Environmental Assessment
United States Westside Plantation Project Department of Agriculture Forest Service
July 2014 South Fork Management Unit: Hayfork Ranger District Shasta-Trinity National Forest Trinity County, California
For Information Contact: Randi Paris, Forester 360 Main Street, Weaverville, CA 96093 530-623-1768 http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/nepa_project_exp.php?project=25380
Non-Discrimination Policy The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination against its customers, employees, and applicants for employment on the bases of race, color, national origin, age, disability, sex, gender identity, religion, reprisal, and where applicable, political beliefs, marital status, familial or parental status, sexual orientation, or all or part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program, or protected genetic information in employment or in any program or activity conducted or funded by the Department. (Not all prohibited bases will apply to all programs and/or employment activities.)
To File an Employment Complaint If you wish to file an employment complaint, you must contact your agency's EEO Counselor (PDF) within 45 days of the date of the alleged discriminatory act, event, or in the case of a personnel action. Additional information can be found online at www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_file.html.
To File a Program Complaint If you wish to file a Civil Rights program complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form (PDF), found online at www.ascr.usda.gov/ complaint_filing_cust.html, or at any USDA office, or call (866) 632-9992 to request the form. You may also write a letter containing all of the information requested in the form. Send your completed complaint form or letter to us by mail at U.S. Department of Agriculture, Director, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, by fax (202) 690-7442 or email at [email protected].
Persons with Disabilities Individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing or have speech disabilities and you wish to file either an EEO or program complaint please contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339 or (800) 845-6136 (in Spanish).
Persons with disabilities who wish to file a program complaint, please see information above on how to contact us by mail directly or by email. If you require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) please contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).
ii Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Table of Contents Summary ...... 1 Introduction ...... 2 Document Structure ...... 2 Background ...... 3 Purpose and Need for Action ...... 6 Proposed Action ...... 7 Decision Framework ...... 8 Public Involvement ...... 8 Issues ...... 8 Alternatives, including the Proposed Action ...... 11 Alternatives ...... 11 Alternative 1: No Action ...... 11 Alternative 2: Proposed Action ...... 11 Alternative 3: Reduced Short Term Watershed Impacts ...... 20 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study...... 21 Resource Protection Measures ...... 23 Wildlife and Fish ...... 23 Botany ...... 25 Riparian Reserve Areas ...... 26 Soils and Hydrology ...... 30 Air Quality ...... 35 Cultural Resources ...... 35 General Protection Measures ...... 37 Comparison of Alternatives ...... 37 Environmental Consequences ...... 41 Fuels ...... 41 Analysis Indicators and Methodology ...... 42 Existing Condition ...... 42 Environmental Consequences ...... 46 Vegetation ...... 50 Analysis Indicators and Methodology ...... 50 Existing Condition ...... 51
iii Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Environmental Consequences ...... 55 Botany ...... 60 Analysis Indicators and Methodology ...... 60 Existing Condition ...... 61 Environmental Consequences ...... 66 Wildlife ...... 69 Analysis Indicators and Methodology ...... 69 Existing Condition ...... 71 Environmental Consequences ...... 78 Fish ...... 95 Analysis Indicators and Methodology ...... 96 Existing Condition ...... 97 Environmental Consequences ...... 100 Hydrology ...... 108 Analysis Indicators and Methodology ...... 108 Existing Condition ...... 110 Environmental Consequences ...... 116 Geology ...... 122 Analysis Indicators and Methodology ...... 122 Existing Condition ...... 123 Environmental Consequences ...... 126 Soils ...... 127 Analysis Indicators and Methodology ...... 127 Existing Condition ...... 130 Environmental Consequences ...... 134 Cultural Resources ...... 136 Analysis Indicators and Methodology ...... 136 Existing Condition ...... 137 Environmental Consequences ...... 138 Socioeconomics ...... 139 Analysis Indicators and Methodology ...... 139 Existing Condition ...... 141 Environmental Consequences ...... 142
iv Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Climate Change and Air Quality ...... 145 Consultation and Coordination ...... 147 Interdisciplinary Team Members ...... 147 Federal, State, and Local Agencies ...... 147 Tribes ...... 147 References ...... 149 Appendix A: Response to Public Comments ...... A-1 Appendix B: Roads planned for use during project implementation ...... B-1 Appendix C: Best management Practices for the westside Plantation project ...... C-1 Appendix D: Past, Present and Reasonably foreseeable Future projects used in Cumulative effects analyses ...... D-1 Appendix E: Westside Plantation Project Unit List with Treatment Types ...... E-1
v
Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
SUMMARY The Shasta-Trinity National Forest proposes to thin plantations (between the ages of 24-56 years old) on approximately 5,533 acres. Plantation thinning treatments will improve stand health, reduce likelihood of high severity fire, and improve wildlife habitat conditions, while providing raw timber products to local forest product infrastructure. The project area is located on National Forest System lands within the Middle South Fork Trinity River 5th field watershed, northwest of the community of Forest Glen. The project area is within Trinity County, California, and the South Fork Management Unit of the Shasta-Trinity National Forest. This action is needed because the plantations have become overly dense. The proposed action may impact wildlife, botany, fish species, local economies, fire behavior, hydrology, and soils, but no significant impacts were found during project analysis. In addition to the proposed action, the Forest Service also evaluated the following alternatives: • No Action Alternative – A No Action alternative is documented within the effects analysis by contrasting the impacts of the action alternatives with the current condition and expected future condition if the proposed action were not implemented (36 CFR 220.7 (2)(ii)). The no action alternative is interpreted to mean that no new action will occur from this alternative; forest health issues and fuel loading associated with the current condition would not be alleviated at this time. • Reduced Short Term Watershed Impacts Alternative – This alternative is designed to reduce short term watershed impacts that were of concern in public scoping comments. The acres of plantations that would be treated are the same under this alternative as under the proposed action, but no mastication or machine piling would occur, only hand treatments would occur in Riparian Reserves, and no temporary roads would be used under this alternative. Based upon the effects of the alternatives, the responsible official will decide whether or not to implement the proposed action as proposed, as modified by an alternative, or not at all, and which design features and monitoring requirements will be implemented with the approved actions. This Environmental Assessment is being made available to the public for a 30-day public comment period. More information about the project can be accessed on the project website at: http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/nepa_project_exp.php?project=25380.
1 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
INTRODUCTION Document Structure ______The Forest Service has prepared this Environmental Assessment in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and State laws and regulations. This Environmental Assessment discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that would result from the proposed action and alternatives. The document is organized into four parts: • Introduction: The section 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. • Comparison of Alternatives, including the Proposed Action: This section provides a more detailed description of the agency’s proposed action as well as alternative methods for achieving the stated purpose. These alternatives were developed based on issues raised by the public and other agencies. This discussion also includes possible mitigation measures. Finally, this section provides a summary table of the environmental consequences associated with each alternative. • Environmental Consequences: This section describes the environmental effects of implementing the proposed action and other alternatives. This analysis is organized by resource area. Within each section, the existing condition is described first, followed by the effects of the No Action Alternative that provides a baseline for evaluation and comparison of the other alternatives that follow. • Agencies and Persons Consulted: This section provides a list of preparers and agencies consulted during the development of the environmental assessment. • Appendices: The appendices provide more detailed information to support the analyses presented in the environmental assessment. Additional documentation, including more detailed analyses of project-area resources, may be found in the project planning record located online at http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/nepa_project_exp.php?project=25380 or at the Hayfork Ranger District Office in Hayfork, CA.
