treatment unit descriptions and maps mitigation measures...

— Attachment 1 — of 16

TREATMENT UNIT DESCRIPTIONS AND MAPS, MITIGATION

MEASURES, AND PROJECT DESIGN FEATURES

ATTACHMENT 1

TREATMENT UNIT DESCRIPTIONS

Maintenance underburning will occur on approximately 6,249 acres (see table 1).

Maintenance underburning will occur after other previously authorized activities (timber harvest,

silvicultural treatments, and all other prior fuels treatments) have occurred. These other

treatments will have reduced potential negative fire effects upon existing timber and vegetation to

the desired level.

Hand ignition methods will be utilized.

Prescribed underburning will occur in the fall. Some units will initially be treated with a low-

intensity prescribed burn to prepare for fall burning.

Existing handline, roads, trails and natural fuel breaks, such as ridges, and/or streams will be

utilized for fire control lines. Cutting of some small diameter live and dead trees may occur

during new handline construction, mop-up, or in the unlikely event of an escaped fire to assist in

containment.

Project design criteria (PDCs), mitigation measures, and best management practices (BMPs) will

be implemented (see below – Mitigation Measures and Project Design Features)

Some units may be subdivided or combined with other units prior to implementation based on

topographic features, vegetation, or operational constraints or opportunities. The final unit

boundaries will be added to the administrative record.

