November 17, 2009. One objection was filed by a coalition of 

environmental groups that included KSWild, KFA, and EPIC. AFRC also provided comments during the 

objection period. Discussions between the Forest Service and those who objected followed. The 

objection was settled on January 13, 2010 and resulted in some minor modifications to the selected 

alternative, as previously described in this ROD and summarized in Appendix D. 

Findings Required by Other Laws and Regulations 

The FEIS fulfills the requirements for environmental analysis found in NEPA and in the CEQ 

implementing regulations at 40 CFR, Parts 1500-1508. NEPA at 40 CFR 1502.25 (a) directs, “to the 

fullest extent possible, agencies shall prepare environmental impact statements concurrently with and 

integrated with...other environmental review laws and executive orders. 

The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) requires projects to be consistent with minimum specific 

management requirements as provided by regulation and direction and as adopted by the Forest Plan. 

The project was designed in conformance with the long-term goals identified in the Forest Plan (pp. 4-4 

- 4-9). The project is consistent with Forest Plan goals, desired conditions, and standards and guidelines 

for the following management areas in which activities will take place: Special Habitat (LSRs) (pp. 4-

82–4-94), Special Interest Area (4-97–4-100), Backcountry Areas (4-103–4-105), Riparian Reserves (pp. 

4-106–4-114), Retention Visual Quality Objective (pp. 4-115–4-116), Designated and Recommended 

Recreational Rivers (pp. 4-120–4-122), Partial Retention Visual Quality Objective (pp. 4-126–4-127) 

and General Forest (pp. 4-131–4-132). 

The selected alternative would be located entirely within NFS lands and is not in conflict with planning 

objectives for Siskiyou County. 

The Multiple Use-Sustained Yield Act, the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act, 

and the NFMA direct the national forests to supply goods and services and to be managed for a broad 

array of resources. Consistent with these guiding laws, the Forest Plan established land allocations and 

management direction for the Klamath National Forest. The selected alternative does not propose 

changes in the management of the Klamath National Forest, but rather is a mechanism for implementing 

management direction. Therefore, the social effects of this single proposal are limited in scope. FSM 

1900, Chapter 1970, at 1973 requires a social effects analysis if the potential social effects of Forest 

Service actions are important to the decision (United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest 

Service 1992). Social effects are important; however, social effects were not identified as a significant 

issue in the FEIS, therefore an extensive analysis was not completed nor required (USDA Forest Service 

1988). 

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

low-income populations will be disproportionately affected by proposed actions. Proposed actions, 

including underburning in the selected alternative, were reviewed and there will be no adverse effects on 

human health or the environment that are significant, unacceptable, or above generally accepted norms 

and, therefore, there will be no disproportionate effects on minorities or low income populations. Since 

there are no amendments to the Forest Plan associated with the selected alternative, no further civil 

rights impact analysis is required (FSM 1730 and FSH 1709.11). 

The project will not result in any irreversible commitment of resources. The short-term and long-term 

impacts, as described in Chapter 3 of the FEIS, involve some irretrievable commitments, including the 

loss of biomass (which would recover in 10-20 years), loss of productivity in areas cleared for roads and 
Record of Decision for Thom-Seider Vegetation Management and Fuels Reduction Project 

ROD-12 

landings (limited in extent and to be rehabilitated at the end of the project to hasten recovery), and loss 

of soil in local areas of accelerated erosion (cumulative watershed impacts have been discussed and 

vegetation recovery is included in the modeling). 

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

farmland, rangeland, and forestland. “Prime” forestland is a term used only for non-Federal land, which 

would not be affected by proposed activities under either alternative. 

I find the selected alternative to be consistent with the Clean Air Act. Smoke management plans will be 

submitted to the Siskiyou County Air Pollution Control District, and spot forecasts will be used to 

ensure favorable conditions for smoke transport. 

I find the selected alternative to be consistent with the State Asbestos Airborne Toxic Control Measures 

as sources of ultramafic rock (associated with naturally occurring asbestos) have been identified and 

mapped within the project area, and potential dust production from ultramafic rock sources has been 

minimized as described in the Geology Report (De la Fuente 2008, Lewis, 2009). 

The selected alternative is consistent and compliant with the Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS). 

Impacts to water quality were analyzed using a cumulative watershed effects (CWE) model and 

implementation of best management practices (FEIS, Appendix B). Best Management Practices (BMP) 

were developed to comply with Section 208 of the Clean Water Act. BMPs have been certified by the 

NCRWQCB and approved by the EPA as the most effective way of protecting water quality from effects 

stemming from non-point sources of pollution. These practices have been applied to Klamath National 

Forest activities and have been found effective in protecting water quality. This project is consistent with 

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

Board (NCRWQCB) Basin Plan. This project will be grandfathered into the 2010 NCRWQCB Waste 

Discharge Waiver (RWB Order No. R1-2010-0029, the Waiver) but operate under the criteria and 

conditions of the 2004 NCRWQCB Timber Waiver (RWB Order R1-2004-0015). Following this 

decision, a notice of intent will be submitted to NCRWQCB for this project. The Forest Service will 

work with NCWQCB to secure the appropriate permits(s) for this project. The FEIS stated that Cade, 

O'Neil, and Caroline watersheds are over threshold for the CWE models and that monitoring may be 

required to meet the terms of the Waiver. Since the FEIS was completed and distributed, the Klamath 

National Forest Sediment and Temperature Monitoring Plan has been approved by the NCRWQCB and 

meets all of the Forest Service monitoring requirements for this project. Cade, O'Neil, and Caroline 

watersheds are too small to produce meaningful survey results. Stream shading will be maintained in the 

Riparian Reserves by design features that include a minimum of a 100-foot no-cut buffer on both sides 

of perennial and intermittent streams, variable density thinning and thinning from below that maintain 

adequate canopy cover in the outer portion of the Riparian Reserves, and no-cut buffers up to 340 feet 

on low gradient, fish bearing streams. 

Pursuant to Executive Order 11990, there will be no loss of wetlands from any of the actions associated 

with this project. 

Executive Order 11988 requires that projects avoid floodplain impacts to the extent possible. This 

project is consistent with Executive Order 11988 since the project will not cause any significant new 

ground disturbance within floodplains or stream channels. 

Pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, the Karuk Tribe was consulted on the 

Thom-Seider Project and they did not identify any areas of concern. The Karuk Tribe was contacted 

early in project planning and consulted at various phases of this project in accordance with the Region 5 
Record of Decision for Thom-Seider Vegetation Management and Fuels Reduction Project 

ROD-13 

Programmatic Agreement and other laws and regulations (FEIS, sections1.5and 3.14.2). A records 

search, literature review, and archaeological survey were completed for the project and are documented 

in Archeological Survey Report # R2010050517310. Relevant archaeological sites have been identified 

and will be protected by applying standard resource protection measures in or adjacent to the area of 

potential effect. The selected alternative will not result in any negative impacts to cultural resource sites 

(FEIS, section 3.4.5). The literature review and archaeological surveys were designed to identify all 

reasonably locatable cultural resources. However, if any cultural resources or human remains are 

identified during implementation (ground disturbance) of the project that were not located as a result of 

the current surveys, the Heritage Resource Manager will be notified immediately. 

Executive Order 13112 requires agency actions to prevent the spread of noxious weeds. This project is 

compliant with Executive Order 13112, as it requires equipment cleaning prior to entry on National 

Forest System Lands and use of certified weed-free seed and straw is required when used for restoration. 

The Selected Alternative is compliant with the Record of Decision and Standards and Guidelines for 

Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measures Standards 

and Guidelines or it complies with at least one of the four exemptions provided for in the October 11, 

2006, modified injunction in Northwest Ecosystem Alliance v. Rey, Case No. 04-844-MJP (W.D. Wash. 

Oct. 11, 2006). This project falls within two of the four exemptions listed in the October 11, 2006, 

modified injunction NEA v. Rey; specifically: 

 

(a) Thinning projects in stand younger than 80 years old; and 

(d) The portions of projects involving hazardous fuel treatments where prescribed fire is applied. Any 

portions of hazardous fuel treatment project involving commercial logging will remain subject to the 

survey and manage requirements except for thinning of stands younger than 80 years old under 

subparagraph (a) of this paragraph.(NEA v. Rey, C04-0844-P, Stipulation (Dkt. No. 109 at 2-3)). 

Surveys for Survey and Manage species were completed in 2007 and 2008 for the Thom-Seider Project. 

Analysis of effects on Survey and Manage species was completed and included in the FEIS as “Klamath 

National Forest Sensitive Species” or as “other species of concern” and/or in the Survey and Manage 

Species Analysis (Burnett 2010) or the Happy Camp Survey and Manage Botany Memo (Rentz 2010). 