2 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Background ______The Shasta-Trinity National Forest (Forest) has prepared this environmental assessment with an interdisciplinary team for the Westside Plantation Project. The project involves thinning and fuels reduction treatments in 5,533 acres of overly dense plantations1 within the Middle South Fork Trinity River 5th field watershed. The proposed treatment areas are within a project area that encompasses approximately 65,000 acres (total acres of all 7th fields with treatments) on the South Fork Management Unit. The project area is located in the following Township and Range locations: T1S, R7E; T1S, R6E; T1N, R8E; T1N, R7E; T1N, R6E; T2N, R8E; T2N, R7E; T2N, R6E; and T3N, R7E, Humboldt Meridian; in Trinity County, California. The vicinity map (Figure 1) shows the location of the project area in relationship to the Forest boundary and nearby communities. The project footprint consists of 408 plantation units dispersed over the project area (Figure 1). The project was initially developed and scoped to the public in 2008 as a larger proposal including actions over approximately 33,000 acres. As a result of input and concerns raised both internally by the interdisciplinary team and by the public, the Forest reduced the amount of proposed activities to approximately 5,533 acres. The current project area was selected from the larger original project boundary based on the stocking density and commercial opportunities within the watershed. The Forest Service created timber plantations in the project area over the last 60 years due to considerable timber harvest activity, including the use of the clearcut timber harvest (most plantations were created prior to current management direction designated by the Northwest Forest Plan2). Wildfires have also burned considerable acreage on the west side of the Forest in the same time frame. Along with natural regeneration after fires, the Forest often establishes timber plantations in areas burned by wildfires as part of reforestation. The majority of the plantations are considered to be in an overly dense condition because they either have never been thinned or were thinned years ago, and are once again showing signs of excessive stand density. Tree growth has slowed and these stands are considered at risk to various forest pathogens (including insects) and stand-replacing wildfires. Size class is a measurement of tree size and age. Definition of size classes are as follows: • Size Class 1: Trees 10-20 years old with dominant trees approximately less than three inches diameter at breast height (dbh). • Size Class 2: Trees 21-30 years old with dominant trees approximately three to six inches dbh.
1 Plantations are primarily artificially regenerated forests created by planting conifers (typically pine and Douglas-fir). Natural regeneration also occurs within plantations from nearby seed sources. 2 Record of Decision for Amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management Planning Documents Within the Range of the Northern Spotted Owl. April 14, 1994.
3 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
• Size Class 3: Trees 31 years and older with dominant trees approximately six to twelve inches dbh.
Field surveys and walk-through exams by silvicultural specialists indicate average tree densities in Size Class 1 (see definition above) stands average 400 to 500 or more trees per acre and have limited diversity of size, age, and structure. Size Class 2 and 3 stands average 400 to 600 or more trees per acre in areas that have never been thinned and average 300 trees per acre in plantations thinned more than 10 years ago. Most plantations thinned more than ten years ago were thinned to an average spacing of 250 trees per acre. Over time, additional trees have become established in these areas. Size class 3 stands are the oldest and most diverse stands. There are areas where the canopy of planted trees is so dense that there is no plant growth in the understory, while other areas have some ingrowth of small trees from natural regeneration. Most of the units with larger trees fall into the size class three category.
4 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Figure 1. Westside Plantation Project vicinity map. A larger map containing more detail is available at the Hayfork or Harrison Gulch District Offices or on the project website: http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/nepa_project_exp.php?project=25380.
5 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Purpose and Need for Action ______The overall purpose for this project is to develop and maintain vigorous and healthy forest stands within existing plantations that will be resilient to natural disturbances. Within the project area, there is a need to improve forest health, habitat conditions and tree growth in the plantations, while providing some economic benefit. Forest health issues stem from stands being overly dense. Forest stands are considered overly dense when density of trees growing on an acre results in increased mortality due to competition, lack of water and resources for all trees, and decreased ability of trees to survive droughts, insects and disease. Plantations throughout the project area are overly dense (300- 1,500 or more trees per acre) and contain high levels of surface and ladder fuels. For this project, depending on the site, the size of the trees and other factors, the target number of trees per acre after treatment is between 60 and 200, which will prevent the forest health issues described here. Currently, overgrown plantations provide no habitat or only poor to marginal habitat for the majority of Forest Service Sensitive or Federally-listed species on the Forest. Wildlife species that may occur in these plantations tend to be habitat generalists, such as deer and rodents. However, the positioning and occurrence of plantations relative to older stands can offer a mosaic of habitat types that is beneficial to many species including those dependent on late-successional habitat for nesting. A mosaic of habitat types can be of particular importance to species such as Pacific fisher and spotted owl whose prey will utilize these younger stands for foraging and nesting. Thinned plantations can also provide foraging habitat for a wide variety of bird species, such as owls, raptors and passerines. There is a need to improve the health and vigor of existing plantations so that they can be retained on the landscape and allowed to develop into late-successional habitat. Many of the plantations in Riparian Reserve and Late-Successional Reserve3 management prescriptions are not developing the structure and complexity that is desirable for wildlife species dependent on late-successional4 and riparian forests. There is a need for silvicultural prescriptions designed to support the growth and development of late-successional forest structure, especially within Riparian Reserves and Late-Successional Reserves. The existing conditions in plantations proposed for treatment vary from the desired conditions described in the Shasta-Trinity National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan). Specific stand management objectives associated with the purpose and need for this proposal include: 1. Maintain or improve overall stand health to increase the resiliency of stands to natural disturbance – There is a need to promote the vigor of individual trees and overall stand health by thinning trees to reduce the competition for limited site resources (desired stand density for the plantations in the project treatment units
3 See section two of this EA for a full description of land allocations designated by the Forest Plan that project units occur within. 4 Includes mature and old-growth forest seral stages.
6 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
ranges from 60 to 200 trees per acre depending upon management prescription/land allocation in which the unit is located, the stand species, site quality and the average tree size). There is a need to encourage the development of diverse and irregular stand conditions (including small openings). 2. Minimize or reduce the potential for uncharacteristically severe fires – Overstocked plantations are a high fire risk. Without management action, the probability of stand-replacing wildfire in the assessment area will continue to increase, jeopardizing the development of mature forest stands and the habitat they provide. There is a need to create the conditions necessary for safely re-introducing fire where appropriate. There is a need to integrate plantation treatments to improve fuel management zone effectiveness where applicable (along roads and ridges) so these areas can serve as defensible areas for managing wildfire and prescribed burning, and to provide links with existing and planned defensible fuel profile zones on adjacent private and National Forest System lands. 3. Protect and enhance conditions that serve as habitat for wildlife and fish – There is a need to increase the vegetative and structural diversity within managed stands to improve stream shade and large wood retention and recruitment. There is a need to provide for snags5 and the development of late -successional and/or riparian forest characteristics. 4. Support local communities and contribute raw materials toward the existing forest products infrastructure – Local forest products infrastructure is underutilized and local community economies are not being stimulated by input of forest products as directed in the Forest Plan. There is a need to remove merchantable timber and biomass/forest products within overcrowded plantations to achieve forest health and fuels objectives, and provide support to local economies and local employment opportunities.
Proposed Action ______The Forest Service proposes to thin plantations on approximately 5,533 acres. Approximately 3,294 acres of plantations would be thinned by mastication or by hand work (chainsaw felling, hand pile and burn, and/or jackpot burn6), and approximately 2,239 acres would be commercially thinned. All commercially thinned units would be whole-tree yarded7 to a landing. Additional fuels treatments may occur within the commercially thinned units, including mastication, machine piling or hand work. The proposed action was developed to accomplish the purpose and need for the Westside Plantation Project by evaluating
5 Standing dead trees. 6 Hand burning of a large pocket of downed natural wood, brush, or activity fuels without first creating a pile. 7 The entire tree, including most branches, would be transported to the landing for processing. This method cuts down on the amount of activity fuels left in units.