Table 1. Clarks Fork Treatment Units

Unit # Acres Treatment

Priority

Unit Specific

Mitigations*

Previous Project Type

Year treated NSO Habitat

BBS / Cam 2 176 3rd a Timber 2013 Dispersal

BBS / Cam 10 294 3rd a Timber 2012-2013 Dispersal



BBS / Campy 3 127 1st a Timber 2010 Non-habitat

BBS / Campy 4 66 1st a Timber 2010 Non-habitat

BBS / Campy 6 27 1st a Timber 2010 Dispersal

BBS / Campy 7 41 1st Timber 2010 Dispersal



BBS / Cow 7 250 3rd a Timber 2013-2014 NRF

BBS / Cow 8 62 3rd Timber 2013-2014 NRF

BBS / Cow 9 30 3rd Timber 2013-2014 Dispersal


BBS / Cow 11 69 3rd a Timber 2013-2014 Dispersal


BBS / Cow 13 9 3rd a Timber 2013-2014 NRF

BBS / Cow 14 9 3rd a Timber 2013-2014 Dispersal



Priority

Unit Specific

Mitigations*



BBS / Hare 5 40 2nd

Timber 2012 Dispersal

BBS / Hare 6 6 2nd

a Timber 2012-2013 Dispersal

BBS / Hare 8a 188 2nd

Timber 2012 Dispersal

BBS / Hare 9 46 2nd

b Timber 2012 Dispersal

BBS / Holy Cow 1 103 3rd Timber 2013 Dispersal

BBS / Holy Cow 2 94 3rd Timber 2013 Dispersal

BBS / Holy Cow 3-2 26 3rd Timber 2013 Dispersal

BBS / Salty 1 16 2nd

Timber NRF

BBS / Salty 2 8 2nd

a Timber Dispersal


Timber Dispersal


Timber Dispersal


Timber Dispersal

BBS / Salty 10-1 8 2nd

Timber Dispersal


Timber Dispersal

BBS / Salty 11-1 8 2nd

Timber Dispersal


Timber NRF

BBS / Sweeter 1 31 3rd a Timber Dispersal


BBS / Sweeter 4 27 3rd a Timber Capable




BBS / Whisker 1 23 2nd

a Timber 2011-2013 Capable

BBS / Whisker 1-1 216 2nd


BBS / Whisker 1-2 80 2nd


BBS / Whisker 2 137 3rd a Timber NRF

BBS / Whisker 4 19 2nd

Timber 2010-2013 Dispersal

Bowen Willow 1 & 3 32 1st Fuels late 1990s Capable

Bowen Willow 2 14 1st b Fuels late 1990s Capable

Bowen Willow 4 26 1st b Fuels late 1990s Capable

Bowen Willow 5 22 1st Fuels late 1990s Dispersal

Bowen Willow 6 143 1st Fuels late 1990s Dispersal

Bowen Willow 7 332 1st a Fuels 2003 Capable / Dispersal

Bowen Willow 8 119 1st a Fuels 2003 Capable /NRF

Bowen Willow 9 121 1st a Fuels Dispersal

Bowen Willow 10 46 1st a Fuels Capable / Dispersal

Bub 1 66 3rd a Fuels 2013 Dispersal

Bub 2 59 2nd

Fuels Dispersal

Bub 3 56 3rd a, b Fuels 2011 Dispersal / NRF

Bub 4 95 3rd a Fuels 2013 Dispersal / NRF

Bub 5-1 187 1st a Fuels Dispersal

Bub 6 166 1st a Fuels 2013 Capable / Dispersal / NRF

Bub 8 345 3rd a Fuels 2011-2013 Capable / Dispersal



Priority

Unit Specific

Mitigations*



Bub 9 75 3rd Fuels 2013 NRF

Bub 10 55 3rd Fuels 2013 Dispersal

Bub 13 157 3rd a Fuels 2013 Dispersal

Choke 1 15 1st b Timber late 1990s; 2000-2003 Dispersal

Choke 2 15 3rd Timber late 1990s; 2000-2003 Dispersal

Choke 3 63 3rd Timber late 1990s; 2000-2003 Capable / Dispersal

Choke 5 24 1st Timber late 1990s; 2000-2003 Dispersal

Choke 10 28 1st a Timber late 1990s; 2000-2003 Dispersal

Choke 23 5 3rd Timber late 1990s; 2000-2003 Dispersal

Choke 24 16 1st Timber late 1990s; 2000-2003 Dispersal

Choke 29 107 1st Timber late 1990s; 2000-2003 NRF

Clarks Fork 392 3rd Fuels 2011-2013 Dispersal / NRF

Rancharia 1 52 1st Timber late 1990s; 2000 NRF

Rancharia 2 13 1st Timber late 1990s; 2000 NRF

Total 6,249

*Specific Mitigations:

a – See Attachment 2, Mitigation Measures and Project Design Features for Soil Resources

b – Prior to implementation coordinate with a Forest Service Archaeologist or Archaeological Technician to ensure protection (e.g., buffering and/or monitoring) of a known cultural site located in this treatment unit.


TREATMENT UNIT MAPS

Figure 1. Clarks Fork Project Planning Area Location


Figure 2. Clarks Fork Project Treatment Areas


Figure 3. Clarks Fork Project Treatment Areas by Past Project Name


MITIGATION MEASURES AND PROJECT DESIGN FEATURES

Project design criteria and mitigation measures are a required component of the Decision Memo and are

identified and detailed within this attachment. These measures will be followed for activities associated

with the Clark’s Fork Wildlife Habitat Enhancement and Fuels Treatment Project.

Mitigation, as defined in the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations (40 Code of Federal

Regulations [CFR] 1508.20) includes: 1) avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or

parts of an action, 2) minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its

implementation, 3) rectifying or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance

operations during the life of the action, 4) compensating for the impact by replacing or providing

substitute resources or environments, and 5) rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring

the affected environment. “Project design criteria” would be employed during on-the-ground project

designation and implementation and are designed to address overall objectives (attain the purpose and

need) and “mitigation measures” are designed to minimize consequences during actual project operations.

Standards and guidelines and mitigation measures identified in the Rogue River Forest Plan, as amended,

are incorporated by reference as required mitigation measures. In addition, all contracts or other

methodology for implementation of actions would comply with all requirements and standards for

protection of threatened, endangered, and sensitive species, in compliance with the Endangered Species

Act. Project design criteria would be implemented through project implementation, with monitoring

activities performed by Forest Service personnel. There are several other points of note:

Some measures would be enacted only if certain (future) conditions exist that would require it (e.g., if a

nesting pair of spotted owls is discovered within 0.25 miles of an activity area, or a previously unknown

heritage site is discovered).

Proposed mitigation measures and standard operating procedures designed to avoid or minimize adverse

effects (or implement positive effects) for the alternatives are identified by resource topic area, and in

some cases, by the specific component or sub-component project within the proposed activity.

The effectiveness and feasibility of the following mitigation measures are assessed based upon the

following rating system. These ratings are applied to all mitigation measures. Each measure identifies the

code for effectiveness and feasibility at the end of the statement or paragraph. Ratings were determined

by professional resource specialists, based on current scientific research and/or professional experience or

judgment.


Table 2. Effectiveness and feasibility rating system

Effectiveness (E)

E1 Unknown or experimental; logic or practice estimated to be less than 75 percent effective; little or no experience in applying this measure.

