United States 

Department of 

Agriculture

Forest

Service

Final Environmental 

Impact Statement

Pacific 

Southwest 

Region

Record of Decision

R5-MB-235A

May 2011

Sierra National Forest 

Fish Camp Project
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 USDA's 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. Printed on recycled paper.
i

Sierra National Forest

Fish Camp Project

Record of Decision

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service

Responsible Official: Scott G. Armentrout, Forest Supervisor

Sierra National Forest

1600 Tollhouse Road

Clovis, CA 93611

For Further Information Contact:

Mark Lemon, District Fuels Officer

Sierra National Forest

Bass Lake Ranger District 

57003 Road 225 

North Fork, CA 93643-9734

(559) 877-2218 extension 3110

Abstract: A Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) analyzing alternatives for the Fish 

Camp Project (Project) on the Sierra National Forest is available for public review in the Bass 

Lake Ranger District Office. This Record of Decision documents the Deciding Officer’s decision 

pertaining to the alternatives identified in the FEIS.

This FEIS analyzes the effects of two action alternatives designed to restore fire-adapted forests 

and create resilient, healthy forests. A no action alternative was also analyzed. The Project 

encompasses 5,440 acres immediately east of the community of Fish Camp and borders Yosemite 

National Park.

The decision (1) allows strategically place area treatments on the landscape designed to reduce 

the intensity and spread of wildfires across the landscape and near communities; (2) allows 

treatments to reduce stand densities to provide for increased stand resiliency, growth and vigor;

and (3) implements these treatments in such a way as to maintain adequate habitat elements for 

at-risk species.

1

Introduction

This Record of Decision (ROD) documents my decision on the Fish Camp Project on the Sierra 

National Forest (SNF or Forest). The purpose of this project is multifaceted and includes:

Strategically placing area treatments [known in the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan 

Amendment (SNFPA, ROD, USDA-FS, 2004) as SPLATs] on the landscape to reduce 

the intensity and spread of wildfires across the landscape and near communities and;

Reducing inter-tree competition (stand density) to improve tree vigor and tree growth 

whereby providing increased stand resiliency to drought conditions, insect and disease

attack and wildfire effects.

As this project is located in the Southern Sierra Fisher Conservation Area land allocation (2004 

Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment ROD (SNFPA 2004 ROD)), the Forest was mindful of the 

goal of retaining and maintaining fisher habitat and the desired condition canopy cover goals in 

female fisher home ranges. Effort was made to design the Project to meet the above purposes as 

well as the land management guidance. 

Background

The Sierra National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (SNF LRMP) was amended in 

2001 by the SNFPA Record of Decision (ROD) (USDA-FS 1992, 2001b). In the 2001 SNFPA 

ROD Standards and Guidelines (S&Gs) for project planning were to focus on the modification of 

fire behavior through fuels treatments. These treatments were to have the highest priority in areas 

described as Wildland Urban Interface/Intermix (WUI). In 2004, a Supplemental EIS (USDA2004a) was written to the SNFPA and a new ROD was signed (USDA-FS 2004b). This SNFPA 

2004 ROD replaced the 2001 decision in its entirety. This decision recommended an ecosystem 

approach whereby the development and planning of projects would not only be based on fuels 

reduction treatments, but would create an overall approach by looking at all key elements within 

an ecosystem; however, WUI continued to be the highest priority area for treatments.

Location

The project is located on the SNF in Madera and Mariposa Counties, California (See Vicinity 

Map, Figure 1). The project area includes SNF System lands within the Bass Lake Ranger 

District of the SNF and includes portions of Township (T) 5 South(S), Range (R) 21 East (E),

sections 8, 14, 15, 23-26, 35 and 36; T.5.S, R.22.E, sections 1-4, 9-36; and T.5.S, R.23.E sections 

3-10, 14-22, 29 and 30 Mount Diablo Base and Meridian.
2

Figure 1-Vicinity Map

Purpose and Need

The Forest Service (FS) is currently directing land management activities towards forest health

restoration through intentional activities that initiate or accelerate the recovery of an ecosystem 

with respect to its health, integrity and sustainability. Restoration focuses on establishing the 

composition, structure, pattern, hydrologic function and ecological processes necessary to make 

terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems sustainable, resilient, and healthy under current and future 

conditions (Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2010). 

The underlying needs for this decision include:

1. Reduction in the surface and ladder fuels, that protects human communities from 

moderate/high intensity wildfires as well as minimizes the spread of wildfires that might 

originate in urban areas into the forested lands. The reasons for this need are to increase 

the efficiency of firefighting efforts and reduce risks to firefighters, the public, facilities 

and structures, and natural resources from moderate/high intensity wild fires. 

2. Resilience of conifer stands to attack from insects, diseases, drought conditions, and/or 

wildfire. The reason for this need is conifer stands are well above normal stocking levels 

(stand densities) resulting in a decline in growth, health and resiliency, thus increasing a 

stands potential for higher rates of mortality.
3

In meeting the aforementioned needs the action must also achieve the following purposes:

1. Reduction in the intensity and spread of wildfires across the landscape and near 

communities. The reason for this purpose is to provide a buffer between developed areas 

and wildlands where fire suppression capabilities are enhanced by modified fire behavior 

inside the WUI zones as well as provide a safe and effective area for fire suppression 

activities to occur (USDA-FS 2001, page 9). 

2. Reduction in stand density within the lower and mid-canopy layers of conifer stands, to 

provide for increased stand resiliency, growth and vigor. The reason for this purpose is to 

increase the capability for forested stands to withstand drought conditions, attacks from 

insects and diseases, and the effects from wildfire. 

Decision 

Based on the analysis of the purpose and need for action, the issues, the LRMP as amended and, 

current policies and regulations, the analysis of alternatives contained in the FEIS, public 

comments received, and other information in the project record, I have decided to implement 

Alternative 2 which was the Proposed Action in the FEIS. Alternative 2 includes the following 

actions within the Project area:

Action Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Commercially thin mixed 

conifer, pine, and white 

fir stands

approximately 562 acres

Commercially thin 

ponderosa and Jeffrey 

pine plantations

approximately 404 acres

Pre-commercially thin by 

mastication

approximately 41 acres of plantations

Plant and hand release

treated openings

approximately 10 acres

Underburn approximately up to 193 acres within 7 prescribed fire units

Underburn portions of T units 8, 9, 10, and 12 approximately 208 acres

Road maintenance approximately 41.9 miles of forest system roads

Road reconstruction approximately 12.9 miles of forest system roads

Temporary road

construction

0.5 miles

Commercial stand slash 

treatment 

combination of tractor or hand piling and burning or mastication of all T*

units

Noxious weeds as 

identified in document

manually pull and/or prescribed burn

Leave land untreated approximately 4,240 acres

Note: * For the purposes of this document the designation of ―T‖ unit is for all units that will 

have tractor use within them. The designation of Rx designates units which will be treated with 

prescribed fire.
4

See ROD Appendix A for a detailed description of my decision which can also be found in 

Chapter 2 of the FEIS. Part of my decision includes the implementation of design criteria found 

in ROD Appendix B (as well as in the FEIS Chapter 2). These design criteria contain, among 

other resource protection actions, important actions designed to address fisher habitat that 

include:

retention of large tree elements, 

clumpy, irregular treatments,

retention of high canopy cover in female fisher home ranges, and 

retention of downed woody debris (SNFPA 2004 ROD p. 41 & 47).

My decision also includes the implementation of the BMP and Monitoring Plan described in 

ROD Appendix C & D respectively. To clarify my decision, ROD Appendix E includes a stand 

by stand description of the treatments included as part of my decision. The Project treatments are 

strategically placed on the landscape (SPLATs) to reduce the intensity and spread of wildfire. A 

treatment area map displaying this strategic placement can be found in ROD Appendix F. ROD 

Appendix G includes a table showing the prescription and resulting canopy cover for the 

implementation of Alternative 2. 

Commercial Thinning:

Described below are the target residual stocking levels for treatment units within the Fish Camp 

Project. For a given basal area, more trees per acre are retained in the residual stand in areas with 

smaller diameter trees than in areas of larger trees. The silvicultural prescriptions for ponderosa 

pine (plantations included), mixed conifer and white fir will be described utilizing basal area per 

acre. 

My decision would commercially thin wild stands on slopes generally less than 35 percent

outside of Protected Activity Centers, and Old Forest Linkages to stocking levels that, with 

current growth, would result in returning stands to 80 percent of normal basal area stocking 15 to 

20 years following harvesting. Canopy cover that meets or exceeds those directed under the 

Sierra Nevada Framework will be retained following treatment. The target condition for general 

stocking levels for Alternatives 2 is:

Basal area following thinning—ponderosa pine/plantations—135 ft2per acre (45% 

normal)

Basal area following thinning—mixed conifer—210 ft2per acre (60% normal)

Basal area following thinning—white fir—240 ft2per acre (60% normal)

Stands in the Forest with special circumstances will have target basal areas that deviate from the 

above general prescription. A basal area of 150 ft2 will be achieved in locations where leave trees 

have full crowns. A basal are of 180 ft2per acre will be achieved in areas with poorer crown 

leave trees, higher growing sites, older trees and in Home Range Core Areas. 

The portions of the 40 to 50 year old pine plantations that are planned for thinning will be thinned 

to basal areas of around 120 to 140 ft2per acre depending on existing crown condition and 

adjacent openings (40-45 percent of normal--26 to 30 percent SDImax). 

Except where retained for wildlife purposes, suppressed, intermediate, damaged and diseased 

then finally codominant trees, in order of removal, would be harvested until the prescribed 
5

stocking level has been reached. This is known as thinning from below as directed in the SNFPA 

2004 ROD. 

Other important commercial treatment considerations include:

Black oaks will be retained in treated stands.

Mechanical thinning will be limited to trees less than 30 inches diameter at breast height 

(dbh).

Pre-Commercial Thinning:

Hand and mastication thinning and release of natural stands/aggregations of conifers and 

plantation trees generally less than 10 inches dbh would be undertaken within treatment units. 

Depending on tree size these stands would be thinned to around 150 to 200 leave trees per acre. 

These thinned aggregations will occupy large and small openings. Hand thinning slash 

concentrations would generally be tractor piled and piles burned. Slash concentrations on steeper 

slopes would generally be hand piled and burned. Areas of only light slash (10-20 tons per acre)

would be lop and scattered to 18 inches. Stand heterogeneity would be maintained through 

retention of these pre-commercially thinned clumps as well as untreated clumps on steeper slopes, 

the more dense clumps of larger diameter trees, SMZ’s, archaeological sites, and the two to three 

untreated larger oaks per acre. In addition, shrub and understory diversity would be retained 

throughout the project area during follow-up treatments through the retention of 15-20 percent of 

the total understory growth in approximately 1/10th acre pockets within plantation treatment units 

and 1⁄4 acre pockets within wild stand treatment units. 

Prescribed Fire:

Underburning is proposed as a fuels reduction and understory management treatment within the 

prescribed fire stands as well as within stands T-8a&b, T-9, T-10b, T-12, and T-18a. 

Underburning will only be done in portions of those stands with larger, more fire resistant 

residual trees and fairly light slash concentrations. Where scattered heavy slash concentrations 

are present, some piling of slash will to be done prior to underburning. Due to the location of 

much of the proposed underburning, it is anticipated that late fall and early winter (after wetting 

rains) as well as early spring underburning may be possible. Prescribed burning of stand 55 

(Rx55) consists of a recently masticated young ponderosa pine plantation. Underburning will be 

avoided in this young stand. In most cases, areas that have been masticated will not be 

underburned. The Fuels Officer and Silviculturist will field coordinate all areas to be 

underburned prior to undertaking underburning.

Design Criteria Included in the Decision

Based on site specific review of the project area, resource specialists identified design criteria to 

reduce potential impacts caused by the various alternatives. My decision includes 

implementation of the design criteria shown in the ROD, Appendix B. These design criteria 

minimize, reduce or eliminate impacts on sensitive resources. 
6

Monitoring Included in the Decision

My decision includes the implementation of the Monitoring Plan found in Appendix D.

Best AvailableScience

I adopted all practicable means to avoid or minimize environmental harm in the design of this 

project. I included all of the project design criteria that I believe are necessary to avoid, minimize, 

or rectify impacts on resources affected by the implementation of this decision. My conclusions 

are based on a review of the record that is based on the best available science. The resource 

sections in Chapter 3 of the FEIS identify the effects analysis methodologies, reference scientific 

sources which informed the analysis, discuss responsible opposing views and disclose limitations 

of the analysis.

Rationale for My Decision

My decision to approve Alternative 2 is based on consideration of the purpose and need for 

action, the issues, the LRMP and associated amendments, current policies and regulations, the 

analysis of alternatives contained in the FEIS, public comments received, and other information

in the project record. I considered the concerns expressed throughout this process relating to tree 

size and wildlife impacts. Alternative 2 is expected to substantially reduce the potential for high 

fire severity under all but the most extreme weather conditions, and improve forest health and 

resiliency.

Compelling Need for the Project

The Fish Camp Project area is overstocked with trees within all of the project area stands 

proposed for treatment having tree densities too high for a sustainable healthy and resilient 

forest. The forest density has increased in the era of fire suppression to conditions that are out of 

alignment with the conditions for a healthy forest. With so many trees, the forest is under stress 

due to over competition and will not be able to adapt and overcome stressors in the environment 

such as drought, insect attack, air pollution, fire and climate change which will lead to more dead

trees than is desirable (FEIS Chapter 3 Silviculture Section). 