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

(FWS) was completed fulfilling section 7 of Endangered Species Act consultation requirements (19 

U.S.C. 1536(c )). The FWS concurred with a determination that the project is not likely to adversely 

affect NSO and NSO Critical Habitat on September 1, 2009 (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2009). No 

nesting or roosting habitat within the LSR or NSO cores would be removed or downgraded. None of the 

existing dispersal habitat within the project area would be removed. The majority of foraging habitat to 

be removed occurs in the outer portion of estimated NSO home ranges, and no NSO home range would 

be taken below 1,340 acres as a result of the selected alternative. Effects to NSO prey species are 

expected to be minimal or of short duration. Impacts to the primary constituent elements of critical 

habitat are expected to be minimal. The project is consistent with the 2008 and 1992 NSO Recovery 

Plan. 

 
Record of Decision for Thom-Seider Vegetation Management and Fuels Reduction Project 

ROD-14 

Thorough analyses of federally listed species and consultation with the National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS) was completed fulfilling section 7 of Endangered Species Act consultation 

requirements (19 U.S.C. 1536(c )) for fisheries. The Forest Service received the Letter of Concurrence 

on from NMFS on March 17, 2011. The line officer responsible for this decision has considered the 

information in the Letter of Concurrence for the Thom-Seider project. NMFS concurred with the 

determination that the project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect Southern Oregon and 

Northern California Coasts coho salmon or their designated critical habitat. With regards to Essential 

Fish Habitat (EFH), due to project design features and the use of BMPs, no additional Conservation 

Recommendations are required. Consultation would only need to be reinitiated with regards to EFH if 

the proposed action were to be substantially revised in a way that may adversely affect EFH. The 

selected alternative slightly reduces the acres of treatment as compared to the proposed action, thereby 

reducing any effects to EFH. Therefore, no changes are needed to the selected alternative. 

The selected alternative for the Thom-Seider Project is compliant with the Wild and Scenic River Act (FEIS, 

section 3.13). The Klamath River is a component of the National Wild and Scenic River (WSR) System 

and was designated for its outstandingly remarkable anadromous fisheries value. The project treatments 

will have no effect on the free flowing conditions and no impact to beneficial uses of the Klamath River. 

The selected alternative is not likely to adversely affect anadromous fisheries and therefore will maintain 

the outstandingly remarkable value of the WSR (FEIS, section 3.13.3). All Forest Plan WSR Standard 

and Guidelines will be met for this project. 

Administrative Review Opportunities 

The HFRA directs the Forest Service to develop a special predecisional review process for authorized 

hazardous fuel reduction projects. The objection process (36 CFR part 218, subpart A) occurs after an 

environmental assessment or final environmental impact statement is completed and before a decision 

document is signed for an authorized hazardous fuel reduction project. The objection process was 

established for early participation and collaborative efforts, as well as resolution of concerns before a 

decision is made. The appeal process (36 CFR, part 215) is the administrative review process for 

projects other than those authorized by the HFRA that require an environmental assessment or final 

environmental impact statement and is used after a decision has been made. The appeal regulation was 

amended to say that projects under the HFRA are not subject to the 215 rule. 

An objection for this project was submitted to the Forest by a coalition of environmental groups, 

KSWild, KFA, and EPIC. The objection was settled on January 13, 2010 and resulted in some minor 

modifications to the selected alternative as described in this ROD (ROD p. 2 and Appendix D).The 

HFRA established that a person may bring a civil action challenging an authorized hazardous fuel 

reduction project in a Federal district court, but only if the person has challenged the project by 

exhausting the administrative review process established by the Secretary of Agriculture. Section 106 of 

the HFRA establishes direction governing judicial review of lawsuits challenging hazardous fuel 

reduction projects authorized under the Act. 

 
Record of Decision for Thom-Seider Vegetation Management and Fuels Reduction Project

Implementation Date

Implementation of this project can begin immediately. My intention is to implement this project through

service contracts, timber sale contracts, and/or stewardship contracts.

Project activities will be seasonally restricted, as described in Section 2.3.2 and 2.3.2.1 of the FEIS.

Seasonal restrictions mainly apply to activities relating to NSO, northern goshawk, bald eagle, and their

associated habitats.

Contact

For additional information concerning this decision, please contact District Ranger Ken Harris or district

silviculturist, Carol Sharp, Happy Camp Ranger District, Klamath National Forest, 63822 Hwy 96,

Happy Camp, CA 96039-0377 or at (530) 493-2243 or (530) 493-1734, respectively.

ao,-, (3 Zeo

PATRICIA A. GRANT M Date

Forest Supervisor
Record of Decision for Thom-Seider Vegetation Management and Fuels Reduction Project 

ROD-17 

Appendix B: Unit Acres and Yarding Systems 

Table ROD-2. Key Treatment elements of the Selected Alternative 

Unit# Yarding System Acres Unit# Yarding System 

9 Tractor 17 243 Helicopter 

11 Cable 17 247 Cable 

12 Cable 37 248 Cable 

13 Tractor 13 254 Cable 

14 Cable 2 257 Helicopter 

16 Cable 31 276 Helicopter 

17 Cable 7 279 Cable 

18 Helicopter 14 280 Cable 

20 Tractor 17 281 Cable 

22 Cable 24 288 Tractor 

23 Cable 12 303 Helicopter 

28 Cable 7 304 Cable 

29 Cable 9 305 Cable 

30 Cable 10 307 Cable 

31 Helicopter 15 309 Tractor 

32 Tractor 18 404 Cable 

33 Tractor 23 405 Tractor 

34 Tractor 18 500 Tractor 

40 Cable 15 501 Tractor 

41 Helicopter 22 502 Tractor 

42 Tractor 8 503 Helicopter 

44 Tractor 21 504 Cable 

45 Cable 13 511 Tractor 

46 Tractor 37 512 Tractor 

46a Tractor 10 513 Tractor 

47 Cable 17 517 Tractor 

48 Cable 8 518 Tractor 

49 Cable 19 519 Tractor 

57 Tractor 38 520 Tractor 

59 Tractor 11 521 Tractor 

59a Tractor 26 523 Tractor 

63 Tractor 20 525 Tractor 

78 Helicopter 9 530 Tractor 

80 Cable 14 536 Tractor 

84 Cable 9 543 Tractor 

88 Helicopter 18 547 Tractor 

89 Tractor 4 603 Cable 

90 Cable 36 604 Cable 

92 Tractor 10 605 Helicopter 

95 Tractor 16 606 Helicopter 

97 Cable 25 607 Helicopter 

99 Cable 8 612 Helicopter 

106 Tractor 10 613 Helicopter 

160 Helicopter 13 614 Tractor 

182 Cable 13 615 Cable 

207 Cable 17 616 Helicopter 

221 Helicopter 26 617 Cable 
Record of Decision for Thom-Seider Vegetation Management and Fuels Reduction Project 

ROD-18 

Table ROD-3. Variable Density Thinning - Non-commercial 

Unit# Acres Unit# Acres Unit# Acres 

9 7 47 2 279 5 

11 4 49 4 281 0 

12 0 57 2 285 50 

13 14 62 30 303 8 

14 4 79 62 306 21 

17 7 80 0 404 1 

20 2 84 0 500 0 

22 13 90 4 502 0 

23 4 92 0 503 0 

29 3 98 32 601 2 

30 13 99 2 602 4 

31 0 106 1 603 5 

34 1 160 0 605 1 

40 2 182 13 606 4 

42 0 221 2 607 0 

44 1 243 3 608 2 

45 5 247 2 609 19 

46a 3 257 5 613 1 

 277 75 614 2 

Table ROD-4. Underburning 

Unit# Acres Unit# Acres Unit# Acres 

A1 35 A25 1114 A59 280 

A11 8 A26 92 A6 86 

A12 139 A27 65 A60 593 

A13 82 A28 408 A61 1244 

A14 42 A29 410 A62 1140 

A159 5 A30 421 A63 183 

A16 295 A31 1406 A64 612 

A17 65 A32 128 A65 242 

A18 175 A36 6 A66 530 

A186 547 A38 106 A67 546 

A19 104 A39 649 A68 1436 

A2 264 A4 17 A69 333 

A200 65 A40 702 A7 120 

A201 68 A41 1026 A70 126 

A202 333 A5 38 A71 419 

A203 296 A53 201 A72 77 

A204 118 A54 172 A73 143 

A205 454 A55 408 A76 45 

A21 293 A56 430 A8 81 

A22 1382 A57 1090 A9 78 

A23 484 A58 215 
Record of Decision for Thom-Seider Vegetation Management and Fuels Reduction Project 

ROD-19 

Table ROD-5. Other Treatments/Actives 

Description Quantity 

Understory Fuels Reduction (adjacent to Pvt. Lands) 

6,142 

Acres 

Roadside Treatment 2,721 Acres (150' buffer each side) or 77 Miles 

Temporary Roads 1.5 Miles 

Existing Log Landings 

208 

landings 
Record of Decision for Thom-Seider Vegetation Management and Fuels Reduction Project 

ROD-20 Appendix C: Stand Treatment Table and Associated Design Features Tables ROD-C-1, C-2, and C-3 lists the stand treatment with the stand specific design features identified for the 

See the FEIS pp30-36 for detailed prescription descriptions. Project design features developed to address overal

and ensure Forest Plan compliance are listed in Table C-4. 