E2 Practice is moderately effective (75 to 90 percent). Often done in this situation; usually reduces impacts; logic indicates practice is highly effective but there is minimal literature or research.

E3 Practice is highly effective (greater than 90 percent). Almost always reduces impacts, almost always done in this situation; literature and research can be applied.

Feasibility (F)

F1 Unknown or experimental; little or no experience in applying this measure; less than 75 percent certainty for implementation. May be technically difficult or very costly. May be legally or socially difficult.

F2 Technically probable; greater than 75 percent certainty for implementation as planned; costs moderate to high in comparison to other options. Legally or socially acceptable with reservations.

F3 Almost certain to be implemented as planned; technically easy; costs low in comparison to other options. Legally or socially expected.

The following discussion by specific resource areas, provide additional mitigation and further explanation

of the methodology of the mitigation measures.

1. Hydrology

The General Water Quality Best Management Practices, Pacific Northwest Region, November 1988

would be followed (USDA Forest Service 1988). (E3/F3)

The National Best Management Practices for Water Quality Management on National Forest System

Lands – Volume 1: National Core BMP - Technical Guide will be followed (USDA Forest Service 2012).

(E3/F3)

2. Riparian Reserves

Field identification and delineation of Riparian Reserves and validation of fish-bearing status would be

required before implementation of treatments within Riparian Reserves. (E3/F3)

Currently unmapped Riparian Reserves within the project planning area, or within one site-potential tree

(156 feet) of the Clarks Fork project area boundaries, would be identified prior to implementation of any

treatment. (E3/F3)

If trees are being felled for safety reasons and/or to be left on site within Riparian Reserves, they should

be felled toward the stream where possible. (E3/F2)

Prescribed burning may occur within the Primary Shade Zone. (E3/F3)


Figure 4. Prescribed burn within Riparian Reserves

Mechanical treatments and pile burning would be used as needed prior to under burning to protect

overstory trees. Pile burning should occur no closer to the stream than 25 feet to maintain ground

vegetation.

Pump chances – Fire, engineering and aquatic resource personnel would work together to determine

suitable pump chances and the measures needed for protecting aquatic resources. Refueling would occur

100 feet from a stream or other measures would be used to assure fuel does not reach flowing water.

Water withdrawal equipment must have a 3/32 intake screen in order to avoid fish entrapment (Bormann

et al. 2008; Kormeier 1995; Mchugh and Sensenig 2005; Park and Jubas 2005). (E3/F3)

3. Soil Resources

Mitigation measures are designed to meet the Rogue River National Forest standards and guidelines for

protecting the soil resource (USDA Forest Service 1990), and are guided in their development by the

National Core BMP Technical Guide (USDA Forest Service 2012), and Region 6 General Water Quality

Best Management Practices (USDA Forest Service 1988).

Treatment areas associated with Whisker Unit 2 on soil map unit 32, and the northern boundary

of Cow Unit 7 bordering soil map unit 35 on the hillslope down to the drainage fed by Mud

Spring (soil landtypes with some potential for mass wasting): Minimize active lighting on these

slopes, utilizing back burning down slope to increase retention of effective ground cover and soil

holding vegetation. Design management activities to maintain a minimum of 70% effective

ground cover (Forest Plan S&G for moderate erosion potential).

Stream

Edge of channel25

’

100’

Bac

k bu

rn d

own

Ignition

The Burn Boss can adjust the 100’ ignition distance as needed

to meet burn objectives and protect the ground vegetation within the 25’ zone

Infiltrated water from

precipitation

Reason for protection of the 25’ zone: Increased water pressure from groundwater and the rise and fall of the stream’s water can make this area more sensitive to slope

failure

Maintain most of the ground

vegetation

Rip

aria

n Res

erve

Wid

th

Main

tain

overs

tory

tree

s

Prescribed Burn in Riparian Reserves

Project Design Criteria

Reducing high fuel Loading

Pump chances

-

-

Use mechanical treatment and pile burning as needed prior to under burning to protect the overstory trees. Pile and burning should be no closer to the stream than 25’ to maintain ground vegetation.

Fire, engineering and aquatic resource personnel will work together to determine suitable pump chances and the measures needed for the protection of aquatic resources. Refuel 100’ feet from a stream or use measures to assure fuel

does not reach flowing water. Water withdrawal equipment must have a 3/32 intake

screen in order to avoid fish entrapment.