Additionally the forest in its current condition is susceptible to uncharacteristic wildfire which 

can cause stand replacement. Fire is an important component of the forest ecosystem however 

the fire conditions that were in effect prior to fire suppression were typically low to the ground 

and of moderate intensity. Such fires would negatively impact natural resources and the public 

and firefighter safety. High fire severity is commonly characterized by complete mortality of the 

vegetation, soil damage, water pollution, ineffective suppression efforts with associated high 

financial costs, and loss of life and/or property (FEIS Chapter3 Fire/Fuels Section).

Many natural low-intensity fires (possibly as many as 20 based on projections from similar areas 

without fire suppression) would have occurred in the Project area under conditions prior to fire 

suppression. The lack of frequent mixed-intensity fires has caused timber stands to become 

overstocked with fire intolerant trees and shrubs, converting it to a fire susceptible forest type in 

which high intensity fires are more likely. Fire intolerant species tend to form unhealthy stands 

prone to uncharacteristically large and severe wildfires, drought-induced mortality, and increased 

outbreak of disease and insect infestation (Graham et al. 1999) (FEIS Chapter 3 Fire/Fuels and 

Silviculture Sections).
7

I understand the importance of sustaining fisher populations particularly as this project is situated 

within the Southern Sierra Fisher Conservation Area. I carefully considered effects on the fisher 

as part of my decision and balanced these with the project needs. The Forest plans and designs

our management to address the conservation of that species as well as other wildlife species and 

other forest resources and uses. My decision may affect individual fisher but has been 

determined not to contribute to the need for Federal listing or result in loss of viability for fisher. 

The forest thinning I have decided upon retains key components important to fisher habitat 

including: the majority of the forest biomass including all large trees (>30 inches dbh) and nearly 

all moderate sized trees 20-30 inches dbh, as well as all oak trees, and all large snags unless 

deemed a safety hazard. 

Just prior to this decision it came to my attention attention that additional fisher den sites have 

been located in the Project area. (Fisher denning typically occurs in April and May each year.) 

Information on this additional den site has been added to the FEIS. This discovery requires the 

implementation of the Project design criteria (explained in detail in DEIS and FEIS Chapter 2)

requiring no treatments to occur within buffer acreage around these den sites. This will reduce

the number of acres where forest treatment is accomplished and will somewhat reduce the ability 

of the Project to meet the purpose and need to the designed degree. Because we are 

implementing the Project as designed and described in the DEIS and FEIS the effects analysis 

relating to wildlife will not change. As there will be less treatment than analyzed, any adverse 

effects described in the analysis will be less than stated and therefore I find the current analysis 

sufficient to meet the requirements of NEPA and to provide me with the information I need to 

make an informed decision.

Additionally my decision includes extensive areas of no treatment actions (4,240 acres). Though 

a total of 1,200 acres were analyzed for the treatments, design criteria common to all alternatives 

and standards and guidelines from SNFPA 2004 ROD (USDA-FS 2004b) dictate areas where 

treatments cannot occur to reduce and/or eliminate adverse effects on particular resources. It is 

estimated that excluding these sensitive areas, (for example, cultural resource areas, botanical 

species areas, wildlife habitat areas, and aquatic species areas), from treatment approximately 75 

percent of the project area will remain untreated. Over the short-term, there will be a relatively 

low level of change in California Wildlife Habitat Relationship fisher habitat types as a result of 

thinning treatments and an increase in total fisher habitat over the longer term. Fisher rest site 

groups will be identified and retained, minimum canopy cover retention levels are established and 

protecting and enhancing habitat heterogeneity at multiple scales will benefit fisher. Tree 

removal and fuels reduction activities are expected to reduce the extent, severity and intensity of 

wildfires within and adjacent to treated stands while maintaining existing habitat functionality 

(FEIS Chapter 2 and 3 Wildlife and Design Criteria Sections). 

Although I acknowledge that individual sensitive species may be impacted by the project, overall 

the viability of sensitive species is preserved both at the project level and landscape level. The 

benefits to the forest in resiliency; and the benefits to the forest, the public and to worker safety 

from reduced fire severity outweigh the impact to these individuals in my mind. Additionally in 

the long run, habitat for many forest species will be enhanced as trees grow larger, large trees are 

more numerous, and the habitat is more heterogeneous making it a richer environment for 

wildlife. I am aware of the impacts to the environment and have decided that these impacts are 

acceptable in light of the benefits. 
8

Alternatives Considered in Detail but Not Selected

In addition to the selected alternative, I considered two other alternatives in analyzed in detail, 

which are summarized below. I also have also considered four alternatives that were eliminated 

from detailed study:

An alternative proposing to increase or create potential for large snags and down logs 

(>20‖ DBH) in units with little representation;

An alternative limiting tree removal diameter to 10 inches or smaller;

An Alternative maximizing the use of fire as the agent for achieving the project 

objectives; and

An alternative limiting treatments to 200 foot zones from structures.

(For more information on these alternatives see FEIS Chapter 2.)

Alternative 1 No Action Alternative: Under the No Action alternative, current 

management plans would continue to guide activities in the project area. 

Under the No Action alternative, current management plans would continue to guide management 

of the project area. No thinning, either commercial, pre-commercial and/or biomass operations, of 

mixed conifer and pine stands, mastication of brush/shrub patches, prescribed burning to reduce 

natural fuel accumulations and/or treatment of infestations of noxious weeds and replanting of 

conifers in failed conifer plantations would be implemented. 

This alternative was not selected because it would not meet the purpose and need of this project.

Alternative 3 Non-Commercial Funding Alternative: Treatment areas would remain 

the same as in Alternative 2. Treatments within these areas would include only those needed to 

reduce the surface and ladder fuels (within the lower and limited mid-level canopy levels) to 

achieve fire and fuels objectives. Under Alternative 3 there would be no additional treatment (i.e. 

additional thinning in the mid-level canopy) to fully address stand density and forest health 

objectives. In conifer plantations, fire/fuels objectives are based on the need to break-up the 

continuity of crowns created by stands that are considered all one age (even-aged). This includes 

the need to remove some material that would be considered commercially sized. In treatment 

areas where wild stands occur (generally areas outside of plantations), the break-up of crown 

continuity is not the main focus, but rather meeting these objectives is based on the ability to raise 

the height of the canopy base (the average height of the bottom layer of branches). This requires 

the removal of some materials that are considered pre-commercially sized. Maintenance and/or 

reconstruction of forest roads that were determined to not meet Forest Service standards would be 

brought back up to standard. Mechanical thinning would be completed within the first two to five 

years of implementation. Areas where follow-up treatments are needed, such as slash 

piling/burning, prescribed understory burning and noxious weed treatments, would be prioritized 

based on proximity to WUI and completed as appropriated dollars became available.

Although Alternative 3 addresses the need for surface and ladder fuel reduction, it does not 

address the need for conifer stands to be resilient to attack from insects, diseases, drought

conditions. Conifer stands in the project area are well above normal stocking levels (stand 

densities) resulting in declining growth, health and resiliency, thus increasing a stand’s potential 

for higher rates of mortality.
9

Environmentally Preferable Alternative

The environmentally preferable alternative is the alternative that will promote the national 

environmental policy as expressed in NEPA’s Section 101. Ordinarily, this means the alternative 

that causes the least damage to the biological and physical environment; it also means the 

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

Based on my consideration of the factors listed above and the effects disclosed in the FEIS, I 

consider Alternative 2 to be the environmentally preferable alternative. I believe the management 

actions under Alternative 2 protect and preserve important historic, cultural, and natural resources 

and maintain the quality of habitat needed to protect sensitive species. Alternative 2 provides 

different treatment intensities depending on stand conditions over 30 percent of the landscape as 

well as a large amount of acreage where no treatment will occur.

Public Involvement

Involving the public in this decision and incorporating comments has been crucial to making this 

decision. A notice of intent to prepare an EIS was published in the Federal Register on August

12, 2010. In addition, the proposed action was listed in the SNF Schedule of Proposed Actions. 

In addition, on August 16, 2010, as part of the public involvement process, the Forest Service sent 

scoping letters to 230 environmental organizations, political representatives, tribal groups, 

governmental organizations and citizens with properties within 1.5 mile radius of the project 

boundary inviting comment and participation in a public field trip to the Project area. Seven

scoping comment letters on the proposed action were received.

Issues identified from scoping comments were used to determine the scope of the analysis for the 

Fish Camp Project. Central to the scoping comment issues was the proper balance between forest 

functionality and wildfire susceptibility.

The DEIS Notice of Availability was published in the Federal Register on February 18, 2011 with 

the comment period ending April 4, 2011. The document was made available on the SNF website 

and hard copies of the document, compact disks or letters of notification were mailed to 53

interested parties. 

Public Comments on the DEIS 

In response to the Forest’s request for comments during the DEIS comment period, Seven 

interested parties submitted responses. The SNF documented, analyzed, and summarized public 

comments. Although only substantive comments are required to be responded to in NEPA 

regulation, the forest chose to respond to all comments submitted. One hundred and forty seven 

(147) comments were responded to and these responses can be found in FEIS Appendix E. A 

decision was made to address all comments and/or statements received during the comment 

period. 

Tribal Government and Native American Interests 

Tribal Governments and Native American Interests representing constituents in the project area 

were sent all public correspondence and have consulted on aspects of the proposed projects. The 

following offices received mailing: 
10

American Indian Council of Mariposa County, California Indian Basketweavers Association, 

Chaushilha, North Fork Mono Tribe, North Fork Mono Rancheria, Sierra Mono Museum, 

Southern Sierra Miwok Nation, Picayune Rancheria and the Mono Nation, a non-profit 

organization.

Changes between the DEIS and the FEIS

Based on both public comment and Forest Service review, changes were made between DEIS and 

FEIS. The following types of changes and clarifications were applied to the FEIS: 

Data Omissions – In cases where omissions in data were identified by the FS or the public, those 

omissions were fixed in the FEIS. Where data pertinent to the analysis was identified between 

DEIS and FEIS it was include and analyzed. 

Corrections and Edits – Where typos or errors were identified they were correct. 

Clarifications – Public comment inspired the clarification of items in many sections of the FEIS. 

These clarifications ranged from adding a few words to help the reader more fully understand the 

content and rationale of a section to expansion of summary and comparison tables. The design 

criteria were streamlined and clarified in the FEIS as well.

Additions – Alternatives suggested by the public were addressed.

Significant Issues

Comments from the public and other agencies were used to formulate issues concerning the 

proposed action. No scoping comments were received from members or groups from the Native 

American community. Other comments received were either from the environmental community 

or the timber industry. The FS separated Fish Camp Project issues into two groups: significant 

and non-significant issues. Issues are statements of cause and effect, linking environmental 

effects to specific actions. Significant issues are issues with potentially significant impacts. The 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations explain this delineation in Sec. 

1501.7, ―...identify and eliminate from detailed study the issues which are not significant or 

which have been covered by prior environmental review (Sec. 1506.3)...‖ Fish Camp Project 

significant issues were used to create design criteria and focus the effects analysis. (Please see 

FEIS Chapter 1 for a list of the significant issues and the associated indicators.)

Legal and Regulatory Compliance

My decision complies with the laws, policies, and executive orders listed below and described in 

Chapter 3 of the FEIS. 

Forest Plan Consistency

My decision complies with all management direction contained in the SNF LRMP. 

Findings Required by Other Laws and Regulations

The project was designed with the intent of integrating the management goals and objectives set 

forth in the SNF LRMP and the SNFPA 2004 ROD (Chapter 1 FEIS) while meeting the purposes 

and needs of the Project.

The findings for other pertinent laws associated with this decision are listed below:
11

1. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

NEPA requires that Federal agencies prepare detailed statements on proposed actions 

that significantly affect the quality of the human environment to provide decision makers 

with a detailed accounting of the likely environmental effects of a proposed action prior 

to its adoption, and to inform the public of, and allow comment on, such effects. 

Resource specialist have compiled and utilized information relevant to the effects of the 

alternatives considered in the Fish Camp Project FEIS. All substantive comments, 

written and oral, made on the DEIS have been summarized and responded to in 

Appendix E of the FEIS. 

I find that the environmental analysis and public involvement process complies with 

each of the major elements of the requirements set forth by the Council for 

Environmental Quality for implementing NEPA (40 CFR 1500-1508).

2. National Forest Management Act (NFMA)

The National Forest Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1604) and the Multiple-Use SustainedYield Act of 1960 (16 U.S.C. 528–531) give direction to National Forests to develop 

National Forest Land and Resource Management Plans that (A) ensure consideration of 

the economic and environmental aspects of various systems of renewable resource 

management, including the related systems of silviculture and protection of forest 

resources, to provide for outdoor recreation (including wilderness), range, timber, 

watershed, wildlife, and fish; (B) provide for diversity of plant and animal communities 

based on the suitability and capability of the specific land area in order to meet overall 

multiple-use objectives, and for steps to be taken to preserve the diversity of tree species. 

As set forth by these Acts and the SNF LRMP, as amended, set specific S&Gs which are 

to be followed during project level planning and implementation. By the inclusion of 

design criteria as part of my decision to minimize or eliminate significant environmental 

effects from this project as well as the inclusion of standards and guidelines from the 

SNF-LRMP and SNFPA ROD as amended (USDA-FS 2004b) used to design this 

project, I have determined this Project complies with this Act. 

3. Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973

The Forest Service is directed to comply with this Act and has does so through 

Biological Assessments that are used to analyze the effects of the proposed alternatives. 

These assessments and evaluations make determinations on Federally-listed endangered, 

threatened, candidate and proposed species and their habitat. The analysis was 

conducted in part to determine whether formal consultation or conference is required 

with the United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, pursuant to 

this Act.

