2008March

Ranger Ray’s CornerHello to All Our Neighbors,

Iwould like to express my appreciation to all ofyou who participated in the collaborationmeetings last fall (2007) and over the winter—

your input has been invaluable. The product ofall the time you dedicated to attending meetingsand expressing your concerns and suggestions isthe information summarized in this newsletter. Ilook forward to reading additional public inputsubmitted during the scoping process.

This newsletter serves as the “Scoping Letter”for the project in that it describes the Purposeand Need for the Eddy Gulch Late-SuccessionalReserve (LSR) Project and the Proposed Action (the term “scoping” is defined later inthis newsletter).

I hope you continue your interest in the EddyGulch LSR Project and take advantage of allfuture opportunities to stay involved andinformed. The project website(http://www.eddylsrproject.com) currentlycontains the first newsletter, this secondnewsletter, and two fact sheets. Please check thewebsite regularly for updated information.

Thank you again for all your interest andparticipation.

Ray A. HauptDistrict Ranger

Collaboration Process

The first newsletter for the Eddy Gulch LSRProject was mailed in October 2007 and hasalso been uploaded to the project website

(http://www.eddylsrproject.com). The firstnewsletter talked about the Healthy ForestsRestoration Act and one of its importantobjectives to “strengthen public participationin developing high-priority forest healthprojects by providing opportunities for earlierparticipation.” The Act refers to this earlyparticipation as “collaboration.” SinceSeptember 2007, the Forest Service and itscontractor (RED, Inc. Communications) havefacilitated 14 collaboration meetings, whichwere held in the communities of Sawyers Bar,Forks of Salmon, Orleans, Fort Jones, andYreka, California. Numerous collaborationmeetings were also held with the U.S. Fish andWildlife Service in Yreka. During themeetings, the Forest Service and contractorpresented information about the Eddy GulchLSR Project, summarized the StewardshipFireshed Analysis that was conducted for theLSR, talked about the purpose and need for theproject, and received comments on mapsdepicting the proposed treatments. Thediscussions during the meetings were veryvaluable—participants voiced concerns, askedquestions, and offered suggestions for theproject, which aided in the development of theProposed Action. Some of those comments arelisted below:

• Maintain coarse woody debris.

• Maintain old-growth characteristics.

• Protect owls that are present.

• Implement multi-party monitoring before,during, and after project implementation.

• What is the plantation acreage and what arethe tree sizes? Plantations should be apriority for thinning. Consider pile and burnvs. leaving slash. Consider the amount ofdollars to treat plantations.

2

• Will the EIS address the dollars needed forpre-commercial thinning in a plantation?There is concern about slash left after pre-commercial thinning.

• Has underburning been considered?

• Will this be a collaborative stewardshipproject?

• Look at the role of the hardwoodcomponent in stands and how hardwoodsare used in stand structure.

• Pull in a variety of ways to tie incomponents: tanker sites, key emergencyaccess routes, private land interface; usethe Salmon River Community WildfireProtection Plan in project planning.

• How does the Eddy LSR proposal lacetogether with what the Forest has alreadydone and what it will be doing in the future?

• Consider 60 percent canopy closure and 27-inch diameter limit.

• Consider 80 percent canopy closureon north-facing slopes and 60 percenton south-facing slopes.

• Do not build temporary roads; roadissues are sedimentation, sliding, andmass wasting.

• Don’t plan treatments that can’t feasiblybe maintained.

• Will there be subsistence firewoodopportunities for public and commercialfirewood?

• Describe what logging systems will be used.

• Need to make a distinction betweendominant canopy and subcanopy.

• Bring fire back to the landscape.

The above comments were reviewed duringpreparation of the Proposed Action. Thosecomments, along with additional comments thatwill be received during the scoping process,will be used to refine the Proposed Action.

3

The collaboration

meetings provided

opportunities to discuss

the Eddy Gulch LSR

Project. The comments

and suggestions

received during the

meetings helped with

the development of the

Proposed Action.

Scoping–What It Is?

