United States Department of Environmental Agriculture

Forest Assessment Service

February 2013 Twin Lakes Fuel Reduction Project

Bridgeport Ranger District, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest Mono County, California

For Information Contact: Annamaria Echeverria HC 62, Box 1000, Bridgeport, CA 93517 760-932-5803 [email protected]

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.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ...... 2 CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION ...... 3

BACKGROUND ...... 3 PURPOSE AND NEED ...... 3 MANAGEMENT DIRECTION ...... 6 PROJECT SCOPE ...... 8 PROPOSED ACTION ...... 8 DECISION FRAMEWORK ...... 8 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ...... 9 TRIBAL CONSULTATION ...... 9 ISSUES ...... 9 RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PLANS, DECISION DOCUMENTS, AND REGULATORY AUTHORITY ...... 10 CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES ...... 11

NO ACTION ...... 11 PROPOSED ACTION/NON-COMMERCIAL FUNDING ALTERNATIVE ...... 11 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES ...... 21 CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT/ ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES ...... 23

VEGETATION ...... 23 FIRE/FUELS ...... 28 AIR QUALITY ...... 35 NOXIOUS WEEDS ...... 36 WATERSHED ...... 37 WILDLIFE ...... 39 RARE PLANTS ...... 59 RECREATION ...... 62 CULTURAL RESOURCES ...... 64 CHAPTER 4: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION ...... 67 REFERENCES ...... 69 ACRONYMS/GLOSSARY...... 73

ACRONYMS ...... 73 GLOSSARY ...... 74 APPENDIX A: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ...... 79 APPENDIX B: MONO COUNTY COMMUNITY WILDFIRE PROTECTION PLAN ...... 83 APPENDIX C: EXAMPLES OF FUEL LOADING IN THE PROJECT AREA ...... 84

ii Twin Lakes Fuel Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

SUMMARY The Bridgeport Ranger District (District) is proposing to reduce fuels and the threats from stand- replacing wildfire within urban interface communities on National Forest System (NFS) lands within the Twin Lakes area. The project area is located in portions of Township 4 North, Range 24 East, Sections 10, 15, 20, 21, 22, and 27 – 35; Township 4 North, Range 23 East, Sections 25 and 26; and Township 3 North, Range 24 East, Sections 4, 5, and 6, Mountain Diablo Meridian, in Mono County, California (Map 1). The objectives of this project are to: Decrease the potential for high-intensity stand-replacing wildfire. Move fire adapted systems back towards their natural range of variability after a century of fire suppression. The proposed action consists of a combination of treatments that would include thinning (conifers, shrubs, and/or small trees), mastication, chipping, piling, and limited use of prescribed fire. Many treatment units would receive more than one type of treatment over a period of years. For example, thinning may be followed by prescribed burning and/or mechanical treatment of brush. Prescribed fire treatments would be conducted during the most favorable times in terms of smoke dispersion and for controllable fire behavior, generally from fall to spring. In addition to the proposed action, the Forest Service also evaluated a no action alternative. The no action alternative provides a baseline from which to examine potential effects. Under no action, the project would not occur. Current uses and vegetative trends of the area would continue. Based upon the environmental assessment, the responsible official, the Bridgeport District Ranger, will decide whether the proposed action will proceed as proposed. If it proceeds, the responsible official will also decide what design elements and monitoring requirements would apply. The Twin Lakes Fuels Reduction Project is an authorized hazardous fuels reduction project in accordance with the Healthy Forest Restoration Act of 2003 (HFRA) because: (1) the project is located on federal lands within a wildland urban interface (WUI) area of an at-risk community and (2) the project is being conducted under sections 103 and 104 of the HFRA. Authorized hazardous fuel reduction projects processed under the provisions of the HFRA are not subject to the notice, comment, and appeal provisions set forth under 36 CFR 215 (218.3) Under the regulations of 36 CFR 218.7 governing the Predecisional Administrative Review (Objection”)Process for authorized HFRA projects, only individuals and organizations who have submitted a specific written comment related to the proposed project during the opportunity for public comment (Scoping) period may file an objection to the project.

1 Twin Lakes Fuel Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

INTRODUCTION

Document Organization The Forest Service has prepared this environmental assessment (EA) in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant federal and state laws and regulations. This EA discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that would result from the proposed action and no action. The document is organized as follows: Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need for Action: The chapter includes information on the history of the project proposal, the purpose of and need for the project, and the agency’s proposal for achieving that purpose and need. This section also details how the Forest Service informed the public of the proposal and how the public responded. Chapter - 2- Alternatives: This section provides a more detailed description of the agency’s proposed action. This discussion also includes proposed design features and monitoring. Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences: This section describes the environmental effects of implementing the proposed action and no action. This analysis is organized by resource area. Within each section, the affected environment is described first, followed by the expected environmental effects of no action and the proposed action. Chapter 4 - Agencies and Persons Consulted: This section provides a list of preparers and agencies consulted during the development of the EA. Appendices: The appendices provide detailed information to support the analyses presented in the EA. Additional documentation, including detailed analyses of project area resources, may be found in the project record located at the Bridgeport Ranger District Office in Bridgeport, California.

2 Twin Lakes Fuel Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

CHAPTER 1: PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION Background ______The Twin Lakes Fuel Reduction Project is located on the Bridgeport Ranger District (District) of the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest (Forest), in Mono County, California. The project area is 12 miles southwest of the town of Bridgeport, California, in the Robinson Creek drainage, adjacent to Twin Lakes (Map 1). The majority of the topography in the area is complex and steep, with a single ingress and egress route (Twin Lakes Road). The project area is adjacent to the housing developments of Twin Lakes and Rancheria and the private recreational resorts of Mono Village, Twin Lakes Resort, and Doc and Al’s Resort (Map 2). Twin Lakes and Rancheria have been designated communities at-risk through the Mono County Community Wildfire Protection Plan (Mono County 2009). The Twin Lakes and Rancheria developments contain approximately 180 structures. The majority of these structures are cabins built prior to 1960. Most homes are of moderate size and built on small lots. Wood siding with an asphalt, metal, or wood shake roof is the most common construction type. The Twin Lakes area is a popular recreation destination and a vital part of the economy for northern Mono County. Honeymoon Flat, Robinson, Paha, Crags, and Lower Twin campgrounds are located within the project area. A variety of other structures and facilities associated with the campgrounds, resorts, and trailheads are located in the area. The Hoover Wilderness is adjacent to the project area to the south. A small portion of the proposed project area (341 acres out of 1875 acres or approximately 18 percent of proposed treatment acres) is within the Robinson Creek, Hoover-Cattle Creek, and Hoover-Twin Lakes inventoried roadless areas (IRAs). Several trails cross the project area including Horse Creek, Cattle Creek, and Tamarack Lake. The Twin Lakes Fuels Reduction Project area is characterized by patchy, high elevation mixed conifer stands and brush fields interspersed with aspen. This project is strategically located within a high priority area for fuels reduction treatment due to dense vegetation, steep terrain, prevailing wind patterns, and the proximity to high use recreation sites. Since 2005, the Forest Service has advised the Twin Lakes Fire Safe Council and private homeowners on the importance of reducing the accumulation of fuels and creating defensible space around their property. The Twin Lakes Fire Safe Council has treated over 100 acres of private property since 2009. The treated private properties are adjacent to the project area. Proposed Forest Service treatments are designed to complement ongoing Fire Safe Council treatments. The resulting proposed action is a collaborative effort between the Forest Service and the Twin Lakes Fire Safe Council. Purpose and Need ______The purpose of this project is to reduce fuel loading within the project area to reduce the risk of stand- replacing wildfire on forest ecosystem components, improve the sustainability of conifer stands to withstand frequent fire, provide safe escape routes throughout the area, reduce risk to homes and structures (on both National Forest System [NFS] lands and adjacent private property) from wildfire, and increase firefighter safety.

3 Twin Lakes Fuel Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

Map 1. Twin Lakes Fuel Reduction Project Vicinity Map

4 Twin Lakes Fuel Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

The project goals and objectives are described below. 1. Decrease the potential for high-intensity stand-replacing wildfire. Reducing fuel loading in strategically located areas meets the goals for both the local community and for the management of NFS lands in the area. The purpose of fuels reduction is to reduce the threat to the community from wildfires originating in the wildlands, and to protect the wildlands from fires that originate on private lands. a. Protect human life and property from wildfire by increasing the safety of residents, visitors, and firefighters and reducing the risk to homes and structures in the wildland urban interface (WUI). The majority of the proposed treatment units are immediately adjacent to homes and recreational facilities. All proposed treatment units are within the WUI, as defined in the Mono County Community Wildfire Protection Plan (Mono County 2009) and most of the project area is also within WUI or developed recreation sites as defined in the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Record of Decision (USDA Forest Service 2004). Fires that originate on the NFS land can threaten the Twin Lakes communities. The majority of the structures in the project area are surrounded by vegetation that has become very dense after decades of fire suppression. Fires can move quickly in this type of vegetation. Reducing vegetation near structures and improvements would provide defensible space to protect homes, residents, visitors, and firefighters. Within the project area, there is a need to treat surface and ladder fuels to provide and maintain defensible areas for firefighters to manage future wildland fires. The treatments are not expected to stop a fire on their own. b. Reduce the risk of impacts to natural and cultural resources from severe or uncharacteristic landscape scale fires by reducing the number of human ignitions that escape into the wildlands. Fires that originate in the WUI can easily escape into wildlands. Without adequate defensible space, there is a risk of fires becoming uncharacteristically severe or large and disproportionately affecting wildlife habitat, watershed conditions, and cultural resources compared to a fire within the range of natural variability. Successful fire suppression over the past 70+ years has allowed unnatural levels of surface, ladder, and aerial fuels to accumulate both immediately adjacent to homes and throughout the landscape. These fuel conditions can quickly lead to wildland fires escaping initial containment efforts and becoming high-intensity, stand-replacing fires. Such fires are both difficult and dangerous to control. This was the type of fire behavior exhibited during the Cannon Fire of 2002 (Bridgeport Ranger District), which started from an escaped campfire. The risk of human ignitions escaping into the wildlands from private land within the project area is high because of the lack of defensible space. In particular, dense vegetation and/or ladders into the canopy close to ignition sources such as power lines, campground fire pits, and backyard barbecues have the potential to result in a wildland fire. 2. Move fire adapted systems back towards their natural range of variability after a 70+ years of fire suppression. Due to a history of aggressive fire suppression and fire exclusion, the vegetation in the project area is outside its natural range of variability and is vulnerable to high-intensity fire. Fuels reduction treatments would create more areas of early seral vegetation and open stand structures in the area,

5 Twin Lakes Fuel Reduction Project Environmental Assessment bringing the landscape closer to the natural range of variability and reducing the threat of high- intensity, stand-replacing wildfire. This proposal is needed because successful fire suppression for more than 70 years has precluded wildfire disturbance from “thinning” forests and shrublands in the project area. Without periodic disturbance from fire, trees and shrubs have grown unnaturally dense. As a result, there is currently high fuel loading in the project area, including dense tree canopies in forested areas, and smaller trees in the forest understory which have the potential to carry fire into the crowns of larger trees (photos displaying vegetative conditions in the project area are located in Appendix B). These fuel conditions can quickly lead to wildfires escaping initial containment efforts. Escaped wildfires have the potential for becoming high-intensity, stand-replacing fires, which are both difficult and dangerous to control. This type of fire behavior was exhibited in close proximity to the project area during the Buckeye Fire of 2011. Due to high fuel loads within the WUI, there are inadequate defensible spaces between most developed recreation facilities and adjacent private land and homes. The project area has become a popular recreation destination, with both seasonal and year-round residents, which increases both the likelihood of an ignition and the difficulty of evacuation and access. Management Direction ______The Twin Lakes Fuels Reduction Project responds to goals and objectives of the Toiyabe National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA Forest Service 1986), as amended by the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Record of Decision (USDA Forest Service 2004); the Healthy Forest Restoration Act; National Fire Plan (USDA DOI 2000); and recommendations in the Mono County Community Protection Plan (Mono County 2009).

Toiyabe National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan The project area is located within Management Area 4 – Walker, as identified in the Toiyabe National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) (USDA Forest Service 1986). Management area direction includes: In the management area, emphasis will be directed toward the amenity values of wildlife, dispersed and developed recreation, and water quality in the major canyons and along the highways. A cost-effective and coordinated fire protection program will be implemented. Vegetation management will be conducted to enhance watershed, range, wildlife, aesthetic and vegetative vigor and to minimize the potential for catastrophic wildfire and insect and disease infestations. This project is consistent with the Forest Plan. It is also consistent with the Forest’s ongoing emphasis on implementing projects that increase firefighter and public safety in the event of a severe wildfire and part of a broader program to implement the National Fire Plan (USDA Forest Service 2000).

Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment The Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA) amended the Toiyabe National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan and directs the Forest Service to conduct fuel reduction activities on NFS lands within the area where federal property adjoins private lands (WUI) to protect nearby homes, properties, and communities from wildland fires.

6 Twin Lakes Fuel Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

The WUI is divided into several zones, including the urban core, defense zone, and threat zone. The WUI urban core is defined in SNFPA as a zone with a density of one or more developments per 5 acres, which includes residences, cabins, resorts, marinas, pack stations, and other business or recreation facilities. The WUI defense zone encompasses the 0.25 mile buffer area surrounding homes, businesses, recreation developments, and other structures. The WUI threat zone extends another 1.25 miles around the WUI urban core and defense zones. The SNFPA Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) specifies forested areas within the WUI zones are to be managed so that forests are fairly open and dominated primarily by larger, fire tolerant trees; surface and ladder fuel conditions are such that crown fire ignition is highly unlikely; and the openness and discontinuity of crown fuels, both horizontally and vertically, result in a very low probability of sustained crown fire. The project is designed to be consistent with the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (USDA Forest Service 2004).

Healthy Forest Restoration Act The Healthy Forest Restoration Act (HFRA) of 2003 (Public Law 108-148) was signed into law on December 3, 2003. The purpose of the HFRA is in part to (a) reduce wildfire risk to communities, municipal water supplies, and other at-risk federal land through a collaborative process of planning, prioritizing, and implementing hazardous fuel reduction projects; (b) enhance efforts to protect watersheds and address threats to forest and rangeland health, including stand-replacing wildfire, across the landscape; and (c) protect, restore, and enhance forest ecosystem components, promoting the recovery of threatened and endangered species to improve biological diversity and enhance productivity and carbon sequestration (HR 1904). The Twin Lakes Fuels Reduction Project is an authorized hazardous fuels reduction project in accordance with the HFRA because: (1) the project is located on federal lands within a WUI area of an at-risk community and (2) the project is being conducted under sections 103 and 104 of the HFRA (Public Law 108-148).

Mono County Community Wildfire Protection Plan Areas proposed for hazardous fuels reduction treatments are identified as extreme and high priorities for fuels reduction within the WUI in the Mono County Community Wildfire Protection Plan. Out of the 36 WUI communities in Mono County, 9 were rated as extreme fire hazard. Within the project area, Twin Lakes was rated as extreme and Rancheria was rated as high (Appendix B).

Roadless Area Conservation Rule The 2001 Roadless Area Final Rule (36 CFR 294) was effective March 13, 2001 (USDA 2001). The Final Rule (294.13) allows cutting, sale, or removal of generally small diameter timber under certain circumstances as determined by the Responsible Official. Circumstances applicable to the IRA in the Twin Lakes Fuels Reduction Project area include 294.13 (b) (1): The cutting, sale, or removal of generally small diameter timber is needed for one or more of the following purposes and will maintain one or more of the roadless area characteristics as defined in 294.11 (294.13 (b) (1) (ii) to maintain or restore the characteristics of ecosystem composition and structure, such as to reduce the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire effects, within the range of variability that would be expected to occur under natural disturbance regimes of the current climatic period and 294.12 (b) (2) the cutting, sale, or removal of timber is needed and appropriate for personal or administrative use, as provided for in 36 CFR, part 223). The Final Rule (2001) further states “because of the great variation in stand characteristics between vegetation types in different areas, a description of what constitutes “generally small diameter timber” is not specifically included in this rule”. The Final Rule states that “thinning of small diameter trees, for example, that became established as the result of missed fire

7 Twin Lakes Fuel Reduction Project Environmental Assessment return intervals due to fire suppression and the condition of which greatly increases the likelihood of uncharacteristic wildfire effects would be permissible.” The Final Rule further states, “The intent of the rule is to limit the cutting, sale or removal of timber to those areas that have become overgrown with smaller diameter trees.” And “In any event, all such determinations of what constitutes “generally small diameter timber” will consider how the cutting or removal of various size classes of trees would affect the potential for future development of the stand, and the characteristics and inter- relationships of plant and animal communities associated with the site and overall landscape. Site productivity due to factors such as moisture and elevational gradients, site aspect, and soil types will be considered, as well as how such cutting or removal of various size classes of standing or down timber would mimic the role and legacies of natural disturbance regimes in providing the habitat patches, connectivity, and structural diversity critical to maintaining biological diversity. In all cases, the cutting, sale or removal of small diameter timber will be consistent with maintaining or improving one or more of the roadless area characteristics as defined in 294.11” (USDA 2001). The Regional Forester reviewed the Twin Lakes Fuels Reduction Project for consistency with the Department of Agriculture roadless area directives. On November 5, 2009, the Regional Forester concurred that the project complies with the directives and subsequent waivers and that the project could proceed. Project Scope ______The 7,750 acre analysis area is located within the southwestern portion of the Bridgeport Ranger District (Map 1). Treatments would occur on about 1,875 acres (approximately 24%) of the analysis area (Map 2). It is anticipated that 5 to 10 years may be needed to complete fuel reduction activities in all proposed treatment units. Prescribed fire treatments would be conducted during the most favorable times in terms of smoke dispersion and for controllable fire behavior, generally from fall to spring. Proposed Action ______The Forest Service is proposing to reduce hazardous fuels around and adjacent to the Twin Lakes Road, homes and private property near Twin Lakes, California (Map 1). The treatments are planned in the WUI which surrounds Upper and Lower Twin Lakes. A combination of treatments would be used in the various units (Map 2). Treatments would include thinning of trees, mastication, chipping, piling, and the use of prescribed fire. Many treatment units would receive more than one type of treatment, over a period of years. For example, thinning may be followed by prescribed burning and/or mechanical treatment of brush. Treated areas would require maintenance to sustain more open conditions. Without maintenance, conifer and brush regeneration would eventually become dense, putting the treated areas at-risk for high severity wildland fire. Maintenance may include mastication, piling, burning, additional thinning, or underburning. Decision Framework ______The decision to be made by the Responsible Official (the Bridgeport District Ranger) is whether to implement fuels reduction activities as described in the proposed action, modify those activities, or not implement the activities. If the activities are implemented, the Responsible Official would decide what design features and monitoring requirements would be required.

8 Twin Lakes Fuel Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

Public Involvement ______Since 2005, the Forest Service has been advising the Twin Lakes Fire Safe Council and homeowners on how to reduce the fuels around their properties. Through annual meetings discussion has taken place on how to design fuel treatments. Since 2009, the Twin Lakes Fire Safe Council has treated over 100 acres of private property. The treated properties are adjacent to the project area. Proposed Forest Service treatments have been designed to complement ongoing and future Fire Safe Council treatments. The Twin Lakes Fuel Reduction Project was listed in the Schedule of Proposed Actions in January 2010. On April 25, 2011, the Notice of Proposed Action/Scoping Notice was mailed to interested parties and adjacent landowners, as well as published in the Reno Gazette -Journal. Ten organizations/individuals submitted written comments. Responses to comments received during scoping are located in Appendix A. An open house was held May 10, 2011, in Bridgeport, California, to present, review, and take comments on the project. The project was also discussed and reviewed at a public meeting held on July 4, 2011. Tribal Consultation ______The District has been participating in an ongoing consultation process with local Native American groups. Project lists and maps were sent to the tribes in June, August, and September 2011, indicating that if Traditional Cultural Properties (TCP) were located within the area of potential effects, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) would be notified and appropriate avoidance measures taken. At this time, no TCPs have been identified. Contacts (letters, phone calls, and tribal council meetings) have included the Bridgeport, Walker River, and Yerington Paiute Tribes and the Washoe Tribal Historic Preservation Office.

If graves, burials or items suspected to be burial-related or otherwise sacred are discovered inadvertently during project activities, these locations will be avoided. Further, tribes will be notified in accordance with procedures defined by the Native American Graves and Repatriation Act. Issues ______Environmental policy and procedures and Forest Service Handbook 1909.15 (NEPA Handbook) directs the agency to identify the issues to be analyzed in depth (FSM 1950.41). Issues serve to highlight effects or unintended consequences that may occur from the proposed action and alternatives providing opportunities during the analysis to reduce adverse effects and compare trade- offs for the responsible official and public to understand. A Forest Service interdisciplinary team identified issues to be addressed for this project based on input received from the adjacent landowners, the public, Mono County, and the Twin Lakes Fire Safe Council. These issues were incorporated into the proposed action and associated design features. Potential for an escape of a prescribed fire. Potential for noxious/invasive weed introduction and/or spread. Potential effects on water and soil. Short and long-term impacts and benefits to wildlife and wildlife habitat. Potential effect on roadless areas. Potential effects from fuels reduction activities on cultural resources.

9 Twin Lakes Fuel Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

Relationship to Other Plans, Decision Documents, and Regulatory Authority ______Direction and authority for the proposal come from the National Forest Management Act (NFMA), NEPA, and the Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ), all of which provide general land management and environmental analysis direction. The NFMA requires that all projects and activities proposed and considered be consistent with the Forest Plan. If a project or activity cannot be conducted consistent with the Forest Plan, it cannot go forward as planned unless the Forest Plan is amended. No Forest Plan Amendment would be necessary regardless of which alternative is selected.

10 Twin Lakes Fuel Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

CHAPTER 2: ALTERNATIVES

This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered for the Twin Lakes Fuel Reduction Project, including the proposed action and no action No Action ______The No Action Alternative serves as the environmental baseline for the analysis of effects. Under the No Action Alternative, thinning treatments and prescribed burning would not occur. Fuel conditions in the project area would continue to deteriorate. Fuels and the probability of a stand-replacing fire would increase, and the ability to control a wildfire would remain static or decrease over time. Defensible space would not be created near recreation facilities and developments on NFS lands and at the boundary with private properties that contain homes and other private and commercial developments. Proposed Action/Non-Commercial Funding Alternative _ The Proposed Action Alternative is designed to reduce fuel loading in the Twin Lakes Fuel Reduction Project area. Proposed treatment units would be accessed via existing roads. No new roads would be constructed. Mechanical equipment would operate off-road using temporary access routes, where terrain permits. This alternative satisfies the non-commercial funding alternative required by the November 3, 2009 Remedy Ruling by Judge England regarding the 2004 Framework (Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment). The proposed action meets the requirements of a non-commercial funding alternative because only trees needed to meet the fuels reduction or forest health improvement will be removed. Although trees of commercial value may be sold, no additional timber harvest of larger diameter trees would be included to create a break-even or positive economic return. Proposed fuels reduction treatments would comply with requirements for wildfire defensible space as specified in California Code 4291, which is commonly known as 100-foot defensible space (General Guidelines for Creating Defensible Space, CalFire 2006). Fuels reduction treatments in the 100-foot defensible space zone would be tailored to site-specific conditions. Not all defensible space treatment activities would be needed at each site. Fuels reduction and defensible space treatments would include shrub removal (i.e. either cutting or mastication), thinning of conifers from the overstory of select stands of trees, and low to moderate intensity forest underburning. Slash generated by tree or shrub thinning activities would be disposed of by piling and burning, chipping, hauling the material off-site, and/or through the sale of firewood. Many treatment units would receive more than one type of treatment, over a period of years. For example, thinning may be followed by prescribed burning and/or mechanical treatment of brush. The primary fuels reduction methods proposed for use in the project are described below.

Thinning Treatments Conifer Thinning Within proposed treatment units, approximately 200 acres of conifer trees would be thinned from below. Fir species and mistletoe infected/insect infested trees would be a priority for removal. Thinning from below generally removes smaller trees that are most susceptible to wildfire, leaving the dominant, tallest trees that are less susceptible to fire. Typically, the healthiest and best growing trees would be left untouched. Most of the trees removed would be of smaller diameter, though

11 Twin Lakes Fuel Reduction Project Environmental Assessment occasionally trees up to 24 inches diameter breast height (dbh) may be removed. Trees would be cut by hand using chain saws and removed from the project area using personal use firewood permits and/or commercial firewood contracts. In some areas, trees would not be removed but would instead be piled and burned. Residual basal area would range from 60 to 200 square feet per acre depending on current densities and locations. Hand thinning and pruning methods would be used in close proximity to structures to thin from below and reduce surface and ladder fuels. Hand thinning would consist of removing trees with chain saws or lopping shears. Where access allows, trees would be available for fuelwood. Shrub and Small Tree Thinning Treatments in these areas would include thinning of shrub species; severity would depend on soils, location of treatment units, and wildlife concerns. Some smaller diameter trees, less than 14 inch dbh, would also be removed. The residual (remaining) trees would have shrubs removed from around them for a distance of approximately 5 to 20 feet. Treatment methods would include mastication1, hand cutting, piling, and burning and/or chipping (reducing wood, generally tree limbs or trunks, into smaller parts, such as wood chips which would be spread along existing dirt roads and into brush areas). Approximately 1,600 acres would be treated with this prescription. In mastication units, the primary treatment focus would be along road corridors to create defensible space, reduce fuels, and provide safe egress. Up to 80 percent of the vegetation would be masticated (chewed and ground into small pieces) in a mosaic pattern beginning from the road and extending 200 feet. Beyond the 200 foot zone, up to 60 percent of the vegetation would be treated in a mosaic pattern with 1 to 3 acre patches left untreated (Figure 1).