My decision, through the inclusion of design criteria for species covered under this Act, 

inconsideration of the analysis and determinations contained in Biological Assessments 

and Evaluations for Botanical (J. Clines 2010), Aquatic Wildlife (P. Strand 2010), and 

Terrestrial Wildlife (A. Otto/G. Schroer/K. Williams 2010) species, is in compliance 

with the ESA. Additionally as there are no federally threatened or endangered botanical, 

terrestrial wildlife or aquatic species potentially affected by the project, I find the project 

is in full compliance with the ESA (FEIS Chapter 3 Terrestrial, Botanical and Aquatics 

Sections).
12

4. Clean Water Act (CWA)

The Clean Water Act delegates authority for management of water quality to the states, 

and waives sovereign immunity for state and local laws pertaining to water-quality 

protection. Compliance with the federal CWA is primarily through the California PorterCologne Act as administered by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control 

Board Basin Plans and implementation of Best Management Practices (FEIS Chapter 3, 

FEIS Appendix B and ROD Appendix C). The Water Resources analysis concluded that 

my decision complies with the CWA through implementation of the design criteria and 

BMPs (FEIS Chapter 3 Hydrology Section). 

5. Clean Air Act of 1970 (CAA)

The CAA provides for the protection and enhancement of the nation’s air resources. 

Under the General Conformity Rule my decision has been determined to comply with 

this Act and the California State Implementation Plan through the implementation of 

treatments following Best Available Control Measures) for prescribed burning as well as 

rules and regulations established by the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control 

District and Mountain Counties Air Pollution Control District as required under section 

190 of this Act, as amended in 1990. No exceedance of the federal and state ambient air 

quality standards is expected to result from any of the alternatives (FEIS Chapter 3 Air 

Quality Section). For these reasons I find that this Project complies with the CAA.

6. National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966

Section 106 requires federal agencies to consider the potential effects of a Preferred 

Alternative on historic, architectural, or archaeological resources that are eligible for 

inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places and to afford the President’s 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation an opportunity to comment. Section 110 

requires federal agencies to identify, evaluate, inventory, and protect National Register 

of Historic Places resources on properties they control. Potential impacts to 

archaeological and historic resources were evaluated in compliance with Section 106. 

In accordance with the Regional Programmatic Agreement (PA), a cultural resource 

identification effort was conducted of the Area of Potential Effect by a professional 

archaeologist. The goal was to identify cultural resources at risk of adverse effects from 

the proposed actions. No direct effects to cultural resources with archaeological values 

are anticipated from implementation of my decision. Specific protection and 

management measures derived from the PA would be applied to archaeological sites as 

project design measures (FEIS Chapter 2). All National Register eligible and potentially 

eligible properties would be managed for no effect (per the PA) from project activities 

(FEIS Chapter 2). 

Cultural resource design criteria are established for all action alternatives and are based 

on stipulations within the PA. Because of the design criteria and the Project’s 

compliance with the PA, I find my decision would be in compliance with historic 

preservation law, policy and regulation (FEIS Chapter 3 Cultural Resources Section).

Administrative Review or Appeal Opportunities

This decision is subject to appeal pursuant to 36 CFR 215. In accordance with the April 24, 2006 

order issued by the U. S. District Court for the Missoula Division of the District of Montana in 

Case No. CV 03-119-M-DWM, only those individuals and organizations who provided 
13

comments during the comment period are eligible to appeal [36 CFR 215.11(a), 1993 version]. 

Appeals must be filed within 45 days from the publication date of the legal notice in the Fresno 

Bee. Notices of appeal must meet the specific content requirements of 36 CFR 215.14. An appeal, 

including attachments, must be filed (regular mail, fax, e-mail, hand-delivery, express delivery, or 

messenger service) with the appropriate Appeal Deciding Officer [36 CFR 215.8] within 45 days 

following the publication date of the legal notice. The publication date of the legal notice is the 

exclusive means for calculating the time period to file an appeal [36 CFR 215.15 (a)]. Those 

wishing to appeal should not rely upon dates or timeframe information provided by any other 

source.

Appeals must be submitted to Regional Forester, USDA Forest Service, 1323 Club Drive, 

Vallejo, CA 94592, (707) 562-8737. Appeals may be submitted by FAX [(707) 562-9091] or by 

hand-delivery to the Regional Office, at the address shown above, during normal business hours 

(Monday-Friday 8:00am to 4:00pm). Electronic appeals, in acceptable [plain text (.txt), rich text 

(.rtf) or Word (.doc)] formats, may be submitted to appeals-pacificsouthwest-regionaloffice@fs.fed.us with Subject: Fish Camp Project.

For electronically mailed appeals, the sender should normally receive an automated electronic 

acknowledgment from the agency as confirmation of receipt. If the sender does not receive an 

automated acknowledgment of the receipt of the appeal, it is the sender’s responsibility to ensure 

timely receipt by other means [36 CFR 215.6(a)(4)(iii)].

Implementation Date

If no appeals are filed within the 45 day appeal period, implementation of the decision may occur 

on, but not before, 5 business days from the close of the appeal filing period. When appeals are 

filed, implementation may occur on, but not before, the 15th business day following the date of 

the last appeal disposition.

Contact Person

The FEIS and supporting documents are available for public review at the Sierra National Forest, 

Bass Lake Ranger District, 57003 Road 225, North Fork, CA 93643, (559) 877-2218. For further 

information on this decision, contact Mark Lemon (mlemon@fs.fed.us), Interdisciplinary Team 

Leader at (559) 877-2218 extension 3110.

___________________________________ __________________

Scott G. Armentrout Date

Forest Supervisor, Sierra National Forest

1

References

Graham et al. 1999. Graham, R. T., A. E. Harvey, T. B. Jain, and J. R. Tonn. 1999. 

The Effects of Thinning and Similar Stand Treatments on Fire Behavior in Western 

Forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW‐GTR‐463. Portland, OR: Pacific Northwest 

Research Station, USDA Forest Service.

North M., Stine P., O’Hara K., Zielinski W., and Stephens, S., 2009. An ecosystem 

Management Strategy fo Mixed Conifer Forests. USDA Forest Service. General 

Technical Report, Pacific Southwest Research Station, PSW-GTR-220, March 

2009. 

Spencer, W.D., H.L. Rustigian, R.M. Scheller, A. Syphard, J. Strittholt, and B. 

Ward. 2008. Baseline evaluation of fisher habitat and population status, and effects 

of fires and fuels management on fishers in the southern Sierra Nevada. 

Unpublished report prepared for USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. 

June 2008. 133 pp + appendices.

Stone, K.A., A. Gallegos, and P. Strand. 2010. The Riparian Conservation 

Objective Consistency Analysis for the Fish Camp Project. 

USDA-FS 1992. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA-FS). 

1992; Forest Land and Resource Management Plan-Sierra National Forest. Pacific 

Southwest Region, Sierra National Forest. Clovis, CA.

USDA Forest Service. 2000a. Water Quality Management for National Forest System 

Lands in California, Best Management Practices.

USDA-FS 2001b. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Final Environmental 

Impact Statement. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. January 2001.

USDA-FS 2004. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment. Final Supplemental

Environmental Impact Statement, Record of Decision, USDA Forest Service, 

Pacific Southwest Region, R5-MB-046 Jan 2004.

1

Appendix A

Alternative 2 – The Proposed Action

Treatment areas within the project area boundary were delineated to include those areas where 

some form of treatment was necessary to protect communities from wildfire and to improve forest 

health and resiliency. In developing the proposed action, first treatment areas were designed to 

create SPLATs to reduce the intensity and spread of wildfires in and around WUI. Treatment 

areas near key transportation corridors and within the defense zone of the WUI were designed 

next. Treatment areas were further designed to not only focus on those treatments needed to meet 

fire and fuel objectives (treatments defined for fire/fuels are designed to reduce the ladder and 

surface fuels and occur within the lower and limited mid-level canopy [Fire/Fuels Objectives]), 

but areas where the stands were considered overstocked with conifers and are vulnerable to loss 

from insect, disease and wildfire (Forest Health Objectives). 

Treatments defined for forest health are designed to reduce basal area and stocking to such a level 

that the stands are resilient to changing environmental conditions, increase growth and are 

vigorous with reduced susceptibility to insect and disease attack and wildfire. These treatments 

occur within the lower and mid-level canopy. 

Maintenance and/or reconstruction of forest roads that were determined to not meet Forest 

Service standards will be brought back up to standard prior to commercial thinning. Commercial 

thinning would be completed within the first two to five years of implementation. Areas where 

follow-up treatments are needed, such as slash piling/burning, prescribed understory burning and 

noxious weed treatments, would be prioritized based on proximity to WUI and completed as 

appropriated dollars became available. The Design Criteria are incorporated as part of this 

decision and can be found in Appendix B. A treatment area map can be found in Appendix E. 

Of the 5,440 total acres within the project boundary, approximately 1,200 acres will have some 

form(s) of treatment (so named as treatment areas). The remaining 4,240 acres have no treatments 

proposed due to slopes greater than 35 percent, standard and guideline limitations on treatment 

and/or no treatment is needed to meet the purpose and need.

In Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) the treatments include:

commercially thin mixed conifer, pine, and white fir stands on approximately 562 acres;

commercially thin ponderosa and Jeffrey pine plantations on approximately 404 acres;

pre-commercially thin by masticating approximately 41 acres of plantations; 

plant and hand release treated openings within commercial thin and mastication 

treatment areas on up to 10 acres;

treat slash concentrations within commercially thinned stands by a combination of tractor 

or hand piling and burning or mastication;

underburn on approximately up to 193 acres within 7 prescribed fire stands; 

underburn within portions of T8, 9, 10, and 12 on approximately 208 acres;

perform maintenance on approximately 41.9 miles of forest system roads;

perform reconstruction on approximately 12.9 miles of forest system roads;
2

construct 0.5 miles of temporary road ;

manually pull and/or prescribed burn of noxious weed patches.

Though a total of 1,200 acres are analyzed for the treatments listed above, design criteria 

common to all alternatives and standards and guidelines from SNFPA ROD (USDA-FS 2004b) 

dictate areas where treatments cannot occur to reduce and/or eliminate adverse effects on 

particular resources. It is estimated that excluding these sensitive areas, for example, cultural 

resource areas, botanical species areas, wildlife habitat areas, and aquatic species areas from the 

treatment areas where no treatment will occur, a total of 850 – 1,000 acres will remain for 

treatments as proposed.
1

Appendix B

Design Criteria 

The design criteria listed by resource area below are direction to follow during implementation. 

As listed, they can be directly from the SNF-LRMP (USDA-FS 1992) and SNFPA ROD (USDAFS 2004b) Standard and Guidelines (S&G); Forest Service Manual/Handbook directions; Best 

Management Practices (BMP); based on past implementation experience; legal requirements; 

based on the best science available where they are used in addition to standards and guidelines

and/or have been developed to address significant issues. 

Cultural Resources

Cultural resources will be protected through implementation of Standard Protection Measures of 

the Regional Programmatic Agreement (PA), the primary protection measure being avoidance for 

all project activities, including resource design criteria. The appropriate specialist or 

representative will approve all landings and temporary roads prior to project implementation as 

needed (Appendix B of the PA).

Botany: Rare Plants and Noxious Weeds

Project design criteria for protection of Forest Service Sensitive plants include:

a) All short-leafed hulsea populations will be flagged for avoidance (SNF 1992 LRMP S&G 

#s 67 and 68, SNFPA 2004 ROD S&G # 125).

b) Stream reaches containing populations of the veined water lichen will be flagged for 

avoidance and will not be used for drafting (SNF 1992 LRMP S&Gs# 67 and 68, SNFPA 

2004 ROD S&G # 125).

c) Open granitic and/or gravelly areas in or adjacent to units M08, T14a-b, T21a-d, T27, 

and T30 will not be driven through for project implementation nor used for parking of 

vehicles, heavy equipment nor used as log landings. This is to ensure protection of 

suitable habitat for the following sensitive plant species that have not been discovered in 

the project area but may exist: Mono Hot Springs evening primrose, Kelloggs’ lewisia, 

and Yosemite bitterroot. In the event that the granitic habitat occurs within a unit, the 

botanist will flag suitable habitat for avoidance in coordination with timber and/or fuels 

staff (SNF 1992 LRMP S&Gs # 67 and 68, SNFPA 2004 ROD S&G # 125).

Project design criteria for prevention of spread of noxious weeds:

a) All heavy equipment used for implementing the project will be washed before arriving on 

site to remove soil and seeds of noxious weeds. This is to ensure that weed seeds or 

propagules are not inadvertently introduced into the project area (SNFPA 2004 ROD 

S&Gs # 38 and 39; USDA Forest Service FSM 2081.3, Timber Sale Contract Clause 

B.6.35).

b) Infestations of noxious weeds occurring in treatment units or other areas such as landings 

where they are likely to be spread as a result of project activities will be removed by 
2

Forest Service personnel prior to project implementation. Because these areas will still 

have soil contaminated with seeds of the weeds, a buffer zone will be shown on the 

timber sale contract and flagged for avoidance to prevent heavy equipment from 

transporting seeds to other areas within the project boundary and beyond. In some cases 

it may be necessary to wash equipment after working in an infested unit prior to moving 

to a clean area elsewhere within the project boundary and/or upon exiting the project area 

altogether (SNFPA 2004 ROD S&Gs # 38, 40, 48; USDA Forest Service FSM 2081.3, 

Timber Sale Contract Clause B.6.35).

c) Any seeding, planting, or mulching for erosion control will be pre-approved by the Forest 

Botanist to minimize the likelihood of accidental introduction of noxious weeds and to 

ensure compliance with the FS Pacific Southwest Region Native Plant Policy (SNFPA 

2004 ROD S&Gs # 38, 40; USDA Forest Service FSM 2081.03; R5 Native Plant Policy, 

1994)

Geology/Soils

a) Leave a 100-foot wide buffer of 100 percent soil cover below large rock outcrops 

especially in treatment units T-06, T-10a-d, T-14a-b, T-17a-d, T-18a-d, T-21a-d, and T28a-j. These areas have a high potential to generate run off that can cause accelerated 

erosion on soils down slope (FSM 2500 – Watershed and Air Management, Chapter 

2550 – Soil Management).

b) Limit mechanical operations, where sustained slopes exceed 35%, except where 

supported by on-the-ground interdisciplinary team evaluation (SNF-LRMP S&G 125).

c) Maintain 50% soil cover over all treatment areas. Where shrub species predominate, 

attempt crushing before piling to create small woody fragments left scattered over the 

site for soil cover and erosion protection (SNF-LRMP S&G #130).

d) Maintain at least five well-distributed logs per acre as large woody debris (LWD) 

representing the range of decomposition classes defined in the (SNFPA ROD S&G 10).

e) Provide for road surface stabilization (gravel) on roads over 5% grade that are located on 

sensitive soils, including Ultic Haploxeralf soils (SNF- LRMP S&G #129) and are 

affecting soil productivity and/or water quality. 