Table ROD-6 Commercially Thinned Stands

Unit

No. System Fuels RX Acres Applicable Project Design Features From Table ROD‐10

9 Tractor TA‐UB 17 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL1‐5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS2,3,5,6,7,11,

11 Cable TA‐UB 17 ARCH2; BOT4,5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL1,5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS1,3,5,7,9,112 Cable TA‐UB 37 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL1,5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS1,3,7,9,12; W13 Tractor TA‐UB 13 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL1‐5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS2,3,5,6,7,11,14 Cable TA‐UB 2 ARCH2; BOT3,5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL1,5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS1,3,7,9; W16 Cable TA‐UB 31 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL1,5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS1,3,7,9; WLD17 Cable TA‐UB 7 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL1,5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS1,3,5,7,9,11; 18 Helicopter

CL‐HP/LS‐

UB 14 ARCH2; BOT3, 5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL1,5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS3,7; WLDL

20 Tractor TA‐UB 17 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; RAQ1; SOIL1‐5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS2,3,522 Cable TA‐UB 24 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL1,5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS1,3,5,7,9,11; 23 Cable TA‐UB 12 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL1,5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS1,3,5,7,9,11; 28 Cable TA‐UB 7 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL1,5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS1,3,7,9; WLD29 Cable TA‐UB 9 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL1,5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS1,3,5,7,9,11,30 Cable TA‐UB 10 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL1,5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS1,3,5,7,9,11; 31 Helicopter CL‐HP‐UB 15 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL1,5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS3,7; WLDL1232 Tractor TA‐UB 18 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL1‐5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS2,3,7; WLDL33 Tractor TA‐UB 23 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; RAQ1; SOIL1‐5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS2,3,734 Tractor TA‐UB 18 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; RAQ1; SOIL1‐5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS2,3,540 Cable TA‐UB 15 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; RAQ1; SOIL1,5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS1,3,5,41 Helicopter CL‐HP‐UB 22 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL1,5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS3,7,12; WLD42 Tractor TA‐UB 8 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; RAQ1; SOIL1‐5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS2,3,744 Tractor TA‐UB 21

ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; RAQ1; SOIL1‐5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS2,3,5

WWFS1
Record of Decision for Thom-Seider Vegetation Management and Fuels Reduction Project 

ROD-21 

Table ROD-6 Commercially Thinned Stands

Unit

No. System Fuels RX Acres Applicable Project Design Features From Table ROD‐10

45 Cable TA‐HP 13 ARCH2; BOT3,4,5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; RAQ1; SOIL1,5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS1,46 Tractor TA‐UB 37

ARCH2; BOT4,5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; RAQ1; SOIL1‐5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS2,3

WWFS1

46a Tractor TA‐UB 10

ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; RAQ1; SOIL1‐5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS2,3,5,

WWFS1

47 Cable TA‐UB 17 ARCH2; BOT3,4,5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; RAQ1; SOIL1,5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS1,48 Cable TA‐UB 8 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; RAQ1; SOIL1,5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS1,3,7,49 Cable TA‐UB 19

ARCH2; BOT4,5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; RAQ1; SOIL1,5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS1,3,

WWFS1

57 Tractor TA‐UB 38 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL1‐5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS2,3,5,7,11,159 Tractor TA‐UB 11 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; RAQ1; SOIL1‐5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS2,3,7

59a Tractor TA‐UB 26 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; RAQ1; SOIL1‐5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS2,3,7

63 Tractor TA‐UB 20 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL1‐5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS2,3,7; WLDL78 Helicopter CL‐HP‐UB 9 ARCH2; BOT3, 5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL1,5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS3,7; WLDL80 Cable TA‐UB 14 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL1,5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS1,3,5,7,9,11; 84 Cable TA‐UB 9 ARCH2; BOT3,5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL1,5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS1,3,7,9; W88 Helicopter CL‐HP‐UB 18 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL1,5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS3,7; WLDL1289 Tractor TA‐UB 4 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL1‐5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS2,3,7; WLDL90 Cable TA‐UB 36 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; RAQ1; SOIL1,5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS1,3,7,92 Tractor TA‐UB 10 ARCH2; BOT4,5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; RAQ1; SOIL1‐5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS2,395 Tractor TA‐UB 16 ARCH2; BOT4,5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; RAQ1; SOIL1‐5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS2,397 Cable TA‐UB 25 ARCH2; BOT4,5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; RAQ1; SOIL1,5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS1,3,99 Cable TA‐UB 8 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL1,5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS1,3,5,7,9,11,

106 Tractor TA‐UB 10 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL1‐5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS2,3,5,6,7,11,160 Helicopter CL‐HP‐UB 13 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; RAQ1; SOIL1,5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS3,7,8; 182 Cable TA‐HP 13 ARCH2; BOT3,5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL1,5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS1,3,5,7,9,1207 Cable TA‐UB 17 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL1,5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS1,3,7,9,12; W221 Helicopter CL‐HP‐UB 26 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL1,5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS3,7,12; WLD243 Helicopter CL‐HP‐UB 25 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL1,5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS3,5,7,11,12; 
Record of Decision for Thom-Seider Vegetation Management and Fuels Reduction Project 

ROD-22 

Table ROD-6 Commercially Thinned Stands

Unit

No. System Fuels RX Acres Applicable Project Design Features From Table ROD‐10

247 Cable TA‐UB 9 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL1,5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS1,3,5,7,9,11; 248 Cable TA‐UB 5 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL1,5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS1,3,7,9; WLD254 Cable TA‐UB 20 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; RAQ1; SOIL1,5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS1,3,7,257 Helicopter CL‐HP‐UB 34 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; RAQ1; SOIL1,5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS3,5,7,276 Helicopter CL‐HP‐UB 17 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL1,5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS3,7,8,12; WL279 Cable TA‐UB 10 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL1,5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS1,3,7,8,9,12; 280 Cable TA‐UB 11 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL1,5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS1,3,7,9,12; W281 Cable TA‐UB 18 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL1,5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS1,3,7,8,9,12; 288 Tractor TA‐UB 12 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL1‐5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS2,3,4,7,12; W303 Helicopter CL‐HP‐UB 35 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL1,5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS3,5,7,11,12; 304 Cable TA‐UB 15 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL1,5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS1,3,6,7,9,12; 305 Cable TA‐UB 13 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL1,5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS1,3,7,9,12; W307 Cable TA‐UB 12 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL1,5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS1,3,7,9,12; W309 Tractor TA‐UB 15 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL1‐5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS2,3,7; WLDL404 Cable TA‐UB 10 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL1,5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS1,3,5,7,9,11; 405 Tractor TA‐UB 13 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL1‐5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS2,3,7; WLDL500 Tractor TA‐UB 27 ARCH2; BOT4,5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; RAQ1; SOIL1‐5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS2,3501 Tractor TA‐UB 15 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; RAQ1; SOIL1‐5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS2,3,7502 Tractor TA‐UB 20 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL1‐5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS2,3,5,7,11; W503 Helicopter CL‐HP‐UB 58 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL1,5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS3,5,7,11; WL504 Cable TA‐UB 34 ARCH2; BOT3,5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL1,5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS1,3,7,9; W511 Tractor TA‐UB 5 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL1‐5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS2,3,7; WLDL512 Tractor TA‐UB 8 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL1‐5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS2,3,5,7,11; W513 Tractor TA‐UB 3 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; RAQ1; SOIL1‐5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS2,3,7517 Tractor TA‐UB 8 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL1‐5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS2,3,7; WLDL518 Tractor TA‐UB 14 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL1‐5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS2,3,7,12; WL519 Tractor TA‐UB 9 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL1‐5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS2,3,7,12; WL
Record of Decision for Thom-Seider Vegetation Management and Fuels Reduction Project 

ROD-23 

Table ROD-6 Commercially Thinned Stands

Unit

No. System Fuels RX Acres Applicable Project Design Features From Table ROD‐10

520 Tractor TA‐UB 15 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL1‐5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS2,3,7,12; WL521 Tractor TA‐UB 19 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL1‐5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS2,3,5,7,11,1523 Tractor TA‐UB 8 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; RAQ1; SOIL1‐5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS2,3,7525 Tractor TA‐UB 3 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; RAQ1; SOIL1‐5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS2,3,7530 Tractor TA‐UB 25 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; RAQ1; SOIL1‐5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS2,3,7536 Tractor TA‐UB 11 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL1‐5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS2,3,7,8,12; W543 Tractor TA‐UB 6 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL1‐5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS2,3,7,12; WL547 Tractor TA‐UB 19 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; RAQ1; SOIL1‐5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS2,3,7603 Cable TA‐UB 16 ARCH2; BOT4,5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL1,5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS1,3,7,9,12; 604 Cable TA‐UB 16 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL1,5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS1,3,7,9; WLD605 Helicopter CL‐HP‐UB 14 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL1,5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS3,5,7,11; WL606 Helicopter CL‐HP‐UB 18 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL1,5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS3,5,7,11; WL607 Helicopter CL‐HP‐UB 35 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL1,5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS3,7,8,12; WL612 Helicopter CL‐HP‐UB 2 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL1,5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS3,7,12; WLD613 Helicopter CL‐HP‐UB 15 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL1,5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS3,7,8,12; WL614 Tractor TA‐UB 6 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL1‐5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS2,3,7; WLDL615 Cable TA‐UB 6 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL1,5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS1,3,7,8,9,12; 616 Helicopter CL‐HP‐UB 26 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL1,5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS3,7,12; WLD617 Cable TA‐UB 6 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL1,5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS1,3,6,7,9; W
Record of Decision for Thom-Seider Vegetation Management and Fuels Reduction Project 