The scoping process is defined by Council ofEnvironmental Quality regulations thatimplement the National Environmental

Policy Act (NEPA). The scoping process beginswhen a federal agency has its Notice of Intentto prepare an environmental impact statement(EIS) published in the Federal Register. The Notice of Intent has been uploaded to the project website.

Scoping is an early and open process to ensure that the full range of issues related to a proposed action is addressed and that allsignificant issues are identified. Scoping alsoprovides the opportunity for agencies, electedofficials, members of the public, and AmericanIndian tribes to present additional backgroundand technical information. Prior to the HealthyForests Restoration Act, publicparticipation was

initiated during the scoping process—after afederal agency had developed its proposedaction. For the Eddy Gulch LSR Project, earlycitizen collaboration was used as a valuable toolin helping to develop the Proposed Action. TheProposed Action will be refined usingsuggestions and comments received from thepublic during the scoping process. Weencourage you to take part in the scopingprocess by reading the information in thisnewsletter and the additional information andmaps that are available on the project website(http://www.eddylsrproject.com). Comments onthe Eddy Gulch LSR Project are welcomethroughout the environmental analysis process,but to be most useful for refining the ProposedAction, we request that comments be mailedwithin 30 days of publication of the Notice ofIntent in the Federal Register.

4

Purpose of and Need for Action Three primary objectives (purposes) for theEddy Gulch LSR Project were developedbased on differences between existing anddesired resource and social conditions (needfor the project) in the Eddy Gulch LSR,pertinent laws, and Forest Service direction.

1. Community Protection—toreduce wildfire threat tocommunities and municipalwater supplies and increasepublic and firefighter safety.There is a need, consistentwith objectives set forth inthe Healthy ForestsRestoration Act, to protectwildland-urban interface(WUI) structures, and relatedimprovements, andcommunity access routes,from the threat of high-intensity wildfire outside, oremanating from, the EddyGulch LSR. Current anddeveloping conditions in theLSR and along sections of allaccess roads will likely leadto moderate- and high-intensity fires caused byweather-related events (suchas lightening) that willthreaten structures, improvements, watersources, and travel routes.

2. Habitat Protection—to protect existing andfuture late-successional habitat from threats(of habitat loss) that occur inside andoutside the Eddy Gulch LSR. There is aneed to reduce fuel loading and develop acontrol strategy to reduce the size andseverity of future wildfires in the EddyGulch LSR in order to continue to meetLSR and Key Watershed objectives for late-successional habitat and the delivery ofhigh-quality cold water. The Eddy Gulch

LSR is within the Salmon River Watershedidentified under the Northwest Forest Plan as critical for at-risk fish species—the watersheds provide high-quality water and fish habitat. Current risks toforest health include hazardous fuelconditions, vegetative stocking density,insects, and diseases.

The exclusion of fire, combinedwith climatic conditions, hascreated overstocked stands. Due to fire exclusion and otherpolicies that required thecontrol of all fires, there havebeen changes in standstructures, including higherdensities of ground and ladderfuels such as brush, small trees,and shade-tolerant tree species.Past fire suppression policies ofcontrolling all fires haveinterrupted the historic role offire as a thinning agent and formaintaining the volume ofground fuels. This has increasedaccumulation of dead and downwoody material and organicdebris (duff and litter) and hasled to larger and more intensewildfires in the KlamathMountains. These intensewildfires can permanentlydamage soil, degrade

watersheds, and remove a high proportion ofall vegetation over large areas, thereby slowingnatural recovery and increasing impacts. Firemodeling, using current conditions, indicatesthat under 90th percentile weather (a hot dryAugust day), 50 percent of the LSR wouldexperience active or passive crown fire. Thesemodels indicate the LSR would benefit fromtreatments to reduce the potential for lethal firebehavior to a level that would be moreconsistent with LSR, Key Watershed, andcommunity protection objectives.

5

Three primary objectives

(purposes) for the Eddy

Gulch LSR Project were

developed based on

differences between

existing and desired

resource and social

conditions. . .

!

!!!

!!

!!!!!

!!!!

!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!

!!!

!!!!!!!!

!

!

!!

!!

!

!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!

!

!!!!!!!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!

!

!!

!!!

!!!!

!!!!!!!

!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!! !