Lands/Special Uses

1. Forest Service project managers will notify permit holders and agencies, in person or in 

writing, project activities including mastication, pre-commercial thinning and/or 

understory prescribed fire will be implemented in Forest areas that may affect their 

authorized special uses or agency jurisdictions. A list of permit holders is located in the 

project record. Forest Service managers responsible for implementation will work with

permit holders to ensure authorized improvements and/or right-of-ways are clearly 

identified on all contracts and visible during project implementation. Appropriate 

protection measures will be put in place. 
3

Recreation and Recreation Special Uses

a) From Memorial Day Weekend to Labor Day weekend, no logging or log haul will be 

permitted within 1⁄4 mile of Big Sandy Campground from 6 PM Friday to 10 PM Sunday 

(10PM Monday for July 4) on all weekends. 

b) From Memorial Day Weekend to Labor Day weekend, no logging or log haul will be 

permitted within 1⁄4 mile of Goat Meadow Snow Play Area from 6 PM Friday to 10 PM 

Sunday (10PM Monday for July 4) on all weekends to prevent interference with summer 

recreational activities.

c) The parking area at Goat Meadow Snow Play Area will not be used for a landing or 

staging area for project related equipment and will be fully accessible to the public on 

weekends.

d) All activity fuels and slash will be pulled out of and at least 5 feet away from established 

Forest Service or permittee trails and any damage by project activities will be repaired to 

pre-project conditions within 7 days of completion of logging adjacent to affected trails.

e) From Memorial Day weekend through Labor Day weekend, no logging will be permitted 

within 1⁄4 mile of the YTPS base facility or inside units T-7a, T-10a, T-10b, T-18a and T18b adjacent to YTPS trails. 

Wildlife – Terrestrial

Many standards and guidelines address wildlife and the Project includes compliance with them all 

however for brevity’s sake those that are particularly important for managing wildlife and 

wildlife habitat and/or have sparked public interest related to the Fish Camp Project area are 

listed here. 

Down Woody Material: ―Determine down woody material retention levels on an individual 

project basis, based on desired conditions. Emphasize retention of wood in the largest size classes 

and in decay classes 1, 2, and 3. Consider the effects of follow-up prescribed fire in achieving 

desired down woody material retention levels.‖ This will be met by maintaining at least five welldistributed logs per acre as large woody debris (LWD) representing the range of decomposition 

classes from the Geology/Soils design criteria throughout the implementation of this project.

(SNFPA ROD S&G#10)

Snag Retention: ―Design projects to implement and sustain a generally continuous supply of 

snags and live decadent trees suitable for cavity nesting wildlife across a landscape. Retain some 

mid- and large-diameter live trees that are currently in decline, have substantial wood defect, or 

that have desirable characteristics (teakettle branches, large diameter broken top, large cavities in 

the bole) to serve as future replacement snags and to provide nesting structure. When determining 

snag retention levels and locations, consider land allocation, desired condition, landscape 

position, potential prescribed burning and fire suppression line locations, and site conditions 

(such as riparian areas and ridge tops) avoiding uniformity across large areas. 

The general guidelines for large-snag retention are as follows:

Westside mixed conifer and ponderosa pine types – four of the largest snags per acre.

Use snags larger than 15 inches dbh to meet this guideline. Snags should be clumped and 

distributed irregularly across the treatment units. Consider leaving fewer snags 
4

strategically located in treatment areas within the WUI. When some snags are expected to 

be lost due to hazard removal or the effects of prescribed fire, consider these potential 

losses during project planning to achieve desired snag retention levels.‖ (SNFPA ROD 

S&G#11)

Old Forest Associated Species: Assess the potential impact of projects on the connectivity of 

habitat for old forest associated species. (SNFPA ROD S&G #28)

Forested Linkages: Consider retaining forested linkages (with canopy cover greater than 40 

percent) that are interconnected via riparian areas and ridgetop saddles during project-level 

analysis. (SNFPA ROD S&G #29)

Limited Operating Period for Spotted Owls and Northern Goshawks: Should surveys locate 

activity centers or active nests for California spotted owls or Northern goshawks, LOPs restricting 

vegetation treatments during the LOP period will be applied within a 1⁄4 mile radius of the activity 

center or nest. Should a great gray owl nest be located, the nesting location will be protected by 

an LOP. The district biologist will be notified when a nest or den of any Threatened (T), 

Endangered (E) Candidate (C), Proposed (P), or Forest Service Sensitive (FSS) species are 

discovered within or adjacent to a treatment area and an LOP would be established. All areas 

within the project area have been surveyed to regional protocol for California spotted owl and 

Northern goshawk. (SNFPA ROD S&G #75&76)

Limited Operating Period for Fisher Den Sites (SNFPA ROD S&G #85): Protect fisher den 

site buffers from disturbance with a limited operating period (LOP) from March 1 through June 

30 for vegetation treatments as long as habitat remains suitable or until another Regionallyapproved management strategy is implemented. The LOP may be waived for individual projects 

of limited scope and duration, when a biological evaluation documents that such projects are 

unlikely to result in breeding disturbance considering their intensity, duration, timing, and 

specific location. (SNFPA ROD S&G #85)

Fisher Den Site Management: Avoid fuel treatments in fisher den site buffers to the extent 

possible. If areas within den site buffers must be treated to achieve fuels objectives for the urban 

wildland intermix zone, limit treatments to mechanical clearing of fuels. Treat ladder and surface 

fuels to achieve fuels objectives. Use piling or mastication to treat surface fuels during initial 

treatment. Burning of pile debris is allowed. Prescribed fire may be used to treat fuels if no other 

reasonable alternative exists. (SNFPA ROD S&G #86) 

Management in Southern Sierra Fisher Conservation Area: Prior to vegetation treatments, 

design measures to protect important habitat structures as identified by the wildlife biologist, such 

as large diameter snags and oaks, patches of dense large trees typically 1⁄4 to 2 acres, large trees 

with cavities for nesting, clumps of small understory trees, and coarse woody material. For 

example, use firing patterns, place lines around snags and large logs, and implement other 

prescribed burning techniques to minimize effects to these attributes. Use mechanical treatments 

when appropriate to minimize effects on preferred fisher habitat elements. (SNFPA ROD S&G 

#90)

Pacific Fisher Den Site Buffers: The SNFPA ROD 2004 (USDA-FS 2004b) requires a 

minimum 700-acre buffer around fisher birthing and kit rearing dens, and this buffer consists of 

the best quality and most contiguous habitat. Standards and guidelines for management actions 
5

within these buffers are: #85 (creation of an LOP during breeding and rearing season); #86 

(mechanical treatment of surface and ladder fuels only, if den site within WUI); and #87 

(mitigation of disturbance by recreational users).

Southern Sierra Fisher Conservation Area Desired Conditions: Within known or estimated 

female fisher home ranges outside the Wildfire Urban Interface Zone (WUI), a minimum of 50 

percent of the forested area has at least 60 percent canopy cover. The entire project area is within 

the Southern Sierra Fisher Conservation Area (SSFCA), and there are approximately 2230 acres 

of WUI within the Fish Camp project boundary. (SNFPA ROD, pg. 41)

The following management actions which expand upon the S&Gs in the LRMP will help 

maintain and/or enhance important Pacific fisher and American marten habitat. These measures 

include information from the 2008 Conservation Biology Institute Document ―Baseline 

Evaluation of Fisher Habitat and Population Status and Effects of Fires and Fuels Management on 

Fishers In the Southern Sierra Nevada, Final Report to USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest 

Region‖ (Spencer et al 2008); ―An Ecosystem Management Strategy for Sierran Mixed-Conifer 

Forests‖ (North et al 2009); and Sierra Nevada Adaptive Management Study Integration Team 

discussions, fieldtrips to the project area, as well as Forest Service Standards and Guidelines and 

Land Allocations stated previously.

Maintain 50-60% canopy cover immediately post-harvest.

Thinning will not remove any trees larger than 30-inch dbh (SNFPA ROD S&G # 6). 

Protect all suitable fisher denning habitat with an LOP restricting vegetation treatments 

from March 1 through June 30. This LOP will protect reproductively active fisher and 

young that may be present in the project area from treatment actions during their denning 

and early rearing periods. 

Protect all suitable marten denning habitat with an LOP restricting vegetation treatments 

from May 1 through July 31. This LOP will protect reproductively active marten and 

young that may be present in the project area from treatment actions during their denning 

and early rearing periods.

Snags will be felled only if they meet the definition of a danger tree (as described in the 

Engineering Design Criteria), have the potential to fall across prescribed fire control 

lines, and/or pose a threat to firefighter safety during prescribed fire implementation. 

Down logs created as a result of snag felling will remain in the stand where needed to 

meet down log requirements of SNFPA ROD S&G #10. Snags not meeting the criteria 

of a danger tree will remain as standing snags within the project area.

Retain dense groups of larger trees (greater than 30-inch dbh) with touching crowns at the 

rate of approximately one group per 2.5 to 3.5 acres. Ideally these groups would contain 

―defect‖ trees, those that have cavity and platform creating defects (mistletoe, rot, fork 

topped, broken limbs and tops) for pacific fisher denning and resting sites. Within these 

large tree groups, all trees over 20‖ dbh will be retained. These large tree groups will 

generally have a residual basal area of 240 ft2or more for mixed conifer and 210 ft2or 

more for pine and in many instances may reach 300 to 400 ft2per acre. Retention of 

these large tree groups with higher basal areas and the inclusion of defect trees are 

designed to maintain the integrity of suitable fisher denning and resting sites throughout 

the treatment units. Non-treated areas within proposed treatment units, such as riparian 

areas and steep slopes, will also provide extensive areas of tree group retention as no 
6

treatments will be occurring in these areas. Large conifer retention groups, combined 

with non-treatment areas outside of project units will help maintain habitat heterogeneity 

throughout the treatment units and the project area as a whole. 

Within the Fish Camp Unit T-9, a 5 acre inclusion of decadent, high quality, dense 

fisher/spotted owl habitat was identified by the marking crew and field verified by the 

wildlife biologist. A number of predominant trees were noted within this inclusion. 

Historic aerial photos showed that this inclusion was not previously cut during the 

extensive railroad logging that occurred in the Sugar Pine and Fish Camp areas 

throughout the turn of the century. Due to the high habitat value present in this stand, and 

in accordance with Standard and Guideline #90 from the SNFPA ROD, this unique 

habitat inclusion was removed from the treatment unit and will not be available for 

commercial entry. 

To maintain decadent stand characteristics within the treatment units, conifers >16‖ dbh 

with structural decadence and/or the potential to become future snags will be identified 

for retention within the treatment areas. SNFPA ROD S&G #11 provides direction for 

retention of these structural elements. Within treatment units, conifers with the greatest 

existing or potential for structural decadence will be retained at an average of 1 every 100 

feet. Conifers will be selected using the following characteristics listed in order of 

priority: evidence of known or potential cavities; broken top; conks or other heart-rot 

indicators; mistletoe or other abnormal witches broom formation or other diseased or 

insect damaged trees; teakettle branches; forked top; or broken large branches. 

Black oaks will be retained throughout the project area. Within the treatment areas, 

conifers will be removed that overtop black oaks 10 inches dbh and larger, or that 

otherwise restrict sunlight from reaching them (e.g. from the south and west) now or 

within 15 years following treatment; the amount of conifer removal will be limited by the 

overall basal area thinning prescription thresholds. Conifer canopy gaps created through 

this process not only help promote and retain the vigor of black oaks, but also create 

habitat heterogeneity. Hiding cover around oaks, such as shrubs and small trees will be 

retained around 2-3 decadent oaks per acre. These oak retention areas will be protected 

with a buffer area 35 feet from the bole, or to the dripline, whichever is greater, where no 

thinning or fuels treatments will occur. 

Promote diversity in pine plantation treatment areas larger than 5 acres by creating 1/10 

acre openings associated with young black oaks between 4‖ and 12‖ dbh, where present, 

on an average of 1 opening for every 5 acres to encourage diameter growth of the oak 

through increased sunlight, release the oak from competition, and encourage future stand 

heterogeneity. To achieve this, Ponderosa and Jeffrey pine trees within pine plantations 

will be removed from a 180° swath on the Southern aspect around crowded young black 

oaks for a 50’ radius. Species diversity will be increased by selecting vigorous conifer 

species other than ponderosa and Jeffrey pine for retention during thinning where present. 