Roque River Siskiyou N.F

August 2008


Treatment areas on excessively drained, coarse textured soils (landtype units 24, 25, and 38 (no

proposed treatments are on unit 254H)) should maintain a higher level of organic matter to aid in

soil moisture retention and improved soil productivity. Treatment units on these landtype units

include Cam Units 2, 10, 11, 12; Campy Units 3, 4, 6, 8, 9; Sweeter Units 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7; Whisker

Units 1, 1-1, 1-2; Bowen Willow Units 7, 8, 9, 10; Bub Units 1, 3, 4, 5-1, 6, 8, 13; and Choke

Unit 10. Design management activities to maintain a minimum of 85% effective ground cover,

and/or coordinate with the Forest Soil Scientist on site specific prescriptions when planning

underburning.

Consult with the Forest Soil Scientist when planning prescribed underburning in Cow Timber

Sale units 7, 11, 13 & 14; Hare Timber Sale unit 6; Salty Timber Sale unit 2; and Whisker Timber

Sale units 1, 1-1 and 1-2 (those that exceed FP S&Gs for detrimental soil disturbance) to

determine special mitigations, if needed, so underburning can meet project objectives and

maintain or enhance current levels of soil productivity.

In all other treatment areas, design management activities to maintain a minimum of 60%

effective ground cover (Forest Plan S&G).

Conduct prescribed underburning when fuel and soil moisture conditions are optimal for creating

a low severity mosaic pattern of burned, lightly burned, and unburned groundcover and fuels

across the landscape, and minimizes consumption of coarse woody debris.

Existing snags and coarse woody debris will be protected through construction of scratch lines,

and suppression if possible, per the mitigations outlined in the Wildlife analysis report.

Locate and construct handline in a manner that minimizes erosion and runoff potential.

Rehabilitate handline after the prescribed fire treatment is completed, through re-covering with

scratched out organic matter and/or scattering of woody debris.

4. Fuels and Air Quality

Fire managers would plan the dispersal of smoke away from designated areas in accordance with the State

of Oregon Smoke Management Plan. Burn plans would be submitted and authorized prior to ignition.

(E3/F2)

Options to reduce smoke from prescribed fire include: burning concentrations of fuel (spot-burning)

rather than the entire area, burning when the 1,000 hour fuel moistures are high, burning within 4 to 8

months of slash creation when higher fuel moistures are present in the larger material, burning when the

duff moisture is high, using rapid ignition to achieve a high intensity fire, prompt “mopping up” of fires

after flames have diminished, and further utilization of material prior to burning (i.e., firewood). (E3/F2)

Burning piled fuels, rather than underburning can optimize flaming combustion. Careful machine piling

reduces the amount of dirt in piles, thereby reducing the smolder phase of a fire. In addition, real time

monitoring would be performed such that ignition can be halted if smoke impacts become greater than is

acceptable. (E3/F2)

5. Botanical Resources and Noxious Weeds

This DM, including mitigation measures, incorporates by reference the Decision Notice of 1999 for the

EA for Integrated Noxious Weed Management on the Rogue River National Forest (Rogue River National

Forest Weed Management Plan). (E3/F3)


Areas where medusahead (Elymus caput-medusae) is known to occur (Bowen Willow units 4, 5, and 6)

would be burned only if:

1. The burns are confined to forested habitat (medusahead grows in the open, not under a forest

canopy);

2. Burns can be conducted in June or early July (when burn windows allow and when the Forest or

District Invasive Plant Coordinator can determine that other annual non-native grasses have

dropped their seed, and the medusahead has headed out but not dropped its own seed); or

3. If proposing a fall burn, the Forest or District Invasive Plant Coordinator has been contacted and

agrees they have the time, resources, and funding to delineate the medusahead-infested areas

before the burn, and spray Imazapic post-burn, and perhaps seed the burned/sprayed areas with

native perennial grass seeds.

In all cases where working in medusahead-infested areas, personnel will clean clothing, vehicles, boots,

tools, etc. before moving to uninfested areas. (E3/F3)

6. Terrestrial Wildlife

Northern Spotted Owl

The unit wildlife biologist may increase or decrease the disturbance distance-related project design

criteria, based on site-specific conditions, subject to Level 1 concurrence.

The Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest retains discretion to halt and modify all projects, anywhere in

the process, should new information regarding proposed and listed threatened or endangered species arise.