ROD-24 

Table ROD-7 Non-Commercial Thin Units 

Unit Fuels RX Acres Applicable Project Design Features From Table ROD‐10

9 HP‐UB 7 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL5; WATS3,11,12; WLDL12; WW

11 HP‐UB 4 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL5; WATS3,11,12; WLDL1,6,7,1212 HP‐UB 1 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL5; WATS3,12; WLDL1,6,7,12; ; W13 HP‐UB 14 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL5; WATS3,11,12; WLDL12; ; WW14 HP‐UB 4 ARCH2; BOT3,5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL5; WATS3; WLDL12; ; WWFS117 HP‐UB 7 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL5; WATS3,11; WLDL12; ; WWFS20 HP‐UB 2 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; RAQ1; SOIL5; WATS3,11; WLDL12; ; 22 HP‐UB 13 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL5; WATS3,11; WLDL12; ; WWFS23 HP‐UB 4 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL5; WATS3,11; WLDL12; WWFS29 HP‐UB 3 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL5; WATS3,11,12; WLDL10,12; W30 HP‐UB 13 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL5; WATS3,11; WLDL12; WWFS31 HP‐UB 1 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL5; WATS3; WLDL12; ;WWFS134 HP‐UB 1 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; RAQ1; SOIL5; WATS3,11; WLDL12; W40 HP‐UB 2 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; RAQ1; SOIL5; WATS3,11,12; WLDL142 HP‐UB 1 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; RAQ1; SOIL5; WATS3; WLDL12; ; WW44 HP‐UB 1 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL5; WATS3,11,12; WLDL12; ; WW45 HP 5 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; RAQ1; SOIL5; WATS3; WLDL12; ; WW

46a HP‐UB 3 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; RAQ1; SOIL5; WATS3,11; WLDL1,6,1

47 HP‐UB 2 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; RAQ1; SOIL5; WATS3,11; WLDL12; ; 49 HP‐UB 4 ARCH2; BOT4,5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; RAQ1; SOIL5; WATS3,11,12; WLDL57 HP‐UB 2 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL5; WATS3,11,12; WLDL12; WW62 HP‐UB 30 ARCH2; BOT3,5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL5; WATS3; WLDL12; WWFS179 HP‐UB 62 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL5; WATS3,11,12; WLDL7,12; WW80 HP‐UB 1 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL5; WATS3,11; WLDL12; WWFS184 HP‐UB 1 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL5; WATS3; WLDL1,6,12; WWFS90 HP‐UB 4 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; RAQ1; SOIL5; WATS3,12; WLDL1,6,192 HP‐UB 1 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; RAQ1; SOIL5; WATS3; WLDL12; WW98 HP‐UB 32 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; RAQ1; SOIL5; WATS3,11,12; WLDL799 HP‐UB 2 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; RAQ1; SOIL5; WATS3,11,12; WLDL1

106 HP‐UB 1 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL5; WATS3,11,12; WLDL12; WW160 HP‐UB 1 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; RAQ1; SOIL5; WATS3; WLDL12; WW
Record of Decision for Thom-Seider Vegetation Management and Fuels Reduction Project 

ROD-25 

Table ROD-7 Non-Commercial Thin Units 

Unit Fuels RX Acres Applicable Project Design Features From Table ROD‐10

182 HP 13 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL5; WATS3,11; WLDL12; WWFS1221 HP‐UB 2 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL5; WATS3,12; WLDL12; WWFS1243 HP‐UB 3 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL5; WATS3,11,12; WLDL12; WW247 HP‐UB 2 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL5; WATS3,11; WLDL12; WWFS1257 HP‐UB 5 ARCH2; BOT1,5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; RAQ1; SOIL5; WATS3,11; WLDL11277 HP‐UB 75 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL5; WATS3,12; WLDL10,12; WW279 HP‐UB 5 ARCH2; BOT2,5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL5; WATS3,12; WLDL12; WWF281 HP‐UB 1 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL5; WATS3,12; WLDL12; WWFS1285 HP‐UB 50 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; RAQ1; SOIL5; WATS3,11; WLDL7,12; 303 HP‐UB 8 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL5; WATS3,11,12; WLDL12; WWF306 HP‐UB 21 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; RAQ1; SOIL5; WATS3; WLDL7,12; W404 HP‐UB 1 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL5; WATS3; WLDL12; WWFS1500 HP‐UB 1 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; RAQ1; SOIL5; WATS3,12; WLDL12; W502 HP‐UB 1 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL5; WATS3; WLDL12; WWFS1503 HP‐UB 1 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL5; WATS3; WLDL12; WWFS1601 HP‐UB 2 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL5; WATS3; WLDL12; WWFS1602 HP‐UB 4 ARCH2; BOT3,5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL5; WATS3; WLDL12; WWFS1603 HP‐UB 5 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL5; WATS3,12; WLDL12; ; WWFS605 HP‐UB 1 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL5; WATS3,11; WLDL12; WWFS1606 HP‐UB 4 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL5; WATS3,11; WLDL12; WWFS1607 HP‐UB 1 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL5; WATS3,12; WLDL12; WWFS1608 HP‐UB 2 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL5; WATS3,11; WLDL12; WWFS1609 HP‐UB 19 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL5; WATS3; WLDL12; WWFS1613 HP‐UB 1 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL5; WATS3,11,12; WLDL12; WW614 HP‐UB 2 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL5; WATS3; WLDL12; WWFS1

TA = yard with tree tops attached UB = underburn HP = hand pile activity slash and burn piles CL = cut to length LS = lop and scatter slash 
Record of Decision for Thom-Seider Vegetation Management and Fuels Reduction Project 

ROD-26 

Table ROD-8 Underburn Units 

Unit# Acres Applicable Project Design Features From Table C‐4

A1 35 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS3,10; WLDL2,3,5

A11 8 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS3,10; WLDL2,3,5A12 139 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS3,10; WLDL2,3,5A13 82 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS3,10; WLDL2,3,5A14 42 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS3,10; WLDL2,3,5

A159 5 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS3,10; WLDL2,3,5

A16 295 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS3,10; WLDL2,3,5A17 65 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; RAQ1; SOIL5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS3,10; WLDA18 175 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS3,10; WLDL2,3,5

A186 547 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS3,10; WLDL2,3,5

A19 104 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS3,10; WLDL2,3,5

A2 264 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS3,10; WLDL2,3,5

A200 65 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS3,10,12; WLDL2,A201 68 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS3,10; WLDL2,3,5A202 333 ARCH2; BOT3,5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS3,10; WLDL2,3A203 296 ARCH2; BOT4,5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS3,10; WLDL2,3A204 118 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS3,10; WLDL2,3,5A205 454 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS3,10; WLDL2,3,5

A21 293 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS3,10; WLDL2,3,5A22 1382 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; RAQ1; SOIL5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS3,10,12; WA23 484 ARCH2; BOT3,5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; RAQ1; SOIL5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS3,10; WA25 1114 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS3,10; WLDL2,3,5A26 92 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS3,10; WLDL2,3,5A27 65 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS3,10; WLDL2,3,5A28 408 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS3,10,12; WLDL2,A29 410 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS3,10; WLDL2,3,5A30 421 ARCH2; BOT4,5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; RAQ1; SOIL5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS3,10,12A31 1406 ARCH2; BOT2,5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; RAQ1; SOIL5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS3,10,12
Record of Decision for Thom-Seider Vegetation Management and Fuels Reduction Project 

ROD-27 

Table ROD-8 Underburn Units 

Unit# Acres Applicable Project Design Features From Table C‐4

A32 128 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; RAQ1; SOIL5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS3,10; WLDA36 6 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS3,10; WLDL2,3,5A38 106 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS3,10,12; WLDL2,A39 649 ARCH2; BOT3,5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; RAQ1; SOIL5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS3,10; W

A4 17 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS3,10; WLDL2,3,5

A40 702 ARCH2; BOT3,5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; RAQ1; SOIL5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS3,10; WA41 1026 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS3,10,12; WLDL2,

A5 38 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS3,10; WLDL2,3,5

A53 201 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS3,10; WLDL2,3,5A54 172 ARCH2; BOT3,5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS3,10; WLDL2,3A55 408 ARCH2; BOT4,5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS3,10,12; WLDLA56 430 ARCH2; BOT4,5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS3,10,12; WLDLA57 1090 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS3,10,12; WLDL2,A58 215 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS3,10; WLDL2,3,5A59 280 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; RAQ1; SOIL5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS3,10,12; W