7 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project conditions in overly crowded plantations, and planning to reduce overcrowding in order to reduce chances of disease, insect outbreak, and stand replacing fire, while enhancing habitat conditions and providing some economic opportunity. Decision Framework ______Given the purpose and need, the Forest Supervisor as the Responsible Official will review the proposed action, the other alternatives, and the environmental consequences in order to make the following decisions: 1. Will the proposed action proceed as proposed, be modified, an alternative be selected, or will no action be taken at this time? 2. What design features and monitoring requirements will the Forest Service implement with the approved actions? Public Involvement ______The Forest first listed the Westside Plantation Project in the July 2008 Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA). Starting on September 23, 2008 the project preliminary purpose and need, original proposed action, and maps of the original proposed action were posted to the Shasta- Trinity web page at http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/project_content.php?project=25380. On September 23, 2008, 248 postcards were mailed to potentially interested participants. The postcards requested public comment on the project and described how to receive additional information on the project, and listed the web address where the original proposed action and maps could be found. Thirty-five scoping letters and maps describing the proposed action were sent to interested and affected citizens, agencies and tribes on September 24, 2008, or within the scoping period. A legal notice describing the public scoping comment process for this project was published in the Record Searchlight on September 24, 2008. The notice requested public comments from September 24 to October 24, 2008. Public comments received were reviewed by the project interdisciplinary team and evaluated for issues that would create a need for changes to the proposed action and/or development of additional alternatives. Responses to the public comments are available in Appendix A. The Forest received comment letters from the following individuals and groups: Joseph Bower for Citizens for Better Forestry, Ryan W. Hadley of Sierra Pacific Industries, Clarence Rose, Richard J. Svilich of American Forest Resource Council, Denise Boggs of Conservation Congress, David L. Loeffler of the Hayfork Fire Protection District, Nick Goulette of the Watershed Research and Training Center and Kimberly Baker, Public Land Advocate from EPIC- Environmental Protection Information Center. In addition, the Forest received comments from Maggie E. Robinson of California Regional Quality Control Board, dated December 15, 2008. Issues ______Issues (cause-effect relationships) serve to highlight effects or unintended consequences that may occur from the proposed action, providing opportunities during the analysis to explore alternative ways to meet the purpose and need for the proposal while reducing adverse
8 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
effects. Since issues are phrased as cause-effect relationships, the concept of describing a specific action, and the environmental effect(s) expected to result from that action, applies whether one is using an EA or an EIS. The Forest Service identified 10 issues raised during scoping. In response to these issues the Forest Service altered the proposed action, developed one alternative analyzed in detail, and two alternatives that were considered but eliminated from detailed study. The issues are as follows: Issue 1: A diameter limit should be established to ensure the largest trees remain along with any legacy trees. An alternative was developed in response to this issue, but was eliminated from detailed study (see the Alternatives section below). Issue 2: Hardwoods should not be cut to avoid resprout. Resource protection measures were developed in response to this issue. Healthy, dominant and codominant hardwoods would be retained in all units. In addition, intermediate hardwoods would be retained in Riparian Reserves. Issue 3: Variable density thinning should be used to benefit the development of wildlife habitat. The silvicultural prescription for all units is based on variable density thinning, with skips and gaps. Issue 4: Temporary road use could have negative impacts on the environment. Resource protection measures have been developed for Alternative 2 to minimize impacts from temporary roads to the extent possible. Additionally, Alternative 3 includes no temporary road use. Issue 5: Treatments in Riparian Reserves could have negative impacts on riparian habitat and on streams; only hand work should be allowed in Riparian Reserves. Alternative 3 was developed in response to this issue. Only hand treatments with no commercial removal would be allowed in Riparian Reserves under Alternative 3. Issue 6: Large amounts of mechanical treatments could have negative environmental impacts. Alternative 3 was developed in response to this issue. No mastication would occur in non- commercial units under Alternative 3. Issue 7: The proposed tree spacing, and resulting canopy cover, is too sparse and will result in rapid re-growth of brush, and hotter, dryer conditions in the plantations. An alternative was developed in response to this issue, but was eliminated from detailed study (see the Alternatives section below). Issue 8: Due to small tree size and distance to processing facilities, many of the units are not economically viable. The Forest Service recognizes that economic viability is of concern when treating young plantations. Economic viability was considered in the development of the project when deciding which units would be commercially treated and which would be non-commercially treated. Additionally, an economic analysis was completed and analysis is summarized in
9 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project section 3 of the EA. The implementation of the project would be accomplished with a combination of commercial and non-commercial contracts. Issue 9: In order to provide stand health, diseased old or large legacy trees should be removed. The proposed action was modified in response to this issue. Diseased legacy trees would be removed in matrix land allocations; healthy legacy trees would still be retained. Diseased or dying large legacy trees would be retained in Riparian Reserves and Late-Successional Reserves, unless they pose a hazard to workers. Issue 10: The size of the project makes site specific analysis difficult, if not impossible. The original proposed action (33,000 acres) was reduced in scale (5,533 acres) in response to this issue.
10 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PROPOSED ACTION This section describes and compares the alternatives considered for the Westside Plantation Project. It includes a description of each alternative considered. Alternatives ______Three alternatives are being analyzed in detail: a Proposed Action, a No Action, and a Reduced Short Term Watershed Impacts alternative. Three alternatives were considered but eliminated from detailed study. All action alternatives consider the same plantations. The plantations proposed for treatment in this project range in age from 24 to 56 years (see Silvicultural Prescription section below). In order to meet the purpose and need, these plantations were selected for treatments under this project because they were of an age class that could have potential to provide some commercial harvest opportunities.
Alternative 1: No Action A No Action Alternative is analyzed by contrasting the impacts of the action alternatives with the current condition and expected future condition if the proposed action were not implemented (36 CFR 220.7 (2)(ii)). The no action alternative is interpreted to mean that no new action will occur from this alternative; forest health issues and fuel loading associated with the current condition would not be alleviated at this time.
Alternative 2: Proposed Action Actions are proposed in plantations located in the following land allocations: Adaptive Management Area, Matrix, Riparian Reserves, and Late-Successional Reserves. There are no treatments proposed within Wilderness or Inventoried Roadless Areas. Table 1 provides a summary of acres and percentage of proposed treatment within each Forest Plan land management prescription. Table 1. Shasta-Trinity National Forest land allocations and land management prescriptions for the Westside Plantation Project Alternative 2 treatment units. Land Allocation Prescription Acres Percent of Treatment Acres Matrix Roaded Recreation 3 <1% Wildlife Habitat Management 18 <1% Commercial Wood Products Emphasis 2,550 46% Administratively Unroaded Non-motorized Recreation 42 <1%
11 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Land Allocation Prescription Acres Percent of Treatment Acres Withdrawn Areas Limited Roaded Motorized Recreation 1 <1% Late-Successional Late-Successional Reserve 2,919 53% Reserve Riparian Reserve8 Riparian Reserve 5239 9% Total Treatment Acres 5,533
Plantation thinning prescriptions are designed to develop and maintain vigorous, healthy plantations that will be resilient to natural disturbances, the most influential of which is wildfire. Fuels treatments will be designed to reduce the risk of crown fires by reducing fuel loading, height to the base of the tree crown, and crown bulk density. Fuels treatment would consist primarily of pruning, mastication, piling and burning, chipping, and/or whole-tree yarding. Proposed plantation thinning is scattered among eight 7th field HUCs (Hydrologic Unit Codes are a classification system for watersheds), all within the Middle South Fork Trinity River 5th field HUC.10 A total of 5,533 acres are proposed for plantation thinning. Silvicultural Prescription – Plantation Thinning In general, the thinning activities would thin from below in plantation stands 24 to 56 years old, retaining an average range of 60 to 200 trees per acre. The number of trees per acre remaining, post-project, would vary depending on the Forest Plan management prescription/land allocation in which the unit is located, the stand species (e.g. mixed conifer, pine forest), site quality and the average tree size (Agee and Skinner 2005). Mixed conifer plantations are typically dominated by Douglas-fir. The silvicultural prescription for treatment units in all management prescriptions would be to thin with the following priority of tree retention: • The legacy trees11 would not be removed unless they pose a safety threat or are diseased. If cut, they would be left on site as large woody debris (logs). • All healthy dominant and co-dominant hardwood species would be retained and would count in spacing criteria. When hardwoods have multiple stems, the dominant two to three stems would be retained.
8 Riparian Reserves overlay other land allocations, thus the totals in this table add up to greater than 5,533 and 100%. 9 Only a subset (193 acres) of Riparian Reserves treatments would be commercial. The remaining Riparian Reserve acres would be hand treated only. 10 Approximately 15 acres of treatment units occur within the Lower Hayfork Creek 5th field watershed on ridges, where plantations straddle the watershed boundaries. 11 Mature or old-growth tree that is retained on a site after the original harvest or natural disturbance to provide a biological legacy.
12 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
The prescriptions were designed to minimize the need for future entries. The thinning prescriptions would leave stocking densities at a level that would be effective for at least 20 years and meet Regional policy (USDA 2004).