Hardwoods are not planned for removal. (SNFPA ROD S&G #3; #26).

Shrub and understory diversity will be retained throughout the project area. Understory 

vegetation will be maintained in Old Forest Linkages associated with riparian areas 

(cooler, moister sites--RMAs); black oak buffer zones; as well as areas where no 

treatment will be conducted such as heritage resource sites, botanical areas, slopes >35%, 

and rocky areas. Tree species associated with riparian areas, such as dogwoods, alders, 

and willows are not planned for removal. Post sale treatments will retain pockets of 

understory growth spread throughout the treatment units so that 15-20% of the total 
7

understory growth will be maintained in 1/10 acre pockets within plantation treatment 

units and 1⁄4 acre pockets within wild stand treatment units. This will preserve stand 

diversity while decreasing the threat posed by ladder fuels.

The district biologist will be notified immediately if a nest or den of any TESCP species 

is discovered within or adjacent to a treatment area so that proper protection measures 

can be identified and implemented. 

Standards and Guidelines 28 and 29 provide guidance for developing and maintaining 

adequate habitat connectivity within riparian areas. Recent studies (Spencer 2008; North 

et al 2009) have also shown that fisher utilize riparian areas as travel corridors between 

high quality habitat. To provide for this habitat connectivity, design criteria have been 

developed to incorporate and expand upon established riparian area management zones; 

i.e. Streamside Management Zones (SMZ) and Riparian Management Areas (RMA) 

associated with perennial streams (Class I). The forest wildlife biologists have termed 

these zones Old Forest Linkages (OFL). They incorporate and expand upon the measures 

required for SMZs and RMAs. OFLs consist of buffers measuring 300 feet total on either 

side of perennial streams. Design criteria for these Old Forest Linkages are detailed in 

Table 1 and Figure 1.

Table 1: Riparian Area Management Zones

*Distance from Stream for Activities is measured and applied to each side of the stream from bank-full left and bank-full right.

Distance from 

Stream* 

Vegetation Management Activities 

Allowed within zone Zone Designation

0-50 feet No Activities Allowed SMZ/RMA/OFL

50-100 feet

No ground disturbing equipment 

allowed into area (dozers, skidders, 

etc.) Activities allowed include handfelling of trees smaller than 12‖dbh, 

pile-burning, and equipment reach-in 

with boom arm. Canopy cover is to 

remain ≥60%.

SMZ/RMA/OFL

100-150 feet

Mechanical entry is allowed. Trees 

≤12‖ dbh may be removed for fire 

and fuels reduction purposes by 

equipment. Canopy cover is to 

remain ≥60%.

OFL

150-300 feet

Mechanical entry is allowed. 

Thinning from below will occur. 

Canopy cover is to remain ≥60%.

OFL
8

Figure 1: Associated Bounds and Treatments within Old Forest Linkages

Wildlife – Aquatics

Applicable aquatic wildlife species and riparian habitat standards and guidelines are from the 

2004 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment, Final Supplemental Impact Statement and Record 

of Decision (USDA-FS 2004b) (S&Gs #91-124), the existing Sierra National Forest Land and 

Resource Management Plan direction (USDA-FS 1992) (S&Gs #66-79), Forest Service 

handbook (FSH) 2509.22 Sierra Supplement #1 for treatments within Streamside Management 

Zones (SMZ, USDA 1989), Best Management Practices and other applicable laws and 

regulations (USDA-FS 2000a). Generalized SMZ designation is outline in Table 2 and mapped in 

the Project Hydrology Report (Stone 2010).

Table 2. Summary of Relationship between Feature Types, RCA Widths, Stream 

Classes, SMZ Widths, RMA Widths, and Stream Orders (and other GIS data)

Feature Type RCA 

Width

Stream 

Class

SMZ Width RMA 

Width

Corresponding 

GIS Layer 

Stream Order

Perennial Streams 300 

feet

I At least 100 ft 100 feet 4+

Seasonally Flowing 

Streams 

150 

feet

II At least 75 ft N/A 3

III At least 50 ft 2

IV At least 25 ft 1

V None required -

Streams in Inner 

Gorge

Top of 

inner 

gorge

Varies

Special Aquatic 

Features (fens, bogs,

springs, seeps, lakes, 

ponds, wetlands, etc.)

300 

feet

N/A N/A 100 feet Either identified on 

GIS layers 

(meadows, springs, 

lakes), or identified 

in the field
9

Project specific design criteria implementing the above regulation and guidance include:

a) Class I SMZs are within or adjacent to treatment areas: M-09, RX-02, RX-03, RX-04, RX-05, 

RX-06, RX-09, T-05, T-06, T-08, T-07, T-10, T-14, T-15, T-16, T-17, T-18, T-20, T-22, T28, T-29, and T-4. Old Forest Linkage Prescriptions apply to these SMZs. 

b) Special Aquatic Features: Do not allow mechanical equipment within 100 feet of meadows or 

other special aquatic features. Includes treatment areas: M-13, M-14, RX-06, T-07, T-10, T12, T-13, T-14, T-15, T-16, T-17, T-18, T-19, T-20, T-21, T-22, T-27, T-28, T-30, and T-40.

c) Applicable to all SMZs:

i. Do not allow heavy mechanical equipment within SMZ.

ii. To protect bank stability, do not cut streambank trees (trees with drip line 

extending to or over edge of streambank). 

iii. Do not cut any tree located within a channel.

iv. When lighting piles, start burn from one end only to allow escape route for any 

species inhabiting piles.

v. No lighting into SMZs, but fire can creep into zone.

d) For water drafting, use a screened intake device and pumps with low entry velocity to 

minimize removal of aquatic species, including juvenile fish, amphibian egg masses and tadpoles, 

from aquatic habitats. A Hydrologist or Aquatic Biologist would approve water-drafting sites. See 

Best Management Practices (BMP) 2-21 in Appendix B for specific requirements.

e) If newly listed or unknown occurrences of federally listed threatened, endangered, proposed, 

candidate or Forest Service sensitive aquatic species are found within the affected project area 

during sale preparation and implementation, additional species protection measures may need to 

be imposed by the district fisheries and aquatic biologist.

Hydrology

Use all applicable watershed standards and guidelines from the SNFPA ROD (S&Gs #95-124) 

(USDA-FS 2004b), the existing SNF- LRMP direction (S&Gs #120-131) (USDA-FS 1992), 

Forest Service handbook (FSH) 2509.22 Sierra Supplement #1 for treatments within Streamside 

Management Zones (SMZ, USDA 1989), and design measures to protect water quality and ensure 

watershed health that are detailed by Water Quality Management for Forest System Lands in 

California, Best Management Practices (USDA, 2000). 

Project specific implementation of the mentioned S&Gs and policy documents include:

1. Stream Crossings: To minimize the potential for project-related effects on hydrologic 

connectivity, existing crossings would be used whenever possible. In the event that it is 

necessary to construct a temporary crossing, the methods used for construction would be 

selected to avoid or minimize detrimental soil and vegetation disturbance and to maintain 

hydrologic connectivity between upstream and downstream features (Appendix 2 of 

hydrology specialist report details a low impact crossing methodology). All temporary 

crossings would be removed following the completion of project-related activities and 

would be treated as necessary to restore to pre-project conditions. Implementation of the 

activity-specific BMP’s would further ensure that hydrologic connectivity in streams and 

special aquatic features are not adversely affected. 
10

2. If treatment of wild/mixed stands or plantations does need to occur within the 100 foot 

meadow SMZ:

a. If the slope gradient is less than or equal to 10%, and the soil has a low erosion 

hazard and low sensitivity, then light-on-the–land equipment can be used to precommercially thin within the SMZ provided that:

i. the equipment minimizes the amount of turning within the SMZ. Where 

possible, the equipment should reach into the SMZ or roll straight into 

and out of the SMZ to minimize soil disturbance.

b. If the slope gradient is greater than 10% and/or the soil has a moderate to high 

erosion hazard and/or a moderate to high sensitivity, then thinning should be 

done hand, i.e., trees should be felled by hand, bucked, and left in place or endlined out of the SMZ. 

c. All ground disturbance that could cause concentrated flow and/or accelerated 

erosion will be restored to pre-disturbance condition, with interim measures to 

protect the soil in order to allow at least 50% vegetative ground cover to return 

(protective measures could include placement of slash, mulch, weed-free straw, 

waddles, etc.).

3. Treatment units T-16, T-17a-d, T-19a-b, T-22a-c, T-28a-j that are within subwatershed 

501.5005 (map 9) and the Long Meadow Creek drainage will require light-on-the-land 

mechanical treatment or deferral of treatment. Light-on-the land treatment includes: cutto-length harvest system or whole tree yarding system, grapple piling, or prescribed fire. 

Deferral of treatment areas includes spacing out disturbance over time to allow initial 

treated areas to recover (at least three years) before other areas are treated. 

a. Management prescription for Streamside Management Zones (SMZ).

i. Do not treat vegetation within the SMZs of Class I or II streams in subwatersheds over the lower threshold of concern (TOC).

ii. In the outer 50 feet of other SMZs, thin trees to reduce fuel loading by:

1. Removing ladder fuels (intermediate and suppressed trees)

2. Removing diseased trees that will fall away from riparian areas, 

and

3. Hand-piling slash as necessary to reduce the effects of under 

burning

4. maintaining trees with broken tops for source of large woody 

debris (LWD) recruitment

b. The hydrologic connectivity of roads:

i. Spot rocking of roads or out sloping road surfaces to quickly direct 

runoff from the road surface rather than concentrating flows in an 

inboard ditch and routing it to the stream channel;

ii. Installing rolling dips and /or additional relief culverts to minimize the 

length of road drainage entering stream channels, with outlet treatments 

to minimize the risk of fill slope erosion; and
11

iii. Rocking of ditches to reduce flow velocity in the ditch, prevent ditch 

erosion, and encourage deposition, where other techniques are not 

feasible.
12

Silviculture

Based on SNFPA ROD (USDA-FS 2004b) S&Gs for mechanical treatments, as well as design 

criteria, silvicultural prescriptions will be written utilizing thinning from below techniques with 

basal area levels for stand species composition (SNF- LRMP S&G 17).

The planning and implementation of all activities shall use integrated pest management (SNFLRMP S&G #117): 

a) An LOP would be imposed in well stocked stands heavy to fir (over 50% fir) where 

operations could begin August 1st or later when the sap is not running (fir bark is much 

more easily dislodged when the sap is running than later in the year). The appropriate 

specialist or representative will determine which stands require an LOP during the 

thinning layout phase as needed. 

b) To minimize the threat of insect attack, all pine logs created as a part of harvest 

operations will be removed from the sale areas as either logs or biomass material within 6 

weeks of creation. Unutilized pine material will not be concentrated but spread to dry 

quickly or chipped and spread. Pine logs greater than 3 inches in diameter that are 

created between July 1st and October 15th and left in the stand will not exceed 8 feet in 

length. 

c) Commercial thinning operations taking place before July 1st or after October 15th in pine 

stands will require additional measures to minimize creation of pine slash concentrations. 

Additional bucking of slash may be needed to minimize creation of favorable insect 

breeding habitat. Any pine logs greater than 3 inches in diameter created after October 

15th or before July 1st left in the stand should not exceed 4 feet in length. Precommercial 

thinning of pine stands should not take place before July 1st or after October 30th each 

year.

d) Where whole tree yarding is utilized, careful consideration must be given to the 

protection of the residual trees from damage. Rub trees (previously designated for 

removal) and/or rub logs should be retained where needed to minimize damage. These 

will then be removed upon completion of yarding. Skid trails should be as straight as 

possible and approved prior to skidding. Landing size should be kept to a minimum 

especially in areas where additional trees must be felled to create landings. 

e) To minimize landing size, logs/biomass should be removed as quickly as feasible from 

landings during skidding operations and not allowed to accumulate. During post sale 

treatments, 15 to 20 percent of the understory growth would be retained within 

plantations and wildstands in pockets approximately 1/10 acre in size. (When 

determining understory pockets to be retained, understory pockets around oaks, 

groupings of larger diameter trees, steep slopes, draws, etc. within treatment units would 

be included.) Understory pockets would not be retained in locations where they would 

jeopardize the effectiveness of planned fuels treatments (SNF- LRMP S&G #113 and 

114).

Fuels

SNFPA ROD (USDA-FS 2004b) S&G #3 addresses fuels treatments. Project specific S&G #3 

implementation criteria include: 
13

a) The utilization of prescribed fire to maintain appropriate levels of surface and ladder 

fuels to meet fire and fuels objectives will be conducted in prescribed fire treatment areas 

and portions of T-8b north of road 5S06, T-9, portion of T-10b north of road 5S06 and all 

except the very east portion of T-12. To reduce the potential impacts (fire effects) that 

may occur with the implementation of prescribed fire, the following criteria would need 

to be considered in the areas where prescribed fire would be used:

b) Prescribed fire areas should be considered where there are larger residual trees (of size 

less susceptible to fire damage) with light fuel loadings, and/or areas where conifer

reproduction is not being used for re-generation of openings.

c) Prescribed fire will be conducted as outlined in a burn plan, to minimize effects to trees 

during active growing period and within Pacific fisher denning habitat areas.

Engineering

a) Maintain all National Forest Transportation System (NFTS) roads to standards 

established in the Forest Service Handbook 7709.58. Perform road maintenance, 

reconstruction and new road construction activities to support project access needs. 