1 Mastication uses a cutting head, typically mounted on an articulating arm attached to a tracked vehicle, to chew and grind woody vegetation and slash. This mechanical fuel treatment changes the structure and size of fuels in a vegetative stand. Trees and understory vegetation (ladder fuels) are chopped or ground, and the resulting material is left on the soil surface. From a fuels perspective, the total fuel loading is not affected immediately. However, the vertical height of the fuels is lowered and ladder fuels are reduced, and more fuel volume is shifted into 1 and 10 hour size classes. Equipment to be used to mow-and-mulch could be a bobcat or ASV (a compact track loader) or similar sized mowing machine equipped with a mower or other appropriate attachment. This treatment method can be used on slopes up to 35 percent.

12 Twin Lakes Fuel Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

Figure 1: Diagram of shrub treatment area on either side of the roadway following mastication displaying a mosaic pattern Prescribed Fire Approximately 750 acres may be treated using prescribed fire to reduce shrub and small diameter tree densities and reduce fuel loadings. Prescribed fire would include underburning and pile burning, and under most circumstances would occur after mechanical treatments are completed. Prescribed fire treatments would be conducted during fall, spring, or winter—the most favorable times in terms of smoke dispersion and controllable fire behavior and when visitor and recreation use is limited. Underburning Underburning would occur in the conifer treatment units, beneath tree canopies. The objective of underburning is to preserve the dominant overstory trees, while reducing live and dead vegetation. This type of burning would typically occur in the fall or spring when fuel moistures are low enough to carry the fire but still be within approved prescription parameters. Underburning fire intensities are usually low to moderate. Burning can only be initiated on "Burn Days" designated by the State Air Control Board; prescription days will be outlined in an approved burn plan. Pile Burning Pile burning would be completed after an area has been thinned. The piles would be created by hand and stacked throughout the treatment area. When weather and fuel conditions are within a predetermined prescription, the piles would be burned. Typically, piles are burned in the fall or winter months.

13 Twin Lakes Fuel Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

Treatments by Area (Map 2) North Side NU1 – Unit is adjacent to Doc and Al’s summer resort, Rancheria subdivision, and Honeymoon Flat campground. This unit is approximately 1,027 acres and is mostly comprised of brush. Treatments would include mastication of brush and small trees and hand thinning of select trees, which would be made available as fuelwood. NU2 – Unit encompasses Robinson, Paha, and Crags campgrounds. This unit is approximately 407 acres and treatments would consist of mastication of brush and small trees and hand thinning of select trees, which would be made available as fuelwood. Thinning treatments would be followed by pile burning and chipping. East Side SU1 –Unit is near the Twin Lakes Campground and runs south towards the Eagles Nest recreation residence area. About 91 acres would be treated by mastication of brush and small trees. SU2 - Unit encompasses the Eagles Nest recreation residence area and is approximately 39- acres in size. Treatments may include hand thinning of trees and brush, pile burning, and chipping. Thinned trees may be available as fuelwood. SU3 – Unit is adjacent to the Twin Lakes Estates and Cattle Creek trailhead. Treatments in the 83-acre unit may include hand thinning, pile and underburning, and chipping. Thinned trees may be available as fuelwood. Treatments in this unit are designed to complement fuels reduction projects proposed on private property by the Twin Lakes Fire Safe Council. South Side SU4 – Unit has limited access by trail or boat. Five Forest Service recreational residence cabins with a heavy dead and down component within the 100-foot defensible space zone are located within the 130-acre unit. Treatments would include hand thinning of trees and brush chipping, and pile burning. West Side SU5 – Unit is adjacent to Mono Village Resort. Treatments in this 80-acre unit would include hand thinning of trees and brush, pile burning; and underburning. Thinning would be accomplished through the use of a commercial firewood contract. Fuels reduction treatments and commercial firewood removal would be contingent on obtaining access through private property. SU6 – Unit is adjacent to Mono Village Resort and to Forest Service recreational residence cabins. Treatments in the 2-acre unit would consist of hand thinning of brush and trees and pile burning. Thinned trees may be made available as fuelwood. SU7 – Unit is adjacent to the northern portion of Lower Twin Lakes summer home area. Treatments in this 15-acre unit would include mastication of brush and small trees along Twin Lakes Road and private property boundaries.

14 Twin Lakes Fuel Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

Map 2. Twin Lakes Fuel Reduction Project Treatment Units.

15 Twin Lakes Fuel Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

It is anticipated that 5 to 10 years may be needed to complete fuel reduction activities in all proposed treatment units. Many treatment units would receive more than one type of treatment over a period of years. For example, thinning may be followed by prescribed burning and/or mechanical treatment of brush.

Maintenance Treated areas would require maintenance to sustain open conditions. Without maintenance conifer and brush regeneration would eventually put the stand at a risk from insect, disease, high severity wildland fire, and competition related mortality. Maintenance may include repeated treatments to remove ladder and surface fuels and maintain the treated areas. Maintenance may occur on any area that received initial treatment and would be based on monitoring results. Maintenance may include mastication, additional thinning, piling and burning, or underburning. Maintenance may occur within three years of the initial treatment and would continue, as needed for at least 10 years.

Education A focused effort would be made to provide education and interpretation about fire and its natural role in the environment, and the risks associated with a WUI area. This effort may include brochures and message panels, information posted to the Forest website, walks and talks, and other meaningful educational and interpretive efforts. Educational programs may be presented at homeowner meetings, campgrounds, along the Twin Lakes Road, at the Bridgeport Ranger Station, and/or in the town of Bridgeport.

Design Features In response to public comments on and specialist analysis of the proposal, project design features were developed to mitigate some of the potential impacts the proposed action may cause. These features would apply to the proposed action, in additional to all other applicable Forest Plan standards and guidelines and other relevant direction. Vegetation Retain all trees greater than 24 inches dbh, except where removal is necessary for operational safety. Pile burning would not occur within aspen stands. Fuels The Forest Service would collaborate with those who hold special use permits for recreation residences and other developments on NFS lands to implement the 100–foot defensible space treatments. Special use permittees would have primary responsibility for fuels reduction actions on the area authorized for their use. The Forest Service would take the lead for implementation of fuels reduction activities on the area surrounding the special use permit lot or site, including the 100-foot zone, if it exceeds the perimeter of the special use lot or site In units adjacent to recreational residence sites, some special use permittees have already completed light fuels reduction work, such as trimming trees and shrubs or clearing plant litter. Proposed fuels reduction activities would be designed to complement work already completed by the permittees or by private landowners. Fire Prescribed fire would be conducted in late fall to early spring, and would not occur during the height of visitor use and the tourist season.

16 Twin Lakes Fuel Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

All federal, state, and local regulations pertaining to prescribed burning would be followed. A news release would be distributed to media contacts and the public prior to prescribed burning. An annual newsletter will be sent to Twin Lake’s area homeowner associations to inform them of fuels reduction activities planned for the year. All burning will take place under the guidelines set forth in a prescribed fire burn plan developed specifically for this project area. Prescribed burn plans will address parameters for weather, air quality, contingency resources, and potential escapes. Prescribed underburning will be accomplished by applying low to moderate intensity fire using hand-firing methods. Fire control handlines would be constructed as needed within the project area boundary for holding actions and/or to protect resource area concerns. Existing roads, trails, creek drainages, wet meadows, rocky outcrops, and other natural barriers would be used as fire control lines where possible. Handlines would be rehabilitated post-fire. Where there are excessive amounts of slash around designated leave trees, slash may be pulled back to reduce scorch and/or mortality during burning. Piles will be ignited by hand generally during late fall or early winter, when recreation use has lessened. Air Quality Prior to prescribed fire operations (e.g. pile and underburning), appropriate permits would be obtained from Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control Board and a Prescribed Fire Burn Plan and Smoke Management plan will be prepared. “Burn” or “No Burn” day conditions would be adhered to, as determined by the California Air Resources Board. Prescribed fire operations would be conducted when meteorological conditions favor minimal nuisance smoke in developed areas of Twin Lakes. The Forest Service would have a contingency plan identified to reduce smoke emissions. The contingency plan would be implemented if the Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District determines that acceptable limits of smoke are exceeded. Water and Soils Generally, ground-based equipment would operate on slopes less than 35 percent (30% on decomposed granite soils), except for pitches of 150 feet or less. However, ground-based operations may occur on slopes up to 50 percent; these operations would be designed on a unit-by-unit basis only after soil stability, soil rock content, and the location of the steep slope in relation to the remaining portions of the treatment unit have been determined to be appropriate by the Forest Service. Equipment exclusion zones would be established within 50 feet of a seasonal stream and 100 feet of perennial streams and waterbodies. Ground-based equipment would stay on established stream crossings. Motorized equipment will not be used when soils are saturated. No trees would be removed where they provide stream bank or lakeshore stability. Pile burning would be minimized in riparian conservation areas. In addition: No piling or burning within 25 feet of a water course

17 Twin Lakes Fuel Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

Place piles in a non-linear pattern in each unit where possible. Maximize the distance between piles to the extent feasible, maintaining 20 feet average spacing between piles. No more than 30 percent of the riparian conservation area may be occupied by piles. No more than 15 percent of the riparian conservation area would be burned in any year. Avoid direct lighting within riparian vegetation; underburns may back into riparian vegetation areas. Where fuel conditions allow, 5 to 10 tons per acre of coarse woody debris, greater than 3 inches in diameter, will be retained. Wildlife General Wildlife Leave three of the largest snags per acre (SNFPA pg. 51). When possible plan treatments in the late summer, fall, and early winter to avoid impacts to breeding birds (best treatment periods are September to February). Retain downed woody debris in the largest class size and in decay classes 1, 2, and 3 (SNFPA pg. 29). Bald Eagle Do not cut within 330 feet of nest tree documented in 2010 (USDI 2007b). Check treatment units prior to removal of large trees for the presence of eagle nests. If nests occur, determine occupancy. If nesting is documented:  Avoid removal of overstory trees within 330 feet of the nest at any time (USDI 2007b).  Avoid timber harvesting operations within 660 feet of the nest during the breeding season from January 1 to August 30 (USDI 2007b).  Selective thinning and other silviculture management practices designed to conserve or enhance habitat, including prescribed burning close to the nest tree, should be undertaken outside the breeding season. Precautions such as raking leaves and woody debris from around the nest tree should be taken to prevent a crown fire or fire climbing the nest tree. During the breeding season, burning activities should only be conducted when neither adult eagles nor young are present at the nest tree (i.e., at the beginning or end of the breeding season, either before the particular nest is active or after the young have fledged from that nest). Appropriate federal and/or state biologists should be consulted before any prescribed burning is conducted during the breeding season (USDI 2007b). Northern Goshawk Mechanical treatments may be conducted to meet fuels objectives in protected activity centers (PACs) located in WUI defense zones. In PACs located in WUI threat zones, mechanical treatments are allowed where prescribed fire is not feasible and where avoiding PACs would significantly compromise the overall effectiveness of the landscape fire and fuels strategy. Mechanical treatments should be designed to maintain habitat structure and function of the PAC (SNFPA, Standard and Guideline 72).

18 Twin Lakes Fuel Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

Maintain a limited operating period, prohibiting vegetation treatments within approximately 0.25 mile of the nest site during the breeding season (February 15 to September 15) unless surveys confirm that northern goshawks are not nesting (SNFPA, Standard and Guideline 76). The limited operating period may be waived for vegetation treatments of limited scope and duration, when a biological evaluation determines that such project is unlikely to result in a breeding disturbance (SNFPA, Standard and Guideline 77). Sierra Nevada Red Fox If a den is located within the project area, apply limited operation period (January 1 to June 30) to avoid adverse impacts to potential breeding (SNFPA, Standard and Guideline 32). American Marten Retain an average of three down logs per acre for wildlife habitat. Minimum down log size will be 15 inches in diameter at the large end and at least 15 feet long (USDA Forest Service 1986). If a den is located, protect marten den site buffers from disturbance from vegetation treatments with a limited operating period (May 1 to July 31). The limited operating period may be waived for individual projects of limited scope and duration, when a biological evaluation documents that such projects are unlikely to result in a breeding disturbance considering intensity, duration, timing, and specific location (SNFPA, Standard and Guideline 88). Mule Deer Leave 1-3 acre untreated pockets of bitterbrush and sagebrush. Avoid disturbance in key deer areas during fawning season (mid-June to mid-July). Concentrate thinning activities along roads to increase visibility, which will decrease animal fatalities due to vehicles. Migratory Birds When possible, treatments will be timed to avoid potential destruction of migratory bird nests or young birds. If treatments are planned during the breeding season (May 15-August 30), a qualified biologist will survey the area prior to treatment. If nests or evidence of nesting is observed, a protective buffer will be delineated to prevent destruction or disturbance to nests until they are no longer active. Plants Pile burn at least 25 feet from rock outcrops to avoid impact to Orthotrichum species (common name moss). Noxious/Invasive Weeds Treatments should be planned in such a manner as to avoid the spread of cheatgrass. Where vegetation appears to be moving towards a cheatgrass dominated site, other options will be evaluated to meet the goals of fuel reduction while maintaining native plant dominated communities. To reduce contamination and seeding of noxious/undesirable weeds, all contractor vehicles and equipment are required to be washed, with emphasis on undercarriages, prior to entering NFS lands.

19 Twin Lakes Fuel Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

Scenic Resources and Recreation The following criteria would be applied to maintain the greatest degree of visual quality that is feasible while still achieving fuel reduction objectives: Forested Areas Flush cut stumps and possibly further conceal them with dirt/duff if prominent within 50 feet of critical viewpoints such as main arterial roads, trails, campgrounds, and resorts. Visual screening and views from homes will be considered when marking units for treatment. Recreation staff and/or a landscape architect will be consulted during layout design, and prior to thinning activities near NFS trailheads, recreation residences, and campgrounds. Try to retain isolated clumps of smaller diameter trees or shrubs for visual and noise screening near private land. Thin forest vegetation to achieve a more attractive, open and diverse condition that is more consistent with the historic range of the project area scenery, emphasizing the presence of aspen and large conifer trees (<24”dbh) in a clumpy and irregular distribution. Achieve a Partial Retention Visual Quality Objective (VQO) within the treatment boundaries. This VQO provides for management activities to remain visually subordinate to the characteristic landscape. Partial Retention should be accomplished as soon after treatment completion or at a minimum within the first year of completion. Within 150 feet of trails, trailheads, campgrounds, and resorts, if leave trees are marked they will be marked on the backside so paint will not be visible to recreationists. Retain natural appearing large snags and down logs when they do not pose public safety hazards. Shrubland Vary the width of the area of treatment on each side of the road. Do not create a constant width in areas of high visual sensitivity (i.e., Twin Lakes Road). Mosaics and natural appearing patterns will be used as much possible. Retain a diversity (size, age, and growth stages) of shrub and ground cover species. Cultural Resources Sites determined eligible or left unevaluated for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) will be flagged for avoidance including an appropriately buffer, and monitored during project implementation. Care will be given in choosing the location of pile burn areas so they will not impact eligible sites. All operations would be stopped adjacent to sites if additional cultural resources are identified during project activities until examined by an archeologist. These properties will be treated as unevaluated for the NRHP, and avoided as if eligible. If determed eligible or left unevaluated, historic arboglyphs will be avoided. Avoidance of eligible or unevaluated sites during a prescribed burn will be implemented by either wet lines, hose lays and pumping, or a constructed fire line. Inadvertent discoveries of cultural resources during project activities will result in stopping project activities in the immediate area surrounding the discovery. If a grave, burial, human

20 Twin Lakes Fuel Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

remains or artifacts thought to be associated with burials are part of the discovery, tribal notification will be made according to procedures outlined in the Native American Graves and Repatriation Act.

Monitoring This project would use an adaptive management approach, where the treatments are implemented, monitored, and adapted. Monitoring would determine if the project objectives are being met. Adjustments to project prescriptions based on monitoring within the general scope of the proposed action analyzed in this document would not need a new decision. Any adjustments outside the scope of the proposed action would likely require a new decision. Monitoring actions would include those discussed in Table 1. Table 1. Monitoring Actions

Action Method Timing Evaluate the effectiveness of fuels Photo points Pre and post project treatments in meeting resource objectives Evaluate burning conditions, fuel Observations during and after burns During and post burn consumption and fire effectiveness Meet the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Lahontan Region Submit appropriate timber harvest Pre and post project conditional waiver of waste discharge waiver requirements Monitor cheatgrass abundance in shrub treatment units before and after Field Visits and inspections Pre and post treatments treatments. Ensure eligible or unevaluated archeological sites are not impacted; monitor activities within archaeological Field visits Pre, during, and post project sites or within 30 meters of their boundaries. Ensure terms of permits and contracts are implemented to meet project objectives Field visits and inspections During and post project and design features Comparison of Alternatives ______This section provides a summary of the effects of implementing each alternative. Information in Table 2 is focused on activities and effects where different levels of effects or outputs can be distinguished quantitatively or qualitatively among alternatives. Table 2. Comparison of Effects by Alternative.

Issue No Action Proposed Action Low risk for escaped prescribed Potential for escaped fire. Probability of an escaped No effect. prescribed fire prescribed fire would be mitigated by prescribed burn plan. Increased potential for stand- Potential for replacing wildfire which would noxious/invasive weed Low risk of invasion. increase the possibility of invasion/spread spread/invasion.

21 Twin Lakes Fuel Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

Issue No Action Proposed Action Potential short-term impacts to soil and water quality from ground Increased risk of high severity disturbing activities. Impacts would Effects on soil and water wildfire could result in adverse be minimized through impacts to soil and water quality. implementation of project design features. No short-term effects. Long-term Short-term impacts from risk of degradation of habitat disturbance during treatments. Effects to wildlife and quality and loss of habitat due to Long-term improvement of habitat wildlife habitat potential for stand-replacing quality and decreased risk of loss wildfire. of habitat due to wildfire. Short-term impacts to opportunities for solitude and primitive recreation during implementation. Potential No effect to wilderness character or Effect on IRAs impacts to undeveloped character roadless characteristics. of IRAs with the use of motorized equipment within the IRAs. No impacts to roadless characteristics. With project design features, Increased risk of wildfire and insect significant effects to National infestations of trees could lead to Effects on cultural Register eligible and unevaluated increased tree fall and soil resources sites would be avoided. Non- disruption around archeological eligible sights would likely be sites. impacted.

22 Twin Lakes Fuel Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

CHAPTER 3: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT/ ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

This chapter provides a summary of the key environmental effects of the proposed action. The resource specialist reports, which disclose the full analysis of the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects, are incorporated by reference and are available in the project file located at the Bridgeport Ranger District office. Each resource area discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects for that resource area. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) defines these as: Direct: Effects which are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place. Indirect: Effects that are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. Cumulative: According to the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations, “cumulative impact” is the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes such actions (40 CFR 1508.7). Past activities are considered part of the existing condition and are discussed in the Affected Environment (existing condition) and Environmental Consequences section under each resource. The CEQ issued an interpretive memorandum on June 24, 2005, regarding analysis of past actions, which states, “agencies can conduct an adequate cumulative effects analysis by focusing on the current aggregate effects of past actions without delving into the historical details of individual past actions.” In order to understand the contribution of past actions to the cumulative effects of the proposed action and alternatives, this analysis relies on current environmental conditions as a proxy for the impacts of past actions. This is because existing conditions reflect the aggregate impact of all prior human actions and natural events that have affected the environment and might contribute to cumulative effects. Ongoing activities that would contribute to cumulative effects include: Personal use Christmas tree permits. Private land development including new homes. Recreational use – primarily hiking, camping, picnicking, mountain biking, OHV use, cross-country skiing and snowmobile use. Hazardous fuels reduction projects planned on private lands. Vegetation ______

Affected Environment The present forest developed under conditions unique to the last 100 years, which strongly influenced its structure and species composition. Early influences of logging, grazing, plentiful precipitation, and suppression of wildfires played a strong role in shaping the vegetation that exists today. The Sierra Nevada Framework identifies the project area as general forest (USDA Forest Service 2004). Vegetation within the project area is mostly comprised of shrub areas, interspersed with conifer and aspen stands, and meadows. Shrub species also occur in the understory of conifer, aspen, and meadows. Within the project area, approximately 82 percent is shrub cover, 9 percent is conifer cover, 5 percent is aspen cover, 2 percent is hardwood cover, 2 percent is barren (rocks and open areas) and less than 1 percent is herbaceous cover.

23 Twin Lakes Fuel Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

The shrub cover is mostly comprised of sagebrush (Artemisia sp.), with some bitterbrush (Purshia sp.), snowbrush ceanothus (Ceanothus velutinus) and mixed chaparral. Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) is also present in the project area, with higher populations occurring on south-facing slopes. The conifer cover is mostly comprised of Jeffrey pine (Pinus jeffreyi), white fir (Abies concolor), and mixed pine and fir. Incense cedar (Calocedrus decurrens), lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta) and western white pine (Pinus monticola) also occur scattered throughout the area. The hardwood cover is mostly comprised of curl-leaf mountain mahogany (cercocarpus ledifolius) with some willow (salix sp.) and riparian aspen (populus sp.). The herbaceous cover is mostly comprised of annual grasses and forbs, with a small amount of wet meadow. Approximately five percent of the project area is composed of aspen stands. Aspen is an important species that is deteriorating throughout the western United States. Aspen are short-lived, clonal species that require large amounts of sunlight (shade-intolerant) and moisture to regenerate. Healthy aspen stands contribute to the long-term land health and are an important component of ecosystem functioning (material cycling, succession, habitat, etc.). The aspen in the project area primarily fall in the successional to conifers type of aspen; this is primarily due to fire suppression. Conifers are out-competing aspen and reducing aspen size and vigor and reducing the diversity of suitable wildlife habitat. Healthy, stable aspen stands may contribute to fire protection by acting as living firebreaks from the more flammable conifer stands. Stable aspen stands are also an integral component to the total scenic setting in a viewshed and contribute to the recreational experience of many forest users. In 2010, stand examination was completed on approximately 110 acres within the conifer areas to collect fuels, vegetation, surface, and topographic data. Map 3 displays the areas where stand examination data2 was collected. Map 3. Stand Examination and Aspen Assessment Areas.

24 Twin Lakes Fuel Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

2 The stand examination data was utilized with the Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS) program to model treatments. Trees per acres (TPA), square feet of basal area per acre (BA), quadratic mean diameter (QMD), relative density and canopy closure were information utilized to complete the analysis in FVS. Basal area is the cross-sectional area of a single stem, including the bark, measured at 4 ½ feet above the ground. The QMD is the diameter of the average basal area per tree. The relative density is determined by dividing the stand density index (SDI) by the maximum SDI. SDI is a relative measure of stand density, as stand density increases so does density related mortality, insect and disease impacts and fire risk. The SDI was calculated by the FVS program; the maximum SDI for Jeffrey pine is 450 (Tappeiner II et al. 2007) and 759 for white fir. Some key relative densities include 25 percent which is when crown closure and the onset of competition begins; 35 percent which is when the stand is at the lower limit of full site occupancy and 60 percent which is the lower limit of self-thinning. Some stands also contained areas of aspen.

Table 3 displays the estimated trees per acre by species, modeled by Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS.) Table 3. Estimated Trees per Acre by Species for the Twin Lakes Stand Examination Areas. Western Total Location/ White Jeffrey Incense Lodgepole Mountain White Trees Comments Site Fir Pine Cedar Pine Mahogany Pine per Acre 37.1 216 49 265 38.2 94 21 83 198 Aspen also present 38.4 84 84 Aspen also present 39.2 289 13 16 318 Aspen also present 39.4 13 7 10 387 415 Aspen also present 39.5 98 80 114 292 Aspen also present 40.1 680 30 33 17 760 41.2 204 174 58 436 Aspen also present 48.2 23 262 285 48.3 446 169 615

Environmental Consequences No Action Direct and Indirect Effects Conifer Areas: The risk of a stand-replacing wildfire is a potential outcome over some or all of the area. Without the occurrence of a wildland fire, some stands would still be at risk to bark beetle and density related mortality. Relative densities, which range from 22 to 100 percent of the maximum, indicate the stands range from near the onset of competition to self-thinning, which indicates density related mortality would continue. In dense stands, stocking levels would remain high and stand vigor would continue to decline. Increases in overall stand diameters would continue to be minimal, due to over-stocked conditions and minimal stand growth. Conversion of some stands to more shade- tolerant species such as white fir would continue. Aspen Areas: Aspen stands would continue to decline in vigor and size and may eventually be replaced by conifer stands. Aspen are a disturbance species; without a major disturbance, such as fire or mechanical treatments, aspen suckering would not occur and the aspen stand would eventually die out. Aspen cannot regenerate in the shade produced by an established forest stand. For this reason, it can be replaced by shade-tolerant conifers, such as white fir, that become established under the shelter provided by the mature aspen stand. Other conifer species, such as Jeffrey pine, could also become established. If conifers continue to encroach upon the aspen community and aspen clones cannot sucker due to insufficient sunlight, the existing clones would eventually die out and the stand would be replaced by a conifer community. Once an aspen stand is allowed to die due to lack of disturbance, establishment of new aspen from naturally occurring seed sources is extremely unlikely.If a wildland fire were to occur, aspen stands may be enhanced by the removal of invading

25 Twin Lakes Fuel Reduction Project Environmental Assessment conifer trees. However, with the high conifer densities within many of the stands, wildland fires may burn at such high intensities that the shallow aspen root structures may be destroyed and the stand lost. With no action, aspen stands would continue to be encroached upon by conifers and without disturbance the aspen stands would eventually be lost, removing this ecologically important component. Shrub and Small Trees Thinning Areas: Shrub densities would remain high, with a continuous, interlocking shrub canopy layer with little to no sprouting. Desirable forage for wildlife species would be reduced as wildlife species prefer the younger, more succulent sprouts and stems. The fire risk would continue to be elevated due to the tall, continuous, interlocking shrub canopy layer, which can carry a surface fire into the crowns of trees. These dense shrub fields can also carry a fire between stands of timber and into residential areas. In some shrub areas, scattered trees exist within the shrub fields; these trees are generally small, dense, and have low heights to live crown. These trees would remain at an increased risk of mortality due to a wildland fire and would maintain slower growth rates due to shrub competition. Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects Conifer Areas: On approximately 200 acres, trees up to 24 inches in diameter at breast height (dbh) would be thinned from below. Residual basal area would range from 60 to 200 square feet per acre, depending on current densities and location. Table 4 displays the estimated trees per acre, basal area, relative density, and canopy closure of the stands within the stand examination areas before and after (proposed action) treatments. Table 4. Estimated Trees/Acre, Basal Area, Relative Density, and Canopy Closure Before and After Treatment in Areas where Stand Examination was Completed.