!!!!!!

!!!!!!

!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !

!!!!!! !

!! !

!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !

!!!! !

!!!!!!!! !

!

! ! !

! !

! !!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!

!!!

!!!!!!

!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!! !!!!!!

!!!!!

! ! !! ! !

!!!! !

! ! !! ! ! !

! !

!!!!!

! ! ! !!!! !

! !! ! ! ! ! !

!! ! !

!!

!!! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! !! !

!! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !

! !! !! !

!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !

!! !

! !! !

!! !

! !

! !! !

!!!!

!!! !

! ! ! !!!!!!

! !! ! ! !

! !!! !!!!!! !

!!! !

!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!

! !!!! !

!! !

! !!!!!

! !!!!

!!!!! !

! ! !!

!!!! !

!! !

!!! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !

!! !

!!!!!!!! ! !

! !! !

!!!!!

! !! ! ! !

!!!!! !

! ! ! ! !! !

!!!!!

! ! !

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !

!!! !

!!!!

!!!!! !

!!!!!!!!!!! !

!!!

!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!! ! ! !!!!

!!

!! ! ! !!! ! ! ! !

! !!!!!!!!!!!

! !!

! !! !

! !! !

! !! !

! !! !

! !! ! !

! !! !

! ! !! !

! ! ! !

!

! !

!!

! !

!!

!

! !

! ! ! ! ! ! !! !

! !! !

! !

! !!!

! !!! !

!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!

!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!

!!!!!!!

!!!

!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!

!

!!!!!

!!!!

!!!!!

!!!

!!!!!!

!!!! ! !!!!

!!!!!

!!

! !!!!!!

!!!!

!!

!

!!!!

!!!

!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!

!! !

!

!!! !

!!!!!!!!!

!

! !! !

! !! !! !

! ! !! ! !

! !! ! ! !

! !

!! !

! !! ! !

! ! ! !! ! ! !

!!!!! !

!!!

!! !