A6 86 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS3,10; WLDL2,3,5

A60 593 ARCH2; BOT2,4,5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS3,10,12; WLDA61 1244 ARCH2; BOT3,4,5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS3,10,12; WLDA62 1140 ARCH2; BOT3,4,5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS3,10,12; WLDA63 183 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; RAQ1; SOIL5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS3,10; WLDA64 612 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS3,10,12; WLDL2,A65 242 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS3,10,12; WLDL2,A66 530 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS3,10,12; WLDL2,A67 546 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS3,10; WLDL2,3,5A68 1436 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS3,10; WLDL2,3,5A69 333 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; RAQ1; SOIL5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS3,10,12; W

A7 120 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS3,10; WLDL2,3,5

A70 126 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS3,10; WLDL2,3,5A71 419 ARCH2; BOT3,4,5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; RAQ1; SOIL5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS3,10; 
Record of Decision for Thom-Seider Vegetation Management and Fuels Reduction Project 

ROD-28 

Table ROD-8 Underburn Units 

Unit# Acres Applicable Project Design Features From Table C‐4

A72 77 ARCH2; BOT4,5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; RAQ1; SOIL5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS3,10; WA73 143 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; RAQ1; SOIL5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS3,10,12; WA75 253 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS3,10; WLDL2,3,5A76 45 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS3,10; WLDL2,3,5

A8 81 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS3,10; WLDL2,3,5A9 78 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; SOIL5; VISQ1; WATQ1; WATS3,10; WLDL2,3,5

Table ROD-9 Other Thinning Treatments 

Treatment Type Acres Applicable Project Design Features From Table C‐4

Private Property Boundary

Understory Thinning 6,000 ARCH1,2; BOT5; FISH1,2; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; RAQ1; SOIL1‐5; VI

WATS2,3,7,8,9,10,11,12; WLDL1‐12; WSW1; WWFS1

Roadside Fuels Treatment 2,700 ARCH2; BOT5; FISH1,2; FVEG1‐4; FAQ1‐4; INVS1‐4; RAQ1; SOIL1‐5; VISQ

WATS2,3,7,8,9,10,11,12; WLDL1‐12; WSW1; WWFS1
Record of Decision for Thom-Seider Vegetation Management and Fuels Reduction Project 

ROD-29 

Table ROD-10 Design Features and Land Base

Resource 

Area 

Design Feature Land Base Purpose 

Archaeology 

(ARCH1) 

Review understory thinning around private properties to determine 

measures needed for heritage resources when landowners request 

permit. 

Understory thinning 

around private 

property 

To protect 

heritage 

resources 

Archaeology 

(ARCH2) Avoid sites found in inventory. All types of work 

To protect 

heritage 

resources 

Botanical 

Species of 

Interest 

(BOT1) 

Protect all Klamath Mountain buckwheat (Eriogonum hirtellum) 

(ERHI7) individuals and habitat; buffer if necessary to keep 

equipment off plants and habitat. No prescribed burning or fireline 

construction in occurrences. 

Non-commercial thin 

unit 257, underburns 

A31 and A40 

Avoid impacts to 

Sensitive 

Species 

Botanical 

Species of 

Interest 

(BOT2) 

Known host trees with Pacific fuzzwort (Ptilidium californicum) 

(PTCA5) would be retained. Maintain 50-60% canopy closure. If 

canopy closure cannot be maintained, avoid disturbing a portion of 

the population in the units. Avoid populations near new temp roads 

and landing sites. Hand-pull heavier slash in occurrence prior to 

burning. 

Non-commercial thin 

unit 279, underburns 

A31 and A60 

Avoid impacts to 

Sensitive 

Species 

Botanical 

Species of 

Interest 

(BOT3) 

Clustered lady's slipper orchid (Cypripedium fasciculatum) (CYFA5): Maintain 50-60% canopy closure. If canopy closure cannot be 

maintained, avoid disturbance through a portion of the population in 

the units. Avoid populations near new temp roads and landing 

sites. Only allow low-intensity prescribed burn through occurrence. 

CT units 14, 45, 47, 

78, 84, 182, 504 and 

adjacent landings 

and roads; NCT units 

14, 62, 602, 

underburns A23, 

A39, A40 A54, A61, 

A62, A71 A202 

Avoid impacts to 

Sensitive 

Species 

Botanical 

Species of 

Interest 

(BOT4) 

Mountain lady's slipper orchid (Cypripedium montanum) 

(CYMO2): Maintain 50-60% canopy closure. If canopy closure 

cannot be maintained, avoid disturbance through a portion of the 

population in the units. Avoid populations near new temp roads 

and landing sites. Only allow low-intensity broadcast prescribed 

burn through occurrence. 

CT units 11, 45 46, 

47, 49, 92 95, 97, 

500, 603 and 

adjacent landings 

and roads; NCT 

unit 49, underburns 

A30 A55, A56, A60, 

A61, A62, A71, A72, 

A203 

Avoid impacts to 

Sensitive 

Species 

Botanical 

Species of 

Interest 

(BOT5) 

Follow species-specific mitigations for additional Sensitive/ Survey 

and Manage plant occurrences located during implementation. All types of work 

Identify and 

mitigate impacts 

to botanical 

species of local 

interest 
Record of Decision for Thom-Seider Vegetation Management and Fuels Reduction Project 

ROD-30 

1 With one exception: commercial thinning may occur closer than 100 feet from a stream within 3 relatively flat, previously 

logged acres. See Appendix A for site specific descriptions. 

2

 Thinning Prescriptions in some LSR stands do not meet this design feature because of other design features such as 20 inch 

dbh thinning and retention of 60 percent canopy cover for spotted owl habitat. 

Botanical 

Species of 

Interest 

(BOT6) 

Burning within Special Interest Areas (SIA - MA 7) would be 

accomplished as separate units from general forest ecosystems, 

Fuels would hand pulled away from existing foxtail pine and Seiad 

Baker cypress trees. No mechanical pre-treatments or pile 

construction would occur within 100 feet of these species. Burns 

within SIAs would be low intensity and planned in conjunction with 

appropriate specialists. 

Lake Mountain and 

Seiad Baker Cypress 

SIAs 

Follow Special 

Interest Area 

Management 

Direction 

Fisheries 

(FISH1) 

No commercial thinning within 100 feet of any perennial or 

intermittent stream; no commercial thinning within 340 feet of lowgradient, fish bearing habitat.1

 Non-commercial thinning in these 

areas would follow the 2001 PCT BO (NMFS 2001). 

Commercial Thinning 

Maintain riparian 

function, avoid 

adverse effects 

to fish 

Fisheries 

(FISH2) Follow terms and conditions in 2001 PCT BO 

All non-commercial 

activities within 

Riparian Reserves 

Maintain riparian 

function, avoid 

adverse effects 

to fish 

Forest 

Vegetation 

(FVEG1) 

General species preference for thinning trees would be: sugar pine, 

ponderosa pine, incense cedar, Douglas-fir, large black oak, Shasta 

red fir, white fir, pacific madrone, and live oak in descending order 

of preference to retain. This order of preference would be modified 

for individual stands to take into account management objectives 

such as species diversity, site and stand-specific factors; individual 

stand/unit prescriptions would supersede this order. 

All variable density 

thinning and 

understory thinning 

Retain 

appropriate 

species 

composition 

Forest 

Vegetation 

(FVEG2) 

Units proposed for commercial thinning may have also have a 

portion of the non-commercial-sized trees and brush thinned as 

necessary to meet stocking and fuels reduction objectives. 

Commercial Thinning 

Units 

Reduce 

understory 

density and 

ladder fuels 

Forest 

Vegetation 

(FVEG3) 

Units proposed for commercial thinning would have the stocking 

reduced to a level where it will remain at or below the maximum 

desired density for a period of at least 20 years without additional 

treatments.2

Commercial Thinning 

Units 

Maintain 

healthier stand 

densities over 

time 

Forest 

Vegetation 

(FVEG4) 

Thinning prescriptions would be designed to maintain or improve 

the health and vigor to the stand. This will include targeting 

diseased trees (e.g. dwarf mistletoe, heart and butt rots, etc) for 

removal while meeting other resource objectives. 

All variable density 

thinning and 

understory thinning 

areas 

Maintain and 

restore stand 

health and vigor 

Fuels and 

Air Quality 

(FAQ1) 

All burning will be done under an approved Burn Plan that specifies 

a burn prescription for each area. These prescriptions will account 

for fuel loading, fuel moisture, soil moisture, slope, aspect, etc., and 

will result in the desired quantity of fuel consumed for each 

prescribed burn. A fuel management specialist, who may utilize 

recommendations from a soil or earth scientist, will prepare 

prescriptions. Landing and hand piles will burn under controlled 

settings to contain fire spread. Underburning will occur under 

prescription, occurring in conditions that allow safe burning. Fire 

crews, equipped to control fire spread, will monitor underburning. 