Minimization of impacts would then, at the least, include an appropriate seasonal restriction; and could

include clumping of retention trees around the nest trees, establishment of buffers, dropping the

unit(s)/portions, or dropping the entire project.

The seasonal or daily restrictions listed below may be waived at the discretion of the decision maker if

necessary to protect public safety (as in the case of emergency road repairs or hazard tree removal).

Emergency consultation with the Service would then be initiated in such cases, where appropriate.

Should new information arise that significantly changes impacts to listed threatened or endangered

species, the action agencies retain discretion to halt and modify all projects, anywhere in the process.

Modifications could include an appropriate seasonal restriction; clumping of retention trees around the

nest trees, establishment of buffers, dropping the unit(s)/portions, or dropping the entire project.

PDCs may be waived at the discretion of the decision-maker, if necessary to protect public safety (as in

the case of emergency road repairs). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would be notified of all such

occurrences to determine if emergency consultation is required and to adjust environmental baselines if

necessary. The Forest will be prudent in evaluating public safety deviations. They would attempt to

predict potential problems (such as road failures) such that remedies can occur during times and using

methods that minimize impacts to the extent possible. In the event emergency consultation is initiated, the

action agencies will act prudently and efficiently to complete or close consultation in a timely manner,

preferably within 6 months or less of the emergency action. There are two types of PDCs:

Mandatory – must be incorporated in all projects to reduce adverse effects (LAA) to listed species –

required unless a specific exemption is mentioned in a “recommended” PDC and mandatory PDCs

are incorporated in all appropriate planned actions. The effects determination reflects their

implementation. Projects unable to incorporate mandatory PDCs would be analyzed under separate

consultation.


Recommended – discretionary; incorporated in projects where appropriate to further reduce adverse

effects (LAA).

In some cases, application of PDCs may reduce the impact of the projects to listed species and may

change the effects determinations (from LAA to NLAA, or from LAA or NLAA to NE). In all cases,

effects determinations for projects have been made using applicable PDCs. The goal is to reduce the

detrimental effects of any projects which “may affect” any endangered or threatened species. Some PDCs

apply to multiple species although most PDCs apply to specific species. PDCs are described by project

type. The plant PDCs apply to all listed plants unless specifically mentioned.

This consultation effort updates some PDCs that were used on projects covered by previous consultation

efforts. These updated PDCs will be incorporated into actions covered under previous consultations that

have not yet been implemented, unless incorporating new PDCs is not practical. In those cases, PDCs in

place under the previous consultation will apply.

Fire firefighter safety must be taken into account at all times when using the PDCs. If implementation of

PDCs might cause human safety risks, the Forest would respond to the human safety threat and would

determine if that response is grounds for re-initiation of consultation.

Listed in tables 2 and 3 are specific PDCs designed for the programmatic impacts discussed for northern

spotted owl. PDCs have been separated into those that reduce or avoid habitat removal and those that

reduce or avoid disturbance and/or disruption.

Project design criteria (PDC) are measures applied to project activities designed to minimize potential

detrimental effects to proposed or listed species. PDC usually include seasonal restrictions and may also

include clumping of retention trees around nest trees, establishment of buffers, dropping the

unit(s)/portions, or dropping the entire project. Use of project design criteria may result in a

determination of no effect for a project which would have otherwise been not likely to adversely affect.

In other cases, project design criteria have resulted in a determination of not likely to adversely affect for

a project which might have otherwise been determined to be likely to adversely affect. The goal of

project design criteria is to reduce adverse effects to listed or proposed threatened or endangered species.

Physical impacts to habitat and disturbances to spotted owls will be reduced or avoided with PDC. Listed

are project design criteria designed for the programmatic impacts discussed in the Effects of the Action

section.

The USFS retains discretion to halt and modify all projects, anywhere in the process, should new

information regarding proposed and listed threatened or endangered species arise. Minimization of

impacts will then, at the least, include an appropriate seasonal restriction; and could include clumping of

retention trees around the nest trees, establishment of buffers, dropping the unit(s)/portions, or dropping

the entire project.

The seasonal or daily restrictions listed below may be waived at the discretion of the decision maker if

necessary to protect public safety (as in the case of emergency road repairs or hazard tree removal).

Emergency consultation with the Service will then be initiated in such cases, where appropriate.