!5

!5

!5

!5

!5

!5

7

7

7

7

esn

ak e

at tle

snake

Gulch

Creek

Gu

lch

Hickey

SawyersBarG

ulch

Cro

aks

Gu

lch

B 40N57

A Gulch

B

Gla

sgow

1C0140N38 GulchS

hilto

s

Eddy

40N46

Gul

ch

AJones

Wh

itesGulch

39N

2140N72

39N65Je

ssups

40N61

Gulch

Gulch

40N46

A

39N27

39N44 A

39N27 Co

unt

s

EastMudLake

39N

27

AGulch 2E

001

Blue RidgeLookoutA 39N54

39N62

39N41B

39N24

39N60

39N27

39N2239

N19

39N61

Gu

l ch

39N4039 Ha

rve

y

B West

BlackBearSummit

Compressor

A

Arg

us

A 39N19

A

A Fork

39

Gul

ch

39

Gulch

Live

Yan

kee

39N59

A

Gu

lc h

L

40N611E00

1

39N6639N

30

K

39N68F

39N23

Eddy GulchLookoutHBlack Bear

D 39N25

GCampbellSpring

39N

53

KlamathBasin

39

AA39N77 Gulch

ACallahan

39N77

Cree

k

39N20

West39

N71

A39N31

Shad

ow

A

ACre

ek HighPoint

Murphy

39N

75BaconRind

39N37

39N73

BGulch A

39N36

39N04

Cr

AA 39N43

Lafayette Pt.Sha

dow

39N56

Bear

West

Fo

rkC

rawfo

r d

Black

Creek

39N64

39N

74

39N46 39N4539N51 39

N20

Gr

as

sh o p p e r

Murphy Rock ShadowCreek

A1C02

Gul

ch

GouldA

39N

23

39N38

Windy Gap

GrousePoint

Gooey

39N

47

Jennin

gs

38N17Gulch

A

Matthews

Creek

MatthewsCreek

38N43

39N

26

38N17

CreekGul

Cr A m4th of July Fo

rk

IF

Creek

B38N03C

raw

ford

Gulc

h

39N

23

Taylor

Gulch

Creek

38N

29

Dry

SpringCanyon

Mtn

Gulch

Butcher

Eas

t

Station

Gulch

Orton South

Ketchum

GulchGu lch

East Fork

Henrys

Indian So

uth

38N0638N25

1E003

1C02

Gul ch

Lim

esto

ne

Gu

lch

Gulch

2E00

1A

GibsonC il ill

Rx4

Rx3

Rx5

Rx2

Rx1

FRZ7

FRZ2Rx12

FR

FRZ3

FRZ6

FRZ8

FRZ5M21

FRZ17

FRZ16

M6

M10FRZ4

M29

M11

M12

M9

FRZ10

FRZ18

FRZ9

FRZ19

Rx11

FRZ1

M15

FRZ11

FRZ12

M7

M75

M4

M2

M47M30

M81

M19

M57

M2

M78

M55

M83

M73

M50

M20M54

M8

M45

M39

M16

M82

M46

M38

M5

M74

M48

M64

M13

M52

M18

M68

M42

M3

M44

M69

M40

M51

M37

M17

M43

M58

M53

M59M79

M70

M56

M80M72

M65

M66

M77

M84

M41

M71

M67

M76

M49

7

9

54

8

3

45

3

12

23

61

9

4

92

7 11

6

19

11

11

14

26 30

23

23

31

2422

27

35

31

20

25

1817

10

34

21

16

13

14

2422

15

34

12

36

28

36

35

33

32 33

23

34

10

14

21

13

24

22

22

19

12

35

36

9

21

18

2627

2527 26 30

16

29 27

15

28

3534

10

25

15

36

28

8

23

1

33

12

16

21

20

29

18

32

10

26

161718

11

27

25

2526

13

12

30 29 2728

15

26

28

13

33

14

28

124 3

South section of theAssessment Area

!!!!!!!!!! !

! ! !! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !!!!! !!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!

!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!

!!!

!!!!!!!!

!!!!

!!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!!!!!!!

!!!

!!!!!!!!

!!!

!!!!

!!!!

!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!

!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!

! ! !

!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!

!

!!!!!

! !

! !! !

!!! !

! !! !

! !! !

! !!!!!!!!! !

!!! !

!!! !

! !

! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !

!! !

!

! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!

! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!! !

! !! !

! ! ! !!

!! !

!!!! !

! !!!

! !!!

!!!!!!! !

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !

!!!!!

!!!!! ! ! !! !!!!!! !!!! !

! !! !

! ! ! ! !!

! !

! !! !

! ! ! ! ! !

!!!!!

!!!!!

!!!

! ! ! !

!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !

! !! !

! !! ! !

! !! ! ! ! !

! !

!!!!!

!!!!!

!!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !

!!! !

!!!! !

!! !

!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!

!!!

!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Mdws

Creek

B

Gulc

h

Cre

ole

Be

ll eG

u l

Bla

kes

For

k

Fork

GoRu

39N15

B

B Cre

ek

39N

58

39N58

A

Cre

ek

C

39 Dog

Pa w

Six

mile

D

Ri d

g

e

A

39N13

39N42

Gulch

BarkShantyR i d g e

38N04Cr

Up

Poison

Creek

38N04

38N07

A

A

B

38N10

Fork A

38N14

A

38N1038N20

38N19Gul ch

Rx6

Rx7

FRZ15

FRZ13

FRZ14

M22

M23

M24

M25

M36

M61

M89

M60

M86

M62

M35

M88

M63

M87

M32

7 89

7 98

456

5 4 3

3

31 32 33

15

21

10

16

2829

18

20

3332

17

34

27

1617

26

22

34

10

15

282930

27

25 19 20 21

!!

!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!

!

!

! ! ! ! ! !!!! !

!!

! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!! ! !

!!!! !

!!!!!

! ! !!! !

!! !

! !

!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!

! ! !!! !

!

! !! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!

!

! !

!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!! !

!! !

! ! !! !

! !!! ! !

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

! !!!

!

!! !

!!!!

! ! !

!! !

! ! ! !

!! !

!!

! !!!!!!! !! ! ! ! !

!!

!

!! ! !

!!!

! ! !!

!!

! ! ! !

! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !

! !!!!!!!!!!!! ! !

!!!

!!

! !!!!!!!! !

!!!!!!!

!

!!!!

!!!!!

!!!!

!!!!!!

!

!!!

!

!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!

!!!

!! !

!!!!

!!! !!

!!!!!

!!

!!!!!!!!

!!!! !

! !!!

!!!!!

!

!!!!! ! !!!

!!!!

!!!!!!

!!!!

!!!

!!!!!

! ! ! !! ! !!

!!

!!!

! !! !

!!!!

!!

!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!

!!!

!!

!!!!!!!!

!!!!

!!!!!!! !

!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !

!

! ! ! ! ! !! !

!

!!!!!

!!

!!

!!!!!!

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!

!! ! ! ! !

! ! !! !

!!!

! ! !!

! !!! !

!!

!!!

!!!!!! !

!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!

! ! ! !!

! !

!!!!

!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !

! !

!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! !

! !! ! !

! ! !! !

!!! !

! !!

! ! !

!!!!!

!!!!! !

!!!!!!!!!! !

!!

! !!!!!!! !

!!! !

! !! !

! !! ! ! !

! ! !!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!

!!!!

! ! ! ! !!!!!!!

! ! !! ! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!! ! !

!! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! !!!!! !!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !

!! !

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!

! !! ! ! !

!!!!! !

! !

!!!!!!! !

!!!!!!

! !!

! ! !!!

! ! !!!!

! ! ! !!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!

!! !

!!!!!!

!! !

!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!

!!

!!!!

!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !

! ! ! ! ! !!!!

!!

!!!!!

! !! ! ! !

!!! !

!!!!!

!!!

!!!!!

! !!

!5

!5

7

7

EtnaSummit

41N

30

WicksLake

YellowDogPeak 41N23

41N18

41N

19

41N

38

Cre

ek

R i

d g

e

Cre

ek

Cre

ek

Hogan

41N36

Taylor

41N13

S n

o o

z e

r

TaylorLake

Cow

CreekC

reek

Mule Bridge41

N2

2TwinLakes

Rus

sian

HoganLakeG

ulch

China 40N07

AlbeLak

Gul

BigBlueLake

UpAlber

1C0

1

Cre

ek

40N47

Lit t l e

Ch

ina Gul

River

No

rth

40N58 Hig

hla

nd

Idlewild

G40N54

B

40N54

Creek

Mus

ic

Gulch

So uth

RobinsonFlat

40N35

A40N43

AAp pl esauce

StatueLake

Johns

Mdws

Hickey

Cre

ek

B RussianGulc

h

40N38 Gulch

Cre

ole

Be

l l eG

ul

Wh

ites

h

Bla

kes

Fo

rk40

Rx9

Rx8

FRZ20 M31

987

11

34

29

1713

26

28

16

23

30

20 21

14

27

2119

18

28

24

25

24 19

20

29

22

32

25

12

30

33

31 32

31

33

3635

36

27

22

15

10

35

35

34

13 18 17

26

16 15

23

11

14

461 5

2

32

1:63,360

JCCGIS11 March 08

South section of theAssessment Area

North section of theAssessment Area

3. Habitat Development—to promote thecontinued development of late-successionalcharacteristics. There is a need to acceleratethe development of late-successional forestcharacteristics in some existing mid-successional forest stands. Approximately45,220 acres of the 61,900-acre Eddy GulchLSR (73 percent) are capable of producinglate-successional habitat.Currently, 18,780 acres (orabout 42 percent of the45,220 acres) are currentlyvegetated by late-successional habitat. Thecombined acres vegetated bylate- and mid-successionalforest total 35,710 acres (orabout 79 percent of the45,220 acres). Based oninterpretation of standconditions, past management,expected fire losses, earlyphotos, and an understandingof the disturbance regimes, ithas been estimated that theamount of late-successionalforest reasonably sustainablein the Eddy Gulch LSR is45–65 percent of the capablearea at any one time. TheLSR would be consideredfunctioning if it falls withinthis identified range. TheKlamath National ForestLand and Resource Management Planspecifies that LSRs are to be managed tomaximize the amount of late-successionalforest to a level reasonably sustainable.