Fire prescriptions would be reviewed by an IDT and approved by a 

line officer. 

Fuels Treatments 

To ensure 

burning results 

are within 

acceptable 

tolerances. 
Record of Decision for Thom-Seider Vegetation Management and Fuels Reduction Project 

ROD-31 

Fuels and 

Air Quality 

(FAQ2) 

Smoke management plans will be submitted to the Siskiyou County 

Air Pollution Control District for each burn plan. Burning will occur 

during favorable weather conditions when smoke is transported 

away from sensitive locations. 

Fuels Treatments 

To minimize 

smoke in 

sensitive 

locations 

Fuels and 

Air Quality 

(FAQ3) 

Burning would occur at high fuel and duff moisture levels, which 

limits the burning of large stumps and coarse wood and maximizes 

consumption of smaller-sized fuel. Spot weather forecasts would be 

used to ensure favorable “within prescription” weather conditions for 

the burn and for smoke transport. 

Fuels Treatments 

To meet burn 

objectives and 

minimize smoke 

transport. 

Fuels and 

Air Quality 

(FAQ4) 

The District Fuel/Fire department helped determined acceptable 

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

also to identify areas and methods to remove standing slash of a 

sub-merchantable size, that otherwise would create an 

unacceptable fire risk. 

Fuels Treatments 

To ensure 

acceptable fuel 

levels in treated 

areas. 

Invasive 

Species 

(INVS1) 

Ensure equipment coming to and from the project is weed free: 

Include C Provision C6.36 Equipment Cleaning, (5/01), in the 

contract whenever heavy equipment is used to treat fuels, and in 

the timber sale contract. 

All types of work 

Reduce spread 

of invasive 

plants. 

Invasive 

Species 

(INVS2) 

Don’t park vehicles or stage equipment in areas where weed 

populations are known to occur. Avoid disturbing specific 

populations (unit specific information in Appendix A, this information 

would be mapped and provided to all implementation staff and 

contractors). 

All types of work 

Reduce spread 

of invasive 

plants. 

Invasive 

Species 

(INVS3) 

Wherever seed, straw mulches or gravel is used to restore or 

maintain areas within the project area, certified weed free seeds 

straw, mulches, and/or gravel should be specified in any contract. 

All types of work 

Reduce spread 

of invasive 

plants. 

Invasive 

Species 

(INVS4) 

Follow species-specific mitigations for additional non-native plant 

occurrences located during implementation All types of work 

Identify and 

reduce sources 

of invasive plant 

spread. 

Rock and 

Air Quality 

(RAQ1) 

Some units and roads in the area are underlain by ultramafic rock 

which can potentially contain asbestos. Approximately 6 miles of 

haul road cross serpentine soils. Timber haulers would be informed 

of these areas. The Siskiyou County Air Quality Management 

District would be notified in writing at least fourteen days (14) 

before the beginning of the activity or in accordance with a 

procedure approved by the district. The following dust control 

measures would be implemented during temporary road 

construction, rehabilitation, or maintenance activity on roads that 

cross serpentine soils: 

1. Unpaved areas, storage areas, or disturbed areas would be 

kept adequately wetted, treated with a chemical dust 

suppressant, or covered with a material that contains less than 

0.25% asbestos. 

2. The speed of any vehicles and equipment would be 15 miles 

per hour or less if dust is produced at higher speeds. 

3. Activities must be conducted so that no track-out from any 

road construction project is visible on any paved roadway open 

to the public. 

Additional mitigation measures may be necessary to protect 

workers on site from airborne asbestos fibers, such as respirators, 

if dust is visible. 

Use of Roads 

To reduce 

potential impact 

of asbestos 
Record of Decision for Thom-Seider Vegetation Management and Fuels Reduction Project 

ROD-32 

Soils 

(SOIL1) 

No more that 15% of a harvest unit to be disturbed by primary 

tractor skid trails, cable yarding corridors and landings. 

At least 85% of each commercial thinning unit designed to meet the 

Regional soil quality thresholds for total porosity, soil displacement, 

soil organic matter, soil hydrologic function, erosion and soil 

buffering capacity. 

Commercial thinning 

To minimize soil 

disturbance and 

maintain soil 

productivity 

Soils 

(SOIL2) 

Tractor equipment would not be used to yard slopes steeper than 

35%, except where endlining is possible from equipment that 

remains on gentler slopes or roads. New skid trails would be limited 

to slopes less than 35% except where necessary to cross short 

steeper sections that connect flatter benches. 

Tractor logging units 

To minimize soil 

disturbance and 

maintain soil 

productivity 

Soils 

(SOIL3) 

Skid trails may need to be subsoiled, especially in units 13, 502, 

513, 523 and 536. A soils specialist would visit these (and other 

tractor units as needed) to determine whether subsoiling is 

necessary to restore natural drainage and reduce detrimental soil 

conditions. 

Specific Tractor 

logging units 

To maintain soil 

productivity 

Soils 

(SOIL4) 

Skid trails from ground based equipment and cable corridors would 

be water barred as appropriate. Tractor logging units Minimize soil 

erosion 

Soils 

(SOIL5) 

At least 50% cover, as fine organic matter (<3 inch material), would 

be retained in all units. Soil cover would range from 50-80% 

depending on slope steepness and fuel reduction treatments. 

All activities 

Minimize soil 

erosion and 

maintain soil 

productivity 

Visual 

Quality 

(VISQ1) 

Minimize extent and visibility of disturbance from skid trails, 

landings, and yarding corridors. Commercial Thinning Meet VQO’s 

Water 

Quality 

(WATQ1) 

Wet weather haul and equipment operation standards would be 

used to guide normal operating period activities as well as activities 

outside the normal operating period. If a contractor chooses to 

operate outside the normal operating period (April 15 – October 15) 

and the Forest Service agrees, a project-specific wet weather 

operations plan would be developed. It would then be implemented 

prior to the end of the normal operating period. This plan would 

designate appropriate road winterization measures by road 

segment to prevent loss of material from the road prism and also 

preclude borax application during heavy rainfall. 

Commercial Thinning 

To minimize the 

risk of non-point 

pollution. 

Watershed 

(WATS1) 

Cable units will have one-end suspension over the majority of the 

yarding corridor. Cable logging units 

Minimize 

watershed 

disturbance 

Watershed 

(WATS2) Prevent road runoff from draining onto skid trails. Tractor logging units 

Minimize runoff 

concentrating on 

skid trails 

Watershed 

(WATS3) Follow BMPs (see FEIS, Appendix 2, pp.303-318). All activities Protect water 

quality 

Watershed 

(WATS4) 

Tractor skid trails would receive review by an earth scientist prior to 

locating or rehabilitating. Unit 288 

Minimize 

potential for 

CWE in O’Neill 

Creek 

Watershed 

Watershed 

(WATS5) 

No new temporary roads would be constructed in Riparian 

Reserves. 

New Temporary 

Roads 

To minimize 

disturbance from 

new roads 
Record of Decision for Thom-Seider Vegetation Management and Fuels Reduction Project 

ROD-33 

Watershed 

(WATS6) 

Following use, temporary roads would be decommissioned, fills 

removed from draws, and natural runoff patterns re-established 

(out-sloping, dips, etc.). Existing temporary roads used for the 

project would be rehabilitated by removing berms and dispersing 

surface runoff. 

New Temporary 

Roads 

To mitigate 

disturbance from 

new roads 

Watershed 

(WATS7) 

Existing roads and landings would be used to the extent possible. 

Site-specific measures would be used to provide increased stability 

of cuts and fills in landing and temporary road construction. 

Landings would be rehabilitated (storm-proofed and re-vegetated) 

after use. 

Commercial Thinning 

To minimize 

disturbance from 

new roads and 

landings 

Watershed 

(WATS8) 

Landing areas outside of existing roadbeds will be rehabilitated for 

proper drainage of runoff, improved infiltration, and effective soil 

cover. Following use, individual landings will be assessed by an 

engineer and/or earth scientist who will prescribe the most effective 

means of accomplishing these objectives. This can include shaping 

the slope to drain, sub-soiling to 18” to break up compaction, and 

mulching/re-vegetating to provide short- and long-term cover. 

Commercial 

Thinning, especially 

new landings in 

O’Neill Creek 

watershed. 

Minimize 

potential for 

erosion and 

sediment 

delivery to 

streams. 

Watershed 

(WATS9) 

Yarding corridors (skid trails, cable corridors) would generally not 

cross creeks. Commercial Thinning To maintain 

stream integrity 

Watershed 

(WATS10) 

Underburn prescriptions will be designed to result in low severity 

burns in all Riparian Reserves. During underburning, fire will 

generally be backed down into Riparian Reserves, and ignition will 

usually not occur there. However, there may be exceptions where 

ignition inside the Riparian Reserve may actually allow for lower 

severity fire in those areas. Specific problem spots, such as high 

concentrations of fuel located on unstable areas (particularly 

granitic areas), will be field reviewed by fuels and earth science 

personnel during development of the burn plan and appropriate 

mitigations developed. The potential for high severity fire can be 

mitigated by modifying the ignition pattern, or hand piling of slash 

accumulations on unstable areas prior to ignition. No more than 

440 acres would be under-burned in Negro Creek in a 3 year 

period. 