PDC for disturbance are intended to reduce disturbance to nesting spotted owls. For this consultation,

potential disturbance could occur near either documented owl sites or projected owl sites. To estimate

likely occupied habitat outside of known home ranges, nearest-neighbor distances and known spotted owl

density estimates were utilized to “place” potential spotted owl occupied sites in suitable habitat

Any of the following Mandatory PDC may be waived in a particular year if nesting or reproductive


success surveys conducted according to the USFWS endorsed survey guidelines reveal that spotted owls

are non-nesting or that no young are present that year. Waivers are only valid until March 1 of the

following year. Previously known sites/ activity centers are assumed occupied until protocol surveys

indicate otherwise.

Mandatory Northern Spotted Owl Project Design Criteria

A. Activities (such as prescribed fire) that produce loud noises above ambient levels will not occur within

specified distances (Appendix A-1) of any documented or projected owl site between March 1 and June

30 (or until two weeks after the fledging period) – unless protocol surveys have determined the activity

center is non-nesting or failed in their nesting attempt. The distances may be shortened if significant

topographical breaks or blast blankets (or other devices) muffle sound traveling between the work

location and nest sites.

B. The action agency has the option to extend the restricted season until September 30 during the year of

activities, based on site-specific knowledge (such as a late or recycle nesting attempt) if project would

cause a nesting spotted owl to flush. (See disturbance distance).

C. Burning will not take place within 0.25 miles of spotted owl sites between 1 March and 30 June (or

until two weeks after the fledging period) unless substantial smoke will not drift into the nest stand.

Table 2: Mandatory Seasonal Restriction Distances to Avoid Disturbance

to Spotted Owl Sites

Activity Buffer Distance

Around Owl Site

Heavy Equipment (including non-blasting quarry

operations)

105 feet

Chain saws 195 feet

Impact pile driver, jackhammer, rock drill 195 feet

Small helicopter or plane 360 feet*

Type 1 or Type 2 helicopter 0.25 mile*

Blasting; 2 lbs of explosive or less 360 feet

Blasting; more than 2 lbs of explosives 1 mile

* If below 1,500 feet

above ground level

Above-ambient noises further than these Table 2 distances from spotted owls are expected to have either

negligible effects or no effect to spotted owls. The types of reactions that spotted owls could have to

noise that the Service considers to have a negligible impact, include flapping of wings, the turning of a

head towards the noise, hiding, assuming a defensive stance, etc. (USFWS 2003).

Recommended Northern Spotted Owl PDC

A. Minimize the use of fire line explosives within one (1) air mile of occupied stands from March 1

through June 30, or until two (2) weeks after the fledging period, unless protocol surveys have

determined owls are not present, are non-nesting , or nesting has failed.


B. A maximum of 25% of the NRF and/or dispersal habitat within the core area of any extant

spotted owl site will be burned within a calendar year to reduce effects to spotted owl prey

species.

Fisher/American Marten

For large snags (20 inches or greater DBH), scratch lines will be constructed around the base prior to

ignition operations to reduce potential of consumption of denning habitats by prescribed fire. Wherever

possible, snags that catch fire will be suppressed if they do not pose a safety threat to personnel.

Big-Game Winter Range (BGWR) Mitigation

Prescribe fire within Big-Game Winter Range are subject to a restriction from December 1 to April 30

unless a specific waiver is authorized by the District Ranger.

Neotropical Migratory Bird Mitigations

Efforts should be made to reduce impacts to nesting birds that may be present in the project planning area

that may be directly impacted by broadcast burning operations. Timing of operations should occur outside

of the spring breeding/nesting season to the extent possible (May 15 to July 15). Underburning operations

must be conducted within the specified prescription identified in the burn plan. Spring/early summer

burning operations may be required during initial entries due to high fuel loading.

Great Gray Owl and Northern Goshawk

Great Gray Owl nest sites shall be subject to seasonal restrictions outlined within the Survey and Manage

Settlement Agreement. Northern Goshawk nests are subject to seasonal restrictions outlined in the Rogue

River National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, Standards and Guidelines.

Snags and Coarse Woody Material Retention

For large snags (20 inches or greater DBH), scratch lines will be constructed around the base prior to

ignition operations to reduce potential of consumption by prescribed fire. Wherever possible, snags that

catch fire will be suppressed if they do not pose a safety threat to personnel.