Stand Stand Total Trees/Acre Basal Area/Acre (sq. ft.) Canopy Closure (%) Number Acres Before After Before After Before After 37.1 11 265 97 97 78 36 26 38.2 7 198 29 63 61 24 18 38.4 15 84 46 90 89 29 21 39.2 9 318 61 245 120 53 23 39.4 5 415 79 167 116 67 33 39.5 4 292 43 158 99 62 38 40.1 7 760 76 247 152 67 42 41.2 12 436 85 195 93 59 28 48.2 35 285 67 274 206 67 54 48.3 5 615 49 178 131 54 32 Some stands currently have existing low densities, with large numbers of small diameter trees. Only the understory trees would be thinned in these areas. Other stands would have high densities after treatment; this is due to higher numbers of trees greater than 30 inch plus dbh. Some of these stands, such as 39.4, 48.2, and 48.3 (Table 5) may have lower densities in areas where there are fewer 30 inch plus dbh trees. Up to 3,000 hundred cubic feet (ccf) or 3,500 cords of fuelwood could be removed from the project area. This would not occur in any single year and would be spread out over the life of the project. Fuelwood removal would also be dependent on obtaining access to treatment units. Both commercial and public fuelwood removal contracts/permits would be used. Vehicles may be allowed off existing

26 Twin Lakes Fuel Reduction Project Environmental Assessment roads to remove fuelwood. Stumps would be flush cut to the ground to provide paths for private vehicles; these paths would be blocked after project activities are completed. Long-term sustainability of treated timber stands and resiliency to natural disturbances would improve and stand structures would be restored to be more representative of pre-settlement conditions. Tree stocking levels and fuel loading would be more consistent with historic fire regimes. Natural disturbance regimes for forest insects, diseases, and fire would be restored for approximately 20 to 30 years following treatment before stocking levels and fuels would increase to undesirable levels. Reducing tree stocking levels, adjusting tree species composition, and maintaining the largest trees would help to restore more historic stand conditions. Thinning from below would increase the average size of trees in treated stands following harvest; the majority of the large trees would be maintained in the treated areas. Generally, large trees would become more abundant in the future due to decreased mortality of existing trees and in-growth from younger trees. Retaining all trees within small clumps of three to six closely spaced trees would provide some additional structural diversity and vertical heterogeneity throughout the stands. Areas around the clumps of trees would provide small openings, allowing for regeneration and providing some horizontal and vertical diversity. Most stands would be two-storied after treatment. Thinning from below (also called low thinning) mimics mortality caused by inter-tree competition or surface fires and concentrates site growth potential on the dominant trees (Graham et al. 1999). In treated areas, relative densities would be reduced, providing growing space for trees. In some stands, densities would remain higher due to a high number of trees greater than 30 inches dbh, in these areas; relative densities would remain high. Tree species composition would change to reflect more historic conditions. White fir densities would be reduced and pine species such as Jeffrey, western white, and lodgepole pine would be increased. Aspen Areas: In areas where conifers are removed, an aspen suckering response is expected to occur. Competition for sunlight from conifers can be minimized by the elimination of the majority of the encroaching conifers from within the aspen stand. Removal of conifers from within the stand would provide sunlight and nutrients to allow the aspen to regenerate. If aspen suckering with approximately 3,000 aspen suckers per acre does not occur within three to four years after conifer removal, underburning or some other type of disturbance may be required to stimulate an aspen suckering response. Reduction or removal of conifer species would help to restore healthier stand conditions. Aspen is a disturbance-dependent species; therefore maintenance would be needed to allow for continued existence of healthy aspen stands. Maintenance would depend on the residual conifer reproduction and would include either periodic underburning or hand removal of conifer regeneration. Shrub and Small Trees Thinning Areas: Treatments proposed include thinning of shrub species; severity would depend on soils, location, and wildlife concerns. Some smaller diameter trees, less than 14 inches dbh would also be removed. The residual trees would have shrubs removed around them for a distance of approximately 5 to 20 feet. Shrub regrowth would become more vigorous, sprouting younger, tenderer sprouts. These sprouts would provide more desirable forage for wildlife species. Due to the reduced densities, reduced overall shrub heights and no continuous fuel layer, the flame lengths and fire severity would be reduced. Thinning of the small diameter trees and release from the shrubs would eventually increase residual tree diameters and resistance to fire by increasing the height to the live crown. This treatment would be effective for approximately 5 to 10 years before shrub levels would begin to increase to undesirable levels. Maintenance every 5 to 10 years would need to occur to maintain the shrub areas. Maintenance may include mastication, piling and burning, seeding, or underburning. Cumulative Effects: There are approximately 7,750 acres of NFS lands within the analysis area; of this, approximately 24 percent of the area would receive vegetation treatments through this proposal. Past and proposed projects on private lands include construction of homes and resorts, and hazardous fuels reduction projects. Ongoing activities on public lands include wildland fire, construction of

27 Twin Lakes Fuel Reduction Project Environmental Assessment summer homes and some clearing of hazard trees around some of these summer homes. These fuels reduction treatments on private and public lands would generally reduce the risk of wildland fires and move the watersheds toward more desired conditions. Fire/Fuels ______This fire and fuels analysis describes the fire and fuels relationship within the Twin Lakes Fuels Reduction Project area, and the effects of the alternatives on these conditions. Affected Environment The analysis area is approximately 7,750 acres, with treatments proposed on approximately 1,875 acres. Elevations range from 6,700 to 8000 feet in proposed treatment units. Average annual precipitation ranges from 12 to 38 inches. The proposed treatment units are located in the valley floor and along portions of the lower slopes of the canyon walls. The vegetation found within the project area is described in the Vegetation Section, Chapter 3. A risk assessment identifying priority levels for treatment in the WUI of the Mono County Wildfire Fire Protection Plan was developed, identifying high priorities for treatment. High priorities include (1) the Twin Lakes Road, the primary public road for ingress and egress to the Twin Lakes area, which runs through the center of the project area, and (2) private lands that contain residential development, including both yearlong and seasonal cabins, recreational facilities; and (3) a main powerline corridor. The proposed action focuses on these priority areas for treatment. Existing forest conditions pose high risks of stand-replacing wildfire due to high stand densities, a disproportionate number of trees in small diameter size classes, and high shrub densities. Other components such as steep terrain can contribute to extreme fire intensity and severity, which is measured by the amount of soil heating and/or vegetation mortality. These conditions increase the risk of loss of key ecosystem components. Approximately 80 percent of the treatment units are at a high risk of extreme fire behavior potential, putting people, property, and natural resources such as wildlife habitat and water quality at risk. Historical Condition and Occurrence In the Sierra Nevada, fire regimes varied historically across the landscape with elevation, precipitation, aspect, topographic position, soil conditions or site productivity, and vegetation (Skinner and Chang 1996; Fites-Kaufman 1997). Fire patterns can vary by individual watershed or landscape, even if they have similar vegetation. For example, the role of fire can vary with how the landscape is oriented relative to prevailing wind patterns. Drainages that are aligned with prevailing wind patterns would have more frequent, larger, or more intense fires than those that are sheltered from prevailing winds. However, rarely is there fire history data for each landscape, so generalizations on fire regimes are often made based on similarities in the landscape topography and vegetation. Compared to presettlement forests, contemporary Jeffrey pine/white fir forests have smaller trees, less structural variability and, on average, five-fold more trees. Density change differences are greater in Jeffrey pine/white fir forests than other forest types because of the key role of frequent fire in shaping presettlement Jeffrey pine/white fir forest structure. In general, the fire record demonstrates that low severity surface fires burned frequently (USDA Forest Service 2007). For the Twin Lakes Fuel Reduction Project, Bridgeport Ranger District fire history data were examined along with fire history data in Jeffrey pine fuel type from adjoining national forests and ranger districts. Between 1980 and 2011, 1,204 fires started on the Bridgeport Ranger District, with the majority of the ignitions from lightning. Over the years, large fires have occurred near the project area, with

28 Twin Lakes Fuel Reduction Project Environmental Assessment several fires reaching many thousands of acres in size. Within the project area, several fires have been kept small due to aggressive fire suppression actions. The oldest recorded fire records within the project area indicate a 1953 fire that burned 120 acres, a 1959 fire that burned 100 acres, and 2 fires in 1964 that burned 100 acres and 360 acres. More recent fires include a 200 acre fire in 1973, a 350 acre fire in 1977 and a 20 acre fire in 1997. Although fire may be considered natural in this area, it is the size and intensity of these fires that are of concern. Fires that incinerate the majority of the vegetation over extensive areas can have severe watershed and other environmental effects. In addition to directly threatening the local community during a wildfire, severe fire effects produced by intense fire may not be natural, or desirable in close proximity to human dwellings. The fire history of the Bridgeport Ranger District coupled with severe weather patterns and current forest conditions suggests that future wildfire events are inevitable and could result in considerable loss of property and natural resources, as well as threaten the lives and safety of firefighters and residents. The eastern Sierra has evolved with fire. The mixture of forest types found in the Sierra developed under a variety of fire regimes, varying with moisture, temperature, and vegetation composition. Historically, fire frequently burned throughout the project area, usually within a 6 to 15 year mean fire return interval (Baisan 1997). These high frequency and low-intensity fires served to minimize regeneration of tree and shrub species, creating a mosaic pattern of tree densities and typically leaving large fire resistant trees undamaged. However, management activities such as fire suppression, timber harvesting, and grazing programs have had significant effects on vegetation and fire regimes within the project area, leading to an increase in vegetation and wildland fire risk. Fire Regime Fire regime is a description of the role fire plays in an ecosystem in the absence of modern human mechanical intervention, but including the influence of aboriginal burning (Agee 1993). Five primary fire regime groups have been developed (Hardy et al. 2001; Schmidt et al. 2002). These are coarse scale and simplified categories that assist in understanding the ecological fundamentals of the biotic systems (livings things that shape an ecosystem) that occur on this landscape, and their previous relationship with fire as a process which acted upon them at different frequencies and resulting severities for thousands of years. Fire Regime I: This system includes the lower and mid-elevation forested plant associations, Jeffery pine and white fir. This regime historically had a frequent fire return interval of 0-35 years preventing high fuel loadings and producing limited layers within the system. The net result was more frequent and lower intensity fires. Fire Regime II: This system is also in the lower to mid-elevation range; however, it includes grassland plant associations. These regimes have a high fire return interval (0-35 years) with a mix of low and high severity fires. This system includes pinion/juniper, mountain mahogany, and other dry mountain shrub species. Fire Regime III: This system consists of forest plant associations located at mid-elevation. Species found there are consistent with higher moisture availability such as Douglas fir, higher elevation bunch type grasses, and forbs. The fire return interval is 35 to 100+ years with a mix in fire severity. Stand replacement fires may occur but are usually rare events. This regime is typically a heterogeneous landscape; a landscape characterized by large acreages of the same vegetation type, of a similar age, and stand size. Fire Regime IV: This system is characterized by forested species at mid to high elevation. White bark pine and subalpine fir plant associations are included within this group. This regime is generally

29 Twin Lakes Fuel Reduction Project Environmental Assessment considered as having a fire free period of 100+ years, which usually results in a stand replacement, high-intensity fire occurrence. Fire Regime V: This is a high elevation system, and the plant associations depend on high local moisture availability. Due to the very long fire return interval in excess of 200 years, this regime is generally considered fire free. Rock, lack of fuels, and other combinations of the physical setting typically inhibits the spread of fire. Condition Class The condition of the fuels environment is described in terms of departure from a historical state. Three condition classes are utilized as a qualitative measure of departure (or lack) of the “historical” fire interval and the natural range of variability. Condition Class 1 areas are generally within or near the historical range and do not predispose the system to risk of loss of key ecosystem components. Vegetation groups are intact and functioning within the natural range of variability. Condition Class 2 areas develop as one or more fire return intervals miss resulting in continued growth of understory and species reproduction. Vegetation composition and structure have moderate departure from the natural range of variability and are predisposed to risk or loss of key ecosystem components. Fires would burn with greater intensity making them difficult to suppress and would result in changes in biodiversity, soil productivity, and water quality. Condition Class 3 can be described as significant departure from the natural range of variability and predispose the system to a high risk of loss of key ecosystem components. Large-scale insect damage and disease are usually present, and may become uncharacteristic while increasing available fuels. Extreme fire behavior is typical with this departure state, and usually would result in a complete stand replacement occurrence. The Twin Lakes project area has a variety of condition classes. The following table displays the estimated current condition classes for the treatment units. One of the goals of the project is to help return the area to a more historic condition class, which would fall into classes 1 and 2. This table helps illustrate that over half of the acres in the treatment units have missed two or more fire return intervals. Table 5. Estimated Current Condition Classes within Proposed Treatment Units. Approximate Condition Class Fire Regime Historic Fire Return Interval Condition Class Percentages within Treatment Group Units I 0-35 years 1 10% = 188 acres I 0-35 years 2 20% = 375 acres II 0-35 years 2 20% = 375 acres II 0-35 years 3 40% = 749 acres III 35-100+ years 3 10% = 188 acres IV 35-100+ years 3 0% V >200 years 3 0% Total Treatment Acres 1,875 Fuel Conditions and Fire Hazard Fuel conditions vary widely throughout the project area. In general, many of the stands proposed for treatment are densely stocked with developed fuel ladders and increased concentrations of surface fuels. Fuel loading and arrangement within the treatment units varies considerably. The average total surface fuel loading over proposed treatment units range from 6 to 73 tons per acre with an overall average of about 37 tons per acre. Stands dominated by white fir have a higher degree of understory

30 Twin Lakes Fuel Reduction Project Environmental Assessment ladder fuels of small trees and low hanging limbs. With concentrations of dead fuels, individual trees or groups of trees may torch and fire may continue through the crowns aided by high winds. Ignition in many of these types of stands could produce high or extreme fire behavior, potentially damaging resource values and threatening private lands. Treatments that decrease surface, ladder, and canopy fuels are needed to make the area more resistant to stand-replacing wildfires. Stands throughout the project area have accumulated surface and ladder fuels that could threaten overstory trees in the event of a wildfire. High levels of tree mortality are predicted in the event of a high severity wildfire. A lack of fire has created forest and range landscapes with atypical accumulations of fuels that pose a hazard to many ecosystem characteristics. Fire exclusion has made it more difficult to fight fires, and this poses greater risks to firefighters and those who live in and around Sierra forests and rangelands. It is not a question of “if” a landscape will burn, but rather, when it will burn and how severe that fire will be. The following table displays information about various fire weather conditions and expected results under extreme fire weather conditions. Table 6. Historical weather conditions across a range of conditions (normal through extreme) from June 1 through September 31, 1970-2011. 50th Percentile 90th Percentile 97th Percentile Attribute (Normal) Severe (Extreme) 20-foot wind speed (miles/hour) 7 17 20 Temperature-max (degrees farenheight) 83 91 94 * Markleeville Remote Automated Weather Station (RAWS) The most commonly used software tool for predicting fire behavior in fire and fuels management is the BehavePlus fire modeling system. The BehavePlus fire modeling system is a collection of models that describe fire behavior and can be used to predict fire rate of spread, fireline intensity, and flame length under various fuel and weather scenarios. The program calculates fire behavior based on the Rothermal model, which is a mathematical model for predicting fire spread in wildland fuels (Rothermel 1972). The following table displays Twin Lakes Fire Behavior Runs. These runs are based on Fuel Model 6 and Fuel Model Tu5. Fuel Model 6 includes dormant brush and hardwood slash and best represents the sagebrush component of the project area. Fuel Model Tu5 is a model based on very high load dry climate timber and shrub and best represents the fuel loading of timber and shrub areas around Twin Lakes. Table 7. BehavePlus Outputs for Fuel Models 6 and Tu5. Current Condition Model 50th Percentile 90th Percentile 97th Percentile Normal Conditions Severe Conditions Extreme Conditions Attribute Fuel Fuel Fuel Fuel Fuel Fuel Model 6 Model Tu5 Model 6 Model Tu5 Model 6 Model Tu5 Rate of Spread (chains/hour) 5 2 20 7 25.5 8 * 1 chain = 66 feet Fireline Intensity (Btu/ft/s) 48 113 230 409 316 502 **Btu =British thermal units Flame Length 3 4 5.5 7 6 8 (feet) Fireline intensity is widely used as a means to relate visible fire characteristics and interpret general suppression strategies. There are several ways of expressing fireline intensity. A visual indicator of

31 Twin Lakes Fuel Reduction Project Environmental Assessment fireline intensity is flame length (Rothermel 1983). These flame length classes and interpretations are familiar to fire managers and are widely accepted as an intuitive communications tool. Table 8 compares fireline intensity, flame length, and fire suppression ability. Table 8. Fireline Intensity Interpretations.

Fireline Flame Interpretations Intensity Length Low < 4 feet Direct attack the head and flanks with crews; handlines should stop fire spread. Fires are too intense for direct attack on the head by persons using hand tools. Moderate 4−8 feet Handline cannot be relied on to stop fire spread. Equipment such as dozers, engines, and retardant aircraft can be effective. Fires may present serious control problems such as torching, crowning, and spotting. High 8−11 feet Control efforts at the fire head are likely ineffective. This fire would require indirect attack methods. Crowning, spotting, and major fire runs are probable; control efforts at the head are Very High > 11 feet likely ineffective. This fire would require indirect attack methods.

Environmental Consequences Table 9 and Figure 2 are based on stand exam information that was taken near Eagles Nest recreation residence sites and entered into the Forest Vegetative Simulator (FVS) model. The model provides data about changes to forest vegetation in response to natural succession, disturbances (i.e. fire), and proposed management actions. The total flame length, fire type, potential mortality, and canopy base height before and after thinning treatment were modeled using the Fire and Fuels Extension of the FVS model and are displayed in Table 9. Severe, 90th percentile fires were modeled using a 17 mph wind speed and 91 degree Fahrenheit. Without fuel reduction treatments (No Action) in the project area, the FVS modeling (Table 9) displays that high tree mortality, higher occurrence of crown fire, and flames lengths over 4 feet in length could occur. Table 9. Total flame length, fire type, potential tree mortality, and canopy base height of the stand examination areas before and after treatment.

Total Flame Length (feet) Fire Type Potential Mortality (%BA) Canopy Stand Moderate Moderate Base Acres Severe Fire Severe Fire Moderate Fire Severe Fire # Fire Fire Height Before After Before After Before After Before After Before After Before After Before After 37.0 11 49 2 2 1 Crown Surface Surface Surface 100 16 22 16 6 15 38.2 7 14 13 6 6 Passive Passive Passive Passive 90 89 50 45 4 8 38.4 15 48 38 3 1 Crown Crown Surface Surface 100 100 11 11 16 16 39.2 9 74 7 2 4 Crown Surface Surface Surface 100 51 13 6 11 36 39.4 5 16 7 5 5 Passive Surface Surface Surface 93 62 44 18 13 20 39.5 4 34 9 4 5 Passive Surface Surface Surface 97 79 26 11 7 27 40.1 7 105 61 56 4 Active Active Active Surface 100 100 100 7 6 8 41.2 12 66 4 3 3 Crown Surface Surface Surface 100 18 29 17 7 20 48.2 35 5 5 3 3 Passive Surface Surface Surface 16 6 9 4 7 51 48.3 5 22 8 2 4 Passive Surface Surface Surface 95 43 18 7 4 52

32 Twin Lakes Fuel Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

Figure2. Visual representation of stand 39.2, depicting No Action, the Proposed Action, and the effect of a simulated wildland fire under severe 97th percentile weather conditions.

As illustrated above, if treatment does not occur, all of the stands would have flame lengths above 4 feet making suppression more difficult. After initial thinning, the majority of the stands would continue to have flame lengths above 4 feet. Follow up treatments such as prescribed fire or chipping would reduce fuel loads, change the continuity, and reduce flame lengths. No Action Under no action fuels condition would not be altered in a way that would reduce fire behavior or its detrimental effects. Therefore, there would be no beneficial direct effects to fuels or fire behavior. With no modification of fuel loading and forest structure, fire behavior under normal, summer conditions would persist as described under the existing condition, threatening resources within the project area. Potential fire behavior characteristics are expected to be similar to those described under the Affected Environment. Over time, surface fuels would likely increase, trees and shrubs would continue to grow, and the fire hazard in the project area would increase, leading to an increasing likelihood of severe wildfire behavior. Many of the proposed treatment units are highly susceptible to passive crown fire (the torching of small groups of trees and from possible active crown fire and the vertical and horizontal

33 Twin Lakes Fuel Reduction Project Environmental Assessment movement of fire in the tree canopy). Wildfires that escape initial attack are likely to become large and damaging. Direct suppression tactics would not be as effective as compared with the Proposed Action. In the absence of any kind of human-caused or natural disturbance, fuels would continue to accumulate. The result would be increased surface and ladder and crown fuels that affect flame length, contribute to the torching of trees, and make crown fire more likely (Peterson et al. 2005, Graham 2004) (Table 9). Fire suppression would become more difficult and more costly as conditions worsen with time. This would increase the likelihood of a crowning wildfire of significant magnitude and intensity that could involve the WUI, adjacent private lands, and impact the Twin Lakes Road, natural resources, and important habitat. Whether fire occurs because of natural or man-caused events in this high use area, fire would likely be severe and intense, causing damage to vegetation, soil, watershed values, and infrastructure, resulting in damage to the values that draw people to this area (Figure 2). Cumulative Effects: Relevant recent past, current, and reasonably foreseeable future actions adjacent to this area are this fuels reduction project and fuels reduction projects conducted by the Twin Lakes Fire Safe Council on adjacent private lands. These projects could collectively modify potential fire behavior by reducing surface, ladder, and crown fuels that break up fuel continuity over the landscape. The No Action Alternative would cumulatively counteract the recent and past activities that have occurred, offsetting lower wildfire severity effects. It is also probable that a wildfire generated inside the project area would threaten private lands and residences adjacent to the project boundary. Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects: Proposed treatments are expected to reduce surface, ladder, and crown fuels thus reducing flame lengths, rate of spread, and crown fire risk. This would allow firefighters greater success in protecting important forest resources. By treating these stands and fuels, they would become more resilient to stand-replacing, high severity wildfire, protection within the WUI zone would become more manageable, and the ability of firefighters to safely suppress wildland fires would be improved. The Proposed Action would promote forest health, distribute beneficial fire effects, and reduce the risk from wildfire to firefighters and the public. National Forest System lands and adjacent private lands would be positively affected due to a reduced likelihood for large-scale, severe wildfires. Under the Proposed Action, stands would be thinned to create an environment where periodic low- intensity surface fires can be safely reintroduced. Proposed thinning would help reduce overcrowded forest conditions and enhance tree survival from insects, disease, and drought. Thinning methods would include thinning from below which generally removes smaller trees while leaving larger trees. This method can be accomplished by hand-operated power tools (i.e., chainsaws or by mechanical equipment). Treatments on NFS land would reduce fire intensity and crown fire potential, but may not directly protect all structures. Studies indicate that wildfire mitigation focused on structures and their immediate surroundings is the most effective at reducing structure ignitions (Cohen 1999, 2000, 2002; Scott 2003). Proposed treatments under this alternative would complement treatments being proposed on and currently occurring on private lands. While individual home-by-home treatments can help reduce the risk of loss of individual homes, relying solely on such treatments would forego strategic opportunities for controlling fires within this WUI area. Although homes in the path of a wildfire are perhaps the most immediately recognized value at risk, research has determined that treatments need to go beyond the home ignition zone for other resource values (Graham 2004). Cumulative Effects: The cumulative effects area boundary extends approximately one-half mile beyond the perimeter of the treatment area boundary and covers approximately 5,000 acres. This is

34 Twin Lakes Fuel Reduction Project Environmental Assessment considered adequate in size from which treatments could influence fire behavior on a landscape level and to address the issue of wildland fire and proposed treatment effectiveness in reducing home losses within and adjacent to the project area. This alternative combined with past activities would modify fire behavior on the landscape by contributing to the overall reduction of surface, ladder, and crown fuels, therefore reducing fire intensity and severe crown fire. Many private landowners have taken the initiative to reduce fuels on their own land. This alternative would help complement fuel reduction treatments on private land, promote forest health, and decrease the effects of severe wildland fire, reducing the safety risk from wildfire to firefighters and the public. Air Quality ______

Affected Environment The existing sources of particulate emissions within and/or near the Twin Lakes Fuel Reduction Project area include smoke from neighboring prescribed fire projects, residential wood stoves, and vehicular exhaust and dust. The Hoover Wilderness is adjacent to the project area and is considered a Class 1 airshed. Class 1 airsheds are granted special air quality protections under Section 162 (a) of the Clean Air Act (US EPA 1999). All of the project area falls within Mono County, California. Regulation for Mono County air quality falls under the jurisdiction of the Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District.