Insure drainage structures are functional and stable to prevent potential resource damage 

and degradation of water quality (SNF- LRMP S&G #78, #79, #124, #206 and BMPs).

b) Perform a final field review of project roads to determine reconstruction needs prior to 

project activities. Where economically feasible, place aggregate on existing native 

surface roads located in areas with High and very High Soil Erosion Hazard ratings 

(SNF- LRMP S&G #129). 

c) Close temporary roads required for unit access upon completion of use; remove all 

culverts, rip and ditch landings, construct waterbars, block the entrance with a log and 

dirt berm, and disguise the entrance with brush to discourage additional traffic. (FS 

Handbook (FS Handbook 2409.15, Sec.51.8)

d) Roadways will be managed for safe passage by road users. This will include the 

management of hazards associated with roadside vegetation, including the identification 

and mitigation of danger (hazard) trees. A danger tree, as defined in Forest Service 

Handbook (FSH) 7709.59, Chapter 40, is a standing tree (live or dead) that presents a 

hazard to people due to conditions such as, but not limited to, deterioration or physical 

damage to the root system, trunk, stem, or limbs and the direction of lean of the tree (FSH 

6709.11, Glossary). Selection criteria guidelines for the marking and removal of danger 

trees will be tiered to the BLRD Hazard Tree Environmental Assessment, (USDA-FS 

2006a). 

1

Appendix C – Best Management Practices Specific to Fish Camp

Project

BMP Name, Objective, and 

Direction Application to the Fish Camp Project

BMP 1-1 Timber Sale Planning 

Process: To incorporate water 

quality and hydrologic 

considerations into the timber sale 

planning process.

Implemented through the Riparian Conservation Objectives/Forest Plan 

Consistency report, specification of operational BMPs, Environmental 

Analysis including interdisciplinary team office and field discussions, 

and incorporation of water quality protection measures in the Timber 

Sale Contract for the KRP EIS.

BMP 1-4 Use of Sale Area Maps 

(SAM) and/or Project Maps for 

Designating Water Quality 

Protection Needs: To ensure 

recognition and protection of areas 

related to water quality protection 

delineated on a SAM or project 

map.

The sale administrator and purchaser will review these areas on the 

ground prior to commencement of ground disturbing activities. 

Examples of water quality protection features that will be designated on 

the project map include:

1)Location of streamcourses and riparian zones to be protected, 

including the width of the protection zone for each area.

2)Wetlands (meadows, lakes, springs, etc.) and other sensitive areas 

(such as shallow soils) to be protected. 

3)Boundaries of harvest units, specified roads and roads where 

hauling activities are prohibited or restricted, areas of different 

skidding and/or yarding methods, including post-harvest fuels 

treatments, and water sources available for purchaser’s use.

BMP 1-5 Limiting the Operating 

Period of Timber Sale Activities: 

To ensure that the purchasers 

conduct their operations, including 

erosion control work, road 

maintenance, and so forth, in a 

timely manner, within the time 

frame specified in the Timber Sale 

Contract.

The purchaser’s contract operation period will be limited to contractspecified periods when adverse environmental effects are not likely. 

The Sale Administrator will close down operations due to rainy periods, 

high water, or other adverse operating conditions in order to protect 

resources.

BMP 1-8 Streamside 

Management Zone Designation: 

To designate a zone along riparian 

areas, streams and wetlands that 

will minimize potential for adverse 

effects from adjacent management 

activities. Management activities 

within these zones are designed to 

improve riparian values.

Streamside management zones (SMZs ) have been supplemented with 

RMAs and RCAs (USDA 2004b) as described in the Design Measures 

section of the EIS. 

Within SMZs, the constraints defined in Sierra Supplement No. 1 

(USDA Forest Service, 1989) apply. This includes no self-propelled 

ground based equipment, a minimum groundcover of 50%, and shade 

canopy may not be modified in a way that affects stream temperature. 

Modifications to these guidelines are possible where site-specific needs 

exist if the action is reviewed by a hydrologist or fisheries biologist.

BMP 1-9 Determining Tractor 

Loggable Ground: To minimize 

erosion and sedimentation resulting 

from ground disturbance of tractor 

logging systems.

Limit ground skidding and machine piling with tractors to slopes less 

than 35%. Endlining can be used to remove logs from steeper slopes. 

Ground disturbance on areas of shallow soils, notably soils adjacent 

and abutting to rock outcrops, will be avoided. 

BMP 1-10 Tractor Skidding 

Design: By designing skidding 

patterns to best fit the terrain, the 

volume, velocity, concentration, 

and direction of runoff water can be 

controlled in a manner that will 

minimize erosion and 

sedimentation.

The sale administrator and purchaser will designate all skid trails prior 

to ground disturbing activities. If uncertainty arises regarding potential 

resource impacts of skid trail location, consult with an earth science 

specialist (i.e., hydrologist, aquatic biologist, or soil scientist). 
2

BMP Name, Objective, and 

Direction Application to the Fish Camp Project

BMP 1-12 Log Landing Location: 

To locate new landings in such a 

way as to avoid watershed impacts 

and associated water quality 

degradation 

The following criteria are to be used by the Sale Administrator when 

evaluating landings:

a. The cleared or excavated size of landings will not exceed that 

needed for safe and efficient skidding and loading operations. 

Trees considered dangerous will be removed around landings to 

meet the safety requirements of OSHA.

b. Selected landing locations will involve the least amount of 

excavation and fill possible. Landings must be located outside of 

SMZs.

c. Locate landings near ridges away from headwater swales in areas 

that will allow skidding without crossing stream channels, violating 

SMZs, or causing direct deposit of soil and debris to a stream. 

d. Locate landings where the least number of skid roads will be 

required, and sidecast can be stabilized without entering drainages 

or affecting other sensitive areas. Keep the number of skid trails 

entering a landing to a minimum.

e. Position landings such that the skid road approach will be nearly 

level as feasible, to promote safety and to protect soil from erosion.

f. Avoid excessive fills associated with landings constructed on old 

landslide benches. 

g. Construct stable landing fills or improve existing landings by using 

appropriate compaction and drainage specifications. 

In some cases, using an existing landing located within an RCA or CAR 

is preferable to constructing a new landing outside of it. These 

situations will be reviewed on a site-by-site basis by an earth science 

specialist (aquatics, hydrology, geology, or soils). 

BMP 1-13 Erosion Prevention 

and Control Measures during 

Timber Sale Operations: To 

ensure that the purchasers’ 

operations will be conducted 

reasonably to minimize soil 

erosion.

Timber purchaser responsibilities for erosion control will be set forth in 

the Timber Sale Contract. Equipment will not be operated when ground 

conditions are such that excessive damage will result. The kinds and 

intensity of control work required of the purchaser will be adjusted by 

the sale administrator to ground and weather conditions with emphasis 

on controlling overland runoff, erosion, and sedimentation. 

Erosion control work required by the contract will be kept current. At 

certain times of the year this means daily, if precipitation is likely or 

weekly when precipitation is predicted for the weekend. Erosion 

prevention measures must be applied no later than October 1 and 

immediately upon completion of activity begun after November 1. 

If the purchaser fails to perform seasonal erosion control work prior to 

any seasonal period of precipitation or runoff, the Forest Service may 

temporarily assume responsibility, complete the work, and use any 

unencumbered deposits as payment for the work.

BMP 1-16 Log Landing Erosion 

Protection and Control: To 

reduce the impacts of erosion and 

subsequent sedimentation 

associated with log landings by use 

of mitigating measures. 

Landings will be properly cross-ditched, ripped (if soils are compacted), 

re-contoured (as necessary), and mulched after use and before the 

winter precipitation period, whichever comes first. Excess material not 

needed for erosion control can be piled and burned. Upon completion of 

the project, consult with the hydrologist or soil scientist to determine the 

need for additional soil protection measures.
3

BMP Name, Objective, and 

Direction Application to the Fish Camp Project

BMP 1-17 Erosion Control of 

Skid Trails: To protect water 

quality by minimizing erosion and 

sedimentation derived from skid 

trails.

Erosion control measures will be installed on all skid trails, tractor 

roads, and temporary roads. Erosion control measures include, but are 

not limited to, cross ditches (water bars), organic mulch, and ripping. 

Cross ditches will be spaced according to the guidelines below, 

maintained in a functioning condition, and placed in locations where 

drainage would naturally occur (i.e., swales). The level of maintenance 

will be contingent upon existing or predicted weather patterns as 

determined by the Sale Administer (see BMP 1-13).

 Minimum Cross Drain Spacing 

% Slope Maximum Spacing

0 - 15 125 feet

15 - 35 45 feet

BMP 1-18 Meadow Protection 

during Timber Harvesting: To

avoid damage to the ground cover, 

soil, and hydrologic function of 

meadows.

Mechanical equipment is not permitted in meadows unless specifically 

authorized by an aquatic biologist and hydrologist.

BMP 1-19 Streamcourse and 

Aquatic Protection: The 

objectives of this BMP are:

a. To conduct management 

actions within these areas in a 

manner that maintains or 

improves riparian and aquatic 

values. 

b. To provide unobstructed 

passage of stormflows. 

c. To control sediment and other 

pollutants entering 

streamcourses.

d. To restore the natural course 

of any stream as soon as 

practicable, where diversion of 

the stream has resulted from 

timber management activities. 

a. The location and method of crossings on Class IV and V streams 

must be agreed to by the sale administrator (SA) prior to construction. 

b. Stream crossings on Class I – III streams must be approved by the 

hydrologist and aquatic biologist. 

c. Damage to stream banks and channels will be repaired to the 

extent practicable. 

d. All sale-generated debris will be removed from streamcourses, 

unless otherwise agreed to by the SA, and in an agreed upon manner 

that will cause the least disturbance. 

e. Felled trees will not be pulled across perennial or intermittent 

stream channels without prior approval by the hydrologist or aquatic 

biologist. 

f. Methods for protecting water quality while utilizing tractor skid trail 

design in stream course areas where harvest is approved include: (1) 

end lining, (2) falling to the lead, and (3) utilizing specialized 

equipment with low ground pressure such as feller buncher harvester. 

g. Water bars or other erosion control structures will be located so as 

to disperse concentrated flows and filter out suspended sediments 

prior to entry into streamcourse. 

h. Material from temporary road construction and skid trail 

streamcourse crossings will be removed and streambanks restored to 

the extent practicable. 

i. Special slash treatment site preparation activities will be prescribed 

in sensitive areas to facilitate slash disposal without use of 

mechanized equipment. 

j. Project-related bare soil areas (e.g. skid trails, landings, temporary 

roads, etc.) will be covered with existing native vegetation mulch, 

organic debris, or certified weed free straw to at least 50%, well 

distributed cover, and cross-ditched per BMP 1-17 requirements.
4

BMP Name, Objective, and 

Direction Application to the Fish Camp Project

BMP 1-20 Erosion Control 

Structure Maintenance: To 

ensure that constructed erosion 

control structures are stabilized and 

working

During the period of the timber sale contract, the purchaser will provide 

maintenance of soil erosion control structures contracted by the 

purchaser until they become stabilized, but not more than one year 

after their construction. If the purchaser fails to do seasonal 

maintenance work, the Forest Service may assume the responsibility 

and charge the purchaser accordingly. The Forest Service sale 

administrator is responsible for ensuring erosion control maintenance 

work is completed.

BMP 1-21 Acceptance of Timber 

Sale Erosion Control Measures 

before Sale Closure: To ensure 

the adequacy of required erosion 

control work on timber sales. 

The sale administrator must inspect erosion control measures to ensure 

their adequacy prior to accepting closure on the unit and/or sale. 

The effectiveness of erosion control measures will be evaluated using 

BMPEP protocols (see Monitoring Plan) after the sale area has been 

through one or more wet seasons. This evaluation is to ensure that 

erosion control treatments are in good repair and functioning as 

designed before releasing the purchaser from contract responsibility. 

The purchaser is responsible for repairing erosion control treatments 

that fail to meet criteria in the Timber Sale Contract, as determined by 

the Sale Administer, for up to one year past closure of the sale. 

BMP 1-22 Slash Treatment in 

Sensitive Areas: To maintain or 

improve water quality by protecting 

sensitive areas from degradation 

which would likely result from using 

mechanized equipment for slash 

disposal.

All burn piles made with mechanical equipment must be located outside 

of the SMZ.

Hand piles will be kept at least 20 feet away from all streams, 

meadows, springs, seeps, and other sensitive aquatic areas. 

BMP 2-1 General guidelines for 

the Location and Design of 

Roads: To locate and design roads 

with minimal resource damage. 

The following considerations are incorporated into the planning process 

of road location and design. These measures are preventative, apply to 

all transportation activities, and indirectly protect water quality:

(a)Transportation facilities will be developed and operated to best meet 

the resource management objectives with the least adverse effect on 

environmental values. 

(b)The location, design, and construction of roads will include the use of 

the IDT. 

(c)Sensitive areas such as wetlands, inner gorges, and unstable ground 

will be avoided to the extent practicable.

(d)Stream crossings will be designed to provide the most cost efficient 

drainage facility consistent with resource protection, facility needs, and 

legal obligations. 

BMP 2-2 Erosion Control Plan: 

To mitigate and control erosion 

through effective planning prior to 

initiation of construction. 

Any new construction would be subject to erosion control measures as 

per an IDT approved plan that may include but not be limited to 

waterbar installation, sediment fencing, culvert installation and 

armoring, placement of straw waddles, approved straw cover and/or 

slash and any other method necessary to mitigate erosion and 

sediment routing in the project subwatershed(s).

BMP 2-3 Timing of Construction 

Activities: To minimize erosion by 

conducting operations during 

minimal runoff periods and when 

soils are dry and less prone to 

compaction. 

Ground-disturbing activities will occur when soils are dry. In some 

cases soils may never dry sufficiently. Ground-disturbing work that 

occurs off of existing roads will occur during the dry season and will 

reduce ground disturbance as much as possible.