7. Cultural (Heritage) Resources

Prior to implementation coordinate with a Forest Service Archaeologist or Archaeological Technician to

ensure protection (e.g., buffering and/or monitoring) of several known cultural sites located in units:

BBS/Hare 9, Bowen Willow 2, Bowen Willow 4, Bub 3, and Choke 1.

If cultural resources are encountered during the course of this project, earth-disturbing activities in the

vicinity of the find must be suspended, and a Forest Service Archaeologist of Archaeological Technician

notified to evaluate the discovery and recommend the subsequent course of action.

In the event that project activities occur outside of the prescribed treatment areas, they must be

coordinated with a Forest Service Archaeologist or Archaeological Technician prior to initiation.

8. Recreation / Human Safety

All project activities will comply with State and Federal Occupational Safety and Health (OSHA) codes.

All Forest Service project operations will be guided by FS Handbook 6709.11 (Health and Safety Code

Handbook).


Burning that occurs adjacent to public use areas or campgrounds (e.g., Fourbit Ford, Whiskey Spring, and

Willow Lake campgrounds) should be implemented before or after high visitation periods, such as prior

to Memorial Day (spring burning) or after Labor Day (fall burning). For safety reasons, these areas must

be closed to the public on the day of prescribed fire ignition. Fire management will coordinate with

recreation personnel to ensure that prescribed fire implementation proceeds in a safe and productive

manner. High visibility signing of prescribed fire activities is mandatory on all roads adjacent to

prescribed burn activities.

Mitigation measures to reduce the impacts to recreational users may include advance notice of closures

(website, press releases, and postings), signing at appropriate locations, alternative route

recommendations, notification of user groups, and timing activities outside of the season of highest

recreational use.

Any damage to recreation resources caused by the project would be repaired or restored to standard

immediately following operations. For example, trails would be reestablished and returned to a safe

condition as soon as possible (debris removed, drainage features in place, tread to standard).

Slash would not be piled or burned on trail tread or within 50 feet of identified trails so that small trees

and vegetation adjacent to the tread are not impacted by burning.


REFERENCES

Bormann, B.T., P.S. Homann, R.L. Darbyshire, and B.A. Morrissette. 2008. “Intense forest wildfire

sharply reduces mineral soil C and N: the first direct evidence.” Canadian Journal of Forest

Research 38: 2771–2783.

Brazier, S. 2013. Clark’s Fork Wildlife Habitat Enhancement and Fuels Treatment Project, Aquatic Biota

Biological Evaluation and Specialist Report. USDA Forest Service, Rogue River-Siskiyou

National Forest, Grants Pass, Oregon.

Kormeier, E. 1995. Summary of Fish Habitat/Water Quality Since the Silver Fire of 1987. Siskiyou

National Forest, Grants Pass, Oregon.

Mchugh, M. and T. Sensenig. 2005. Soil erosion after the Biscuit fire. Medford, OR: USDA Forest

Service, Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest.

Park, C. and H. Jubas. 2005. Channel and shade monitoring for the 1996 Waters Thin Fuels Reduction

Project, Rogue Siskiyou National Forest.

Rolle, W. 2013. Clark’s Fork Wildlife Habitat Enhancement and Fuels Treatment Project, Biological

Evaluation – Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Plants, Lichen, and Fungi and Invasive Plant

Risk Analysis. USDA Forest Service, Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, Applegate, Oregon.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1988. General Water Quality Best Management

Practices. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, Oregon.

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1990. Rogue River National Forest Land and

Resource Management Plan. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Rogue River

National Forest, Medford, Oregon. Available online at:

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5315122.pdf

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2012. National Best Management Practices for

Water Quality Management on National Forest System Lands – Volume 1: National Core BMP -

Technical Guide. FS-990a. Available online at:

http://www.fs.fed.us/biology/resources/pubs/watershed/FS_National_Core_BMPs_April2012.pdf

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, and United States Department of the Interior,

Bureau of Land Management. 1994. Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and

Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted

Owl. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, Oregon. Available online at:

http://www.reo.gov/library/reports/newroda.pdf

VonKienast, J. 2013. Clark’s Fork Wildlife Habitat Enhancement and Fuels Treatment Project, Wildlife

Report. USDA Forest Service, Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest, High Cascades Ranger

District, Prospect, Oregon.

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5315122.pdf

http://www.fs.fed.us/biology/resources/pubs/watershed/FS_National_Core_BMPs_April2012.pdf

http://www.reo.gov/library/reports/newroda.pdf