Fuels Treatments 

To minimize 

adverse effects 

from a severe 

burn 

Watershed 

(WATS11) 

Trees larger than prescription size that are felled within Riparian 

Reserves for operational or safety reasons would be retained on 

site unless to do so would present an operational, safety, or fuels 

hazard. 

Riparian Reserves 

Maintain habitat 

provided by 

existing larger 

trees. 

Watershed 

(WATS12) 

Trees larger than 20 inches diameter would not be thinned as part 

of the prescription. An average of sixty percent canopy cover would 

be maintained where it exists across each thinning unit. Incidental 

trees greater than 20 inches that are felled along temporary roads 

and landings would be sold as timber. Incidental large trees felled 

for safety or operations within units (including along yarding 

corridors) would be left in place to contribute to the down wood, 

unless to do so would present an operational, safety, or fuels 

hazard. 

All activities in LSR 

and within 0.5 miles 

of spotted owl nests. 

Maintain habitat 

provided by 

existing larger 

trees. 

Wildlife 

(WLDL1) 

Suitable owl habitat would be maintained within northern spotted 

owl core areas. Thinning prescriptions in suitable habitat would 

maintain 60 percent canopy cover as necessary. 

All activities within 

NSO core area 

To meet habitat 

guidelines for 

northern spotted 

owl core areas. 
Record of Decision for Thom-Seider Vegetation Management and Fuels Reduction Project 

ROD-34 

Wildlife 

(WLDL2) 

A seasonal restriction of February 1st to September 15th would 

apply to all activities that modify habitat or create smoke (including 

activities that degrade or are beneficial) within 0.25 mile of a NSO 

activity center or un-surveyed suitable habitat. This same 

restriction also applies to activities that remove or downgrade 

suitable habitat within 0.5 mile of an activity center or unsurveyed 

suitable habitat. If protocol surveys indicate that historic activity 

and/or suitable habitat are not occupied by breeding NSO’s, 

seasonal restrictions may be waived. 

All activities that 

modify habitat near 

nest sites. 

To meet habitat 

guidelines for 

northern spotted 

owl core areas. 

Wildlife 

(WLDL3) 

Activities that generate noise above the ambient level will have a 

limited operating period from July 9th to January 31st for 

disturbance and September 1st to January 31 for operation within 

0.25 mile of an occupied activity center and unsuveyed suitable 

nesting/roosting habitat. 

All activities that 

generate noise 

To avoid 

adverse effects 

to spotted owls. 

Wildlife 

(WLDL4) 

No more than 50 percent of the suitable habitat within an occupied 

NSO core area, and no more than 50 percent of the suitable habitat 

within an occupied NSO home range would be treated (thinned 

and/or underburned) annually. 

All activities within 

occupied core areas 

and home ranges. 

To avoid 

adverse effects 

to spotted owl 

habitat. 

Wildlife 

(WLDL5) 

Manage smoke in occupied habitat to dissipate within 24 hours. If 

heavy or concentrated smoke begins to inundate occupied 

nesting/roosting habitat or occupied activity centers late in the 

afternoon, ignition should be discontinued. 

Activities in occupied 

habitat. 

To avoid 

adverse effects 

to spotted owl 

habitat. 

Wildlife 

(WLDL6) 

Protocol surveys for northern spotted owls would be kept current to 

1992 protocol for activities within 0.25 mile of nests. A three visit, 

year of action survey, covering all nesting/roosting habitat and/or 

historical activity centers within 0.25 miles of the action, may be 

substituted for the 1992 protocol surveys. 

Thinning in nonsuitable northern 

spotted owl habitat 

and underburns 

To avoid 

adverse effects 

to spotted owl 

habitat. 

Wildlife 

(WLDL7) 

Limited operating period will be implemented September 1st to 

February 28th on all actions within 0.5 miles of known active 

goshawk nest sites. Restrict habitat-modifying activities between 

March 1st and August 31st within Primary Nest Zone (0.5 mile 

radius). Restrict loud and/or continuous noise within 0.25 mile of 

active nest sites during the same period. Normal levels of vehicle 

traffic on existing roads may be excluded in cases where goshawks 

appear to be habituated to such activities. 

Habitat disturbing 

and noise producing 

activities near 

goshawk nests. 

To avoid 

adverse effects 

to nesting 

goshawks. 

Wildlife 

(WLDL8) 

Limited operating period from September 1st to December 31st of 

each year, unless monitoring of the bald eagle site indicates that 

the eagles are not nesting or have failed. If nesting does occur or 

the nest has failed, burning could be implemented in the spring of 

that year. 

Caroline Creek Bald 

Eagle Management 

Area 

To avoid 

adverse effects 

to bald eagle. 

Wildlife 

(WLDL9) 

Female fisher use den sites that consist of cavities or structures 

such as thick mistletoe brooms. Denning habitat would be 

identified and thinning would be avoided for an acre surrounding 

identified habitats. Riparian areas or other adjacent areas that will 

not be commercially thinned can be used to meet this design 

feature. 

Commercial thinning 

units containing 

fisher den sites 

To protect fisher 

den sites, while 

maintaining 

conditions 

supporting future 

habitat 

development. 

Wildlife 

(WLDL10) 

Units to be mechanically treated were surveyed for talus habitat, 

which was mapped, and then surveyed for salamanders in 2007 

and 2008. Siskiyou Mountains/Scott Bar salamanders were found 

in Units 29 and 277. The talus areas in units 29 and 277 will have a 

one site tree to harvest buffer. 

Talus areas in Units 

29 and 277 

To protect 

Siskiyou 

Mountains 

salamander 

habitat 
Record of Decision for Thom-Seider Vegetation Management and Fuels Reduction Project 

ROD-35 

Wildlife 

(WLDL11) 

Suitable habitat was identified for the Tehama chaparral in the 

project area and was surveyed in 2007 and 2008, Tehama 

chaparral was found in Units 254 and 257 during the surveys. 

Occupied sites in Units 254 and 257 would be protected by a ‘one 

site-tree no cut buffer’. 

Talus areas in Units 

254 and 257 

To protect 

Tehama 

chaparral 

habitat. 

Wildlife 

(WLDL12) 

Selected large old conifers and hardwoods would be maintained 

through removal of competing vegetation within 25 to 35 feet 

around selected large trees, old hardwoods, and groups of 

hardwoods. 

Variable density 

thinning units 

To maintain 

older larger trees 

and hardwoods 

in stands. 

Wildlife 

(WLDL13) 

No landings would be constructed within 0.25 mile of an active 

northern spotted owl nest site. A wildlife biologist would review 

landing locations if not on the current map. 

All landings 

To avoid 

adverse effects 

to northern 

spotted owls. 

Wildlife 

Soils 

Watershed 

(WSW1) 

Protect existing CWD by having ground-based equipment avoid the 

larger diameter logs as much as practical. All activities 

Maintain wildlife 

habitat, soil 

productivity, and 

watershed 

function. 

Wildlife, 

Watershed, 

and Fish 

Habitat 

(WWFS1) 

Snags felled on roads or landings would be removed and sold as 

timber if merchantable. Snags would otherwise be retained except 

where they are safety hazards. Any snags felled for safety or 

operational reasons will be left in place, unless to do so would 

present a safety, operations, or fuels hazard. 

All activities 

Maintain existing 

wildlife habitat 

and future 

coarse woody 

debris 
Record of Decision for Thom-Seider Vegetation Management and Fuels Reduction Project 

ROD-36 

Appendix D: Additional Documentation Prepared After 

Publication of the Thom-Seider FEIS in October 2009 and 

Considered for the ROD 

The Thom-Seider EIS was prepared under the authority of the HFRA. The HFRA established a 

predecisional administrative review process (Objection Process) that begins after the completion of the 

FEIS. The Thom-Seider FEIS was completed and published in October of 2009. Objections received for 

the Thom-Seider Project (ROD, p 2) were settled in January of 2010. In February of 2010, some 

additional heritage surveys were determined to be necessary before the ROD was signed and have since 

been completed. Consultation with National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) also continued after the 

FEIS was released and a Letter of Concurrence was received by the Klamath National Forest (KNF) in 

March 17, 2011. Since the time that the FEIS was published and this ROD was issued, some additional 

documents have been prepared in response to changes in policy, laws, or to supplement information. 

Summaries of the changes, documents, or processes are provided below. 