Environmental Consequences No Action If the project were not to occur, there would be no effect to air resources from treatment activities. However, in the absence of hazardous fuels reduction treatments, a high severity wildland fire may be likely. A severe wildland fire has the potential to result in higher amounts of smoke for longer periods and would likely occur in a season when the air is more stagnant and less atmospheric mixing occurs. This would cause short-term adverse air quality impacts from smoke emissions. Smoke from past large fires in the eastern Sierra has negatively affected the public health and safety of nearby residents and visitors, and prompted health warnings from air pollution control offices. The Angora Fire, which charred 3,100 acres near South Lake Tahoe in 2007, released an estimated 141,000 tons of greenhouse gases and the decay of the trees killed by the fire could bring the total emissions to 518,000 tons. This is equivalent to the greenhouse gas emissions generated annually by 105,500 cars (Malmsheimer et al. 2008). Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects: The project area is adjacent to the Hoover Wilderness. Smoke from prescribed fire could enter this Class 1 airshed under unfavorable meteorological conditions. For each prescribed fire, the Forest Service would have contingency plans identified to reduce smoke emissions. Contingency plans would be implemented when the Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District determines that acceptable limits of smoke are exceeded, and/or the Forest Service anticipates that the prescription for a prescribed fire would be exceeded. Given these conditions, it is unlikely that health risks from air quality would occur. However, smoke generated from prescribed burning cannot be prevented and could be an annoyance to some individuals in local neighborhoods as well as to travelers through the area. The Bridgeport Ranger District would work with adjacent national forests, the Bureau of Land Management, and local fire departments to ensure that multiple prescribed burns would not exceed air quality standards. Cumulative Effects: With the application of the design features described in Chapter 2, there would be no foreseeable cumulative effects to air quality.

35 Twin Lakes Fuel Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

Noxious Weeds ______

Affected Environment Noxious weeds are defined in Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2080.5 as “those plant species designated as noxious weeds by the Secretary of Agriculture or by the responsible state official. The objective of the weed risk assessment is to evaluate each risk factor, including all the proposed actions, for their potential to introduce and/or expand noxious weeds and other invasive species into the Twin Lakes Fuel Reduction Project area. Forest Service Manual 2081.02 and the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (USDA Forest Service 2004) require a noxious weed assessment be conducted when any ground disturbing actions or activities are proposed to determine the risk of introducing or spreading noxious weeds. For projects having moderate to high risk of introducing or spreading noxious weeds, the project decision document must identify noxious weed control measures that must be undertaken during project implementation.

Environmental Consequences No Action Under the No Action, existing recreational and residential use would continue which would result in the continued threat of invasion by noxious and invasive weeds. Cheatgrass an invasive is currently present in the project area. There are no known infestations of noxious weed species. If fuels reduction treatments did not occur, the project area would be left vulnerable to stand-replacing wildfire. Unmanaged wildfire could result in an increase in cheatgrass or an invasion of noxious weeds. Proposed Action Direct and Indirect Effects: The proposed action would provide a low risk for introducing or enhancing new or existing weed populations. No noxious weeds are currently located immediately adjacent to or within the project area. Design features, such as cleaning equipment before and after treatment, would help prevent the introduction of noxious weeds into the project area. The implementation of design features described in Chapter 2 would reduce opportunities for weed spread and expansion. Information gained from monitoring this and other projects is expected to further knowledge on local weed ecology thus enabling the Forest Service to better predict how management activities would influence the introduction and spread of weeds. Implementation of the Proposed Action could cause minor increases in cheatgrass after mastication treatments in infested areas. However, design features would minimize any spread of existing weeds and new weed introduction should be avoided by equipment cleaning measures. Cumulative Effects: Livestock grazing and recreation use when combined with the proposed fuels reduction treatments have the potential to contribute to the spread of noxious and invasive weed species across the project area. The Proposed Action when combined with existing recreational and residential uses in the project area, grazing, and past fires could pose a cumulative effect to spread cheatgrass or other weed populations. However, these effects would not differ from No Action where weeds spread by existing recreational and residential use would continue, and there would be a greater risk of a wildfire exacerbating cheatgrass or other weeds populations.

36 Twin Lakes Fuel Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

Monitoring for cheatgrass and noxious weeds will continue. Therefore, no cumulative effects are expected from implementation of the Proposed Action. Watershed ______

Affected Environment This project lies almost entirely within the Robinson Creek watershed. Robinson Creek originates in a series of high altitude lakes along the Sierra crest in the Hoover Wilderness. The stream flows east into Twin Lakes, and then downstream into Bridgeport Reservoir. Horse Creek and Cattle Creek, both tributaries to upper Twin Lake, also flow through the project area. A small area of the project is in the Summers Creek watershed. Robinson Creek, from Twin Lakes downstream to Bridgeport Reservoir, is listed on the California State 303(d) list of impaired waterbodies (LRWQCB 2007). The reach from Twin Lakes to Highway 395, which flows through a part of this project, is listed for pathogens. Annual precipitation in the general area ranges from approximately 30 inches at the high elevations to 10 inches in Bridgeport (Western Region Climate Center 2010). Most of this precipitation comes as snow between October and May. This area occasionally receives mid-winter rain on snow events and severe summer thunderstorms, which can result in heavy runoff. Soils in the treatment units near the lakes are till derived from igneous and metamorphic rock. The soils upslope are generally colluvium derived from andesite. The erosion factor K indicates the susceptibility of a soil to sheet and rill erosion by water. The K factor for the soils in the treatment units near Twin Lakes and Robinson Creek is low. The K factor for the soils on the slope above the lakes is also fairly low (NRCS 2011). The NRCS Web Soil Survey also indicates hazard of soil loss from erosion after ground disturbing activities of 50 to 75 percent. This report indicated the erosion hazard of soils in the treatment units was slight to moderate, while the erosion hazard on the upslope area is moderate to severe (NRCS 2011).

Environmental Consequences Direct and Indirect Effects: The use of ground-based equipment for thinning trees and masticating brush, and the use of prescribed fire can have impacts on soil and water quality. The direct and indirect effects of these actions can include soil disturbance and erosion, soil compaction, increased runoff, and sediment delivery to stream channels. The risk of impacts to soil and water would be reduced through implementation of best management practices (BMPs), which are described in the Design Features section of Chapter 2. The water and soils measures are designed to minimize soil disturbance and protect stream channels and riparian areas. These measures include equipment exclusion zones near streams, slope limitations for equipment, and minimizing pile burning near waterbodies. Direct and indirect effects from prescribed burning on soils and water quality can include loss of ground cover, increased erosion and runoff, increased water temperature and increased sediment delivery to stream channels (USDA 2005). The effects of fire on soil and water depend on fire severity and frequency, and on soil and site properties. Prescribed burns are designed to be low or moderate severity and generally burn in a mosaic pattern so that not all the vegetation is consumed. Riparian areas would be ignited on the outside edge so that the prescribed fire can back into the riparian vegetation towards the stream. Pile burning, concentrates heat on a small area and can have a greater effect on soil fertility and soil biota than underburning. Although the severe heating under the piles is damaging to the soil, only a small percentage of the total area may be affected (USDA 2005).

37 Twin Lakes Fuel Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

No Action Approximately 80 percent of the project area is at a high risk of extreme fire behavior potential. High severity wildfires can remove much of the vegetation, along with duff and litter from the forest floor. Wildfires are usually more severe than prescribed fire and, as a result, they are more likely to produce significant effects on soil and water quality. Following wildfires, flood peak flows can increase substantially, affecting stream physical conditions, aquatic habitat, and human health and safety (USDA 2005). Soil erosion would likely increase, along with streambank erosion from increased flows. Proposed Action The Proposed Action includes hand thinning trees, masticating small trees and brush, and prescribed underburning and pile burning on approximately 1,875 acres. Some of the treatment units are in close proximity to the lakeshore. Robinson Creek flows through the treatment area above Mono Village and the treatment area below the lake outlet. The effects to soil and water from masticating are minimal because the equipment operates over vegetation and leaves behind a layer of mulch. University of California at Davis and Integrated Environmental Restoration Services conducted a study on the west shore of Lake Tahoe in 2004 to determine the effects of masticating equipment on soil compaction, runoff, and erosion. The results of this study indicate that erosion effects from mastication are slight to insignificant when a layer of woodchip mulch is left on the ground surface (Hatchett et al. 2006). The effects to soil and water from hand thinning are also minimal because no ground-based equipment is used. Prescribed fire, including both underburning and pile burning, could occur on up to 750 acres, though it is likely that not all of this acreage would be suitable for burning. In addition, the use of prescribed fire could be spread out over a number of years. It is likely that some impacts to soil and water quality would occur from prescribed burning. Implementation of the project design features (Chapter 2) would lessen these impacts. It is anticipated that in the long term water quality and soil quality would be maintained. Cumulative Effects: Cumulative effects are caused by the aggregate of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Past, present and future activities and natural disturbances in a watershed can contribute to sediment delivery to streams, resulting in degradation of water quality and aquatic habitat. The Robinson Creek watershed, as delineated from the downstream edge of the project area, is approximately 29,000 acres. However, recreational use in the watershed is concentrated in a small area around the edge of Twin Lakes and Robinson Creek. There are three private resorts, Mono Village, Twin Lakes Resort, and Doc and Al’s, along with five Forest Service campgrounds and a recreational residence tract. The Twin Lakes housing development is adjacent to the lakes, and Rancheria is below the lakes along Robinson Creek. In addition, there are paved and unpaved roads and several trails in the watershed. The effect of these developments and uses is increased soil compaction and potential for erosion and sediment delivery to both the lakes and Robinson Creek. The proposed project is adjacent to these areas of development described above. As described in the previous section, there is a potential for some impacts to soil and water quality from the Proposed Action. These potential impacts, in addition to effects from the existing recreational and housing developments, may result in cumulative effects described above. Implementation of the project design features would lessen these impacts. It is anticipated that in the long term water quality and soil quality would be maintained.

38 Twin Lakes Fuel Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

Wildlife ______

Affected Environment The analysis area is home to a number of wildlife species including deer, bear, mountain lions, small mammals, raptors, and migratory birds. While the analysis area does provide habitat for many species, the habitat is in a degraded state due to historic wildfire suppression. The high stand densities in the coniferous areas decrease the quality of habitat for owls and other large raptors, as the dense stands make foraging difficult for large birds. The shrub densities in the non-coniferous stands are also high. While this can provide cover for some species, it can also decrease plant diversity as grasses and forbs are outcompeted by decadent shrubs. The younger, more succulent shrubs, grasses and forbs are often more desirable for wildlife as forage. Species considered in this analysis are listed in table 10. Table 4. Species Considered for Twin Lakes Fuels Reduction Project. Federally Listed Endangered Species Lahontan cutthroat trout* Oncorhynchus clarkii henshawi Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep Ovis canadensis ssp. Sierra Forest Service Sensitive Species Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus California spotted owl Strix occidentalis occidentalis Greater sage-grouse* Centrocercus urophasianus Mountain quail Oerortyx pictus Northern goshawk* Accipter gentilis Sierra red fox Vulpes vulpes necator Spotted bat Euderma maculatum Townsend’s western big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii townsendii White-headed woodpecker Picoides alborlarvatus Management Indicator Species American marten Martes americana Hairy woodpecker Picoides villosus Macroinvertebrates Mule deer Odocoileus hemionus Williamson’s sapsucker Sphyrapicus thyroideus Yellow-rumped warbler Dendroica coronata Yellow warbler Dendroica petechia Species of Interest Migratory birds Willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii * Also management indicator species Federally Listed Endangered Species Lahontan Cutthroat Trout Lahontan cutthroat trout (LCT) are not known to occur in the analysis area. They were not included on the list from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) of species with potential to occur in the analysis area. The nearest occupied habitat is over 3 miles from the analysis area in By-Day Creek. Because they are not found in the analysis area, LCT will not be discussed in the Environmental Consequences section. For additional information on LCT, see the biological evaluation in the project record. Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (2011) identified the Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep (SNBS) as the only endangered species that may occur in the analysis area. The analysis area contains a portion of

39 Twin Lakes Fuel Reduction Project Environmental Assessment the Twin Lakes herd unit and is adjacent to the Green Creek herd unit (USDI 2007a.) No SNBS have been documented in the Twin Lakes herd unit and no SNBS have been documented in the analysis area. The analysis area is not expected to be occupied by SNBS due to unsuitable habitats such as dense forests and shrubs, interspersed with roads, recreational residences, and popular campgrounds. The Green Creek herd unit has had incidental observations, however, SNBS are not likely to move through this herd unit to the analysis area due to lack of suitable habitat and heavy recreational use in the area. Forest Service Sensitive Species Forest Service sensitive species that do not occur in the analysis area and are not expected to occur due to lack of habitat include wolverine, fisher, pygmy rabbit, desert bighorn sheep, great gray owl, peregrine falcon, mountain yellow-legged frog, and Yosemite toad. These species will not be discussed in this document but additional information can be found in the biological evaluation located in the project record. Bald Eagle On the Bridgeport Ranger District, bald eagles have wintered at Twin Lakes, Topaz Lake, Poore Lake, and the West and East Walker Rivers. Eagle nesting has been confirmed at Twin Lakes and Poore Lake (Crowe and Pellegrini 2010, Davenport 2010). During the summer of 2011, it was discovered that the nest found at Twin Lakes during the summer of 2010 had fallen out of the tree. Repeated searches for a new nest at Twin Lakes were unsuccessful. After interviewing residents of the area, it appears that bald eagles were not seen at the lake during the summer of 2011. Winter bald eagle surveys occur yearly along the Twin Lakes Road. Bald eagles have been found along this road multiple times, but not every year and not always at the lakes. California Spotted Owl Spotted owl surveys were conducted on the Bridgeport Ranger District in the summer of 1992 and 2004. Areas surveyed in 1992 included Mill Canyon, Wolf and Silver creeks, and the Sonora Pass/Leavitt Creek area. No spotted owls were observed during any of these surveys. A spotted owl was heard in the Mill Canyon area (over 15 miles north of the analysis area) in 2011, but no nest was found. Based on surveys, lack of historical observations, and the patchy nature of the habitat, it is not likely that spotted owls nest on the District, but they could colonize suitable habitat in the future. Potential California spotted owl habitat consisting of large trees with high canopy cover and higher than average woody debris is scattered in small pockets throughout the analysis area, although little of this habitat falls in treatment units. These pockets are likely too small to provide suitable nesting habitat for spotted owls. No owl surveys were conducted for this project, but extensive surveys for northern goshawks overlapped with the potential habitat for spotted owls. No sign of owls such as feathers or pellets was observed. Greater Sage-Grouse The analysis area is in the Bodie Population Management Unit (PMU). The closest lek is 3.75 miles away (Lower Summers Meadow lek). Sage-grouse have been observed above Twin Lakes Resort on Sawmill Ridge outside the analysis area, and may use the area near Doc and Al’s Resort (Taylor 2011, personal communication). No sage-grouse or their sign were observed during wildlife surveys. Mountain Quail Mountain quail were observed in the western portion of the analysis area during surveys. Suitable habitat occurs throughout the analysis area. Primary threats to mountain quail include disturbance from livestock grazing and humans during breeding season (USDA 1991).

40 Twin Lakes Fuel Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

Northern Goshawk The Robinson Creek Protected Activity Center (PAC) is within the boundary of the analysis area. Surveys for goshawks in the PAC occurred in 2009, 2010 and 2011 where no goshawks or their nests were observed. One adult and one juvenile goshawk were detected in the PAC during a 2012 survey where nesting was inferred, but no nest tree was identified (Hodgkins and Lammers 2012). Additional surveys for goshawks in areas identified as potential suitable habitat using California Wildlife Habitat Relationships characteristics were conducted in 2010. This habitat was fragmented and too densely vegetated to provide quality habitat for goshawks. No goshawks or their sign were observed during these surveys. Sierra Red Fox Remote camera surveys for forest carnivores occurred in the analysis area during the spring and summer of 2011. Additionally, extensive remote camera surveys occurred both adjacent to and north of the analysis area from July 29, 2010 through spring of 2011. These units ran for a minimum of 28 days. Fox were not detected in or near the analysis area, with the nearest fox detection over 10 miles away. Survey methodologies for fox have not been tested enough to conclude absence from an area after the 28 day survey period. Ongoing research by University of California Davis is attempting to determine detectability, habitat use, range, and den locations. Townsend’s Western Big-Eared Bat and Spotted Bat Spotted or Townsend’s bats are not known to occur in the analysis area, but project specific surveys for bats have not occurred. There are no prominent rock formations or cave like structures in the treatment units, therefore roosting is not expected. Foraging could occur in the cliffs outside of treatment units. White-headed Woodpecker White-headed woodpeckers were found in the western most portions of the analysis area. Potential suitable habitat also occurs on the southern side of the lake in the pockets of conifer. Conifer areas account for approximately 200 acres of proposed treatments. Management Indicator Species American Marten Remote camera surveys for forest carnivores based on protocols in Zielinski and Kucera (1995) occurred in the analysis area during the spring and summer of 2011. Additionally, extensive remote camera surveys occurred both adjacent to and north of the analysis area from July 2010 through the spring of 2011. Martens were documented in the northwestern portion of the analysis area during the spring of 2011. Summer camera surveys in the analysis area did not document marten. Hairy Woodpecker The California Partners in Flight species account lists the hairy woodpecker as a fairly common resident in the eastern Sierra Nevada. Breeding bird survey data indicate that this species has an increasing trend in the Sierra of 1 percent for the period of 1966 to 2009 (Sauer et al. 2011). Point Reyes Bird Observatory (PRBO) has conducted bird point counts within the analysis area. They observed hairy woodpecker and confirmed breeding along Robinson Creek, which runs through the northwestern portion of the analysis area. Hairy woodpeckers were also observed in 2010 during surveys for willow flycatchers (Crowe and Pellegrini 2010). Macroinvertebrates Freshwater benthic macroinvertebrates or more simply “benthos” are animals without backbones that are larger than 0.5 millimeter (the size of a pencil dot). These animals live on rocks, logs, sediment,

41 Twin Lakes Fuel Reduction Project Environmental Assessment debris, and aquatic plants during some period in their life. The benthos include crustaceans such as crayfish, clams and snails, aquatic worms, and the immature forms of aquatic insects such as stonefly and mayfly nymphs. Macroinvertebrates are an important part of the food chain, especially for fish. Many feed on algae and bacteria, which are on the lower end of the food chain. Some shred and eat leaves and other organic matter that enters the water. Because of their abundance and position as "middleman" in the aquatic food chain, macroinvertebrates play a critical role in the natural flow of energy and nutrients. As macroinvertebrates die, they decay, leaving behind nutrients that are reused by aquatic plants and other animals in the food chain. Macroinvertebrates are likely present in the perennial streams located within the analysis area. Mule Deer The Bridgeport Ranger District has three main mule deer herds: Mono Lake, East Walker, and West Walker. Deer population information is gathered each year through aerial flights by the Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW) and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). The populations in Bridgeport are considered stable to slightly decreasing, yet considerably below levels seen in the late 1960s and 1970s (CDFG 1998). However, according to NatureServe (2007), mule deer are considered secure or demonstrably widespread, abundant, and secure in California. Declines in populations may be attributed to land management practices that have precluded fire, resulting in changes toward more mature and less diverse habitats, and to development leading to the loss of wintering habitat (CDFG 1998). The analysis area is occupied by the East Walker deer herd from April until mid-November most years (Taylor 2011). Important fawning habitat occurs in the analysis area, particularly in the northern parts. Williamson’s Sapsucker No Williamson’s sapsuckers were observed in the analysis area, but they were observed along By- Day Creek, Silver Creek, and Wolf Creek and confirmed breeding at all these sites (Heath and Ballard 2005). Yellow-rumped Warbler Yellow-rumped warblers are common on the Bridgeport Ranger District as confirmed by Breeding bird survey (BBS) routes, and surveys by both the Great Basin Bird Observatory (GBBO) and PRBO. Yellow-rumped warblers were found along Robinson Creek, which runs through the northwestern portion of the analysis area. Breeding was not confirmed at this location, but can be expected in analysis area. Breeding bird survey data indicate this species has had an increasing trend in the Sierra of 0.5 percent for the period of 1966 to 2009 (Sauer et al. 2011). Habitat for the yellow-rumped warbler is primarily found in the southwestern portion of the analysis area. Yellow Warbler This species is listed as a common or abundant summer resident for the east side of the Sierra Nevada (Sauer, Hines, and Fallon 2005). Breeding bird survey data indicate this species has declined by 1.4 percent in the Sierra Nevada from 1966 to 2009 (Sauer et al. 2011). Point Reyes Bird Observatory (PRBO) and GBBO have conducted bird point counts within the analysis area and yellow warblers were observed along Robinson Creek. Yellow warblers have been confirmed breeding on the Bridgeport Ranger District, but not in the analysis area (Heath and Ballard 2005). However, it is possible they breed in the analysis area as there is suitable habitat.

42 Twin Lakes Fuel Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

Species of Interest Migratory Birds Within the national forests, conservation of migratory birds focuses on providing a diversity of habitat conditions at multiple spatial scales and ensuring bird conservation is addressed when planning for land management activities. Migratory birds use all habitats within the Bridgeport Ranger District. In order to address impacts to migratory birds, focal species from the California Landbird Conservation Plans (CalPIF 2002) were used. The California Landbird Conservation Plans are also organized by habitat types found within the state of California. The analysis area contains the following habitat types: conifer, riparian, sagebrush, and sierra. There is potential nesting and foraging habitat for migratory bird species throughout the analysis area. Willow Flycatcher Surveys for willow flycatchers on Robinson Creek in the southwest portion of the analysis area were completed in 2009 and 2010. Surveys also occurred in 2010 and 2011 at Horse Creek adjacent to the southern portion of the analysis area. Willow flycatchers were observed nesting on the East Walker River within the former Rosaschi Ranch area, approximately 18 miles from the analysis area in 2005, 2006, 2009, 2010, and 2011.

Environmental Consequences No Action Under No Action, no vegetation treatments would occur. The area would continue to see an increase in vegetation density and in dead and down woody debris. Taking no action can benefit some species in the short term by providing cover and habitat for species that prefer these densities. However, in the long term, the risk of stand-replacing wildfire removing all habitats for these species is more likely. The analysis area is home to a number of wildlife species including deer, bear, mountain lions, small mammals, martens, raptors, and migratory birds. While the analysis area does provide habitat for many species, the habitat is in a degraded state due to the historic wildfire suppression or lack of disturbance. The high stand densities in the coniferous areas decrease the quality of habitat for owls and other large raptors, as the dense stands make foraging difficult for large birds. The shrub densities in the non-coniferous stands are also high. While this can provide cover for some species, it can also decrease plant diversity as grasses and forbs are outcompeted by decadent shrubs. The younger, more succulent shrubs, grasses, and forbs are often more desirable for wildlife as forage. Proposed Action Federally Listed Endangered Species Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep No adverse impacts to SNBS are expected from implementation of this project as no SNBS have been documented in the analysis area. Proposed fuel reduction treatments would improve habitat adjacent to the designated herd units. This treated habitat would become more suitable for SNBS colonization due to increased openings that allow for new growth of forage species. The risk of loss of habitat in herd units due to stand-replacing wildfire would be reduced by thinning in the treatment units adjacent to the herd units. Determination: Implementation of the proposed project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, SNBS, SNBS critical habitat, or SNBS herd units.

43 Twin Lakes Fuel Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

Forest Sensitive Species Bald Eagle Direct and Indirect Effects: Direct impacts from thinning and burning include potentially flushing eagles from foraging, roosting, and/or nest sites. This can decrease nest success, cause birds to abandon nests and decrease survival of eagles (USDI 2007b.). Direct impacts to nesting birds from treatment would be temporary and minor. Most treatments would occur in the fall; therefore, juveniles would be able to disperse to neighboring undisturbed habitat. The treatment of coniferous forest would occur in patches, over a period of several years, leaving undisturbed habitat available for dispersal during treatment. In addition, as only 22 percent of the analysis area would be treated, untreated habitat would also remain and would be available for dispersal during treatment. Similarly, winter treatments are unlikely as access to areas where eagles roost is difficult due to snow conditions. However, if an appropriate window for burning or thinning occurred in winter, roosting birds would be able to disperse to neighboring undisturbed treatment for the short period impacts might occur. Primarily small trees would be removed from the treatment units, therefore roost or nest trees would not be impacted. Treatments would retain the largest trees and large trees would become more abundant after treatment (Brinnand 2011). With the implementation of the design feature of retaining three of the largest snags per acre, future nest or roost trees would be protected. Surveys for eagles would occur prior to implementation in coniferous treatment units. Based on recommendations in the Bald Eagle Management Guidelines (USDI 2007b.), if nests are located, nests would be buffered by 660 feet during nesting season. Indirect impacts from loss or alteration of habitat could occur as a result of the treatments. Because the treatments are designed to thin conifers, leaving the largest healthiest trees, the alteration of habitat is likely to be positive for eagles. The removal of these trees and the clearing of underbrush would decrease the potential for stand-replacing wildfire which could remove eagle habitat all together from the area. Cumulative Effects: The main cumulative impact to the bald eagle is the recreational use of Twin Lakes and surrounding areas. The lakes are used by motorboats for fishing and recreational boating. Numerous hiking trails and roads intersect eagle habitat. While these activities could have decreased habitat quality, eagles have nested in the area despite these distractions. Eagles vary in their response to human disturbance, with some eagles accepting disturbance within close proximity to humans and others avoiding human activity (USDI 2007b.). Recreation may increase in the future as populations grow, but because facilities are near or at capacity, these increases would be limited. Because the project would not increase recreational use in the analysis area, the incremental impacts from other past, present, and future projects in the area are not expected to impact bald eagle populations. Determination: Implementation of this project may have minor and temporary impacts on individuals, but is not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability. California Spotted Owl Direct and Indirect Effects: Direct impacts from thinning and burning may include flushing spotted owls from nest sites and/ or foraging areas. However, disturbance to nesting spotted owls is not expected as they are not known to occur in the analysis area. Spotted owls typically forage at night when project activities would not be occurring. If undetected spotted owls occurred in the analysis area, any impacts are expected to be minimal as the majority of operations would occur in late summer and fall. Juvenile spotted owls present in these areas would likely be fully flight capable and able to disperse to neighboring undisturbed habitat. The small diameter tree thinning in treatment units would result in only minor disturbance to nesting owls as these areas are currently considered too dense to occupy spotted owls.