BMP 2-5 Road Slope 

Stabilization Construction 

Practices: To reduce 

sedimentation by minimizing 

erosion from road slopes and slope 

failure along roads.

An adequate soils and geologic investigation will be conducted when 

finalizing new road construction designs for: correct cut and fill 

steepness based on the angle of repose for the type of material; 

methods to handle surface runoff; and necessary compaction standards 

and surfacing needs.
5

BMP Name, Objective, and 

Direction Application to the Fish Camp Project

BMP 2-7 Control of Road 

Drainage: To minimize the erosive 

effects of water concentrated on 

roads, to disperse runoff from road 

surfaces, to lessen sediment yield 

from roaded areas, and to minimize 

erosion of the road prism. 

Newly constructed or reconstructed roads will be designed to reduce 

hydrologic connectivity and soil erosion wherever feasible. The sale 

administrator or other Forest Service representative will ensure that 

roads are adequately maintained during project implementation to 

ensure that road drainage features function as designed.

BMP 2-8 Constraints Related to 

Pioneer Road Construction: To 

minimize sediment production and 

mass wasting from pioneer road 

construction. 

(a)Roads will be constructed within the planned roadway limits unless 

otherwise specified or approved by the ER or COR.

(b)Pioneer roads will be located to prevent undercutting of the 

designated final cut slope, avoid deposition of materials outside the 

designated roadway limits, and accommodate drainage with temporary 

culverts or log crossings. 

(c)Erosion control work will be completed prior to the rainy season and 

in accordance with the contract.

(d) Crossing sites on live streams will be dewatered during construction 

with diversion devices (see BMP 2-15). 

BMP 2-9 Timely Erosion Control 

Measures on Incomplete Roads 

and Stream Crossing Projects: 

To minimize erosion and 

sedimentation from disturbed 

ground on incomplete projects. 

Erosion control must be completed before the rainy season (usually 

October in the KRP project area). Preventative measures for timely 

erosion control include:

(a)Removal of temporary culverts, culvert plugs, diversion dams, or 

elevated stream crossings.

(b)Installation of temporary culverts, side drains, flumes, cross drains, 

diversion ditches, energy dissipaters, dips, sediment basins, berms, 

debris racks, or other facilities needed to control erosion. 

(c)Removal of debris, obstructions, and spoil material from channels 

and floodplains. 

(d) Planting vegetation, mulching, and/or covering exposed surfaces 

with jute mates or other protective material.

BMP 2-10 Construction of Stable 

Embankments: To construct 

embankments with materials and 

methods which minimize the 

possibility of failure and 

subsequent water quality 

degradation.

Roadways will be designed and constructed as stable and durable 

earthwork structures with adequate strength to support the treadway, 

shoulders, subgrade and road traffic loads.

BMP 2-11 Control of Sidecast 

Material During Construction 

and Maintenance: To minimize 

sediment production originating 

from sidecast material during road 

construction or maintenance.

Sidecasting is not permitted within SMZs. 

Waste areas must be located where excess material can be deposited 

and stabilized.

BMP 2-12 Servicing and 

refueling equipment: To prevent 

pollutants such as fuels, lubricants, 

bitumens and other harmful 

materials from being discharged 

into or near rivers, streams and 

impoundments, or into natural or 

man-made channels.

Storage of hazardous materials (including fuels) and servicing and 

refueling of equipment will be conducted at pre-designated locations 

outside of RCAs and CARs. If fueling and/or storage of hazardous 

materials are needed within RCAs or CARs, those sites must be 

reviewed and approved by the District Hydrologist or Aquatic Biologist. 

Additional protection measures, such as containment devices, may be 

necessary. 

BMP 2-13 Control of 

Construction and Maintenance 

Activities Adjacent to SMZs: To 

protect water quality by controlling 

construction and maintenance 

actions within and adjacent to 

SMZs so that SMZ functions are 

not impaired.

Construction and maintenance fills, sidecast, and end-hauled materials 

will be kept out of SMZs except at designated crossing sites to minimize 

the effect to the aquatic environment. 
6

BMP Name, Objective, and 

Direction Application to the Fish Camp Project

BMP 2-14 Controlling In-Channel 

Excavation: To minimize stream 

channel disturbances and related 

sediment production.

There will be no in-channel or streambank excavation during any phase 

of project activities unless authorized by the district hydrologist or 

aquatic biologist.

BMP 2-16 Stream Crossings on 

Temporary Roads and Skid 

Trails: 

Mechanical equipment crossing of perennial and intermittent (generally 

class I – III) streams is not permitted unless approved by the district 

hydrologist or aquatic biologist. Ephemeral streams (stream class IV 

and V) may be crossed at designated locations as agreed upon by the 

sale administrator and purchaser. Designate skid trails to avoid stream 

crossings and SMZs wherever possible. Designated crossings must be 

as perpendicular to the channel as possible and avoid sensitive soils 

and riparian vegetation damage. Stream banks must be repaired upon 

completion of the project.

BMP 2-19 Disposal of Right-ofWay and Roadside Debris: To 

ensure that organic debris 

generated during road construction 

is kept out of streams so that 

channels and downstream facilities 

are not obstructed. 

If slash generated by road work is disposed of within SMZs, it will be 

piled and burned or chipped. Material may also be removed from the 

SMZ for disposal.

BMP 2-21 Water Source 

Development Consistent with 

Water Quality Protection: To 

supply water for roads and fire 

protection while maintaining 

existing water quality.

Water drafting will not occur in streams when the base discharge is less 

than 1.5 cfs, and will not draft more than 50% of the ambient discharge 

over 1.5 cfs. New drafting sites shall be approved by the District 

Hydrologist or Fisheries/Aquatic Biologist and located to minimize 

sediment and maintain riparian resources, channel condition, meadow 

integrity, and aquatic species viability and habitat. Approaches will be 

as near perpendicular to the stream as possible and will be gravel 

surfaced or otherwise stabilized. 

If water-drafting is required, pumps with low entry velocity and suction 

strainers with screens less than 2 mm in size (1/8 in.) will be used.

BMP 2-22 Maintenance of Roads: 

To maintain roads in a manner that 

provides for water quality protection 

by minimizing rutting, failures, 

sidecasting, and blockage of 

drainage facilities, all of which can 

cause erosion, sedimentation, and 

deteriorating watershed conditions.

Roads needed for project activities will be brought to current 

engineering standards of alignment, drainage, and grade before use, 

and will be maintained through the life of the project. Roads will be 

inspected at least annually to determine what work, if any, is needed to 

keep ditches, culverts, and other drainage facilities functional and the 

road stable. 

BMP 2-23 Road Surface 

Treatment to Prevent Loss of 

Materials: 

Surface stabilization will be considered where grades exceed 12% or 

road is within riparian conservation areas.

BMP 2-24 Traffic Control During 

Wet Periods: To reduce road 

surface disturbance and the rutting 

of roads, and to minimize sediment 

washing from disturbed road 

surfaces.

On roads not designated for all weather or winter haul, heavy 

equipment operations will be limited until the period after the soil has 

dried in the top 12 inches in the spring.

BMP 2-26 Obliteration or 

Decommissioning of Roads: To 

reduce sediment generated from 

temporary roads, unneeded system 

and non-system roads by 

obliterating or decommissioning 

them at the completion of the 

intended use.

Temporary roads will be obliterated after serving their intended purpose 

for this project. This includes: (1) road effectively barricaded; (2) road 

effectively drained by measures such as re-contouring or outsloping to 

return surface to near natural hydrologic function; (3) a well distributed 

mulch or organic cover provides at least 50% cover, or road surface is 

revegetated using local native species; (4) sideslopes are reshaped and 

stabilized to match the natural contour (as necessary); and (5) stream 

crossings are removed and natural channel geometry is restored. 

If non-local mulch is used (such as straw), it must be approved by the 

Forest Service as weed free. 
7

BMP Name, Objective, and 

Direction Application to the Fish Camp Project

BMP 5-8 Pesticide Application 

According to Label Directions 

and Applicable Legal 

Requirements: To avoid water 

contamination by complying with all 

label instructions and restrictions 

for use.

This BMP requires glyphosate applicators to strictly adhere to pesticide 

label instructions.

BMP 5-11 Cleaning and Disposal 

of Pesticide Containers and 

Equipment: To prevent water 

contamination resulting from 

cleaning or disposal of pesticide 

containers. 

The cleaning and disposal of glyphosate containers will be done in 

accordance with Federal, State, and local laws, regulations and 

directives.

BMP 5-12 Streamside Wet Area 

Protection During Pesticide 

Spraying: To minimize the risk of 

pesticide inadvertently entering 

waters, or unintentionally altering 

the riparian area, SMZ, or wetland.

When spraying glyphosate, an untreated strip of land and vegetation 

will be left alongside surface waters, wetlands, riparian areas, or SMZ. 

Strip widths established by the IDT are 5 feet for dry channels and 25 

feet for flowing channels (see Herbicide Use design criteria). 

BMP 6-1 Fire and Fuel 

Management Activities: To 

reduce public and private losses 

and environmental impacts which 

result from wildfires and/or 

subsequent flooding and erosion by 

reducing or managing the 

frequency, intensity and extent of 

wildfire.

The project action alternatives are designed to achieve the desired 

conditions of BMP 6-1. 

BMP 6-2 Consideration of Water 

Quality in Formulating Fire 

Prescriptions: To provide for 

water quality protection while 

achieving the management 

objectives through the use of 

prescribed fire.

Prescribed burning is planned at the minimum intensity and severity 

necessary to achieve management objectives, and each Burn Plan will 

incorporate all relevant design measures from this EIS. 

BMP 6-3 Protection of Water 

Quality from Prescribed fire 

Effects: To maintain soil 

productivity, minimize erosion, and 

minimize ash, sediment, nutrients, 

and debris from entering water 

bodies.

Fires will be allowed to back into riparian vegetation, but direct lighting 

within riparian vegetation will not occur. 

All fire lines within RCAs and CARs will be water barred per BMP 1-17 

spacing requirements. Fire lines within RCA (i.e., 150 ft., seasonal 

streams, and 300 ft. perennial streams, springs, and meadows) will be 

designed and constructed to reduce sediment entry into channels. Fire 

lines in RCAs will cross perpendicular to streams and follow the natural 

landscape contour as much as possible. Firelines within the SMZ will 

be hand cut. Waterbars will be placed on either side of each stream 

crossing to prevent or reduce sediment entry into streams. 

BMP 6-5 Repair or Stabilization 

of Fire Suppression Related 

Watershed Damage: To stabilize 

all areas that have had their 

erosion potential significantly 

increased, or their drainage pattern 

altered by suppression related 

activities.

In the event of a wildfire, protection of resources would be evaluated 

under the Burned Area Emergency Response, assessment and 

treatment Implementation protocol.
8

BMP Name, Objective, and 

Direction Application to the Fish Camp Project

BMP 6-6 Emergency 

Rehabilitation of Watersheds 

Following Wildfires: To minimize 

as far as practicable: 1.) loss of soil 

and onsite productivity; 2.) overland 

flow, channel obstruction and 

instability; 3.) threats to life and 

property both on-site and off-site

In the event of a wildfire, protection of resources would be evaluated 

under the Burned Area Emergency Response, assessment and 

treatment Implementation protocol.. 

BMP 7-3 Protection of Wetlands: 

To avoid adverse water quality 

impacts associated with 

destruction, disturbance, or 

modification of wetlands.

Ground disturbing activities will not occur in wetlands or meadows. 

BMP 7-4 Oil and Hazardous 

Substance Spill Contingency 

Plan and Spill Prevention 

Containment and 

Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan: 

To prevent contamination of water 

from accidental spills.

A spill contingency plan and spill prevention and countermeasure plan 

(SPCC) must be prepared if hazardous materials (including fuels and 

oils) stored on the Sierra National Forest exceed 1320 gallons, or if a 

single container exceeds 660 gallons.

The plan will at a minimum include: the types and amounts of 

hazardous materials located in the project area, pre-project identified 

locations for hazardous materials storage and fueling/maintenance 

activities (must be located outside of RCA and CAR unless prior 

approval by District Hydrologist or Aquatic Biologist is obtained), 

methods for containment of hazardous materials and contents of on-site 

emergency spill kit, and a contingency plan (including contact names 

with phone numbers) to implement in the event of a spill. 

The SPCC plan must be approved by the Forest Service prior to project 

implementation.
1

Appendix D Monitoring Plan

IMPLEMENTATION MONITORING

Implementation monitoring includes a combination of administrative controls on project 

preparation, review of completed plans, and inspections during operation to ensure that 

project activities are accomplished consistent with any decision associated with this 

analysis. Administrative controls include having qualified staff prepare contracts and plans 

to implement the actions. Those plans are reviewed by higher level staff or Line Officers to 

ensure the plans include required resource protections measures. Project implementation is 

overseen by qualified staff with the delegated authority to make sure the project is 

implemented according to the approved plans, and to take corrective action during project 

implementation if actions are not in compliance with the approved plans.

EFFECTIVENESS MONITORING

Effectiveness monitoring includes site review after treatments to determine if the required 

measures achieved the intended results. Examples include post burn surveys to determine 

if adequate ground cover remains after treatment. The protocols associated with the Best 

Management Practices Evaluation Program (BMPEP) will be applied concurrently with 

treatments to provide “real time” monitoring of the effectiveness of water quality protection 

measures.

Monitoring of the conditions following initial prescribed fire treatments will be done to determine 

if additional treatments are needed to meet fire and fuels objectives. Particular attention would be 

given to those treatment areas associated with SPLAT’s and DFPZ’s surrounding the community 

of Fish Camp, as these are the priority areas within the project for follow-up treatments to reduce 

surface fuels, if needed.