The above three objectives helped guide thedevelopment of the proposed treatments andactivities designed to maintain or establish atrend towards desired resource and socialconditions.

The proposed treatment locations andtreatments were also developed in response toprotection targets identified in the SalmonRiver Community Wildfire Protection Plan,Black Bear Ranch Cooperative Fire Safe Plan,Rainbow Cooperative Fire Safe Plan, theStewardship Fireshed Analysis that wasconducted for the Eddy Gulch LSR Project, the

citizen collaboration workshopsfor the Fireshed Analysis andEddy Gulch LSR Project, anddirection provided by the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service inYreka, California. NumerousForest Service documentsguided development of theProposed Action: the KlamathNational Forest Forest-wideLate-Successional ReserveAssessment, Klamath NationalForest Land and ResourceManagement Plan, North ForkEcosystem Analysis, UpperSouth Fork EcosystemAnalysis, and Callahan (MainSalmon) Ecosystem Analysis.

Proposed ActionScoping comments will be usedto refine the Proposed Action,as will additional data collectedduring extensive field

reconnaissance during the spring and earlysummer of 2008.

The Proposed Action has been designed to meetthe three objectives described above and satisfythe need for action by using mechanical,manual, and prescribed burn treatments.

The proposed treatment acres across the EddyGulch LSR Assessment Area are summarizedbelow. The various treatment areas overlap, sothe total area proposed for treatment is less thanthe sum of the acreages shown below:

8

Scoping comments will

be used to refine the

Proposed Action, as will

additional data collected

during extensive field

reconnaissance during

the spring and early

summer of 2008.

• 1,999 acres in 69 mechanicaltreatment areas in the 20 proposedFuel Reduction Zones (FRZs)

• 8,583 acres of underburning in the20 FRZs

• 17,808 acres of underburning in the11 prescribed burn areas (areasother than in FRZs)

• 2,251 acres in 6 mechanicaltreatment areas in the 11prescribed burn areas

• 102 acres in 6 mechanicaltreatment areas not in an FRZ or prescribed burn area

• 70 miles of mechanicaltreatments along roads

• 4.5 miles of temporary roadconstruction to access 885 acres in 14 of themechanical treatment areas

Twenty Fuel Reduction ZonesAn FRZ is a strategicallylocated and designed strip ofland on which a portion of thesurface fuels (both living anddead), ladder fuels, and canopyfuels are treated (removed,burned, or masticated) in orderto limit the potential size of andloss of resources (includinghomes) from large, high-intensity wildfire. FRZs arewide enough to capture mostshort-range spot fires within thetreated areas and are designedto bring crown fires into surface(ground) fire conditions, as wellas to provide safe locations for fire-suppression personnel to take fire-suppression actions during 90th percentile weather conditions.

Eighty-one Mechanical Treatment Areas• Thinning to reduce density—

mechanical treatments wouldbe used to remove or rearrangefuels to reduce crown, ladder,and ground fuels and toshorten the time to reach thedesired future conditionscompared to the use ofprescribed fire alone. Standswould be thinned to reducestand densities, therebyreducing canopy cover (andthe potential for passive andactive crown fires). The resulting fuels from

thinning would be removed or piled andburned. Thinning activities would also provide an opportunity for biomass utilizationof the material.

9

Stands would be thinned

to reduce stand densities,

thereby reducing canopy

cover (and the potential

for passive and active

crown fires).

• Thinning to reduce ladder fuels—thinning smaller diameter treeswould increase the distance betweenthe lower limbs of residual treesand brush or ground fuels. Ladderfuels consist of denser conifervegetation and brush near theforest floor that can extend intoresidual trees. Ladder fuelsincrease the likelihood of aground fire creating enough heatto ignite the ladder fuels(torching), with the subsequentfire reaching the crowns of thelargest trees. Crown fires aremore intense, harder forfirefighters to suppress, andresult in more devastatingeffects. In an effort to reducethe potential for crown fires,ladder fuels would be mechanically treated.After mechanical treatments, the fuels wouldbe removed and treated with prescribed fireor masticated.