44 Twin Lakes Fuel Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

It is assumed that if spotted owls occur they are more likely to occur in the high quality habitat areas, which overlap with northern goshawk PACs. Indirect impacts from project activities within the PACS would be minimal and are expected to be beneficial. Treatment within PACS would consist of thinning thickets of small diameter trees currently considered unsuitable for spotted owls due to the density of the stands. Thinning of these stands would allow for freer movement and improved foraging capability for spotted owls within the breeding territories. It is expected that the treatment units would have two canopy layers, which retains important habitat characteristics for owls. Fuels treatments would lower the potential of a severe, stand-replacing wildfire and help protect important spotted owl habitat.

Spotted owls may occasionally use the analysis area for foraging and/ or traversing outside of the breeding season. In general, proposed treatments would result in more open stands with less understory vegetation. For example, according to current stand data, canopy cover percentages in proposed treatment units range from 24 to 67 percent. Under the proposed action, the canopy cover in treatment units would be reduced from 18 to 54 percent. Changes in canopy cover and stand densities within the analysis area are expected to have only minor indirect impacts to spotted owls. Under the Proposed Action, trees targeted for removal would be the smaller diameter trees that are competing with mature overstory trees. This design feature (Chapter 2), in addition to untreated pockets of stands in the analysis area, would help maintain adequate structure and canopy cover to continue to support foraging and traveling spotted owls in the analysis area. Other design features, including retaining three of the largest snags per acre and large down woody debris, would continue to provide structural integrity of habitat for spotted owls and their prey. Prescribed burning may result in some loss of down woody debris and understory vegetation which may impact habitat for spotted owls and/or their prey. However, retaining some large diameter down woody debris would minimize these impacts. Prescribed burning would reduce fuel loading in the analysis area and therefore reduce the potential for loss of habitat from a stand-replacing wildfire. Cumulative Effects: The most serious threat to spotted owls is loss of habitat which can result in a reduction of prey availability as well as suitable nesting sites (USDA 2001). Forest ecologists estimate that old growth forest conditions have declined in the Sierra Nevada 50 to 90 percent compared to historical conditions (Ibid). Minor thinning has occurred in the analysis area on private lands. The thinning of this area may have some indirect impacts to spotted owl habitat although it is expected impacts would be minimal due to the small scale of the project. Suitable habitat for spotted owls is limited on the Bridgeport Ranger District and occurs in a patchy distribution across the Sierra Front. Because spotted owl habitat is considered rare on the District, any loss of habitat would likely have long-term negative impacts to local populations of spotted owls. Currently, these old growth habitats are considered highly vulnerable to loss from stand-replacing wildfire due to the high fuel loading that occurs in adjacent areas. This project would reduce the threat of a large, stand-replacing wildfire fuels and therefore would reduce the potential for loss of important habitat for spotted owls. Determination: The proposed project may impact individuals but will not lead toward federal listing or a loss of viability for spotted owls. Greater Sage-grouse Direct and Indirect Effects: Impacts to grouse include being flushed from the area during mechanical treatments and burning, loss of habitat, and loss of connectivity to areas of use. Direct impacts to breeding birds are not expected because the nearest lek is several miles away and the grouse typically nest within 3-4 miles of leks. Treatments would likely occur in the late summer, after nesting is complete. Direct impacts to foraging birds would be minimal. Birds that are flushed would be able to move to untreated areas to avoid noise. Treatments are planned in 447 acres of

45 Twin Lakes Fuel Reduction Project Environmental Assessment sagebrush, while 2,929 acres are available in the analysis area. Heavy removal of sagebrush is only planned along road corridors, leaving large patches untreated. Enough brush would be left along roadsides to provide connectivity to the untreated patches. By leaving untreated patches, cheatgrass would have a more difficult time colonizing. The treatments planned would lower the potential for a severe wildfire, helping to protect sagebrush in the area. It would also break up the age classes of the sagebrush in the area, potentially improving habitat. Cumulative Effects: Cumulative effects to sage-grouse include grazing, recreation, development, and wildfire suppression. These activities can result in the loss or alteration of sagebrush vegetation, fragmentation of sagebrush habitat, destruction of sagebrush that provides foraging habitat, invasive species, and increased noise that would impact sage-grouse. Grazing can remove grasses that provide habitat for insects that grouse consume. It is not likely grazing has or would be a major impact on grouse in the analysis area. This area is not known to be a key area for grouse and is dominated more by bitterbrush than sagebrush. Similarly, while recreation and development has and can play a role in removing habitat for grouse, this project would not increase recreation or development. Wildfire suppression has increased vegetation in the area and in some places created decadent sagebrush and bitterbrush areas prone to more intense fire than historically occurred. This has decreased the suitability of the analysis area for grouse. This project is designed to decrease the potential for stand-replacing wildfire. The incremental impact of the project when combined with the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions would be minimal. Moreover, all future projects on NFS lands would be subject to mitigating measures to minimize impacts on wildlife, including sage-grouse and their habitat. Determination: Implementation of this project may impact individuals, but is not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability. Mountain Quail Direct and Indirect Effects: Direct impacts from thinning and burning include potentially flushing quail from foraging and/or nest sites and smoke inhalation. However because treatment units are relatively small compared to untreated habitat, any disturbance is expected to be minor and temporary and would not have long-term impacts on mountain quail. Inadvertent trampling of nest sites may occur from heavy equipment causing mortality of eggs and/or young birds. However, inadvertent trampling is expected to be minimal, as equipment would largely be confined to the roads. Adults nesting in the area may permanently abandon nest sites if the disturbance is too severe and/or ongoing. The majority of vegetation removal activities would likely take place later in the summer or fall when the majority of the nesting season for mountain quail is over. Both adults and juvenile mountain quail would be flight capable and would be able to disperse to adjacent suitable habitat during project activities. Thinning of small diameter trees and shrub removal may result in some loss of cover for mountain quail. This loss of cover habitat may compromise thermoregulation for mountain quail causing them to overheat and/or become too cold during extreme weather conditions. However, proposed treatment units would be relatively small compared to untreated habitat and impacts from loss of cover are expected to be negligible. Removal of the understory in treated stands would also reduce the availability of foraging habitat within the analysis area. However, impacts to habitat would be temporary as regeneration of forbs and grasses are expected following fuels reduction treatments and would eventually provide improved foraging habitat for mountain quail. Fuels treatments in quail habitat would lower the potential of a severe, stand-replacing wildfire. The reduction in canopy cover and change in structure following conifer removal may impact mountain quail by increasing their exposure to predators. However, the abundance of suitable cover adjacent to the analysis area would provide adequate refugia for mountain quail until the site has recovered. Therefore, indirect impacts to mountain quail from the Proposed Action are expected to be minor and short term.

46 Twin Lakes Fuel Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

Cumulative Effects: Primary threats to mountain quail include disturbance from livestock grazing and humans during the breeding season (USDA 1991). These activities both have and would continue to occur in the analysis area. However, because the negative impacts from the project are expected to be minor and temporary, the incremental impacts from other past, present, and future projects in the area are not expected to negatively impact quail populations. Habitat degradation from years of fire suppression would be improved with this project. Determination: Implementation of this project may impact individuals, but is not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability. Northern Goshawk Direct and Indirect Effects: Direct impacts from the project activities may include flushing northern goshawks from nest sites and/ or foraging areas. However, disturbance to nesting northern goshawks is expected to be minimal. Disturbance would not be likely as the majority of thinning operations would occur outside of the PAC. While treatments in PACs are allowed in the WUI defense zone (SNFPA Standard and Guideline 72), proposed treatments are limited to 50 acres of the 200 acres in the PAC. These 50 acres represents approximately 3 percent of the treatments proposed for this project and less than 1 percent of the analysis area. By treating only a portion of the PAC, areas of less suitable habitat are targeted and untreated areas of higher quality habitat remain available for nesting and foraging. The small diameter tree thinning within PACs would also result in only minor disturbance to goshawks nesting in proximity to treatment units as the units are likely too dense to be occupied by goshawks. Nesting surveys for goshawks would be conducted prior to implementing treatments in units within or adjacent to PACs during the breeding season (February 15 through September 15). If nesting activity were detected, a limited operating period would be implemented within a 0.25-mile buffer of the nest site for the duration of the breeding season. During this time, no project activities would be conducted within the buffer area. However, if northern goshawks were not detected, the limited operating period would be waived. While there may be some habitat alteration from the proposed treatments, much of this alteration is expected to be beneficial for northern goshawks in the long term. This is because treatment within PACs would consist of thinning thickets of small diameter trees currently considered unsuitable for goshawks due to the density of the stands. Minor thinning of these stands would allow for freer movement and improved foraging capability for goshawks within the breeding territories. While canopy cover would be reduced to less than the 60 percent preferred by goshawks, other requirements such as only removing trees less than 24 inches dbh and retaining two canopy layers would help maintain some of the characteristics needed in the 50 acres of the PAC proposed for treatment. The reduction in fuel loading would also help protect important habitat for goshawks by reducing the risk of stand-replacing wildfire. High Quality Habitat Outside of PACs Direct and Indirect Effects: Pockets of suitable habitat for goshawks also occur adjacent to the PACs, particularly along the southern edge of the analysis area. These pockets are relatively small and have high stand density; therefore, these areas are not expected to be used as nesting areas. No sign of goshawks was observed in these areas during surveys. Because of the connectivity to PACs, however, these areas may be used as foraging and/or dispersal habitat by adult and juvenile goshawks. Direct impacts to goshawks may result from thinning operations in this habitat. Noise from equipment and other activities may flush goshawks from perch sites. Juvenile dispersal may also be temporarily impacted by treatment activities as juveniles may avoid the most suitable habitat for foraging due to human presence. However, these impacts are expected to be minor and temporary due to the lack of suitable habitat proposed for treatment. Treatment is proposed in dense stands, not of high quality for goshawks. Adjacent undisturbed habitat would provide sufficient foraging habitat

47 Twin Lakes Fuel Reduction Project Environmental Assessment for adults to temporarily disperse to during project operations. Juvenile goshawks present in these areas would likely be fully flight capable and able to disperse to neighboring undisturbed habitat. Indirect impacts include those that have the potential to impact breeding and/or foraging habitat for goshawks within the analysis area. For example, changes in structural diversity, such as reduction in canopy layers or loss of down woody debris, may indirectly impact goshawks by affecting prey populations (Kennedy 2003). When over-harvesting of dead trees (snags) occurs, habitat for prey species such as woodpeckers, songbirds, and small mammals that rely on snags for nesting and foraging, may become limited. Carey and others (1992) showed that squirrel populations were more abundant and remained at relatively constant levels in old growth forests where snags and down wood were present in comparison to managed second growth stands. Under the Proposed Action, pockets of high quality habitat outside of the PACs would not be treated. Because it is assumed that goshawks are more likely to occur in these high quality habitat areas, indirect impacts from project activities would be minimal and would likely be beneficial in the long- term. Fuels reduction treatments in units adjacent to this high quality habitat would lower the potential of a severe, stand-replacing wildfire and help protect important goshawk habitat. Goshawks may use the remainder of the analysis area occasionally for foraging and/ or traversing outside of the breeding season. In general, proposed treatments would result in more open stands with less understory vegetation. For example, according to current stand data, canopy cover percentages in proposed treatment units range from 24 to 67 percent. Under the Proposed Action, the canopy cover in treatment units would be reduced to 18 to 54 percent. Most stands would be two-storied after treatment, leaving structural diversity in the stand. Changes in canopy cover and stand densities within the treatment units are expected to have only minor indirect impacts to goshawks. Under the Proposed Action, primarily smaller trees would be removed, with the larger, healthier trees to be retained. This design feature, in addition to untreated pockets of stands outside of the PACs, would help maintain adequate structure and canopy cover to continue to support foraging and roosting opportunities for goshawks in the analysis area. Other design features, including retaining three of the largest snags per acre and large down woody debris, would continue to provide habitat for goshawk prey such as woodpeckers and small mammals. Prescribed Burning Direct and Indirect Effects: Prescribed burning would also be conducted within the analysis area. Goshawks, particularly juveniles, may be impacted from smoke associated with prescribed burning. Areas of heavy smoke concentrations may impede lung development and the ability for goshawks to breathe. Impacts from prescribed burning are expected to be minimal because this activity would primarily occur outside of the breeding season and only 50 acres are proposed for treatment within the PAC. Goshawks would be able to disperse to adjacent areas not being burned and avoid the smokiest areas. Prescribed burning may result in some loss of down woody debris and understory vegetation which may impact habitat for goshawks and/or their prey. However, design features associated with the Proposed Action, such as retaining large diameter down woody debris would limit impacts. Prescribed burning would reduce fuel loading in the analysis area and therefore reduce the potential for loss of habitat from a stand-replacing wildfire. Cumulative Effects: The largest threat to goshawks includes the effects of vegetation management and wildfire on the amount, distribution, and quality of goshawk habitat (USDA 2001). Very little vegetation management has occurred within the analysis area. Some small-scale thinning projects on private land have occurred in the analysis area, but any impacts would be minor due to the size of the projects. Fires have occurred in the analysis area, but they have all been aggressively extinguished), keeping impacts from loss of habitat minor. However, alteration of habitat from years of suppression may have led to some of the pockets of habitat becoming less suitable. This project would reduce the risk of losing habitat to wildfire and may improve habitat in some areas for goshawks.

48 Twin Lakes Fuel Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

On the Bridgeport Ranger District, suitable habitat for goshawks is limited to small isolated stands of dense conifer and aspen dispersed along the Sierra Front. These stands are considered somewhat vulnerable to loss from stand-replacing wildfire due to the high fuel loading that occurs in adjacent areas. This project would reduce the threat of a large, stand-replacing wildfire fuels and would therefore reduce the potential for loss of important habitat for goshawks. In the long term, the project would also help improve habitat for goshawks by reducing overly dense vegetation in the PACs. Recreation in the analysis area may have decreased the suitability of habitat for goshawks. The analysis area is a busy recreational area, with many of the suitable pockets of habitat adjacent to heavy recreational use. Recreational activities both have and would continue to occur in the analysis area. However, because the negative impacts from the project are expected to be minor and temporary, and would not increase impacts from recreation, the incremental impacts from other past, present, and future projects in the area are not expected to negatively impact goshawk populations. Determination: The proposed project may impact individual goshawks but is not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability but will not lead to a trend toward federal listing. Sierra Red Fox Direct and Indirect Effects: Potential direct and indirect impacts to Sierra red fox (SNRF) from this project include foxes flushing from the area during treatment, and loss or alteration of habitat due to treatment. It is unlikely that fox occur in areas proposed for treatment. The habitat they have been found in on the Bridgeport Ranger District is more barren, less densely forested, and higher in elevation than the treatment units. Much of the analysis area is sagebrush or bitterbrush and would more likely be habitat for the gray fox due to elevation and habitat. The best potential habitat falls in the coniferous portions of the analysis area. Treatments are planned in approximately 200 acres of coniferous habitat. While unlikely, if undetected SNRF occur in the analysis area, adjacent undisturbed habitat would provide sufficient habitat for foraging during project operations. Because treatments would occur during time periods in which fox can move to avoid impacts, any disturbance would be short term and temporary. Dens are not expected to occur in the analysis area due to lack of talus slopes that provide natural cavities. Treatments are more likely to occur in the late summer and fall, when breeding is complete and young can better disperse. If through the ongoing research on the SNRF, a den were found, a limited operating period as delineated in the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (2004) would be instituted. Indirect impacts such as loss or alteration of habitat are not expected, as this area is not known to be habitat for fox. However, this project would alter approximately 200 acres of coniferous forest. This is a small amount of change compared to the amount of potential habitat available on the District. Treatments would not remove the habitat, but would improve stand structure and decrease the potential for stand-replacing wildfire that would remove the habitat altogether. Cumulative Effects: Cumulative impacts in the analysis area include recreation, development, grazing, and wildfire suppression. Recreational users and residents can leave food out while camping, hiking, and fishing. This use can lead to habituation and food conditioning of SNRF. Foxes that are habituated may beg or hang around developments, bringing them into contact with dogs that can spread diseases and bringing them near roads where they can be hit. Because black bear-human conflict is an issue in much of the analysis area, most of the campsites have bear lockers. Education efforts for both recreational users and residents are ongoing, minimizing the potential for this impact. Recreational developments such as resorts, campgrounds, and residential homes have removed habitat in the analysis area. Most of these residences have been in place since the 1930s. New residence building is limited as there is little private land available for development. Any new development is unlikely to have an impact on SNRF as the habitat is not expected to be of high quality for the fox. Grazing can change the habitat for prey species, limiting the food available for fox. Similar to recreation, it is not expected to have a big impact in the analysis area as the habitat

49 Twin Lakes Fuel Reduction Project Environmental Assessment that is grazed is not expected to be high quality for the fox. Wildfire suppression may have decreased the quality of the habitat for the fox by increasing the density of trees and downed wood. However, this project would improve stand health and decrease the risk of fire. The incremental impacts from other past, present and future projects in the area are not expected to negatively impact SNRF populations. It is unlikely SNRF use the analysis area due to lack of suitable habitat. However, as little is known about the SNRF on the Bridgeport Ranger District due to its recent rediscovery, it is possible SNRF may use this area. Treatments are not likely to impact denning fox due to lack of overlap between denning and treatment periods. The project would improve the health of the stand and reduce the likelihood of complete loss of habitat due to wildfire. Determination: Implementation of this project may impact individuals, but is not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability. Townsend’s Western Big-Eared Bat and Spotted Bat Direct and Indirect Effects: Spotted or Townsend’s bats are not known to occur in the analysis area; project specific surveys for bats did not occur. There are no prominent rock formations or cave like structures in the treatment units; therefore there would be no impacts to roosting bats. There are cliffs outside the treatment units, so bats could be foraging there. Treatment would not occur at night, so direct impacts to foraging bats are unlikely. Treatments would remove some conifers (approximately 200 acres) in areas that could provide foraging habitat. Primarily small trees would be removed, leaving the largest, healthiest trees in the stand. While this would change the stand structure, conifers would remain to provide foraging habitat. The Proposed Action would reduce fuel loading which benefits any species using the habitat by reducing the risk of stand-replacing fire that removes the habitat entirely. Cumulative Effects: Cumulative impacts to wildlife include grazing, recreation, and wildfire suppression. These activities can result in the loss or alteration of suitable roosting sites, fragmentation of habitat, destruction of vegetation that provides foraging habitat, invasive species, and increased noise that would impact bats. Grazing and the type of recreation that occurs in the analysis area have little impact on bats as these activities do not occur near roosts or hibernacula. Wildfire suppression has increased fuel loads in foraging habitat, but this project is designed to decrease the potential for stand-replacing wildfire by removing some of these fuels. The incremental impact of the project when combined with the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions would be minimal. Moreover, all future projects on NFS lands would be subject to mitigating measures to minimize impacts on wildlife, including any bats and their habitat. There are no roost sites in the analysis area. There would be minimal negative impacts from removal of conifers. Positive impacts include reducing the risk of losing habitats to stand-replacing wildfire. Determination: Implementation of this project may impact individual spotted or Townsend’s bats, but is not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability. White-headed Woodpecker Conifer Thinning and Mastication Direct and Indirect Effects: Direct impacts may result from thinning operations in suitable habitat. Noise from equipment may cause breeding or foraging birds to temporarily flush from the area. Impacts to breeding birds should be minimal as most treatment would occur in the late summer and early fall, after nesting is complete. In late summer and fall, foraging birds may be flushed from the area during treatments. Effects such as this are expected to be temporary and minor. Habitat adjacent to treatments would provide sufficient forage and during project operation white-headed woodpeckers would be able to disperse to avoid noise.

50 Twin Lakes Fuel Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

The primary threat to white-headed woodpeckers is over-harvesting of mature, large diameter trees, especially ponderosa (or Jeffrey) pine (USDA 1991). This project would primarily remove small diameter trees, leaving the largest trees in the stand untouched. Design features, including retaining three of the largest snags per acre and large down woody debris, would continue to provide structural integrity of habitat for white-headed woodpeckers. Treatments would retain the preferred tree size (no trees removed over 24” dbh) necessary for woodpecker habitat. Removal of the small diameter trees would also reduce risk of loss of the habitat because of fire. Because of these design features, any indirect impacts from alteration of habitat would likely be minor and temporary. While approximately 200 acres of forested habitat may be treated, this is a small percentage of the habitat available for white-headed woodpeckers in the analysis area. Prescribed Burning Direct and Indirect Effects: Prescribed burning would also be conducted within the analysis area. White-headed woodpeckers may be impacted from smoke associated with prescribed burning. Areas of heavy smoke concentrations may impede lung development and the ability for white-headed woodpeckers to breathe. Impacts from prescribed burning would be minimal as white-headed woodpeckers would be able to disperse to adjacent areas not being burned and avoid the smokiest areas. Prescribed burning would be focused on burning the understory duff and small diameter trees and would have little impact on habitat requirements for white-headed woodpeckers. Prescribed burning would reduce fuel loading in the analysis area and reduce the potential for loss of habitat from a stand-replacing wildfire. Cumulative Effects: Within and adjacent to the analysis area, fuels reduction projects have occurred on private lands that may have had some impacts to habitat for white-headed woodpeckers. For example, between 2009 and 2010, residents thinned trees around their homes, reducing cover and occasionally removing dead trees. Dead tree removal may compromise structural integrity of habitat for white-headed woodpeckers (as well as other late seral-related species), particularly when large diameter snags are removed from a stand. However, the small amount of acres treated on the private lands may have minimal impacts to woodpecker habitat due to the small scale of the project. Although some negative impacts to white-headed woodpeckers are expected from the proposed action, impacts would likely be minor and temporary. Overall the project would reduce the threat of a large, stand-replacing wildfire and reduce the potential for loss of habitat for woodpeckers. In the long term, the project may also help improve habitat for woodpeckers by reducing overly dense vegetation. Population trends for white-headed woodpeckers appear to be increasing in the Sierra Nevada, indicating suitable habitat conditions are available (Sauer et al. 2008). Determination: The project may impact individual white-headed woodpeckers but is not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability but will not lead to a trend toward federal listing. Management Indicator Species American Marten Direct and Indirect Effects: Direct and indirect effects to marten include being flushed from the area during treatment, experiencing difficulty breathing due to smoke inhalation, and alteration or loss of habitat. Martens were documented in the southwestern portion of the analysis area in the spring of 2011. The suitable habitat in the analysis area is found in patches, interspersed with less suitable shrub habitat. It is unknown if marten are denning in the analysis area, but based on heavy recreation and the patchy nature of the suitable habitat, treatment units are not likely to provide high quality denning habitat. Direct effects to denning animals are not expected because treatments are unlikely to occur during denning season (May to June). If a den were discovered, a limited operation period would be instituted (Design Features, Chapter 2).