All Forest Plan Management Prescription Designated Lands except Late- Successional Reserves and Riparian Reserves In addition, for those units that are outside of Late-Successional and Riparian Reserves, the following applies: • Retain the tallest trees and those trees with the largest crowns and straightest boles that are free of insect, disease and physical or mechanical damage. • Retain (in order of priority) blister rust-free sugar pine (Pinus lambertiana) and Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), followed by ponderosa (Pinus ponderosa)/Jeffrey pine (Pinus jeffreyi), incense cedar (Calocedrus decurrens) and white fir (Abies concolor) while also encouraging species diversity within stands. • Treatment units would average the following: o Pine dominated stands would be thinned to an average density of 100 trees per acre (general average spacing of 21 feet by 21 feet). o Mixed conifer stands would be thinned to an average density of 135 trees per acre (general average spacing of 18 feet by 18 feet). • In all stands where the average residual diameter would be greater than 12 inches dbh, the average trees per acre between 60 and 100 depending on dbh (typically in plantations older than 40 years). • Average spacing would be used as a general guideline with no minimum distance between trees. This will allow some denser pockets of trees and some small openings to mimic more natural conditions. • Variable spacing will be used for the development of historic vegetative conditions and quality wildlife habitat in all plantations. • Tree quality would take precedence over average spacing criteria when determining leave tree selection. Diseased or dying trees would take precedence for removal.
Within Riparian Reserves Designated by Forest Plan In addition to the priority of tree retention noted above for all management prescription designated lands, Riparian Reserves would be thinned with the following priorities: • Retain healthy intermediate hardwoods in addition to healthy dominant and co- dominant hardwood trees. • Diseased or dying trees would take precedence for removal, unless the diseased/dying tree is comparatively larger than average tree size in the surrounding stand and/or provides high quality wildlife habitat now or in the future (likely to fall and provide high quality fish habitat). • Treatment units would average the following:
13 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
o Pine dominated stands would be thinned to an average density of 135 trees per acre (general average spacing of 18 feet by18 feet). o Mixed conifer stands would be thinned to an average density of 200 trees per acre (general average spacing of 15 feet by 15 feet). • Average spacing would be used as a general guideline with no minimum distance between trees. • Variable spacing will be implemented for the development of historic vegetative conditions and quality wildlife habitat.
Within Late-Successional Reserve Designated by Forest Plan In addition to the priority of tree retention noted above for all management prescription designated lands, Late-Successional Reserves would also include: • Diseased or dying trees would take precedence for removal, unless the diseased/dying tree is comparatively larger than average tree size in the surrounding stand and/or provides high quality wildlife habitat now. • Variable spacing will be implemented for the development of historic vegetative conditions and quality wildlife habitat. • Compliance with the design criteria for young plantations and young natural early- successional stands and early-successional pole and mid-successional stands12 found in the Forest Late-Successional Reserve Assessment (USFS 1999a).13 The prescription would provide: o Natural species diversity appropriate for late-successional vegetation types, including appropriate conifer species, hardwoods, shrubs, and forbs. Conifer species retention would include the following priority: blister rust-free sugar pine, followed by Douglas-fir, incense cedar, white fir and ponderosa/Jeffrey pine, while encouraging species diversity. o Spacing would be substantially varied within the stand in order to provide for some large trees as quickly as possible. o Maintain areas of heavy canopy closure and decadence. • Treatment units would average the following: o Pine dominated stands would be thinned to an average density of 100 trees per acre (general average spacing of 21 feet by 21 feet).
12 The Late-Successional Reserve Assessment contains management recommendations for treating plantations within Late-Successional Reserve. The Release and Thinning in existing young plantations sections are the design criteria used to develop the prescriptions in the early-successional pole and mid-successional stands for this project. 13 The Late-Successional Reserve Assessment is located on the Forest website by accessing: http://fs.usda.gov/goto/stnf/planningdocs
14 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
o Mixed conifer stands, treatment units would be thinned to an average density of 135 trees per acre (general average spacing of 18 feet by 18 feet). o In all stands where the average residual diameter would be greater than 12 inches dbh the average trees per acre between 60 and 100 depending on dbh (typically in plantations older than 40 years).
Table 2 is a summary of the silvicultural prescription by Forest Plan management prescription. Table 2. Alternative 2 silvicultural prescription summary. All Units outside of Units in Late- Units in Riparian Late-Successional Successional Reserves Reserve and Reserve Riparian Reserves Tree Density Pine Stands Average 100 Average 100 Average 135 trees/acre with varied trees/acres with trees/acre with varied spacing substantially varied spacing spacing, and areas of heavy canopy cover14 Mixed Conifer Average 135 Average 135 trees/ac Average 200 trees/ac Stands trees/acre with varied with substantially with varied spacing spacing varied spacing, and maintaining areas of heavy canopy cover All stands greater Depending on dbh, Depending on dbh, Depending on than 12inches dbh average 60 to 100 average 60 to 100 species, average 135 trees/acre trees/acre to 200 trees/acre
14 Canopy cover is defined as the ground area covered by the crowns of trees or woody vegetation as delimited by the vertical projection of crown perimeters and commonly expressed as a percent of total ground area - synonym canopy cover (Helms 1998).
15 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
All Units outside of Units in Late- Units in Riparian Late-Successional Successional Reserves Reserve and Reserve Riparian Reserves Priority Leave Trees Conifer Priority for conifer Priority for conifer Priority for conifer retention is: sugar retention is: sugar retention is: sugar pine, Douglas-fir, pine, Douglas-fir, pine, Douglas-fir, ponderosa and incense cedar, white ponderosa and Jeffrey pine, incense fir and Jeffrey pine, incense cedar, and white fir ponderosa/Jeffrey cedar, and white fir that are dominant, pine while ensuring that are dominant, co-dominant, or species diversity. co-dominant, or intermediate. Species Provide for vertical intermediate. Species diversity will be diversity utilizing a diversity will be encouraged. mixture of conifer, encouraged. hardwood and shrub species and retention or culturing of “decadent” trees. Hardwood Retain all dominant Retain all dominant Retain all dominant, and co-dominant and co-dominant co-dominant and hardwoods. hardwoods. healthy intermediate class hardwoods.
Fuels Prescription Fuels treatment types are determined by percent slope. Mechanical treatments are feasible on slopes less than 35%.15 Generally, on slopes greater than 35% slope, only hand treatments can be utilized. Hand treatments on these steeper slopes will have higher costs associated with them as well as a longer implementation timeline. Brush within treatment units would be reduced to 15%-30% surface area in a mosaic pattern to break up fuel continuity (Digital Photoseries; USDA 2013). Breaking up fuel continuity affects a fire's ability to sustain combustion and spread. This will also open up the forest floor.
Commercial thinning units All or a combination of the following treatments would occur on thinning units with slopes less than or equal to 35%. Commercial treatments under this project would be completed mechanically, which is restricted to 35% slope or less, but may treat short steeper pitches within the unit.
15 This refers to treatment units that are primarily 35% slope or less; some short steeper stretches within these units may also be treated mechanically (see Resource Protection Measures).
16 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
• Whole tree tractor yarding is the pulling of the whole tree to the landing to be processed on the landing site. This will reduce surface fuels in the unit lowering flame lengths and rates of spread. • Mastication pulverizes or chops standing trees and logs into small particles. This treatment can include mowing, mulching, or chipping. Mastication reduces fuel height which reduces flame length, rates of spread, and crown fire initiation. • Hand piling slash16 will reduce surface fuels across the unit reducing flame lengths and rates of spread. • Machine piling slash will reduce surface fuels across the unit reducing flame lengths and rates of spread. • Pile burning will reduce surface fuels. This treatment will lower flame lengths and rates of spread, reduce crown fire initiation, and lower active crown fire potential. • Jackpot burning is a burning method used to reduce fire hazard in areas where heavy intermittent fuel concentrations exist, but are not continuous enough for a broadcast fire to carry through the fuels, and where piling would be impractical. This burning is normally carried out during the late fall or early spring when fine fuel is dry enough to burn, but larger fuel is too wet to sustain fire. • Pruning lower branches on remaining trees to a canopy base height of eight feet removes ladder fuels, reducing the chance of crown fires. • Utilization of slash whenever possible. This can include commercial or personal firewood. This treatment reduces flame lengths, rates of spread, continuity of fuels and the amount of smoke production from pile burning.
Non-commercial thinning units with slopes less than 35% All or a combination of the following treatments would occur on non-commercial thinning units with slopes less than or equal to 35%. • Hand thinning is the felling of excess trees in the plantations with a chainsaw. Trees would then be cut into smaller pieces. If resulting slash is deeper than 16 inches, then additional fuel treatments would occur as described below; • Mastication; • Hand pile; • Machine pile; • Pile burning; • Jackpot burning; • Pruning;
16 Vegetation debris resulting from project implementation.
17 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
• Utilization of slash whenever possible. This can include personal firewood. This treatment reduces flame lengths, rates of spread, continuity of fuels and the amount of smoke production from pile burning.