• Thinning to develop habitat—Overstockedmid-successional stands experience inter-tree competition that slows the stand’sdevelopment into late-successional habitat.Thinning these stands from below wouldmaintain or increase growth on the residualtrees, thus accelerating the stand’sdevelopment into late-successional habitat(“thinning from below” refers to the processof thinning a conifer stand by removing thesmallest diameter trees and successivelyremoving larger diameter trees until acanopy cover standard is met for the stand).

In an LSR, stands would be considered fortreatment only where thinning would increase,by 30 years, the stand’s development into late-successional habitat, when compared to the stand’s projected natural (unthinned)development.

Eleven Prescribed BurnTreatment AreasPrescribed fire would be used to reducehazardous fuels and interrupt the horizontal,and sometimes vertical, continuity offlammable materials on the forest floor.

• Pile burning—naturally occurring fuels andthinning residues (branches and limbs)would be piled and burned.

• Underburning—a prescribed burn under anexisting canopy of trees (hardwoods orconifers) would be designed to reduce excesslive and dead vegetation and scorch to killvegetation to reduce ladder fuel conditions.Firelines would be constructed by mechanicalor manual treatment methods.

10

Treatment LocationsThe mechanical, manual, and prescribedburn treatments are proposed for thefollowing locations:

1. Along ridges—these are the FRZs,which contain plantations,Riparian Reserves, roads, andhabitat development areas.

2. Along roads—emergencyaccess routes, openNational Forest Systemroads, and county roads (roadsoccur inside and outside FRZs).Treatments would occur 200 feetabove and 200 feet below roads;some areas along roads could be lessthan 200 feet due to variability in fueltypes (such as brush, grass, or barren areas).

3. Community Wildfire Protection Plan and other fire plan/community protectionareas, U.S. Fish and Wildlife priorityprotection areas, and northern spotted owl activity centers.

4. Areas outside FRZs—includes the underburn areas, whichcontain plantations, RiparianReserves, mechanical treatmentareas and roads, and owl habitat development areas.

11

Fall, 2007• Citizen, tribal, and

agency collaboration

activities

• Preparation of the

Fireshed Analysis for

the Eddy Project Area

• Development of the

Preliminary Proposed

Action based

comments and

suggestions received

during ongoing

collaboration efforts

• Field analysis by the

contractor ID Team

Early Spring, 2008• Official NEPA scoping

• Forest Service and

contractor ID Team

review and respond

to citizen, tribal,

and agency scoping

comments on

the Proposed

Action

Spring and Summer, 2008• Preparation of Final

Proposed Action

• Additional analysis

by the contractor

ID Team

Late SummerEarly Fall, 2008• Preparation of the

Eddy LSR Project Draft

Environmental Impact

Statement (EIS)

• Public comment

period on the draft EIS

• Contractor ID Team

and Forest Service

review public

comments, prepare

responses to

comments, incorporate

comments to create

the final EIS

Winter-Early Spring, 2009• Preparation of the

final EIS

• Issuance of Forest

Service Record of

Decision on the Eddy

LSR Project

Summary of the Eddy LSR Project Schedule

Dates:Comments concerning the scope of the EISanalysis must be mailed within 30 days ofpublication of the Notice of Intent in the FederalRegister. The draft EIS is expected in late fall of2008, and the final EIS and Forest Service Recordof Decision are expected in spring of 2009.

Addresses:Send written comments to

RED, Inc. CommunicationsP.O. Box 3067Idaho Falls, ID, 83403ATTN: Eddy Gulch LSR Project.

The address for emailing comments iseddylsr@redinc.com. The project website ishttp://www.eddylsrproject.com.

For further information:Visit the project website at http://www.eddylsrproject.com

or contact Ray HauptScott and Salmon River District RangerKlamath National Forest11263 N. Highway 3Fort Jones, CA 96032or 530.468.5351

The Eddy LSR Projectc/o RED, Inc. Communications

P.O. Box 3067

Idaho Falls, ID 83403

208-528-0051 Ext. 201

United States

Department

of Agriculture

Klamath

National Forest

Pacific

Southwest

Region

We Want to Hear From You