51 Twin Lakes Fuel Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

Because only approximately 30 percent of the potential marten habitat in the analysis area is proposed for treatment, marten would be able to move out of habitat being treated to avoid smoke and noise from equipment. Treatments would occur over a period of several years, limiting impacts to a small proportion of the habitat per year. Therefore, marten would be able to move into untreated pockets during operations to avoid disturbance. Indirect impacts would include loss or alteration of habitat that may alter denning, foraging, or prey habitat. As stated above, based on California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) wildlife types, approximately 30 percent of potential marten habitat in the analysis area would be treated over a period of several years. This treatment would alter denning and foraging habitat. The Proposed Action would leave three of the largest snags per acre, downed woody debris, and untreated pockets of habitat that should provide sufficient denning and foraging habitat as treatments occur (Design Features, Chapter 2). In addition, marten in eastside habitats were found in forests with canopy closure as low as 20 percent (USDA 2004). Canopy cover in treated areas would remain over 20 percent in all but one unit. Alteration in prey species abundance could occur, but in one study in Oregon it was found that keeping large diameter trees and leaving islands of untreated habitat and some downed woody debris provided sufficient habitat for some prey species (Bull and Blumton 1999). While treatment of the units may make the habitat less suitable for marten in the short term, if left untreated, the analysis area is at a much higher risk of stand-replacing fire that would remove the habitat for marten. Habitat trends for marten habitat show a slight increase from 7 to 9 percent with 1,006,923 acres of late seral closed canopy coniferous forest habitat on NFS lands in the Sierra Nevada (USDA 2010). This trend has remained relatively stable (USDA 2010). Treatment of 200 acres of coniferous habitat, while retaining some habitat characteristics for marten, represents a very small percentage of the total habitat available for marten. Cumulative Effects: The primary cumulative impact for marten in the analysis area is fire suppression. Years of fire suppression may have improved the habitat for marten in some ways by increasing canopy cover and downed woody debris. However, these increases in canopy cover and woody debris also increase the risk of complete loss of habitat due to stand-replacing wildfire. While this project may have short-term impacts on marten due to the removal of trees and downed woody debris, the design features described above would keep habitat available to marten in the analysis area. Other cumulative impacts include recreational use causing marten to avoid the area. Marten are sensitive to human disturbance and trapped easily (CDFG 2005). Recreation may increase in the future as populations grow. Grazing could alter prey base, but as most key habitat for marten is unsuitable for grazing, the effects of grazing on habitats and life history elements of marten are considered inconsequential (USDA 2008). Because the impacts from project activities are expected to be minor, incremental impacts from other past, present, and future projects in the area are not expected to negatively impact marten populations. Determination: Implementation of the proposed action may impact individual marten, and may affect habitat in the short term for marten, but will not cause populations to trend downward. Hairy Woodpecker Conifer Thinning and Mastication Direct and Indirect Effects: Direct impacts may result from thinning operations in suitable habitat. Noise from equipment may cause breeding or foraging birds to temporarily flush from the area. Populations in the eastern Sierra Nevada are recognized as year-round residents, with some movements to mid or lower elevations (Great Basin Bird Observatory 2005). Impacts to breeding birds should be minimal as most treatment would occur in the late summer and early fall, after nesting is complete. Also, trees most likely to be used for nesting (large trees over 24” dbh) would be

52 Twin Lakes Fuel Reduction Project Environmental Assessment retained. In late summer, fall and winter, foraging birds may be flushed from the area during treatments. Effects such as this are expected to be temporary and minor. Habitat adjacent to treatments provides sufficient foraging during project operations that hairy woodpeckers would be able to disperse to avoid noise. The hairy woodpecker prefers large mature trees with sparse to intermediate density (CDFG 2005). Mature trees and large dead snags are more important than a specific conifer species for the hairy woodpecker (Siegel and DeSante 1999). This project would primarily remove small diameter trees, leaving the largest trees in the stand untouched. Implementation of design features (Chapter 2), which include retaining three of the largest snags per acre and large down woody debris, would continue to provide structural integrity of habitat for white-headed woodpeckers. Treatments would retain the preferred tree size (no trees removed over 24” dbh) necessary for woodpecker habitat. Removal of the small diameter trees would also reduce the risk of loss of habitat from wildfire. With implementation of these design features, any indirect impacts from alteration of habitat are expected to be minor and temporary. While about 200 acres of forested habitat may be treated, this is a small percentage of this type of habitat available in the analysis area. Prescribed Burning Direct and Indirect Effects: Prescribed burning would also occur within the treatment units. Woodpeckers may be impacted from smoke associated with prescribed burning. Areas of heavy smoke concentrations may impede lung development and the ability for woodpeckers to breathe. Impacts from prescribed burning would be minimal as woodpeckers would be able to disperse to adjacent areas not being burned and avoid the smokiest areas. Prescribed burning would be focused on burning the understory duff and small diameter trees and would therefore have little impact on habitat requirements for woodpeckers. Prescribed burning would reduce fuel loading in the analysis area and therefore reduce the potential for loss of habitat from a stand-replacing wildfire. Cumulative Effects: Within and adjacent to the analysis area, fuels reduction projects that may have had some impacts to habitat for woodpeckers have occurred on private lands. Between 2009 and 2010, residents thinned trees around their homes, reducing cover and occasionally removing dead trees. Dead tree removal may compromise structural integrity of habitat for woodpeckers, particularly when large diameter snags are removed from a stand. However, the effects from the small amount of acres treated on the private lands would be minimal. Removal of snag trees in campgrounds could remove nest trees; this is generally a small number of trees, targeted to avoid hazards not to decrease fire risk. The primary cumulative impact could be fire suppression altering the habitat by increasing stand density, and decreasing diameter of trees due to competition. This project would decrease the risk of stand-replacing wildfire and improve stand health. Although some negative impacts to woodpeckers are expected from the proposed action, impacts are expected to be minor and temporary. Overall, the project would reduce the threat of hazardous fuels and reduce the potential for loss of habitat for woodpeckers. In the long term, the project may also help improve habitat for woodpeckers by reducing overly dense vegetation. Breeding bird survey data indicate that this species has an increasing trend in the Sierra of 1 percent for the period of 1966 to 2009 (Sauer et al. 2011). Because the trend for this species is increasing, alteration of approximately 200 acres of habitat is not expected to have population level impacts. Determination: Implementation of the proposed action may impact individuals, and may affect habitat in the short term, but will not cause populations to trend downward. Macroinvertebrates Direct and Indirect Effects: Aquatic macroinvertebrates are responsive to changes in aquatic habitat condition due to land management actions. Mangum (1975) found a reduction in numbers and

53 Twin Lakes Fuel Reduction Project Environmental Assessment biomass of aquatic macroinvertebrates in the North Fork of Three Creeks, Utah, likely due to sedimentation from construction. Alteration of streamside vegetation can decrease shade near streams and potentially increase stream temperature (Sweeney 1993). This can alter life history characteristics of macroinvertebrates (Sweeney 1993). No direct effects from project actions are expected due to the BMPs in place related to water quality. Indirect effects such as sedimentation would also be limited by these BMPs. The BMPs are discussed under Chapter 2, Design Features, Water and Soil. Because there are BMPs in place to prevent or limit impacts to water and soils, impacts to macroinvertebrates are expected to be minimal and short term. Treatments would occur over a period of years; therefore, vegetation cover would likely be sufficient to limit sedimentation. Preventing stand-replacing wildfire would decrease the chances of these streams becoming degraded by a much larger loss of vegetation. Determination: Based on the BMPs to limit impacts to waterways in the analysis area, the proposed action may impact individuals, and may affect habitat in the short term, but will not cause populations to trend downward. Mule Deer Direct and Indirect Effects: Potential direct and indirect impacts to mule deer include noise from treatments causing them to flush from the area, smoke causing difficulty breathing, and loss or alteration of habitat as a result of treatment. Mule deer use the analysis area from April to November. There would be overlap with the treatments planned for this area and mule deer use. Deer may flush during treatments, but with design features (Chapter 2) such as avoiding disturbance in key deer areas during fawning season (mid-June to mid- July) and leaving untreated pockets of 1-3 acres, deer would be able to disperse to avoid noise or heavy smoke concentrations. Not every treatment unit would be treated at once. Small treatments would occur over a period of many years, allowing deer sufficient untreated habitat to use. About 26 percent of the analysis area is proposed for treatment, which would leave significant untreated habitat available for deer to disperse to and avoid direct impacts. Deer require forage, cover, and water to survive in an area. Currently the analysis area provides these characteristics and is key habitat for this deer herd. There would be no change in water availability because of the treatments. Cover and forage would remain, with 1-3 acre pockets of habitat remaining untreated within treatment boundaries in key mule deer areas. These pockets should provide sufficient cover for deer to avoid predation and regulate body temperature. In addition, in coniferous stands, primarily small trees would be cut, leaving the large trees to provide cover for thermoregulation. Opening up pockets of habitat that are currently dense with older vegetation would decrease forage in the short term, but in the long term improve forage for deer. After treatment, these areas would be more open, providing openings for grasses, forbs, and brush to grow. This new growth would provide higher quality forage for deer (Willms and McLean 1978), potentially increasing forage quality. In addition to potentially improving the quality of the habitat, thinning the conifers and brush in the treatment units would reduce the risk of stand-replacing wildfire that could result in the loss of the habitat. After treatment, most conifer stands would be two-storied with vertical and horizontal diversity. Small openings would provide areas for regeneration of forage species. Cheatgrass conversion is a large concern as it does not provide forage or cover and it increases fire risk. All efforts would be made to limit cheatgrass invasion including washing of vehicles prior to entering the treatment units and limiting treatments in cheatgrass infested areas to avoid spread. Cheatgrass abundance in shrub treatment units would be monitored before and after treatments. Where vegetation appears to be moving towards a cheatgrass dominated site, other options would be

54 Twin Lakes Fuel Reduction Project Environmental Assessment evaluated to meet the goals of fuel reduction while maintaining native plant dominated communities. Other options may include longer treatment intervals, weed treatment, and/or planting of native perennial grass species. The heaviest treatments in the sagebrush and bitterbrush habitats would be along roads, with up to 80 percent removal. Clearing these roadside areas would increase visibility of deer, potentially decreasing mortality due to vehicular collisions. Cumulative Effects: The primary long-term issue for deer is the change from early successional to late successional forests (CDFG 1998). This has been caused by years of fire suppression that has created forests that are denser with less forage for deer. This project would use vegetation treatments and prescribed fire to decrease the risk of complete loss of habitat. If properly implemented the project would improve forage and cover for deer in the long term, while reducing the risk of complete loss of habitat. Other cumulative effects include grazing which can decrease forage for deer. Grazing does occur in the analysis area, but utilization standards for sheep and cows retain some forage for deer. Because there are some positive impacts and because the number of treated acres is relatively small, the impact of the project when combined with the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions would be minimal. Overall, no habitat is expected to be entirely removed. Up to 1,875 acres of habitat would be altered, and may cause short-term impacts to deer. However, treatments would be planned on a gradual implementation schedule, with treatments spread across the treatment units over many years. In the long term, these treatments should provide the habitat characteristics deer need, while reducing the potential for complete loss of the habitat due to stand-replacing wildfire. As mule deer are considered secure or demonstrably widespread, abundant, and secure in California (NatureServe 2007), it is unlikely that completing these treatments would alter population levels. Determination: Implementation of the proposed action may impact individual deer, and may affect habitat in the short term, but will not cause populations to trend downward. Williamson’s Sapsucker Potential impacts to Williamson’s sapsucker are very similar to those of the hairy woodpecker. However, the sapsucker is somewhat more selective of tree species than the hairy woodpecker; therefore, less suitable habitat is found in the analysis area for the sapsucker than for the woodpecker. Conifer Thinning and Mastication Direct and Indirect Effects: Direct impacts to Williamson’s sapsucker may result from thinning operations in suitable habitat. Noise from equipment may cause breeding or foraging birds to temporarily flush from the area. Impacts to breeding birds should be minimal as most treatment would occur in the late summer and early fall, after nesting is complete. Also, trees most likely be used for nesting (large trees over 24” inches dbh) would be retained. In late summer and fall, foraging birds may be flushed from the area during treatments. Effects such as this are expected to be temporary and minor. Habitat adjacent to treatments provides sufficient foraging during project operation that sapsuckers would be able to disperse to avoid noise. It appears that if large snags are retained, the sapsuckers are tolerant of habitat disturbances (Great Basin Bird Observatory 2005). Loss of snags can be an important issue for this species (Siegel and DeSante 1999). This species occurs in more open habitats than other sapsuckers, making logging operations less harmful (Siegal and DeSante 1999). This project would primarily remove small diameter trees, leaving the largest trees in the stand untouched. Implementation of design features (Chapter 2), which include retaining three of the largest snags per acre and large down woody debris, would continue to provide structural integrity of habitat for sapsuckers. Treatments would retain the preferred tree size necessary for sapsucker habitat. Removal of the small diameter trees would also reduce risk of loss of the habitat as

55 Twin Lakes Fuel Reduction Project Environmental Assessment a result of fire. Because of these design features, any indirect impacts from alteration of habitat are expected to be minor and temporary. While approximately 200 acres of forested habitat may be treated, this is a small percentage of the coniferous habitat available in the analysis area. Prescribed Burning Direct and Indirect Effects: Prescribed burning would also be conducted within the treatment units. Woodpeckers may be impacted from smoke associated with prescribed burning. Areas of heavy smoke concentrations may impede lung development and the ability for sapsuckers to breathe. Impacts from prescribed burning would be minimal as sapsuckers would be able to disperse to adjacent areas and avoid the smokiest areas. Prescribed burning would be focused on burning the understory duff and small diameter trees and would have little impact on habitat requirements for woodpeckers. Prescribed burning would reduce fuel loading in the analysis area and reduce the potential for loss of habitat from a stand-replacing wildfire. Cumulative Effects: Within and adjacent to the analysis area, fuels reduction projects on private lands may have some impacts to habitat for sapsuckers. For example, between 2009 and 2010, residents thinned trees around their homes, reducing cover and occasionally removing dead trees. Dead tree removal may compromise structural integrity of habitat for sapsuckers, particularly when large diameter snags are removed from a stand. However, the small amount of acres treated on the private lands would have minimal indirect impacts to sapsucker habitat due to the small scale of the project. A primary cumulative impact could be fire suppression altering the habitat by increasing stand density and decreasing diameter of trees due to competition. This project would address these long-term fire suppression impacts by decreasing the risk of stand-replacing wildfire and improving stand health. Although some negative impacts to sapsuckers are expected from the proposed action, impacts are expected to be minor and temporary and would not have major impacts to populations of sapsuckers. Overall, the project would reduce the threat of hazardous fuels and reduce the potential for loss of habitat for woodpeckers. In the long term, the project may also help improve habitat for sapsuckers by reducing overly dense vegetation. Breeding bird survey data indicate that this species has an increasing trend of 3.1 percent in the Sierra Nevada for the period of 1966 to 2009 (Sauer et al. 2011). However, these data are not as credible as found for other species due to data deficiencies. Because the trend for this species may be increasing, alteration of approximately 200 acres of habitat is not expected to have population level impacts. Determination: Implementation of the proposed action may impact individuals, and may affect habitat in the short term, but will not cause populations to trend downward. Yellow-rumped Warbler Direct and Indirect Effects: Direct effects to yellow-rumped warblers could include being flushed from foraging and breeding areas during treatment or burning. If disturbance levels are consistently high, warblers may permanently avoid these areas. Because most treatments would occur before these birds have arrived for nesting in the spring or after nesting is completed in late summer. Because of this, direct impacts to nesting birds are expected to be minor. In addition, as untreated pockets of habitat would remain in the analysis area, birds would be able to move to adjacent suitable habitat during treatment. Indirect effects could occur from loss or alteration of habitat due to treatments. Based on CWHR habitat types, approximately 23 percent (60 of 294 acres) of foraging habitat would be treated within the analysis area. This species is tolerant of many conifer habitats; therefore, treatments that retain conifers but change the habitat may not be a large concern (Siegal and DeSante 1999). Treatments

56 Twin Lakes Fuel Reduction Project Environmental Assessment would leave sufficient untreated habitat for yellow-rumped warblers if they prefer the untreated patches and would reduce the risk of loss of habitat to stand-replacing wildfire. Cumulative Effects: The primary risks for this bird are related to loss and degradation of montane meadow and riparian habitats (Siegal and DeSante 1999). Cowbird parasitism is also a potential risk. Grazing does occur in the analysis area, but is limited to a short time period and specific areas. Because the impacts from project activities are expected to be minor and potentially positive, incremental impacts from other past, present, and future projects in the area are not expected to negatively impact yellow-rumped warbler populations. Because the trend for this species in the Sierra is stable, alteration of approximately 69 acres of habitat is not expected to impact population level. This species is capable of living in coniferous habitats of many types; therefore, alteration of habitat would not likely have much impact on the distribution in the analysis area. Determination: Implementation of the proposed action may impact individuals, and may affect habitat in the short term, but will not cause populations to trend downward. Yellow Warbler Direct and Indirect Effects: Direct effects to yellow warbler could include being flushed from foraging and breeding areas during treatment or burning. If disturbance levels are consistently high, warblers may permanently avoid these areas. Most treatments would occur before these birds arrive for nesting in the spring or after nesting is completed in late summer. Because of this, direct impacts to nesting birds are expected to be minor. Because untreated pockets of habitat would remain in the analysis area, birds would be able to move to adjacent suitable habitat during treatment. Indirect effects could occur from loss or alteration of habitat due to treatments. Based on CWHR habitat types, approximately 15 percent (24 of 161 acres) of foraging habitat would be treated within the analysis area. This would likely be positive for yellow warblers as they may be able to adapt to the new growth that occurs after fire or treatment (Siegal and Desante 1999). Sufficient untreated habitat for yellow warblers would remain if they prefer the untreated patches. Treatments would reduce the risk of loss of this habitat to stand-replacing fire. Cumulative Effects: The primary risks for this bird are related to grazing. These risks include loss of montane riparian and meadow habitat and cowbird parasitism (Siegal and DeSante 1999). Grazing does occur in the analysis area, but is limited to a short time period and specific areas. Because the impacts from project activities are expected to minor and potentially positive, incremental impacts from other past, present and future projects in the area are not expected to negatively impact yellow warbler populations. The trend for the population may be decreasing in the Sierra, but the distribution of the species across the Sierra Nevada is stable (USDA 2010). Because of this, alteration of approximately 24 acres of habitat, which could result in improved habitat for yellow warblers, is not expected to have any impact on the population or distribution of the birds. Determination: Implementation of the proposed action may impact individuals, and may affect habitat in the short term, but will not cause populations to trend downward. Species of Interest Migratory Birds Direct and Indirect Effects: The two largest threats to migratory birds are habitat fragmentation on breeding grounds and deforestation of wintering habitat (Finch 1991). Compared to other birds, migratory species are the most negatively affected by fragmentation, and are usually absent from small or highly isolated forests (SERC 2003). The distribution and diversity of birds is highly

57 Twin Lakes Fuel Reduction Project Environmental Assessment associated with structural diversity in vegetation. Land management activities such as grazing can simplify vegetation structure generally causing bird diversity to decrease. Although some birds may respond positively to these changes, generally they are not species whose population viability is of concern. Human disturbance can also have an effect on songbirds. Birds may habituate to predictable disturbances such as driving, or hiking, but disturbance during certain times of the year may have an impact on bird behavior (Marzluff 1997). For example, repeated intrusions during the nesting season may cause birds to minimize or stop singing, decrease defensive behavior at nests, and possibly cause birds to abandon nest sites leading to an overall decline in nesting productivity (Knight and Tempel 1986). Along the eastern Sierra, the critical breeding season is generally between March 1 and August 30 and varies with elevation (Heath and Ballard 1999). Migratory birds occupy every habitat type in the analysis area at some point during the year. Direct effects to migratory birds could include being flushed from foraging and breeding areas during treatment or burning. If disturbance levels are consistently high, migratory birds may permanently avoid these areas. Most treatments would occur before these birds arrive for nesting in the spring or after nesting is completed in late summer. Because of this, direct impacts to nesting birds are expected to be minor. In addition, because untreated pockets of habitat would remain in the analysis area, birds would be able to move to other suitable habitats during treatment. Indirect effects could occur from loss or alteration of habitat due to treatments. Approximately 24 percent (1,875 of 7,750 acres) of potential migratory bird habitat would be treated. As stated previously, treatments are planned over several years, so no drastic changes are expected that would require birds to adapt. For some species, treatments would be positive, moving the analysis area in the direction that is more suitable for them. For others, the treatments may decrease the suitability of the habitat. However, there would be sufficient untreated habitat if birds prefer these untreated pockets of habitat. Treatments would reduce the risk of loss of migratory bird habitat to stand- replacing fire. Recommendations from CalPif (2002) include the following items that would be followed with this project: manage for old growth and late successional conditions; mimic natural fire regimes; and manage for large trees, large snags, and structural diversity. The project focuses on fuels reduction in the WUI zone, which may decrease vegetation levels more than preferred by some birds. However, this project would move the forest into a condition that would mimic natural fire regimes more than the current condition. Cumulative Effects: Because migratory birds use all habitat types they are subject to a number of cumulative effects. These include effects from recreational use, residential development, grazing, and wildfire suppression. Livestock grazing has decreased herbaceous layers, thereby decreasing cover and forage habitat for some species. Recreational use has decreased the quality of the habitat by increasing the amount of human disturbance, potentially causing birds to alter foraging or breeding behavior. Residential development in the area has removed habitat for birds, but this is not expected to be significant in the future due to the availability of private land. Wildfire suppression has altered the stands in the analysis area, moving them from open to dense stands. In brush habitats, dense, older brush out-competes the grasses and forbs, decreasing habitat diversity. These densely vegetated areas decrease the quality of habitat for many coniferous and shrub adapted species that have evolved with fire as a regular factor in providing openings for new growth. While all these impacts have occurred and are likely to continue to occur, overall the habitat in the analysis area remains intact, but degraded due to fire suppression. Because the impacts from project activities are expected to be minor and potentially positive, incremental impacts from other past, present, and future projects in the area are not expected to negatively impact migratory bird populations.

58 Twin Lakes Fuel Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

Determination: Based on the above analysis, although some migratory birds may be temporarily displaced, and some habitat altered, the proposed project will not cause a downward trend in migratory bird populations or loss of viability. Willow Flycatcher Direct and Indirect Effects: Direct effects to willow flycatchers could include being flushed from foraging and breeding areas during treatment or burning. If disturbance levels are consistently high, flycatchers may permanently avoid these areas. Most treatments would occur before these birds have arrived for nesting in the spring or after nesting is completed in late summer. Because of this, direct impacts to nesting birds are expected to be minor. Because no treatments are planned in riparian areas, direct impacts would be minor and only result from treatments adjacent to riparian areas. This bird was not observed in the most suitable habitat adjacent to the analysis area. Habitat within the analysis area was not surveyed as it was determined likely that patch size was too small to support breeding. Indirect effects could occur from loss or alteration of habitat due to treatments. No treatments are planned in riparian areas, so indirect impacts from alteration of habitat are not expected, unless prescribed burns escape. In this case, typically only small patches of willows would be burned as the riparian area limits fire spread. Treatments would reduce the risk of loss of habitat to stand-replacing wildfire by breaking up the continuity of fuels, thus limiting spread and intensity of potential fires. Cumulative Effects: The primary risks for this bird are related to grazing, particularly the browsing of willows by livestock in montane meadow. These risks include loss of montane riparian and meadow habitat and cowbird parasitism (Siegal and DeSante 1999). Grazing does occur in the analysis area, but is limited to a short time period and specific areas. Because the impacts from project activities would likely be minor and potentially positive, incremental impacts from other past, present and future projects in the area are not expected to negatively impact willow flycatcher populations. Breeding bird survey data indicate that this species has a decreasing trend of -5.1 percent for the period of 1966 to 2009 (Sauer et al. 2011). However, this data has a significant data deficiency making this estimate less accurate. The trend for this species may be decreasing, but because no habitat would be directly treated, this project is not expected to have any impact on the population or distribution of the birds. Determination: Implementation of the proposed action may impact individuals, and may affect habitat in the short term, but will not cause populations to trend downward. Rare Plants ______For the purpose of this analysis, aerial photos, soil maps, GIS coverages, and other existing documents were reviewed to determine suitable habitat potential for Forest Service Sensitive Species and Species of Interest. Information to supplement this analysis was gathered from the California Native Plant Society Inventory of Rare Plants and the Forest Service NRIS Database (2011). The species of interest were selected based on their potential to occur in the Bridgeport Ranger District. Species were evaluated further below for their potential to occur in or near the project area. These species are designated as rare by the state of California, other federal agencies, or rare plant working groups. More information can be found in the biological evaluation for botanical resources located in the project file.