As stated in the SNFPA ROD 2004, treatments are to be designed and effective for at least 10 

years before re-entry is needed. With the implementation of the Fish Camp Project, there is a 

potential to return fire (in the form of prescribed fire) back into a fire dependent ecosystem. 

Existing conditions do not allow the opportunity, without some form of mechanical treatment to 

reduce surface and ladder fuels, to do this in a controlled manner without detrimental fire effects. 

Potential exist where prescribed fire can and would be utilized as maintenance for the proposed 

treatments. 

As part of prescribed fire implementation air quality monitoring will be required by burn bosses 

to make observations on a regular basis of the smoke conditions that are being created to make 

sure they are following the smoke plan direction. These include the travel direction and 

dispersion quality of smoke such as smoke settling into smoke sensitive areas and continued or 

potential for visibility degradation especially across main travel routes. When possible, lighting 

techniques and/or burn operations are changed to minimize the continuance of these impacts.

1

Appendix E – Stand by Stand Treatment Table

Commercial Thinning by Stand (Referred to as “Tractor” in Treatment Map in Appendix F)

NEPA Unit

“T” Units

Estimated 

Acres Unit Type

Alternative 2 

Treatment

Logging 

System

Estimated Acres 

Clean/Thin/ 

Tractor Pile & 

Burn

Estimated 

Acres 

Mastication

Estimated Acres 

Prescribed Fire 

(Understory 

Burning)*

5 11 Plantation Commercial Thin Tractor 5 0 0

6 2 Plantation Commercial Thin Tractor 0 0 0

7a-b 86 Wild Commercial Thin Tractor 50 0 0

8 55 Wild Commercial Thin Tractor 35 0 34

9 144 Wild Commercial Thin Tractor 60 0 134

10a-d 75 Plantation Commercial Thin Tractor 15 30 10

12 30 Wild Commercial Thin Tractor 20 0 30

13 41 Wild Commercial Thin Tractor 25 0 0

14 10 Plantation Commercial Thin Tractor 5 0 0

16 60 Plantation Commercial Thin Tractor 25 15 0

17a-d 40

Plt 17 

/Wild 23 Commercial Thin Tractor 10 15 0

18a-d 91 Wild Commercial Thin Tractor 45 25 0

19a-b 26

Plt 14 

/Wild 12 Commercial Thin Tractor 8 15 0
2

NEPA Unit

“T” Units

Estimated 

Acres Unit Type

Alternative 2 

Treatment

Logging 

System

Estimated Acres 

Clean/Thin/ 

Tractor Pile & 

Burn

Estimated 

Acres 

Mastication

Estimated Acres 

Prescribed Fire 

(Understory 

Burning)*

20a-b 44

Plt 3 

/Wild 41 Commercial Thin Tractor 24 0 0

21a-d 52

Plt 29 

/Wild 23 Commercial Thin Tractor 15 15 0

22a-c 64 Plantation Commercial Thin Tractor 20 15 0

27 1 Wild Commercial Thin Tractor 1 0 0

28a-j 134

Plt 119 

/Wild 15 Commercial Thin Tractor 30 30 0

Total 966 393 160 208

 * Slash concentrations will have been spot piled and burned in majority of underburning areas within thinned areas prior to underburn.
3

Mastication by Stand

M Analysis Area

number

“M” Units

NEPA 

Analysis 

Acres

Thin/Release 

Mastication

acres Comments

8 15 15 1991 Plantation

14 26 26 1994 Plantation

41 41

Prescribed Burning by Stand

Rx Analysis Area

Number

“Rx” Units

NEPA 

Analysis 

Acres

Underburn

acres Comments

3 37 37

4 32 32

5 42 42

22 23 23

33 2 2

44 9 9

55 48 48

plantation recently 

masticated

193 193

1

Appendix F

1

Alternative G – Stand Tables

Fish Camp Plot Data Summary

Existing and Proposed Action Conditions

Location Species Composition AgeSi

te

Trees 5" dbh & 

larger

Basal Area 5" 

& larger

Crown 

Closure

Me

an 

Lea

ve 

Mea

n 

Dia

No

.

PP

S

P

W

F

R

F

I

C

O

K

Tota

l

Cu

t 

5-

10

Cut 

11-20

Cut 

21-29

Lv 

21-

29

Tot 

Lv Total

Cut 

5-20

Cu

t 

21

-

29

Lv 

21-

29

Tot 

Lv

Before After

Di

a Dia

Plo

ts

Planta

tions

5,6,10

&14 100 0 0 0 0 0 45 1 197 18 93 3 7 81 260 110

1

0 10

14

0

95 

(D)

65 

(D)

15.

6 17.5 2

10&28 

light 86 0 7 0 7 0 45 1 82 0 15 0 14 67 140 20 0 40

12

0

56 

(M)

50 

(M)

17.

7 18.0 7

16,20

&28 100 0 0 0 0 0 45 1 200 24 81 2 4 93 240 95 5 10

14

0

95 

(D)

65 

(D) 15 16.5 4

28 

mod 98 0 0 0 2 0 45 1 128 9 43 0 5 76 180 60 0 17

12

0

59 

(M)

50 

(M) 16 17.0 4

19&22 97 1 0 0 2 0 50 1 219 13 120 3 11 83 286 137 9 31

14

0

95 

(D)

65 

(D)

15.

5 17.5 7

21 96 0 4 0 0 0 45 1 165 18 91 0 31 55 260 120 0 90

14

0

95 

(D)

65 

(D) 17 21.5 2

Wild 

Stand

s

7&8 

(PP/MC

) 12 48

2

7 0

1

2 0

10

4 1 263 38 29 2 31

11

6 248 45 7

14

3

18

8

79 

(D)

60 

(D)

13.

1 17.0 4

7&9 

light(PP 11 28

5

0 0

1

1 0 10 1 62 0 0 0 40 62 180 0 0

16

0

18

0 46 46 23 23.0 3
2

Location Species Composition AgeSi

te

Trees 5" dbh & 

larger

Basal Area 5" 

& larger

Crown 

Closure

Me

an 

Lea

ve 

Mea

n 

Dia

No

.

PP

S

P

W

F

R

F

I

C

O

K

Tota

l

Cu

t 

5-

10

Cut 

11-20

Cut 

21-29

Lv 

21-

29

Tot 

Lv Total

Cut 

5-20

Cu

t 

21

-

29

Lv 

21-

29

Tot 

Lv

Before After

Di

a Dia

Plo

ts

/MC) 4 (M) (M)

9(PP/M

C)&13 11 44

2

8 0

1

7 0 95 1 105 0 22 10 24 73 270 30

3

0 90

21

0

70 

(D)

60 

(D)

21.

7 23.0 2

12 

(PP/MC

) 29 12

1

8 0

4

1 0 79 1 104 0 24 4 39 76 255 30

1

5

15

0

21

0

65 

(D)

52 

(M)

21.

1 24.0 2

17 &19 

(MC) 3 9

4

3 0

4

6 0 103 1 249 73 52 13 30

11

1 350 80

5

0

17

0

22

0

86 

(D)

60 

(D)

13.

3 18.5 3

18 

(MC) 2

1

3

4

0 0

4

6 0 97 1 171 58 39 24 39 50 360 67

9

0

17

3

20

3

78 

(D)

60 

(D)

19.

7 27.0 4

40&41 

(WF) 8 0

9

2 0 0 0 83 1 167 34 65 7 54 61 360 105

3

0

21

0

22

5

77 

(D)

60 

(D)

19.

9 26.0 2

 Note: The data displayed above represents the majority of the vegetation present within a particular treatment area. Due to variability 

of the vegetation present, other aggregations 

 are also present within treatment areas. Refer to the description and legend pages for 

more detailed explainations. 

 (A number of aggregations combine to 

form a stand.)
3

The plot data and summaries shown provide insight into the variability of the vegetation present 

within the proposed treatment areas. During collection of the plot data, trees that might be 

selected for removal under the proposed thinning prescription for that species composition were 

noted. From that data, potential leave and cut basal area, leave and cut tree sizes and numbers 

and existing and post harvest crown closures were determined. On a number of plots, for various 

reasons, leave basal area exceeds targets for that species composition. 

Legend for Sugar Pine Plot Data Summary Tables

Location

Number Corresponds to the Treatment Area Number on Project Map

(MC) represents an area that is considered a Mixed Conifer dominated stand

(plt) represents a pine plantation

(WF) represents an area that is considered a White Fir dominated stand

(PP) Pine dominated stands 

Species Composition

PP – Ponderosa Pine

SP – Sugar Pine

WF – White Fir

RF – Red Fir

IC – Incense Cedar

Crown Closure

Given in percent (reduced for crown overlap). CWHR relationship for crown closure designation.

P: 25-39%

M: 40-59%

D: 60% +

Desired leave Basal Area for comparison

Pine dominated stands = 150-180 ft2per acre

Mixed Conifer (MC) dominated stands = 210 ft2per acre

White Fir (WF) dominated stands = 240 ft2per acre 

Pine plantations = 120-140 ft2per acre

Age

Calculated from one sampled tree per plot. The majority of the conifers within the proposed 

treatment area are 90-110 years old. 
4

Mean Diameter (Dia)

Calculated from trees within plots

CWHR Mapped Polygons vs. CWHR Table of Acres: Polygons on the CWHR map 

shows the generalized location of CWHR vegetation types found in the project area based 

on Geographic Information System vegetation mapping. Due to the high degree of 

variability in stand structure within the project area and the existence of aggregations 

within stands, further refinement of the CWHR vegetation typing was conducted through 

aerial photo interpretation and field verification by the District Silviculturist/Wildlife 

Biologist to develop CWHR Table of acres. This refinement may show increases or 

decreases in total acreage amounts from what is displayed in the map polygons for 

particular CWHR types.

Legend for CWHR Map and Table:

All CWHR size classes and canopy closures are included unless otherwise specified. 

D.B.H. = Diameter at breast height (consider 4.5 feet from the ground).

Tree size classes:

1 Seedling (<1" dbh)

2 Sapling (1"-5.9" dbh)

3 Pole (6"-10.9" dbh)

4 Small tree (11"-23.9" dbh)

5 Medium/Large tree (>24" dbh)

6 Multi-layered Tree [In Ponderosa Pine and Sierra Mixed Conifer] 

(From Mayer and Laudenslayer, 1988) 

Canopy Closure classifications:

S = Sparse Cover (10-24% canopy closure)

P = Open cover (25-39% canopy closure)

M= Moderate cover (40-59% canopy closure)

D = Dense cover (60-100% canopy closure)

Existing and Proposed Action Conditions

The Fish Camp plot data summary table displays plot data collected within the proposed 

treatment areas displayed on the Fish Camp EIS map. Variable plots were taken using a 30 Basal 

Area Factor prism for wild stands and 20 Basal Area Factor prism for plantations. Trees less than 

5 inches dbh were not sampled. Due to the wide variability of vegetation present within these 

proposed treatment areas and the project as a whole, plots representing similar stand conditions 

were grouped together by proposed treatment area. It would be misleading to display an average 

for the project area. The column labeled ―No. Plots‖ displays the number of plots within each 

grouping. Although plots were taken within specific potential treatment areas, similar stand 

conditions may be present in other areas as well. Plot conditions varied widely from a basal area 

low of 90 ft2 to 450 ft2 per acre. Plot data recorded variations in trees 5 inches dbh and larger per 
5

acre from 15 to hundreds. In some plots no small trees were captured in the sample while in 

others hundreds per acre were. Several plots represent ―groupings of conifers with increased BA 

retention (20-30‖ dbh)‖ similar to those retained in the Cedar Valley and Sugar Pine project areas. 

The term ―light‖ which accompanies some of the proposed treatment areas refers to those 

areas/plots where the basal area present is generally light and would result in minimal removal of 

trees 10 inches dbh and larger. Although an area may be designated as ―light‖ due to lighter basal 

areas present, there may still be a need to treat heavily stocked pockets of smaller diameter trees 

(less than 5 inches dbh) that may not have been sampled during the sampling process. One 

grouping of plantation aggregations of moderate stocking has been termed ―mod‖.

The majority of the Fish Camp Project area was heavily railroad logged between 1918 and 1924. 

Logs were processed at the mill at Sugar Pine. The 1944 aerial photos provide a graphic display 

of the extent of that activity. In some areas scattered older trees were left following logging. The 

vast majority of conifers present today were seedlings and saplings present in the understory that 

survived the logging entry. Numerous pine plantations are present within the project area. Over 

950 acres were planted between 1959 and 1970 during a concerted effort to reforest previously 

railroad clearcut lands that had turned into large brushfields. More than 250 acres of additional 

pine plantations were created during the early 1980s. Wild stands proposed for treatment average 

90 to 110 years of age. Overall average site quality sampled is a Dunning 1. 

Plot data indicates that wild stands proposed for thinning consist mostly of pine and mixed 

conifer cover. Stands heavy to white fir are found in only a few small areas. Since these stands 

originated from advance reproduction present in the understory during the railroad logging era, 

they are heavy to shade tolerant, more fire prone, species of incense cedar and white fir. Crown 

closures present were taken from the data sheets with a reduction made for crown overlap. A 

small portion of the suppressed tree canopy cover was included as part of the existing crown 

closure.

The mean diameter shown for these plots was taken from FIA data runs utilizing the plot data 

collected. The leave mean diameter was taken from the projected leave basal area and projected 

number of leave trees per acre. Since this data is a representative sample of aggregations found in 

the stands, it is not intended to imply that any particular unit averages a particular diameter. As 

can be seen from the data sampled, the average diameter following treatment will be larger than 

before due to the removal of many small trees per acre across treatment units.