Non-commercial thinning units with slopes greater than 35% All or a combination of the following treatments would occur on non-commercial thinning units with slopes greater than 35%. • Hand thinning with a chainsaw; • Hand pile and pile burning; • Jackpot burning. • Pruning; • Utilization.
Connected Actions Connected actions are those actions that are closely related and therefore should be analyzed in the same document. Actions are connected if they automatically trigger other actions which may require environmental analysis; cannot or will not proceed unless other actions are taken previously or simultaneously; or are interdependent parts of a larger action and depend on the larger action for their justification (CEQ Regulations Section 1508.25). The connected actions that are considered in this analysis are road construction, reconstruction and maintenance; temporary road use; and use and creation of landings.
Road Treatments The project proposes no new permanent road construction. There will be no changes in travel management direction with either alternative. Existing National Forest System roads may receive reconstruction and maintenance activities to bring some sections of road up to Forest Service standards to protect resources, safely and efficiently accommodate machine and worker access, and provide for removal of forest products. Road use for non-commercial hand thinning would generally be limited to foot traffic or light vehicles (pickups and off- highway vehicles). Mechanical precommercial treatments would include equipment traveling on roads where possible to reduce impacts, and otherwise may require masticators and machine-pilers “walking” in to units traveling cross-country (similar to the way they move through treatment units). Commercial treatments would require larger vehicles and more frequent trips to haul material off-site; these roads may receive additional maintenance or reconstruction. A list of roads planned for use during implementation of the project is included as Appendix B. Reconstruction Road reconstruction would only occur as necessary for safe and efficient removal of forest products. Reconstruction generally includes work to improve and restore roads. Improvements would provide for serviceability for project haul vehicles and logging equipment, as well as for proper hydrologic function and stream protection in accordance with applicable Best Management Practices (BMPs). Actions can include surface improvement; construction of drainage dips, culverts, riprap fills or other drainage or
18 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
stabilization features with potential disturbance outside the established roadway (toe of fill to top of cut); realignment; widening to accommodate vehicles and logging equipment; and widening of curves as needed to accommodate off-tracking of log trucks and chip vans. Reconstruction also includes the actions included in the Maintenance category, including removal of roadside hazard trees. Reconstruction would improve the road conditions as needed for haul of forest products. Maintenance Maintenance preserves the function of the road but generally does not include improvements. generally include: blading; brushing; removal of roadside hazard trees; repair and/or replacement of road surfaces; cleaning, repair, or installation of drainage structures such as culverts, ditches, and dips; dust abatement; removal and installation of closure barriers, and installation or repair of signs. Maintenance activities generally do not disturb ground outside the existing roadway (toe of fill to top of cut) other than removal of material around culvert inlets. Maintenance Level 1 Roads (Stored Roads) Operational Maintenance Level 1 system roads17 reflect a past management decision to preserve and retain the route for intermittent future use. These roads would be opened and maintained or reconstructed as necessary for Project use. Post-project, these same roads would be closed and stored until needed again in the future. Closing these roads would include installing native material barriers made of log, earth or rock. Beyond the closure, the integrity of maintenance level 1 roads would be preserved to the extent practicable, implementing measures as necessary to reduce sediment delivery from the road surface and fills and reduce the risk of crossing failure and stream diversion – making it hydrologically neutral. These measures include replacing waterbars18 that have been removed; removing slash from ditches and culverts; and, reshaping ditches, dips and the road surface so that water properly drains from the road prism. Temporary Roads Temporary roads are built for short-term use. Temporary roads are generally short segments of road that provide access from a system road to isolated thinning units. Temporary roads would follow the original road prisms that were used to access the units for the original harvests whenever possible. As necessary to attain stabilization of roadbed and fill slopes of temporary roads, measures such as out-sloping, drainage dips, and water-spreading ditches would be employed. With the proposed action, approximately 15.4 miles of temporary (existing non-system) roads are proposed for use to access 77 thinning units. Culverts or rocked crossings would be required on temporary roads at all points where it is necessary to cross stream courses. Such facilities shall be of sufficient size and design and installed in a manner to provide unobstructed flow of water and to minimize damage to
17 Maintenance Level 1 roads are intermittent service roads that are closed to vehicular traffic when not required for use in resource management (Forest Plan, Appendix K, available on the Forest website at http://fs.usda.gov/goto/stnf/planningdocs). 18 A diagonal channel across a road surface or other cleared path that diverts surface water that would otherwise flow down the whole length of the road or path, causing erosion.
19 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
stream courses. Perennial stream crossings would be designed to accommodate a 100-year flood event. During use, temporary roads would receive maintenance as needed to provide for user safety and protect resource values. Construction of the stream crossings would start once the top 8 inches of the soils are dry (approximately June 1 as other resource Limited Operating Periods allow) and would remain in place until log hauling operations are complete. If stream crossings are used for wet weather operations, they will be removed during the following dry season. When a temporary road is no longer needed, they shall be rehabilitated and stabilized. The required stabilization work consists of the removal of all culverts and bridges; the elimination of all ditches, ruts, and berms; outsloping the roadbed; installing cross ditches and water bars where required by the Forest Service; and effectively blocking the road to normal vehicular traffic. When culverts are removed, associated fills shall also be removed to the extent necessary to permit normal maximum flow of water. Best Management Practices for Road Actions Road construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be implemented for any roadwork for the project to ensure proper drainage and control of road related sediment. A list of the BMPs relevant to this project is available in Appendix C. Roads used for project implementation must meet Forest Service BMP standards and where necessary would be watered for dust abatement, or dust abated through the use of a Forest approved dust palliative (dust suppressant).
Landings Landings would be included in and outside of the commercial treatment units and existing landings will be used wherever possible. If new landings are needed, they will be located outside of Riparian Reserves. Some existing landings will be expanded, and up to 5 new landings will be constructed outside of project units. Approximately 80 new landings will be needed (L. Large,pers. comm., 2014), ranging from approximately 0.25 to 0.5 acre. Design and specifications of these landings are addressed in the resource protection measures section in this Chapter.
Alternative 3: Reduced Short Term Watershed Impacts Alternative 3 was designed in response to issues brought up by the public during scoping relating to concerns over watershed impacts from mechanical treatments, especially in Riparian Reserves, and the use of temporary roads. This alternative would allow only hand thinning within Riparian Reserves (no mechanical entry in Riparian Reserves except on existing system roads), would not allow temporary road use, and would include no secondary mechanical fuels treatments (no machine piling or mastication; only hand treatments would occur). The units treated in Alternative 3 are the same as the units treated under Alternative 2, but the treatments differ. All thinning units greater than 100 feet from a Forest system road would not have road access due to lack of temporary roads. These units or sections of units would be hand treated only (felling with a chainsaw). If the resulting fuel load would be greater than 16 inches in depth, additional fuels treatments would occur (all or a combination of the following treatments:
20 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
hand thinning with a chainsaw; hand pile and pile burning; jackpot burning; pruning; utilization). In addition, approximately 184 acres would be dropped from commercial thinning due to not removing material from the Riparian Reserve portions of the treated stands. These combined changes result in a 1,206-acre reduction of commercial thinning acres. The acres dropped from commercial thinning would be non-commercially thinned and the resultant activity fuels treated on site (all or a combination of the following treatments: hand thinning with a chainsaw; hand pile and pile burning; jackpot burning; pruning; utilization). Under Alternative 3, approximately 1,036 acres of plantations have the potential of being thinned for commercial value by whole tree tractor yarding, and 4,497 acres of plantations would be non-commercially thinned by hand treatment. The same 5,533 acres of plantations are proposed for treatment as under Alternative 2, but the treatments on some acres would be different, and no mastication or machine piling would occur in any units under Alternative 3. Secondary fuels treatments would occur after the primary silvicultural treatments on all units where the primary treatments result in a fuel bed more than 16 inches in depth (all or a combination of the following treatments: hand pile and pile burning; jackpot burning; utilization). Pruning of residual trees would also occur where determined necessary by the fuels specialist. Connected Actions Connected actions for Alternative 3 are the same as Alternative 2, except that there will be no temporary roads maintained or used.
Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study There were three alternatives that were considered but eliminated from detailed study for various reasons that are explained below. Original Project Proposal The original project proposal looked at the maximum treatment acres of plantations on the west side of the Forest (33,000 acres of treatments). The initial intent was to analyze the project as a programmatic analysis across the entire west side. Through Scoping it came to light that the project was designed as a site specific project and the overall design couldn’t be supported. Alternative 2 reduced the treatment acres to approximately 5,533 acres. The overall scale of the project was reduced to be responsive to internal and external scoping comments over concerns about the potential unknown impacts of a project of this scale (see issues sections above; specifically issue 5). The original project proposal also included cable yarding. The proposed action (alternative 2) eliminated cable yarding to make the commercial aspect of the project more economical. Alternative 2 also restricts the equipment type in Riparian Reserves, allows no landings or skid trails in perennial stream Riparian Reserves, and no new skid trails or landings would be constructed within the intermittent and ephemeral stream Riparian Reserves, except for ephemeral streams not exhibiting annual scour or deposition; these changes were made in response to public comments that expressed concerns about watershed impacts. Under the original proposed action, lop and scatter treatments were proposed for non-commercial thin units; generally more intensive fuels treatments are proposed under Alternative 2, including
21 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
mastication in order to more effectively reduce fuel loading concerns of the public and project interdisciplinary team members. Additionally, units that occur within the National Wild and Scenic River corridor were dropped from treatment in Alternative 2. 60 to 85 Percent Canopy Cover Alternative19 During public scoping, an alternative was proposed by several individuals and groups to treat these plantations by retaining a higher stand density. The recommendations were based on retaining canopy cover that varied from 60 to 85 percent in order to provide habitat for northern spotted owls and other late-successional stand related species. In addition, one individual requested that treatments begin in matrix and adaptive management allocation areas to establish a record for success before entering Late-Successional Reserves. This alternative was considered but eliminated for several reasons. The existing canopy cover for these stands for layers of all trees (with no treatment) average 50 to75 percent. If canopy cover is measured based upon trees that exceed 40 feet in height the range drops down to 10 to 65 percent. Northern spotted owl habitat requires canopy produced by trees that are 40 feet in height or taller. The majority of these treatment stands are young, even-aged and overstocked, provide no habitat for late seral dependent wildlife species. Many of these stands presently do not meet the canopy cover several commenters expressed as needed. Those stands that do have high percentages of canopy cover (greater than 60 percent) are at higher risk for insect and disease outbreaks (Negron 1998, Negron and Popp 2004, Oliver 1997, Chojnacky et al. 2000, Fettig et al. 2007). In addition, treatment at these levels would not meet the management intent of the Forest Plan, which is to protect forest resources from loss to wildfire, pathogens and insects (Limited Roaded Motorized Recreation prescription); maintaining healthy and vigorous ecosystems (Roaded Recreation and Wildlife Habitat Management prescriptions); accelerate development of late-successional conditions while making the future stand less susceptible to natural disturbances, and minimize the number of future entries (Late-Successional Reserve prescription); manage to control competition (release and weeding), obtain stocking control (thinning), and minimize mortality (pest management: Commercial Wood Projects prescription); and, control stocking, reestablish and manage stand, and acquire desired vegetation characteristics needed to attain the Aquatic Conservation Strategy objectives (Riparian Reserves prescription).20For these reasons, this alternative did not meet the purpose and need for the project. Diameter Limit of 21 inches dbh Alternative This alternative was developed based on several public comments that expressed the need to limit the size of trees that may be removed by this project. Another commenter submitted that a diameter limit would not be appropriate for the project (see scoping comments and responses in Appendix A).
19 Canopy cover is defined as the ground area covered by the crowns of trees or woody vegetation as delimited by the vertical projection of crown perimeters and commonly expressed as a percent of total ground area - synonym canopy cover (Helms 1998). 20 Forest Plan, pages 4-37, 4-46, 4-47, 4-64., 4-66, 4-67, 4-53, 4-54, 4-59.
22 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Due to the young age of these plantations and the silvicultural prescriptions proposed, a 21 inch diameter limit would not result in a meaningful reduction in the number or size of trees removed. Trees over 21 inches will be mostly retained as the tallest, best growing codominant and dominant individuals in the stand. On particularly productive sites, plantations may be almost entirely comprised of trees of this size or close to this size; if a dbh limit was imposed on these units, it would prevent meaningful thinning of these stands leaving them susceptible to higher mortality rates. In other productive sites, several trees in this size class may be spaced closely together. In some cases, it may be appropriate to leave this denser area as a skipped area, but in some cases if these dense patches are left, crowns of the leave trees will be severely limited, impacting the resilience of the trees. In these situations, trees over 21 inches would be removed to improve the health and growth of the leave trees. In some cases, in order to encourage and maintain some intermediate, codominant and dominant hardwoods in the stand, some larger conifers (i.e. over 21 inches) may need to be removed depending on the quality of the hardwood. The total number of trees over 21 inches removed in this project will be fairly low. The ability to thin trees of this size class would be central to the purpose and need of the project because this thinning would maintain and improve forest health and resiliency. As such, an alternative that includes a 21 inch diameter limit would not meet the purpose and need of the project. Resource Protection Measures ______To minimize impacts to resources in the area from this project, the following resource protection measures are incorporated into both action alternatives, unless otherwise noted.
Wildlife and Fish 1. Limited operating periods (LOPs) will be implemented to avoid potential impacts to northern spotted owls, northern goshawks, peregrine falcons, and anadromous fish: a) For northern spotted owls, starting on February 1 through July 10, all loud and continuous noise disturbance and smoke-generating activities will be prohibited within 0.25 mile of known suitable nesting/roosting and foraging habitat. The only unit that is not within 0.25 miles of suitable nesting, roosting, or foraging habitat is unit #380001. Surveys to protocol can be used to generate new breeding activity results. If subsequent protocol compliant surveys show no nesting activity within 0.25 miles of proposed activities at the time of implementation or by mutual agreement with the USFWS, LOPs may be lifted (as appropriate). If surveys indicate that northern spotted owls are not resident in the area and LOPs are lifted, the FWS will be informed of the change. b) For northern goshawks (Accipiter gentilis), a limited operating period (LOP) will be imposed from February 1 to August 15 within 0.5 miles of all known goshawk nest sites. This LOP will apply to all activities causing loud and continuous noise disturbance or smoke that will potentially disturb this species during its breeding season. The following project units are affected: 410024, 410102, 410104, 410105, 410106, 410112, 380125, 380128 and 600108. Surveys to protocol can be used to generate new breeding activity results. If
23 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
subsequent protocol-compliant surveys show no nesting activity within 0.5 miles of proposed activities at the time of implementation, LOPs may be lifted (as appropriate). c) There is a known peregrine falcon nest site within approximately 0.25 miles of project units. In compliance with the existing management plan for this site, a February 1 – August 1 LOP will be imposed on units 410017, 410024, 410102, 410104 and 410111 to protect the site from loud and continuous noise disturbance or smoke during the peregrine breeding season. Surveys to protocol can be used to generate new breeding activity results. If subsequent protocol compliant surveys show no nesting activity within the nest site management zones at the time of implementation, LOPs may be lifted. d) Field personnel and equipment will not enter waterways where anadromous fish are determined to be spawning or eggs would be incubating21, as determined and indicated by a fish biologist. Restricted time periods are generally from October 15 through April 15. Additional restrictions may be appropriate for waterways containing spring Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and summer-run steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), as determined by a qualified fish biologists (focus is protection of spawning and incubating eggs). To avoid potential watershed-related impacts, including effects to anadromous fish, timber harvest activities will occur between April 15 and October 15, unless wet weather operations are approved by the resource specialists and the District Ranger. This time period is referred to as the normal operating season, or aquatic period of operation. 2. No caves are known to exist immediately adjacent to proposed activities. If during project layout or implementation caves are found in units or within 250 feet of unit boundaries, the Forest Cave Coordinator would be consulted and a buffer flagged on the ground identifying an equipment exclusion zone, and/or modification of the prescription in the vicinity if needed. No project activities, including harvest activities, will take place within 250 feet from caves, mines and mine adits to protect known or potential Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) roost sites. 3. Retain existing, large (greater than 19 inches dbh) snags within thinning units unless this poses a safety hazard for that specific site. Any snags greater than 19 inches felled for safety reasons would be left on site as logs. 4. Retain any existing legacy trees.22 5. Large woody debris (logs) that is already on the ground will be retained where it will not cause a safety concern for implementation, and protected from disturbance to the greatest extent possible during mechanical treatment activities . At least 5 logs per
21 Appendix A in the Fish Specialist Report contains maps of anadromous fish streams within the project area that may be potentially affected. This report is on file in the project planning record at the Forest Headquarters and can be accessed on the Forest website at http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/project_content.php?project=25380 22 Mature or old-growth tree that is retained within a plantation after original harvest or natural disturbance to provide a biological legacy.