59 Twin Lakes Fuel Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

Affected Environment Plant surveys were conducted within the treatment units in 2009. The surveys covered representative areas within the different plant communities. No surveys were conducted outside of the treatment units. No occurrences of Forest Service sensitive plants or plant species of interest were found in the treatment units although some have the potential to occur within the project area (Table 11). Table 5: Forest Service Sensitive Species that were determined to have the Potential to occur within the Project Area. Forest Service Sensitive Plant Species Altered andesite popcorn flower Plagiobothrys glomeratus Bodie Hills draba Cusickiella quadricostata Bodie Hills rockcress Arabis bodiensis Dainty moonwort Botrychium crenulatum Lavin's egg vetch Astragalus oophorus var. lavinii Long Valley milkvetch Astragalus johannis-howellii Marsh's bluegrass Poa abbreviata ssp. Marshii Masonic Mountain jewelflower Streptanthus oliganthus Mono phacelia Phacelia monoensis Mono ragwort Senecio pattersonensis Moosewort Botrychium tunux Shevock rockmoss Orthotrichum shevockii Slender moonwort Botrychium lineare Spjut’s bristle-moss Orthotrichum spjutii Star draba Draba asterophora var. asterophora Three-ranked hump-moss Meesia triquetra Tiehm rockcress Arabis tiehmii Tioga Pass sedge Carex tiogana Upswept moonwort Botrychium ascendens Wassuk beardtongue Penstemon rubicundus Webber ivesia Ivesia webberi Whitebark pine Pinus albicaulis White Mountain skypilot Polemonium chartaceum Williams combleaf Polyctenium williamsiae

Environmental Consequences No Action Under this alternative, no vegetation treatments would occur. The area would continue to see an increase in vegetation density and in dead and down woody debris. Over the long term, the risk of stand-replacing wildfire would be more likely. The project area could provide potential habitat for several rare and sensitive plant species. The shrub densities in the treatment units are high. This can decrease plant diversity as grasses and forbs are outcompeted by decadent shrubs. Proposed Action Forest Sensitive Species Of the Forest Service sensitive plant species with the potential to occur on the Bridgeport Ranger District (Table 12), the Proposed Action would have no impact on Long Valley milkvetch, Lavin’s eggvetch, Bodie Hills draba, Webber ivesia, Wassuk beardtongue, Mono phacelia, altered andesite

60 Twin Lakes Fuel Reduction Project Environmental Assessment popcorn flower, Marsh’s bluegrass, and William’s combleaf. This is because these species do not occur in the project area due to lack of habitat. Other Forest Service Sensitive species such as Bodie Hills rockcress, Tiehm rockcress, upswept moonwort, dainty moonwort, slender moonwort, moosewort, Tioga Pass sedge, star draba, three- ranked hump moss, whitebark pine, Mason’s sky pilot, Masonic Mountain jewel flower, and Mono ragwort may be impacted by this project. With the use of prescribed fire, there is a potential for fire to escape outside of the planned treatment units. Implementation of the Proposed Action could result in prescribed fire use in the spring. Plants are physiologically active during the spring and are more vulnerable to potential adverse effects from prescribed fire during this time (USDA Forest Service 2001). These impacts are expected to be minor and are not likely to cause a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability of these species. Activities that cause an impact or threat to the persistence of Shevock”s rockmoss and Spkit’s bristle- moss (Orthotrichum species) have not been evaluated. However, activities that destroy the habitat, i.e. granitic rock or outcrop feature, would impact the viability of the mosses at that specific location. The Twin Lakes Fuel Reduction Project area contains rock outcrops in upland settings that could provide potential habitat for the mosses. Rock outcrops would not be affected by the brush mowing or tree thinning treatments. The machinery used to mow brush and thin trees would have to avoid the outcrops and other rocky areas to avoid damaging the equipment. Prescribed fire treatments could burn the vegetation near the outcrops; however, fire would not destroy the outcrops. The mosses could be impacted by fire burning near rock outcrops. Because pile burning involves burning large amounts of fuel in a concentrated area, the intensity and duration of the burn can be greater than a typical prescribed burn or wildfire. In order to minimize impacts to the mosses, pile burning would not be conducted within 25 feet of rock outcrops (Design Features, Chapter 2). With implementation of this design feature, the Proposed Action may impact individuals but is not likely to lead to a trend toward federal listing or contribute to a loss of viability of Shevock’s rockmoss or Spjut’s bristlemoss. Species of Interest Hoary draba (Draba breweri var. cana), long petaled lewisia (Lewisia longipetala), Mount Dana sedge (Carex incurviformis var. danaensis), small flowered fescue (Festuca minutiflora) snow willow (Salix reticulate ssp. nivalis), subalpine cryptantha (Cryptantha crymophila), subalpine fireweed (Epilobium howellii), Sweetwater cryptantha (Cryptantha vulcanica), and Sweetwater Mountains draba (Draba incrassata), rare plant species of interest, do not have the potential to occur inside the treatment units. However, the project area could contain potential habitat for these species. Although these species do not occur inside the treatment units, they could potentially be impacted by a prescribed fire escaping the treatment units. Impacts to these species would be minimal. Mount Dana sedge, subalpine cryptantha, Sweetwater cryptantha, hoary draba, Sweetwater Mountains draba, small flowered fescue, and long petaled lewisia occur in subalpine and alpine rock fields, scree slopes, or other rocky habitats. These habitats are generally sparsely vegetated and would most likely be minimally affected by fire. Due to the sparse vegetation characteristic of these habitats, fires would be of low intensity and short duration if they were able to spread into these areas at all. Snow willow and subalpine fireweed are riparian species. Wetland areas are resilient to fire due to the moist soils and high moisture content of the vegetation. Fire would be expected to have a minimal impact on the wetland plant communities in the project area under typical circumstances. Fire suppression efforts would have a minimal impact on these species. Fire retardant drops are restricted to 300 feet away from riparian areas. Hand line is usually not constructed in riparian areas

61 Twin Lakes Fuel Reduction Project Environmental Assessment due to the wet soils and is rarely constructed in rocky terrain due to the limited continuity of the fuel. Rehabilitation of hand lines is required by Forest policy. Generally, rehabilitation involves raking the soil back into the line and moving rocks and brush to cover the line. Determination: Implementation of the Proposed Action may impact individuals and habitat of hoary draba, long petaled lewisia, Mount Dana sedge, small flowered fescue, snow willow, subalpine cryptantha, subalpine fireweed, Sweetwater cryptantha, and Sweetwater Mountains draba but is not likely to lead to a trend toward federal listing or contribute to a loss of viability. Cumulative Effects: No cumulative effects to rare plants are expected from implementation of the proposed action. Recreation ______

Affected Environment Recreation Uses The Twin Lakes Fuel Reduction Project area lies within the Robinson Creek drainage, adjacent to Twin Lakes. Within and adjacent to the project area there is a mix of private land ownership, as well as lands managed by the Bridgeport Ranger District. The project area encompasses the highest concentration of recreation use on the district and includes a wide variety of recreation uses, facilities, and settings. Developed campgrounds within the project area include Honeymoon Flat, Robinson Creek, Paha, Crags, and Lower Twin Lakes. These developed campgrounds are the most heavily used on the forest, and some of the most heavily used within the Intermountain region. Several resorts, including one on private land (Mono Village) and those operating under special use permit on NFS land (Doc & Al’s and Twin Lakes) lie within the project area. Several trails begin and pass through the project area, including the Tamarack Lake Trail, Cattle Creek Trail, Horse Creek Trail, and the Robinson Creek Trail. The Robinson Creek and Horse Creek trails are the most heavily used trails on the district. Trailheads exist for these trails with facilities usually consisting of bulletin boards and parking areas. Informal trails are used by fishermen, hikers, and sightseers to access unroaded portions of the area around the Twin Lakes. Fishermen use this area extensively during the entire fishing season (last Saturday in April through November 15). Any given day will see fishermen along streambanks, along the shoreline of Twin Lakes, and in boats on the Twin Lakes. This area is popular with sightseers, with the Twin Lakes Road providing access through the project area. There is a public boat ramp facility on Lower Twin Lake, adjacent to Lower Twin Lakes Campground. Roadless/Wilderness The project area borders the Hoover Wilderness, and includes portions of three inventoried roadless areas (IRAs) (Robinson Peak, Hoover-Cattle Creek, and Hoover-Twin Lakes). Though these IRAs are contiguous with the designated Hoover Wilderness, they also adjoin areas of extensive recreational development. Many residences are located near or adjacent to these IRAs. Visual Resources The viewshed within this project area contains many of the iconic landscapes and landmarks on the district. Twin Lakes, Sawtooth Ridge, and Horsetail Falls, just to name a few, are landmarks that draw visitors and residents to this area. Visitors enjoy the natural-appearing setting, with sagebrush flats in the valley, giving way to stands of Jeffrey pine, aspen, fir, and lodgepole pine with the rise in elevation. Several peaks surround the project area, including Crater Crest, Robinson Peak, the

62 Twin Lakes Fuel Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

Cleaver, Matterhorn Peak, Monument Ridge, and Sawmill Ridge. A distinctive lateral moraine forms the south and east boundary of the project area. The entire area shows extensive glaciation, which contributes to the beauty of the setting. Fall colors, when the aspen leaves change, are exceptional. The Forest Plan visual quality objective within this project area is partial retention (management activities may be visually evident but subordinate to the characteristic landscape). The visual quality objective provides for vegetation management activities to appear natural within one year of treatment completion.

Environmental Consequences No Action Recreation Uses Under this alternative, fuel reduction activities would not take place. Potential conflicts from the implementation of the proposed action would not occur. With no action, fuel loading would not be reduced and the risk of stand replacing wildfire would increase as fuels continue to build. The popular recreation activities in the area around the Twin Lakes would be at continued risk from the effects of wildfire. The potential risks to the quality of life for private landowners and recreation residence permittees, and to the quality of the visitor’s experience, would be significant if a large wildfire were to sweep through the area. The potential for loss and damage to property, the long-lasting change in visual effects, and the potential for loss of life would continue. Roadless/Wilderness With no action, there would be no effect to the wilderness qualities or attributes (wilderness character) within the three IRAs as the proposed management activities would not occur. Any short- term effects to the natural setting, the untrammeled quality, or the undeveloped nature of the IRA would not be visible. However, without the proposed fuel reduction activities and/or if wildland fires continue to be suppressed, fuel loading would continue to increase within these IRAs. This fuel loading poses a threat to the adjoining residences and recreation facilities and activities. In the event of a large or stand-replacing wildland fire within the IRAs, the appearance of this area would likely change. Live aspens, conifers, and sagebrush would be replaced with dead trees and barren hillsides. From an untrammeled, undeveloped, or natural standpoint, these impacts would be acceptable, but there would be negative effects to the experience of the recreating public. Visual Resources Under no action, there would be no short-term effects to the visual characteristics of the Twin Lakes area. Any effects to the visual characteristics associated with management activities under the proposed action would not occur. With increased fuel loading, there would be an increasing risk of wildland fire occurring within the area over the long term. Stand replacing fires could result in the loss of vegetation on entire hillsides and the destruction of homes or other facilities, and would negatively affect the visual experience for many visitors for many years. Proposed Action Recreation Uses Under the Proposed Action, there would be potential short-term impacts for some segments of the recreating public. Since treatment activities would occur during the fall, winter, and spring, there

63 Twin Lakes Fuel Reduction Project Environmental Assessment should be minimal effect on recreation activities. Some recreation (notably fishing) occurs during the spring and fall, and there would be the potential for some inconvenience to early and late season recreation activities from fuel reduction activities. The types and amount of recreation activities within the project area would not be restricted or impeded, and the recreating public would not be limited in their use of the area. There may be some temporary inconvenience to homeowners, resort operators, and others as equipment moves over roads, or burning takes place. Visitors and residents in the Twin Lakes area may encounter the sights and sounds of thinning, mowing, underburning, or other activities associated with this project. These impacts would be incidental and short term. The public would be notified of the schedule of yearly activities prior to implementation of fuel reduction activities providing the public with the opportunity to schedule events around project activities. The Proposed Action would improve conditions for the public, homeowners, and campground and resort owners. Increased security for homeowners and other facility owners and operators would come with reductions in fuel loading. Treatment activities would take place during the lower use seasons (fall, winter, and spring) which would reduce or eliminate most conflicts with recreation users and residents of the area. Roadless/Wilderness Under the Proposed Action, there would likely be some short-term effects to the wilderness attributes of the three IRAs in the project area. The operation of machinery and vehicles within the IRA would impact the untrammeled nature of the IRA, and opportunities for solitude would be reduced while treatment is under way. Long-term effects would be reduced by minimizing—to the extent possible—the use of machinery, vehicles, and equipment within the IRA. Any potential roads developed as vehicles and equipment move in and out of the IRA would be closed and restored immediately upon completion of activities in that area. Closure and restoration of tracks before they become established would help to maintain the integrity of the roadless areas. Visual Resources Under the Proposed Action, effects to the visual characteristics of the project area would be minor, in the short term. The vegetation would change in appearance as treatments are implemented. Mowing and mastication would reduce the sagebrush on the flats, and the forest would become more open after thinning and underburning. Some members of the public may notice these changes, while many others would not. Implementation of the design features discussed in Chapter 2 would alleviate impacts to the visual resources in the area. Reducing the risk associated with heavy fuel loading would contribute to the long-term integrity of the visual characteristics of the project area. Cumulative Effects Past, present and foreseeable effects related to other activities and actions within the project area are negligible. No projects have been proposed within the three IRAs. No projects have been proposed or implemented and there have been no effects to the visual character of the entire project area. The recreation uses within the project area have been long established, and there would be no long-term cumulative effects to recreation within the project area. Cultural Resources ______The Twin Lakes Fuel Reduction Project area was surveyed for cultural sites in 2010 (Hronec et al 2012). Prior to the field survey, all available existing information and historic documents were reviewed to identify known historic properties within the project area. Previous cultural resource projects and previously recorded cultural sites within the project area were reviewed using the INFRA

64 Twin Lakes Fuel Reduction Project Environmental Assessment database; the Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, Bridgeport Ranger District files; historic Forest Service recreation maps; GLO Maps; and USGS 7.5 minute series topographic quadrangle maps.

Affected Environment Hunting-and-gathering has been the lifeway of prehistoric inhabitants of the eastern Sierra Front from the end of the Pleistocene. Activities ranged from widespread foraging and individual hunting to intensive plant collecting and communal hunts. With the limited seasonal availability of the project area because of heavy snows, among other factors, the prehistoric resources found in the Twin Lakes area are limited to simple lithic scatters with few tools and a lithic scatter with grinding features. Exploration into the eastern Sierra Nevada began in the late 1820s. Since the early 1850s, non-Native groups have had a significant presence in the Bridgeport Valley, including the Twin Lakes area. Historic use of the project area has been primarily limited to ranching, Basque sheepherding (indicated by the presence of arborglyphs), logging, recreation, and public lands management. Twenty-three sites were newly identified during the 2010 project survey. In addition, 16 sites were recorded during previous inventories. Of the 16 previously recorded sites, 6 were not relocated during the 2010 surveys. Of these 39 recorded sites, 17 were prehistoric, 13 were historic, and 9 contained both historic and prehistoric elements. The Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest consulted with the California SHPO June-November, 2012. Five sites were determined eligible, eighteen have been left unevaluated following consultation, and sixteen have been determined National Register ineligible. Of the eighteen archaeological sites left unevaluated, four have not been relocated and the originally plotted locations will not be protected. SHPO concurred with the HTNF’s recommendations for no adverse effect to cultural resources on November 1, 2012. Table 6. Sites Determined Eligible for the National Register of Historic Places Site Number Site Type 04170200353 Lithic scatter and historic trash scatter 04170200358 Lithic scatter with projectile point, bifaces, and milling feature 04170200359 Lithic scatter with two projectile points and historic trash scatter 04170208935 Lithic scatter with two projectile points 04170208933 Basque and Mexican historic aspen carvings 04170200355* Lithic scatter and two possible milling features 04170200646* Lithic scatter with one artifact (biface); six flakes found in 2012 04170204738* Lithic scatter with one artifact (biface) 04170204740* Lithic scatter with one artifact (biface 04170208928* Lithic scatter; isolated historic dumpsite 04170208930* Can and glass scatter (historic age) 04170208932* Lithic scatter (15 flakes); seven cans and glass shards 04170208936* Exhaust pipes, cans and glass; two obsidian flakes 04170208937* Lithic scatter; historic glass and cans 04170208938* Historic scatter composed of 50 cans and 20 glass shards 04170208941* 175 historic artifacts (cans, glass, horseshoes) 04170208943* Lithic scatter 04170208945* Lithic scatter, no atifacts; historic can scatter 04170200354** 5 obsidian flakes, not relocated 04170200356** 5 obsidain flakes and a natural “petroglyph”, not relocated 04170200645** 2 obsidian flakes and one obsidian core, not relocated 04170200647** 2 milling features, a flake scatter, probably destroyed by campers; not relocated *sites left unevaluated are treated as if National Register eligible until a determination is made.**sites not relocated in their originally mapped location (no protection for that location but SHPO advised that the sites are left unevaluated).

65 Twin Lakes Fuel Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

Environmental Consequences No Action If fuel reduction treatments do not occur, there would be a higher risk of a high severity stand- replacing wildfire. This could allow the exposure of important cultural resources to damage and destruction by stand-replacing wildfire One National Register eligible historic-period arborglyph site in aspen trees has likely not been exposed to wildfire prior to the analysis undertaken for this document. Older prehistoric sites containing obsidian may have been exposed to the effects of wildfire. Intensity of fires during prehistoric times could have been generally less because more frequent fires (from lack of suppression) might have resulted in lower forest fuels. Intense fires can result in soil heating, root burning, and damage to surface and subsurface artifacts and features that are less pronounced with lower intensity. Inadvertent damage to archaeological sites or portions of sites not located during archaeological survey would not occur. Effects to archaeological sites as a result of prescribed burning would not occur. Proposed Action Prescribed burn treatments: Prescribed burn treatments impact cultural resource sites in several ways. The fire can heat and crack the artifacts, remove or alter obsidian hydration rinds, burn wood features or charcoal deposits, and damage rock art. Exceptionally vulnerable sites are defined as fire- sensitive and would be avoided during prescribed burn treatments in order to preserve any National Register characteristics. Non-fire-sensitive cultural resource sites, including prehistoric sites with obsidian artifacts, might be slightly impacted but there would be no adverse effect to National Register characteristics because of short-term heating. As a result, prescribed fire treatments would have no adverse effect on these properties. Mechanical Treatments: Mechanical treatment can alter, crush, or destroy artifacts, features, or culturally yielding deposits. These treatments may impact historic properties in such ways that could potentially cause adverse effects. The design features described in Chapter 2 would be implemented during fuel reduction activities to avoid adverse effects to all sites that are potentially eligible for listing to the NRHP: In accordance with 36 CFR 800, the District has determined that the Proposed Action when implemented with the design features described in Chapter 2 would have No Adverse Effect on historic properties within the project area (Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest (2012) Cultural Resources Report R2010041701980). The District will consult with the California SHPO prior to project implementation regarding the determination. Cumulative Effects: Prior effects to cultural resources likely occurred in or adjacent to campground areas from indirect impacts (trampling and illegal artifact collecting). No cumulative effects are anticipated, as impacts to the sites would be mitigated by avoiding eligible or unevaluated sites from ground disturbing activities.

66 Twin Lakes Fuel Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

CHAPTER 4: CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION

The Forest Service consulted the following individuals, federal, state, and local agencies, tribes, and non-Forest Service persons during the development of this EA:

Federal, State, and Local Agencies Mono County Board of Supervisors California Fish and Game U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service California State Historic Preservation Office

Tribes Benton Tribe Bishop Colony Bridgeport Indian Colony Chicken Ranch Tribal Council Walker River Paiute Tribe Washoe Tribal Council

Others Twin Lakes Fire Safe Council & Twin Lakes Estates Homeowners Association Mono Village Resort Bridgeport Fire Chief, Mike Booher Who May File an Objection: Under the regulations of 36 CFR 218.7 governing the Predecisional Administrative Review Process for authorized HFRA projects, only individuals and organizations who submitted specific written comments related to the proposed authorized hazardous fuel reduction project during the opportunity for comment (scoping) period may file an objection to the project.

Interdisciplinary Team Members: Amanda Brinnand Vegetation Specialist/Silviculturist Annamaria Echeverria IDT Leader/Fuels Specialist Eric Dillingham District Archeologist Jeff Weise Recreation Specialist Mike Crawley District Ranger Rixey Jenkins Rare Plants/Weeds Sally Champion Watershed Specialist Joanne Lowden Wildlife Biologist

67 Twin Lakes Fuel Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

REFERENCES

Agee, J.K. 1993. Fire ecology of Pacific Northwest forests. Island Press, Washington, DC. 493 p. Baisan, C. H., and T. W. Swetnam. 1997. Interactions of fire regimes and land use in the Central Rio Grande Valley. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Research Paper RM-RP-330. Bartos, D.L. 2001. Landscape dynamics of aspen and conifer forests. P 5-14. In: Shepperd, W.D., D. Binklye, D.L. Bartos, T.J. Stolgren, and L.G. Eskew, compilers. Sustaining aspen western landscapes: symposium proceedings. Proceedings RMRS-P-18 USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, 460 p.). Bombay, Helen L., Teresa M. Ritter, and Brad E. Valentine. 2000. A Willow Flycatcher Survey Protocol for California. http://www.slocounty.ca.gov/Assets/PL/environmental/willow+flycatcher+survey+guidelines.pdf. Brinnand, A. 2011. Vegetation report for the Twin Lakes Fuels Reduction Project. Bull, Evelyn L. and A.K. Blumton. 1999, Effect of Fuels Reduction on American Martens and Their Prey. USDA Forest Service. Research Note. PNW-RN-539. California Department of Fish and Game. California Interagency Wildlife Task Group (CDFG). 2005. California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) version 8.1. Sacramento, California. Online version. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cwhr/cawildlife.asp. (Accessed: January 3, 2008). California Department of Fish and Game. California Interagency Wildlife Task Group (CDFG). 1998. An Assessment of Mule and Black-tailed Deer Habitats and Populations in California. CalFire. 2006. General Guidelines for Creating Defensible Space. California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2011.Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition, v8-01a). California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, CA. Accessed on Wednesday, April 20, 2011. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) 2002, 2009, 2011. California Natural Diversity Database, Wildlife & Habitat Data Analysis Branch, Department of Fish and Game. CalPIF (California Partners in Flight). 2002. Version 1.0. The draft coniferous forest bird conservation plan: a strategy for protecting and managing coniferous forest habitats and associated birds in California (J. Robinson and J. Alexander, lead authors). Point Reyes Bird Observatory, Stinson Beach, CA. http://www.prbo.org/calpif/plans.html. California Regional Water Quality Control Board – Lahontan (LRWQCB). 2006. CWA Section 303(d) List of Water Quality Limited Segments. California. Website: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/tmdl/docs/303dlists2006/. Carey, A.B. Horton, S.P. and B.L. Biswell. 1992. Northern spotted owls: influence of prey base and landscape characteristics. Ecological Monographs 62: 223-250. Cohen, J.D. 1999. Reducing the wildland fire threat to homes: Where and how much? In: Gonzales- Caban, A.; Omi, P.N., technical coordinators. Proceedings of the Symposium on Fire Economics, Planning, and Policy: Bottom Lines; 1999 April 5−9; San Diego, CA. General Technical Report PSW-GTR-173, USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Research Station. p. 189−195. [http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_other/rmrs_1999_cohen_j001.pdf].

68 Twin Lakes Fuel Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

Cohen, J.D. 2000. What is the wildland fire threat to homes? Presented as the Thompson Memorial Lecture, School of Forestry, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ; April 10, 2000. [http://www.nps.gov/fire/download/pub_pub_wildlandfirethreat.pdf]. Cohen, J.D. 2002. Wildland-urban fire: A different Approach. [http://www.firelab.org/]. Crowe, E. and J. Pellegrini. USFS. 2010. Survey Report for the willow flycatchers. Davenport, Art. 2010. Personal communication regarding bald eagle nesting at Poore Lake and Peregrine in additional location. Dobbs, R. C., T. E. Martin, and C. J. Conway. 1997. Williamson’s Sapsucker (Sphyrapicus thyroideus). In The Birds of North America, No. 285 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C. Section 11 of 19. http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/285doi:10.2173/bna.285. Finch, D. M. 1991. Population Ecology, Habitat Requirements, and Conservation of Neotropical Migratory Birds. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech., Rep. RM-205, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO. Fites-Kaufman, J. 1997. Historic landscape pattern and process: fire, vegetation, and environmental interactions in the northern Sierra Nevada, Seattle: University of Washington: 177 p. Ph.D. dissertation. Graham, R.T.; McCaffrey, S.; Jain, T.B.; technical editors. 2004. Science basis for changing forest structure to modify wildfire behavior and severity. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-120, USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO. 43 p. Graham, R.T.; Alen, E.H.; Harvey, T.B.; [and others]. 1999. The effects of thinning and similar stand treatments on fire behavior in western forests. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-463, USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station. 28 p. Great Basin Bird Observatory. 2005. Landbirds of Nevada and habitats they need: a resource manager’s guide to conservation priority species. GBBO Technical Report No. 05-01. Great Basin Bird Observatory, Reno, NV. Green, G.A., H. L. Bombay and M. L Morrison. 2003 Conservation Assessment of the Willow Flycatcher in the Sierra Nevada. Hardy, K.M., C.C. Schmidt, J.M. Menakis, and N.R. Samson (2001). “Spatial data for national fire planning and fuel management.” International Journal of Wildland Fire 10: 353–372. Hatchett, B, Hogan, M, Grismer, M. 2006. Mechanical mastication thins Lake Tahoe forest with few adverse impacts. Cal Ag 60(2):77-82. DOI: 10.3733/ca.v060n02p77. Heath, S.K., and G. Ballard, 1999. Eastern Sierra Riparian Songbird Conservation. PointReyes Bird Observatory, Stinson Beach, CA. Heath, S. K. and G. Ballard. 2005. Riparian Bird Monitoring and Habitat Assessment in the Upper East and West Walker River Watersheds 1998-2003 Final Report. Point Reyes Bird Observatory Conservation Science. Pgs. 71, 72, and 73. Hodgkins, A. and W. Lammers. USFS. 2012. Wildlife Inventory, Monitoring, and Survey Program: 2012 Annual Summary. Hodgson, J. A., C.D. Thomas, B.A. Wintle and A. Moilanen. 2009. Climate change, connectivity, and conservation decision making: back to basics. Journal of Applied Ecology. 46 (5): 964-969. Hronec, Laura, Christine Kendrick, Evan Pellegrini, Cole Wallace, Eric M. Williams, Alyce Branigan, 2012. Twin Lakes Fuels Reduction Project Cultural Resource Narrative Report.

69 Twin Lakes Fuel Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest internal report R2010041702015 on-file at the Bridgeport Ranger District. Kennedy, P.L. 2003. Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis atricapillus): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/northerngoshawk.pdf. Knight, R.L., and S.A. Temple. 1986. Why does intensity of avian nest defense increase during the nesting cycle? Auk 103:318-327 MacArthur, R.H. and J.W. MacArthur 1961. On bird species diversity. Ecology 42:594-598. Malmsheimer, R.W., P. Heffernan, S. Brink, D. Crandall, F. Deneke, C. Galik, E. Gee, J.A. Helms, N. McClure, M. Mortimer, S. Ruddell, M. Smith, and J. Stewart. 2008. Forest Management Solutions for Mitigating Climate Change in the United States. Journal of Forestry 106(3):115-173. Available online at: http://www.safnet.org/jof_cctf.pdf. Mangum in USDA. 2008. Toiyabe MIS and Range Suitability/Capability Analysis Updated MIS Monitoring Report For The Western and Central Regions of Toiyabe National Forest. Marzluff, J.M. 1997. Effects of urbanization and recreation on songbirds. In Songbird. Ecology in Southwestern Ponderosa Pine Forests: A Literature Review. W.M. Block and D.M. Finch, tech. editors. U.S. Forest Service, Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-GTR-292. pp.89-102. Millar, C.I., N.L. Stephenson, and S.L. Stephens. 2007. Climate Change and Forests of the Future: Managing in the Face of Uncertainty. Ecological Applications 17(8): pp 2145-2151. Mono County. 2009. Community Wildfire Protection Plan. NatureServe. 2007. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 6.2. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. (Accessed: January 2, 2008). Peterson, D.L.; Johnson, M.C.; Agee, J.K.; Jain, T.B.; [and others]. 2005. Forest structure and fire hazard in dry forests of the Western United States. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-628, USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 30 p. Price, J., S. Droege, and A. Price. 1995. The summer atlas of North American birds. Academic Press, London. Reinhardt, E.; Crookston, N.L.; technical editors. 2003. The fire and fuels extension to the forest vegetation simulator. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-116, USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ogden, UT. 209 p. Rothermel, Richard C. 1972. A mathematical model for predicting fire spread in wildland fuels. Res. Pap. INT-115. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 40 p. Rothermel, R.C. 1983. How to predict the spread and intensity of forest and range fires. General Technical Report INT-143, USDA Forest Service Intermountain Range and Experiment Station, Ogden, UT. 161 p. Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2008. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966 - 2007. Version 7.23.2008. USGS. Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2005. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966 - 2004. Version 2005.2. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD.