Objection Process and Resolution 

The Thom-Seider FEIS was published in October of 2009. An objection was filed on November 16, 

2009 by the Klamath Siskiyou Wildland Center (KSWild) et al that covered four main points. The 

KSWild issues and proposed solutions included: (1) maintain habitat values in four specific units (23, 

47, 88, 89) considered to contain late-successional/old growth habitat (LS/OG) that were analyzed to be 

thinned below 60 percent canopy closure; (2) underburn rather than commercially thin all the helicopter 

units; (3) provide assurances that the prescribed underburns and non-commercial thinning portions of 

the project will be implemented along with the commercial thinning; and (4) address the road density in 

the Thom-Seider project area, Subpart A of the Travel Rule and decommissioning. On November 18, 

2009 KFA as part of the same objection, added three objection points that included [renumbered for 

clarity]: (5) reiteration of the protection of NSO habitat in three of the units identified in objection point 

1 from the first objection letter; (6) a request that unit 40 be changed to hand thinning or underburning 

due to the road maintenance required to access the unit; and (7) change units 57 and 603 to hand 

thinning or underburning because they are late-successional “maintenance” treatments rather than stand 

development treatments. The American Forest Resource Council (AFRC) contacted the KNF in 

November of 2009 and verified their status as a collaborator under HFRA objection process. On 

December 15, 2009, AFRC submitted comments in response the objections raised by KSWild et al. The 

KNF considered those comments for resolution of the issues. 

 An objection resolution meeting was held on December 15, 2009. Objection points 1 and 5 were largely 

resolved by further review of the units and because the project design features resulted in thinning that 

maintained the habitat in units that contained NSO habitat. Objection point 3 was resolved by providing 

KSWild et al. a list of priorities for underburning and noncommercial treatments; approximately 300 

acres of non-commercial thinning originally in the Thom-Seider project has been completed since the 

FEIS was published under a separate Decision Memo. However objection points 2, 4, 6, and 7 were not 

completely resolved from this meeting. 

On December 17, 2009 KSWild et al. sent a document providing a list of specific concerns for seven of 

the helicopter units as agreed to at the resolution meeting. They also stated continuing concern over 

units 57 and 603 in the LSR and additional concerns over two units (22 and 23) in the WSR corridor. 

The KNF responded to the continuing concerns in January of 2010. 
Record of Decision for Thom-Seider Vegetation Management and Fuels Reduction Project 

ROD-37 

In the January response to objection point 2, the KNF discussed how each of the seven helicopter units 

identified by KSWild would help meet the project purpose and need. The KNF agreed to drop 

commercial thinning in helicopter units 36 and 37 because they were isolated units within identified 

underburns. Mitigation measures that had been applied to units 22 and 23 during analysis to be 

consistent with the WSR System management guidelines were discussed in the response. These 

measures included reducing the size of units, no thinning within 100 feet of stream channels, and 

prescriptions that resulted in a light thinning. With these measures included, the two units will meet 

Retention Visual Quality and the project as a whole will not likely affect the outstandingly remarkable 

value (fisheries) or effect the free flowing condition of the Klamath River in compliance with the Wild 

and Scenic River Act. These units remained in the selected alternative. 

The KNF responded to objection point 7 and with further discussion with KSWild et al, units 57 and 603 

remained in the selected alternative. Unit 57 is considered a high priority to thin by the District Wildlife 

Biologist because it is a relatively young, even-aged stand and stand vigor is diminishing due to the high 

density. Unit 603 also contains areas of dense even-aged trees where thinning will help develop habitat 

characteristics and maintain older trees in the stands. 

In response to objection point 6, the KNF responded that unit 40 had patches of dense, relatively young 

even-aged trees and the stand will benefit from commercial thinning and fuels treatment. Although the 

46N83Y road is not drivable all the way to unit 40 at this time, it is a maintenance level 2 road and 

would require minimal work to reopen. The unstable areas referenced in the objection are out past unit 

40 in a section of road that will not used for this project. Unit 40 remained in the selected alternative. 

On January 13, 2010, the KNF and KSWild discussed the objection again and reached a final resolution. 

On January 29, 2010, the KNF sent the formal correspondence to KSWild et al. documenting the 

agreement for the resolution. The following agreements were made. In response to objection point 4 

(listed as agreement 1 in the resolution letter), the KNF will convene a field meeting with the district 

hydrologist, the district ranger and the HFRA participants (objectors) to review the need for 

decommissioning and/or storm-proofing of roads in the project area. The KNF will review gathered 

information within context of KNF priorities and then may proceed with subsequent analysis under the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for any consequent road decommissioning and/or stormproofing as needed. In response to objection point 2 (listed as agreement 2 in the resolution letter) there 

will be no commercial thinning in helicopter units 37, 38, and 277. Units 37 and 38 will be converted to 

a prescription of underburning only and the prescription for unit 277 will be changed to non-commercial 

thinning and underburning. If after treatment, the stand condition is not improved to an acceptable level 

as determined by the KNF, then another analysis and NEPA decision could be prepared that would cover 

treatment of the commercial component within these units. 

Environmental Justice 

An Environmental Justice analysis has been prepared. Executive Order 12898 relating to environmental 

justice requires an assessment of whether minorities or low-income populations will be 

disproportionately affected by proposed actions. Proposed actions were reviewed and there will be no 

adverse effects on human health or the environment that will result in significant, disproportionate 

effects on minorities or low income populations. Since there are no amendments to the Forest Plan 

associated with the selected alternative, no further civil rights impact analysis is required (FSM 1730 

and FSH 1709.11). 
Record of Decision for Thom-Seider Vegetation Management and Fuels Reduction Project 

ROD-38 

Regional Office Review of Activities Proposed in the Inventoried 

Roadless Areas 

For the Thom-Seider Project, consultation with the State of California occurred consistent with the 

Regional Forester’s letter of November 28, 2007, which directs that the 2001 Roadless Rule be applied 

to projects that propose cutting and removal of trees (including thinning). On May 28, 2009, the 

Secretary of Agriculture issued a Memorandum (1042-154) stating that his office has the authority to 

approve or disapprove road construction or reconstruction and the cutting, sale, or removal of timber in 

those areas identified in the set of inventoried roadless area maps contained in Forest Service Roadless 

Area Conservation, Final Environmental Impact Statement, Volume 2, dated November 2000. The 

Thom-Seider project was submitted to the Secretary’s Office for review in July 2009 (FEIS, page 6-7) 

before the Thom-Seider FEIS was published. The Regional Office completed their review on July 16, 

2010 and found the Thom-Seider Project consistent with the 2001 Roadless Rule. 

Additional Archeological Surveys 

During preparation of the DEIS and the FEIS, archeology surveys were conducted and 22 historic 

properties related to mining or other historic uses were relocated and examined (FEIS, section 3.14.3). 

The finding was that alternative 2 will not directly affect any heritage resources due to project design 

features that avoid or protect sites. After the FEIS was published, a new survey strategy was developed 

by the Klamath Heritage Program Manager in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office. 

In order to ensure section 106 compliance, an additional 2,263 acres were surveyed in the summer of 

2010, 34 known sites were recorded, and four new sites were identified. Site specific information and 

site protection measures are provided in the Archaeological Survey Report 2010-05-05-1876-0 on file at 

the Happy Camp/Oak Knoll Ranger District and at the Supervisor’s Office in Yreka, CA. The 

environmental consequences for cultural resources for the Thom-Seider Project did not change from the 

original finding and the selected alternative will not directly affect cultural resources. 

Survey and Manage Species 

An analysis and report for Survey and Manage (S&M) species for the Thom-Seider Project was 

completed on December 23, 2010 by Tim Burnett, District Wildlife Biologist. The document is available 

in the project record as the Survey and Manage Species Analysis, Thom-Seider EIS. Project specific 

surveys were completed in 2007 and 2008 for S&M species compliant with the 2001 Record of Decision 

and Standards and Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffers, and 

Other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines (2001 ROD). Five S&M species were addressed 

in the FEIS (FEIS, section 3.10) as either sensitive species or other species of interest/concern. Two 

other S&M species, the Siskiyou sideband and the Klamath shoulderband, that were not address the 

FEIS, are addressed in the 2010 Thom-Seider S&M report. Neither of these species were located 

during project surveys and there will be no impacts from project activities. The Happy Camp Survey and 

Manage Botany Memo 2010 was prepared by Erin Rentz, District Botanist, addressing four S&M plant 

species. The Memo concluded that none of the four species assessed were within the range of the 

Thom-Seider Project. 

 
Record of Decision for Thom-Seider Vegetation Management and Fuels Reduction Project 

ROD-39 

Addendum to the [fisheries] Biological Assessment/Biological 

Evaluation (BA/BE) for the Thom-Seider Project 

The addendum summaries the Letter of Concurrence from National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 

and discusses the determination for Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). The KNF received the Letter of 

Concurrence to complete informal Endangered Species Act (ESA) consultation and EFH consultation 

from NMFS on March 17, 2011. The NMFS acknowledged that due to project design and the use of 

BMP’s, they do not have any Conservation Recommendations at this time for EFH and that the KNF 

would only need to reinitiate EFH consultation if the proposed action is substantially revised in a way 

that may adversely affect EFH. The selected alternative slightly reduced the acres of treatment compared 

to the proposed action (ROD, p. 2). Therefore, the Klamath National Forest does not need to do a 

preliminary response to NMFS and there will be no changes to the selected alternative. The line officer 

responsible for this decision has considered the information in the Letter of Concurrence for the ThomSeider project.