24 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
acre (at least 20 inches in diameter and 10 feet long) will be retained with 4 to 8 tons/acre of fuel remaining for protection of habitat and soil fertility.23 6. Protect and retain dominant and co-dominant class hardwoods (all treatments) along with healthy intermediate class hardwoods (Riparian Reserves only), as possible where they do not interfere with or cause a hazard to implementation.
Botany Sensitive Plants 7. Protect rare plant species listed on the Regional Forester’s Sensitive species list, or meeting criteria for listing, by flagging and avoiding, and halting operations in the vicinity of plant populations newly discovered after completion of the biological evaluation or NEPA document, until a botanist can be consulted. Serpentine Ecosystems 8. Different types and mixes of serpentine soils have different management needs, based on the vegetation growing on the site, and different resource protection needs for protecting soils and serpentine associated plants. Serpentine soils have been categorized into three types with attached protection measures: a) Category 1 (open with blue rock, some brushy areas and no conifers): No treatment allowed. No machinery off of existing tracks, routes or roads; no landings; no temporary road construction and no burning activities. If no route exists botanist and soil scientist will be consulted to develop new routes. These areas will be flagged and avoided prior to any work occurring near these areas. b) Category 2 (brushy with some ground visible. There may be scattered or dense clumps of large mature trees [Jeffrey pine, incense cedar and hardwoods]. Also could be clumps of small to large brush): Hand thinning from below of trees less than 10-inch dbh would be allowed (no commercial sawtimber removed). Leave some islands of clumped trees. No machinery allowed (including no mastication). Hand felling with a chainsaw and burn piles would be allowed. These areas will be flagged prior to any work occurring near or within these areas and designated as hand treatments only. c) Category 3 (timbered conifer forests: the areas may have a hardwood component. More vegetation and organic material than other two categories): There will be no restrictions to project activities for these areas except that known occurrences of unique flora assemblages will be flagged and avoided prior to work occurring near or within these areas.
23 In the Forest Plan, this quantity is specified for areas designated as Matrix-Commercial Wood Products Emphasis (pg. 4-67). Forest Plan coarse woody debris direction for Matrix allocations also includes maintenance of a renewable supply of large down logs well-distributed across the landscape (pg. 4-61). For all other land allocations where activities are proposed coarse woody debris direction includes maintaining dead/down material at naturally-occurring levels (pg. 4-44 and 4-46, and 4-54).
25 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Noxious Weeds/Non-native Invasive Species 9. Equipment will be cleaned prior to use in treatment units to reduce introduction of noxious weeds. Off-road equipment will be cleaned between units to reduce spread within the project area. Each treatment unit shall identify sites for vehicle cleaning and equip the sites sufficiently (i.e. high-pressure hose) to ensure mud or vegetative material trapped in tires or on the carriage of the off-road equipment can be effectively removed. 10. Prior to implementation of timber operations, where the risk of spread of high priority invasive plants is moderate to high (South Fork Mountain area), via contractor, agreement, or force account, treat invasive plant-infested road medians, landings, processing areas or other clearings used in the course of project implementation proximal in time before the start of operations. Treatment may include machine removal, weed whacking, or hand treatments. Invasive plants or shrubs removed shall be located on the edge of the clearing out of the way of operations, or hauled away and destroyed to avoid retrieval on equipment. 11. Avoid staging equipment where invasive plants occur. If avoidance is not feasible, staging areas will be treated prior to using (e.g. manual or mechanically remove) and maintained as needed throughout the life of the project via contractor, agreement, or force account. Locate treated material on site and out of the way of equipment operations. 12. When seeding heavily disturbed areas such as temporary roads, landings and main skid trails, use native grass seed and non-persistent cereal grains using weed-free sources. Gravel used for road maintenance and road stream crossings should be weed- free. 13. Mulch all seeded areas with certified weed-free straw. 14. Prior to implementation, flag and avoid untreated high risk noxious weed populations (i.e., any knapweed species (Centaurea other than C. solstitialis), dyers woad (Isatis tinctorius), brooms (Cytisus spp., Genista spp., Spartium spp.), and Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense)), that could be impacted by the project activities. Staging areas for equipment, materials, or crews will be prohibited in areas with untreated high risk invasive plant infestations.
Riparian Reserve Areas 15. Figure 2 provides a graphic definition of Riparian Reserve and equipment exclusion zones.
26 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Figure 2. Graphic depiction of Riparian Reserves
16. Table 3 below provides the minimum riparian reserve boundary widths by category of stream and/or waterbody (Forest Plan 4-53, 4-54). When calculating Riparian Reserve distances, the site-potential tree height would be based on the tallest dominant 200 year old or older trees locally near the stream in question (outside of treatment areas).
Table 3. Minimum Riparian Reserve Boundary Widths, by Stream or Waterbody Category. Stream Seasonally flowing Fish-bearing streams Permanently flowing and/or or intermittent and lakes or natural non-fish-bearing Waterbody streams or ponds streams and wetlands Category wetlands < 1 acre > 1 acre or unstable or potentially unstable areas Extent of A distance equal to A distance equal to the A distance equal to the Riparian the height of 1 site height of 2 site potential height of 1 site Reserve potential tree on trees on each side of the potential tree on each Width each side of the channel or edge of the side of the channel or channel, or 100 feet lake or pond, or 300 feet edge of the wetland, or on each side of the on each side of the 150 feet on either side channel (200 feet channel or edge of the of the channel or edge total), whichever is lake or pond (600 feet of the wetland (300 feet greatest. total), whichever is total), whichever is greatest. greatest.
17. Where the inner gorge extends beyond 100, 150, or 300 feet for seasonal, nonfish, and fish-bearing streams, respectively, then the Riparian Reserve is the entire inner gorge area. A minimum 50 foot equipment exclusion zone will be flagged along the outer edge of the inner gorge. It may be wider if deemed necessary during field evaluation by the earth scientist, fish biologist or designee. Mechanical equipment
27 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
will not operate within the equipment exclusion zones. Mechanical equipment will not operate beyond the break in slope of any inner gorge. All Equipment Exclusion Zones (EEZs) will be flagged and/or signed within proposed treatment units and identified as "equipment exclusion" on project maps. Treatments will have limited ground disturbance in the EEZ and will not disturb riparian plant species such as big leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum) and alder (Alnus spp.). 18. Hand treatments will occur in EEZs up to the stream edge, but treatments will not reduce shade over the water and treatments in unstable areas will be modified in coordination with the geologist. 19. Wet meadows and unstable areas are included in the Riparian Reserve designation. 20. Any trees >12 inches in diameter felled within the inner gorge or perennial stream channels will generally be left in place, unless field review by a fish biologist or earth scientist reveals a site specific issue with doing that, such as excessive fuel loading. 21. Riparian Reserves that are unmapped will be identified and protected, prior to and/or during implementation, in accordance with appropriate protection measures (see Table 3 above). Upon field review, if ephemeral streams show no sign of annual scour or deposition (i.e., upland swales) they do not meet the Forest Plan definition of a waterbody requiring buffering by a Riparian Reserve, thus these areas are to be treated based on the management prescription for that area. 22. Effective shade over water in Riparian Reserves will not be reduced below 80 percent canopy cover where it already exists. 23. Hazard trees felled within Riparian Reserves must be retained on site. An exception is that trees felled in stream channels can be removed for a distance of up to 200 feet upstream of culverts. Hand piles and burning 24. All piles shall be reasonably compact and free of soil to facilitate burning and shall be constructed of such size and at such distance from trees so that burning shall not result in unnecessary damage to residual timber. 25. There will be hand piling or burning within the EEZs. Provide for minimal-intensity prescribed fire conditions to attain desired prescription burn treatment objectives (i.e., consume pile material) within the Riparian Reserves. Hand piles will be placed in a dispersed pattern (i.e., not stacked above one another). 26. Hand piling and pile burning will not occur within the EEZs.24 Landings, skid trails and crossings 27. Existing landings within Riparian Reserve can be reused; however, the area of disturbance will not be increased and these features will be ripped25 and seeded26
24 These treatments will occur as secondary fuels treatments and will not be implemented as part of the timber sale. 25 Ripping refers to the use of machinery to break the soil surface to loosen compacted soil and increase permeability.