70 Twin Lakes Fuel Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, J. E. Fallon, K. L. Pardieck, D. J. Ziolkowski, Jr., and W. A. Link. 2011. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966 - 2009. Version 3.23.2011 USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD. Schmidt, K.M.; Menakis, J.P.; Hardy, C.C.; Hann, W.J.; Bunnell, D.L. 2002. Development of coarse- scale spatial data for wildland fire and fuel management. General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-87, USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO. 41 p. + CD [http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs/rmrs_gtr87.pdf]. Scott, J.H. 2003. Canopy fuel treatment standards for the wildland-urban interface. Proceedings RMRS-P-29, USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station. SERC, Smithsonian Environmental Research Center. 2003. Avian Ecology: Effects of forest fragmentation on migratory songbirds: temporal and modeling perspectives. Online at: http://www.serc.si.edu/migratorybirds/breed_forest_frag.htm. Siegel, R.B. and D.F. DeSante. 1999. Version 1.0. The draft avian conservation plan for the Sierra Nevada Bioregion: conservation priorities and strategies for safeguarding Sierra bird populations. Institute for Bird Populations report to California Partners in Flight. Skinner, C.N.; Chang, C. 1996. Fire regimes, past and present. In: Sierra Nevada ecosystem project: final report to Congress II. Assessment and scientific basis for management options. Davis, CA, University of California, Davis, Center for Wildland Resources: 1041–1069. Sweeney, B. W. 1993. Effects of streamside vegetation on Macroinvertebrate communities of White Clay Creek in Eastern North America. Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences. Philadelphia.. 144: 291-292. Taylor, Tim. 2011. CDFG. Personal communication regarding deer in the West Walker herd unit. USDA Forest Service. 1986. Toiyabe National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. USDA Forest Service. 1991. Spahr, R., L. Armstrong, D. Atwood, and M. Rath. (eds). Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species of the Intermountain Region. Ogden, UT. USDA Forest Service. 2001. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment, Final Environmental Impact Statement Chapter 3 Part 4, Volume 3 of 6. Part 4.3 p. 10; Part 4.4 p. 2, 19, 21, 72, 73, 113, 115, 116, 121; Part 4.5 p. 6, 7 and Part 4.6 p. 40, 41, 62, 63. http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/snfpa/final-seis/. USDA Forest Service. 2001 and 2004. Record of Decision. Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment, Final Environmental Impact Statement, Appendix A p. 38. http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/snfpa/final-seis/ USDA Forest Service. 2005. Wildland Fire in Ecosystems – Effects of Fire on Soil and Water. Rocky Mountain Research Station GTR-42. USDA Forest Service. 2007. Restoring Fire-adapted Ecosystems: Proceedings of the 2005 National Silviculture Workshop. General Technical Report PSW-GTR-203. USDA Forest Service. 2008. Toiyabe Management Indicator Species & Range Suitability/Capability Analysis Updated MIS Monitoring Report for the Western and Central Regions of Toiyabe National Forest. USDA Forest Service. 2010. Sierra Nevada Forests Bioregional Management Indicator Species Report. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2011. Web Soil Survey. Available online at http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/ accessed June 2011.

71 Twin Lakes Fuel Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

USDI and USDA .2000. Managing the impacts of wildland fires on communities and the environment: A report to the President (known as the National Fire Plan). [http://www.forestsandrangelands.gov/]. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Recovery Plan for the Lahontan Cutthroat Trout. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland , Oregon. 108 pp. USDI US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007a. Final Recovery Plan for the Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep. California/Nevada Operations Office U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, California. USDI US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007b. National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines. USDI US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Species List Regarding the Twin Lakes Project. US EPA 1999. Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC). 2010. Climatological Data Summaries. Website: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/Climsum.html. Willms, W., and A. McLean. 1978. Spring forage selection by tame mule deer on big sagebrush range, British Columbia. Journal of Range Management 31:192-199.

72 Twin Lakes Fuel Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

ACRONYMS/GLOSSARY Acronyms ______BBS Breeding bird survey BMP Best Management Practices CDFG California Department of Fish and Game CEQ Council of Environmental Quality CNPS California Native Plant Society CWHR California Wildlife Habitat Relationships EA Environmental Assessment EIS Environmental Impact Statement FVS Forest Vegetation Stimulator GBBO Great Basin Bird Observatory HFRA Healthy Forest Restoration Act IRA Inventoried Roadless Area LCT Lahontan Cutthroat Trout MIS Management Indicator Species NDOW Nevada Department of Wildlife NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NFMA National Forest Management Act NFS National Forest System NRHP National Register of Historic Places PAC Protected Activity Center PMU Population Management Unit PRBO Point Reyes Bird Observatory QMD Quadratic Mean Diameter SHPO State Historic Preservation Office SNBS Sierra Nevada bighorn sheep SNFPA Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment TCP Traditional Cultural Properties VQO Visual Quality Objective WRCC Western Regional Climate Center WUI Wildland Urban Interface USFWS US Fish and Wildlife Service

73 Twin Lakes Fuel Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

Glossary ______Active Crown Fire: Active crown fires are the most intense, reaching into the crowns of trees. Flame lengths can be greater than 10 feet (Figure 1). The behavior of crown fires can be unpredictable and very difficult to control. Fire can spread from tree crown to crown without touching the ground by means of floating embers. These fires can jump fire lines and quickly increase in size. Crown fires begin with a transition from a surface or under story fire to the ignition of the canopy.

Figure G-1. High Intensity Active Crown Fire Canopy: The part of any stand of trees represented by the tree crowns. It usually refers to the uppermost layer of foliage, but it can be used to describe lower layers in a multi-storied forest. Control Burn: See Prescribed fire or burn. Defensible Space: Defensible space reduces the risk that fire will spread from the surroundings to structures and provides firefighters a safer area to defend and/or contain a wildland fire. Fine Fuels: Fuels that ignite readily and are consumed rapidly by fire (e.g., cured grass, fallen leaves, needles, small twigs less than 0.25 inch diameter, also referred to as 1-hour fuels). Fire Hazard: A fuel complex, defined by volume, type, condition, arrangement, and location, that determines the degree of ignition and of resistance to control. For example, the moisture content of the fuel will influence the ability of the fuel to catch and sustain fire (degree of ignition) and how difficult it will be to control or extinguish the fire (degree of control). Fire Intensity: A physical measure of the flames, in British Thermal Units per foot per second (BTU/ft/sec). This information can be generated using BEHAVE, a fire behavior prediction computer model. Fire intensity is related to flame length. Fire line: Construction of areas that create a break in fuels used to control fire. Areas are scraped to mineral soil removing all organic material. The width of fire line varies with the type and amount of vegetation. Fire lines are used to when natural barriers to fire are lacking. Fire rate of spread: The horizontal distance that the flame zone moves per unit of time. Change in potential fire rate-of-spread is measured in chains per hour. One chain equals 66 feet. Fire Regime: The combination of fire frequency, predictability, intensity, seasonality, and extent characteristic of fire in an ecosystem. http://www.frcc.gov/docs/FrccDefinitionsFinal.pdf Fire Return Interval Departure: Number of missed fire cycles due to fire suppression. See Condition Class. Fire Risk: See wildland fire risk.

74 Twin Lakes Fuel Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

Fire Severity: The degree to which a site has been altered or disrupted by fire; a product of fire intensity, fuel consumption, and residence time. Severity is divided into three categories: low, moderate, and high. Levels of severity of any wildland fire are distributed unevenly across the landscape. Flame length: The measure in feet. The longer the flame length, the more vegetation will be consumed, and the greater the impacts of the fire. Generally, flame lengths less than 4 feet are desired, allowing for safe direct attack by firefighters. Flame lengths greater than 4 feet typically require equipment to be employed such as dozers and aircraft; beyond 8 feet flames lengths vegetation torching, crowning, and spotting can occur. Fuel load: The amount of combustible material (dead plants and trees, litter, and duff) that is found in an area. Fuel Reduction Treatments: Used to lower the volume of flammable brush and slash in the general forest or wildland urban interface and provide a measure of less severe impacts from wildfire. The treatment of fuels that left untreated would otherwise interfere with effective fire management or control. For example, prescribed fire can reduce the amount of fuels that accumulate on the forest floor. Fuels: Plants and woody vegetation, both living and dead, that is capable of burning. Fuelwood: Wood cut into short lengths for burning in a fireplace, woodstove, or fire pit. Hand thinning: Removing trees with chain saws or lopping shears and piling or scattering the debris in open areas for later burning. Hazard Reduction: In fuels management: the planned treatment or manipulation of naturally growing vegetation or any other flammable material for the purpose of reducing the rate of spread and the output of heat energy from any wildland fire occurring in the treated area. Ladder fuel: Small trees or tall shrubs that provide a path for a surface fire to climb up into the crowns of shrubs or trees. These include live trees with branches reaching to the ground, saplings growing under taller trees, and standing dead trees. Removing ladder fuel should be the first priority of fuel treatment projects. Thinning and pruning are good ways to remove ladder fuel. Manual fuel treatments: To clear or prune herbaceous and woody plants without the use of heavy equipment. Instead, hand tools such as handsaws, axes, shovels, rakes, and loppers and power tools such as chainsaws and brush saws are used.

Figure G-2. Example of Manuel Fuel Treatment using a chainsaw Mastication: Treats surface and ladder fuel by chopping and grinding them with a mechanical grinder using a wheeled or tracked machine with a specialized cutting head. The fuel is not removed, but its size is reduced, and it is rearranged to be in contact with the ground where decomposition can

75 Twin Lakes Fuel Reduction Project Environmental Assessment occur more quickly. A masticated area may result in flame lengths of less than 4 feet when weather conditions are not extreme.

Figure G-3. Example of Masticator grinding sagebrush and slash. Passive Crown Fire: An intense surface fire that torches occasional individual trees or small groups of trees, during this condition the surface fire is moving faster than the occasional torching of trees. Any spotting is usually short range less than 0.25 mile. Pile Burning: Piles created by hand labor or tractors are burned. Pile burning is known to be of a higher intensity than broadcast or underburning and therefore produces less particulate matter. Burning can only be initiated on "Burn Days" designated by the State Air Quality Control Board.

Figure G-4. Example of piles to be burned Prescribed fire or burn: Fires ignited by management actions to accomplish a specific objective, usually to reduce ground and surface fuel. Fires are started only under prescribed weather conditions to minimize the risk of escape. Prescribed fire is a useful tool that can effectively reduce loading of fine fuel, duff, large woody fuel, rotten material, shrubs, and other live surface fuel. However, prescribed fires may not be safe to use where dense ladder fuel exists, as the risks of crown fires would be too great. In this case, removal of ladder fuel should be done first. Trained fire management personnel are involved when conducting a prescribed fire. Prescribed fires are conducted in accordance with an approved prescribed fire plan. Prescribed Fire Plan: A plan for each prescribed fire. Plans are documents prepared by qualified personnel, approved by the agency administrator, and include criteria for the conditions under which the fire will be conducted (a prescription). Prescription: Measurable criteria that define the conditions under which a prescribed fire will be ignited, guide selection of appropriate management responses, and indicate other required actions.

76 Twin Lakes Fuel Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

Prescription criteria may include safety, economic, public health, and environmental, geographic, administrative, social, or legal considerations. Riparian Area: The area along a watercourse or around a lake or pond. Stand: A group of trees that occupies a specific area and is similar in species, age, and condition. Stand Replacement Fire: A fire that burns with sufficient intensity to kill the majority of living vegetation over a given area (grass and brush fires are stand replacement fires for that vegetation type. Surface Fire: A forest fire that burns only the surface litter and undergrowth.

Figure G-5 Example of a Low Intensity Surface Fire Surface fuel: All dead and down woody material, grasses and short shrubs which are often the most hazardous fuel in many forests. Deep layers of continuous surface fuel are often found in forests that have not experienced fire for several decades, with large accumulations near the bases of large trees. Woody fuel (sound and rotten logs, stumps, and woodpiles) can easily ignite under dry windy conditions leading to under story and crown fires. Surface fuel is most often removed by burning or by mastication.

Figure G-6. The greater the distance between surface fuel (A) and the base of tree crowns (B), the more difficult it is for surface fires to become crown fires. Source: Graham et al 2004. Thinning: Removing individually selected live trees to reduce density and continuity of fuel. Thinning from below means removing only excess smaller trees while leaving larger and more fire resistant trees. The healthiest and best growing trees are typically, left untouched and the poor growing or suppressed trees are removed. The trees that are left will occupy a healthier, more open and vigorous stand with less competition for sunlight, and nutrients. This decreases their

77 Twin Lakes Fuel Reduction Project Environmental Assessment susceptibility to mortality from insects and disease and increases their growth and likelihood of surviving low intensity fires. Thinning also reduces fire intensity and slows fire spread by reducing the available fuel to sustain fire and breaking up the continuity of the canopy. Underburning: Prescribed burn under an existing canopy of trees (hardwood or softwood) designed to reduce live and dead vegetation. This type of burning is also completed in the fall or spring when fuel moistures are low enough to carry fire and still be within prescription parameters. Underburning differs from broadcast burning as it has cooler temperatures to protect overstory vegetation. Burning can only be initiated on "Burn Days" designated by the State Air Quality Control Board. Understory: The trees and woody shrubs growing beneath branches and foliage formed collectively by the upper portions of adjacent trees. Visual Quality: The visual resources; terrain, geological features, or vegetation. Wilderness: An area of land designated by Congress to be managed according to the Wilderness Act of 1964. Wildland: An area in which development is essentially non-existent, except for roads, railroads, powerlines, and similar transportation facilities Wildland Fire: Any non-structural fire that occurs on wildlands that is not a prescribed fire. Wildland Fire Risk: The probability of a fire occurring. Wildland Fire Threat: The potential fire behavior and related fire effects (rate of spread, fire intensity, tree mortality, structure loss, etc.) due to the interactions of fuels, weather, and topography. Wildland Urban Interface: Defined as the line, area, or zone where structures and other human development meet or intermingle with undeveloped wildland or vegetative fuels. Flame length: is a primary indicator of intensity at which a fire burns.

78 Twin Lakes Fuel Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

APPENDIX A: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

Comment: Your fuels reduction project is strategically located to reduce the extreme fire conditions threatening our community, watershed and forest ecosystem. The Twin Lakes FSC congratulates the Ranger District for its vision and planning. You can be sure of our full support and assistance. Response: Thank you for your support for this project. Comment: Proposes to perform fuel reduction treatment by grazing the area with a band of sheep. This action has been proven above the Carson City areas for many years. Response: Domestic sheep grazing is effective in reducing fine fuel loads; however, the purpose of this project is to remove brush and trees to reduce the heavier fuels in the area. Comment: Our main concern is preventing soil erosion. Response: The environmental assessment (EA) includes Best Management Practices and project design features to protect soil and water resources and riparian habitat (see Chapter 2, Design Features. Comment: We prefer our lot to remain as a natural area and not a "park-like" area. Response: Due to historic logging, grazing, and fire suppression since the 1920s, the vegetation is in an unnatural condition, with dense stands of conifers, decadent shrubs, and aspen stands degrading to conifer stands. One of the objectives of this project is to reduce the risk of wildfire. To accomplish this objective, conifers would be thinned from below, leaving the larger, more fire resistant trees. This would create more open areas, but some small diameter trees would remain. Comment: We feel we should leave some bushes and shrubs for the wildlife to feed on. If we don't there won't be any wildlife. Response: Most of the forested areas would be thinned from below, leaving the larger, more fire resistant trees. However, some trees in all of the diameter classes would be retained. In aspen stands, all aspen trees would be retained with some conifers removed to help stimulate the aspen regeneration. Brush treatments would be done in a mosaic pattern and pockets of brush would remain untreated. Comment: Provided information on obtaining a 2009 Timber Waiver prior to commencement of project Response: A Timber Waiver would be obtained before the project begins. Comment: The scoping notice does not contain specific details on watercourses within the project area or the proposed project operations, mitigation measures, or monitoring for Water Board staff to provide in-depth comments. Response: The EA will contain more in-depth discussions of the proposed action, mitigations, and the water resource. Comment: Interested in harvesting firewood from treatment areas Response: As per the scoping document, trees would be removed using personal use fuelwood permits and commercial firewood contracts. A news release would be sent to local media outlets to inform the public prior to project implementation, and would include notification of the availability of personal use fuelwood. Copies of the news release would be posted on public bulletin boards within the community of Bridgeport, such as at the library, post office, and local market.

79 Twin Lakes Fuel Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

Comment: What area's will you be conducting fuels reduction and which fuel removal process, manual, mechanical and/or RX burning will be used? How much vegetation tons per acre is comprised in the project area. Of these tons per acre, what does the fuels reduction prescription call for, how many tons per acre are you planning on removing? Response: The approximate tons per acre in the project area are in a range of 2-20 tons. Tons per acre removed over the life of the project would be variable depending on treatment type. The Proposed Action map (Chapter 2) displays the type of treatments and where treatments would occur. Comment: Understanding that the RX burning is at the mercy of the weather and certain windows of opportunity, what impact will burning have on the one and only ingress and egress road into Twin Lakes? Will you on burn on certain days of the week or not near holidays, weekends, etc? Response: Prescribed burning would be implemented in discrete parts of the project area. Fire operations would be conducted when meteorological conditions favor minimal nuisance smoke and should not impact road corridors. Burning would be conducted in the fall, winter, or early spring when visitor and recreation use is low. Typically burning would not be conducted on weekends or holidays. Comment: Also, with the project, and the mention of private residences, is the USFS changing their policy for structure protection during a wildland fire? In the past, I believe you have not done structure protection, or at least made it a low priority. Will you rely on local and state fire assets to provide structure protection. Twin Lakes will have a long response time for structure protection equipment. Response: Structure protection is outside the scope of this project. Burn plans would be developed for all prescribed burning treatment mitigating the potential for escaped prescribed fire. Comment: Thin sage as little as possible. Response: The purpose of brush mastication is to create seral diversity, disrupt continuity of the fuels, and reduce the rate of spread and burn intensity for potential wildfire in the area. The heaviest treatments in the sagebrush habitat would be along roads. Other sagebrush treatment areas would receive a mosaic pattern of vegetation treatment and pockets of sagebrush would be left untreated. Comment: Cheatgrass will be a problem. Response: All efforts would be made to limit cheatgrass invasion including washing of vehicles prior to entering the treatment areas and limiting treatments in cheatgrass infested areas to avoid spread. Increased cheatgrass would not meet the fuels or wildlife objectives of this project. Additionally, cheatgrass abundance in shrub treatment areas would be monitored before and after treatments. Where vegetation appears to be moving towards a cheatgrass dominated site, other options would be evaluated to meet the goals of fuel reduction while maintaining native plant dominated communities. Comment: We are concerned that controlled burns be handled carefully with respect to wind forecasts. Winter burning is probably best. Burns should be canceled when high winds are expected. Response: Burn plans would be developed for all prescribed burning mitigating the potential for escaped prescribed fire. Comment: We want to preserve the aspen forest areas. We would like to see more elimination of fir trees there so they do not encroach on the aspen stands. Aspen are better for fires.

80 Twin Lakes Fuel Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

Response: Aspen are a shade intolerant species that require disturbance and sunlight to grow. Many of the aspen stands in the project area are being invaded by conifer species due to the lack of disturbance. The proposed action does not specifically include aspen enhancement, but in aspen areas, some to all of the conifers would be removed, especially in the smaller diameter classes. This would stimulate some aspen regeneration. Additionally, no pile burning would be allowed in aspen stands. Pile burning concentrates heat to the soil below, destroying the shallow root system of aspens. Comment: Request notification of when treatments will take place. Response: A news release would be sent to local media outlets to inform the public prior to project implementation and would include notification of the availability of personal use fuelwood. Copies of the news release would be posted on public bulletin boards within the community of Bridgeport, such as at the library, post office, and local market. Comment: We are concerned about the condition of riparian habitat after treatment. We want enough vegetation to hold the water back. Response: The project would include Best Management Practices and project design features to protect soil and water resources and riparian habitat (Chapter 2, Design Features). Comment: We hope that the health of the forest can be improved at the same time. Response: Forest health would be improved to some degree by the proposed action through reductions in stand densities and competition. Comment: The Center recognizes and appreciates the need to treat the high hazard fuels in this wildlands interface setting. Response: Thank you for your support. Comment: While limited timber treatments are allowable in IRAs we discourage the use of treatments that would require motorized access, even in the form of temporary roads and skid trails. Response: No temporary roads would be built during implementation of the proposed action. The proposed treatment areas are about 1875 acres and approximately 341 acres of the proposed treatment areas are within inventoried roadless areas. Of this, about 240 acres of the treatments would be treated by mastication (a track mounted machine masticates or “chews-up” brush and small trees). Approximately 4 percent of the treatments would be thinning within conifer stands. Treatment would include hand thinning, piling and burning, and fuelwood removal. Overland vehicular travel may be needed to access the stands to remove fuelwood, but would be kept to a minimum, especially in roadless areas. Comment: We would prefer to see prescribed fire used in the form of staged underburning to better control fire intensity and duration, hand cutting with hand piling, and where feasible, line pulling and winching of merchantable materials and firewood of materials inside IRAs from outside of the IRA designation. Combination treatments such as hand cutting and piling followed by a prescribed underburn may be most useful. Response: In certain treatment units, a combination of treatments such as hand cutting and hand piling followed by prescribed burning would be used. Prescribed burning would be conducted when fire intensity and duration can be most easily managed such as in the fall, winter, or spring. Comment: Since only 11 percent of the proposed treatment areas are in IRAs, avoidance of these areas or less than optimal treatments should not jeopardize the overall treatment objectives Response: Treatment areas within the IRAs are also in close proximity to structures and homes, consequently avoidance of these areas would not meet the purpose and need of the project.

81 Twin Lakes Fuel Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

Comment: The agency must specifically show how the treatments would maintain or restore ecosystem composition, structure, and function, particularly in the IRA areas. This is true for previously impacted areas of IRAs as well as those parts that are largely untouched. Response: Approximately 18 percent of the treatment areas are located within IRAs. The effects of no action and the proposed action are described in the Environmental Consequences section of the EA. Comment: The area surrounding the Twin Lakes provides winter and nesting habitat for bald eagles and a sufficient pre-treatment survey and inventory must be conducted to identify roost and nest trees, which subsequently must be protected from harm from the proposed treatments. Appropriate seasonal restrictions must also be applied to prevent harassment or harm to eagles using the area Response: Bald eagles were confirmed nesting at Twin Lakes during the summer of 2010. During the summer of 2011, it was discovered that this nest had fallen out of the tree. Repeated searches for a new nest at Twin Lakes were unsuccessful. After interviewing residents of the area, it appears that bald eagles were not seen at the lake during the summer of 2011. Treatment units would be checked for eagle nests prior to implementation. Nest surveys and seasonal restrictions are discussed under Design Features in Chapter 2 of the EA (pg 18). Winter bald eagle surveys occur yearly along the Twin Lakes Road. Bald eagles have been found along this road multiple times, but not every year and not always at the lakes. Effects to winter habitat are discussed under Environmental Consequences in Chapter 3 of the EA (pg 45). Comment: The conifered areas provide habitat for goshawks and appropriate protective measures must be imposed. Response: Protective measures for goshawks are discussed under Design Features in Chapter 2 of the EA (pg 18-19). A nesting survey would occur before implementation of treatments in suitable habitat during the nesting season. Goshawks are discussed further in the Wildlife Section of the EA and in the biological evaluation located in the project record. Treatments would primarily remove smaller trees which would improve stand health and prevent stand replacing wildfire from removing all suitable goshawk habitat. Comment: The Center requests that silvicultural prescriptions and burn plans be released at the time of the environmental assessment and that they be made available to the Center and other interested publics. Response: The specialist reports used to complete the EA would be available in the project record. Silvicultural prescriptions and the burn plan would be completed after the decision notice/finding of no significant impact is signed, prior to implementation. Comment: TWS strongly supports the project as proposed by the Forest Service, and commends the Forest Service for its commitment to make Twin Lakes and Rancheria areas fire-safe communities. The project, located within the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI), proposes to treat flammable fuels via a variety of methods in an area that has long been in need of fuels reduction. Response: Thank you for your support. Comment: Because some treatment is proposed within an IRA and in an area that is visually sensitive to nearby homeowners and the many tourists that use the area in summer, we suggest that the agency ensure that piles are burned and chunked, and that slash is thoroughly cleaned up both for aesthetic reasons and also to reduce the risk of holdover fires. Response: Burning would be conducted in fall, winter, or early spring when visitor and recreation use is low and when fire and holdover risk is low. Piles would be burned and, if needed, chunked to ensure full consumption.

82 Twin Lakes Fuel Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

APPENDIX B: MONO COUNTY COMMUNITY WILDFIRE PROTECTIONAppendix PLAN MAP

MonoMono County Community Community Wildfire Wildfire Protection Protection Plan Plan (CWPP (CWPP 2009): 2009): Map of Map community of community risk levels. risk levels.On the following(The project map areathe project includes area communities includes communities labeled F, labeled G and F,I) .G and I.

83 Twin Lakes Fuel Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

APPENDIX C: EXAMPLES OF FUEL LOADING IN THE PROJECT AREA

Photo 1. Dense Vegetation behind Eagles’s Nest Summer Home Area.

84 Twin Lakes Fuel Reduction Project Environmental Assessment

Photo 2. Dense Vegetation near Eagle’s Nest Summer Home Area.

85