28 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
following use where they do not need to be retained as part of the road system.27 No new landings will be constructed within the Riparian Reserve. 28. No full bench skid trails will be constructed within the Riparian Reserves. Existing skid trails will be re-used, where possible, to minimize soil displacement and concentrated surface flow. 29. Any intermittent and perennial stream equipment crossings (except Forest Service system roads) will be field reviewed and approved by an earth scientist, fish biologist or designee prior to use. These features will be designed to maintain fish passage on existing and potential fish-bearing streams,28 minimize disruption of natural hydrologic flow paths, including diversion of streamflow and interception of surface and subsurface flow. They will be reshaped and stabilized following use. 30. Rocked crossings will be constructed on dry intermittent stream channels. Perennial stream crossings will be constructed with a culvert designed to withstand a 100-year flood. Stream crossings will avoid unstable areas. If stream crossings are left in place for wet weather operations, they will be removed during the following dry season. 31. Vegetation removed for placement of culverts on stream crossings will be cut and piled when the crossing is reconstructed. Trees/shrubs on the fill and cut slopes will be retained where possible. Fill will likely need to be pulled prior to culvert placement. When the crossing is rehabilitated, additional fill will be pulled back from the crossing so that the original stream level is re-established when the culvert is removed. This will result in an improved drainage compared with the current condition. Water drafting 32. Water drafting will occur at existing sites with existing access and will be located to minimize adverse effects on stream channel stability, sedimentation and instream flows needed to maintain riparian resources, channel conditions and fish habitat.29 Water drafting sites that are not within habitat that is accessible to anadromous salmonids will be identified first and will be given priority for use. When needed, water drafting may occur in habitat accessible by anadromous salmonids. In all cases where water drafting occurs within anadromous salmonid habitat,30 2001 National
26 See specifications on ripping and seeding below in the Soils/Hydrology Resource Protection Measure section. 27 Wide areas along roads used as landings are often also used as turn outs for vehicle traffic and are considered part of the road system. Where these occur within Riparian Reserves, they will be retained. 28 Forest Plan Standard and Guideline, page 4-55 in the Forest Plan. 29 Forest Plan Standard and Guideline, page 4-58 in the Forest Plan. 30 Refer to Figure 4 in the Fish Biological Assessment which illustrates the river or tributary reaches that are accessible to anadromous fish and are therefore coho salmon Critical Habitat. They include the entire South Fork Trinity River, and approximately the lower mile of Butter Creek, lower 1.5 miles of Plummer Creek, and lower 2 miles of Rattlesnake Creek.
29 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Marine Fisheries Service’s (NMFS) Water Drafting Specifications31 will be adhered to. 33. In addition, when drafting water outside of anadromous salmonid habitat, the following rules apply.32 a) Allow drafting from fishery streams only where immediate downstream discharge is maintained at 1.5 cubic feet per second (CFS) or greater (and is not greater than 10 percent of the stream flow). b) Allow drafting from ephemeral streams, intermittent streams, wetlands or constructed ponds provided that sufficient water quantity and quality remains to support associated wildlife species and riparian values. c) Never allow drafting to remove more than 75 percent of constructed pond water.
Soils and Hydrology Landings and skid trails 34. Relevant BMPs have been identified for this project and are listed in Appendix C. 35. Skid trail erosion control work will be kept current during implementation. Erosion control and drainage of skid trails will be complete prior to shutting down operations due to wet weather. 36. All material will be skidded with the leading end clear of the ground. 37. Skid trails that intersect Forest Service system roads will be blocked after implementation with available material (large wood undesirable for fuelwood, boulders, or earthen berms). 38. No skid trails will be built on active landslides or inner gorges, and no existing skid trails on active landslides or inner gorges will used. 39. Dedicate no more than 15% of a thinning unit to primary skid trails and landings. Reuse existing primary skid trails and landings whenever possible.33 40. Skid trails shall not be located in swales. Re-use existing skid trails and landings whenever available and practical to minimize soil displacement and concentrated surface flow.34 41. Rip (subsoil to 18 inches) all landings identified for rehabilitation, temporary roads, and main skid trails (at least 200 feet entering landings) that have fine textured soils35 with a winged-subsoiler following completion of all management activities. Tillage/sub-soiling will be completed outside of the tree drip-line so as not to impact
31 The 2001 National Marine Fisheries Service’s (NMFS) Water Drafting Specification document is located at http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/publications/hydropower/water_drafting_specification_guidelines.pdf. 32 Forest Plan Standard and Guideline, page 4-25 in the Forest Plan. 33 Forest Plan Standard and Guideline, page 4-25 in the Forest Plan). 34 Best Management Practices 1-10, 1-12, 1-13, 1-16. 35 Ripping of soils is only required in units with fine textured soils. All units contain fine textured soils except units 17, 22, 25, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 73, 74, 75, 79, and 80 which are rocky.
30 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
root systems. For rocky soil, scarification36 will be used to restore sites. These areas should be mulched (weed free straw, wood chips or on-site organic material) at a rate of 1.5 to 2 tons per acre (approximately 4 to 6 inches in depth) over a minimum of 75 percent of the exposed soils, or seeded with native grass or non-persistent cereal grains at a rate of 6-10 pounds per acre. 42. Minimize soil erosion by water-barring skid trails. Install waterbars on contour at major breaks in slope along the skid trails. 43. Re-utilize old landings; only create new landings as absolutely necessary for operational efficiency. 44. New landings would be located on gentle slopes (<20%) to minimize earthwork, and would avoid unstable areas, steep slopes below landslide benches, and slope positions where they could deliver sediment to streams. Cuts and fills would not exceed 5 feet in height, unless field reviewed and approved by an earth scientist beforehand. 45. Pull organic materials out of fill slope of landings to prevent collapse. 46. Landings will have natural, non-constructed designs with slash covered operating areas for de-limbing and loading, with a short entry road for log trucks. If this is not feasible, landings will be constructed to adequately drain through crowned surface and directed drainage with catchment structures (rock armoring and/or silt fences with straw bales may be used as necessary). All new landing fill slopes and access road fill slopes (>100 sq. ft.) would be mulched initially, and then the mulch would be maintained throughout the life of the project; mulch may be weed-free straw, or landing slash. Areas with new road and landing fill will be rehabilitated after treatments are complete. 47. Landings are preferentially placed on existing landings created during previous management actions. If this is not possible, new landings will occur in plantation units. If this is not feasible, new landings will occur in areas that are generally open or have younger forest vegetation. Finally, if this is not possible, the removal of trees larger than 24 inches will be avoided. Temporary Roads (these measures only pertain to Alternative 2) 48. Temporary roads are preferentially placed on existing roadbeds created during previous management actions. If this is not possible, new temporary roads will occur within plantation units. If this is not feasible, new temporary roads will occur in areas that are generally open or have younger forest vegetation. Finally, if this is not possible, the removal of trees larger than 24 inches will be avoided; if they cannot be avoided, they will be left onsite as logs. 49. Specifically, no suitable northern spotted owl habitat will be affected at any landing sites. No new landings will be located within Riparian Reserves. 50. Temporary roads will be agreed to on the ground and field reviewed by appropriate resource specialists or designee.
36 Scarification involves light disturbance of the soil surface, as opposed to deep ripping to 18 inches.
31 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
51. Temporary roads will be closed following use. Closure consists of pulling culverts, out-sloping roads, and installing a closure structure. These actions will be undertaken by the timber sale contractor. Additional closure activities may be undertaken by the Forest including relieving inboard ditches, ripping roadbase to 18 inches (unless the soil is rocky), and mulching with weed-free straw, woodchips, or approved fine slash to achieve 2-3 tons/acre of cover.37 52. Prevent road runoff from draining onto skid trails and landings. 53. Spot rock native surface roads with aggregate if used during wet weather operations, where determined necessary by soil scientist or designee. 54. Install silt fences at culvert outlets if road will be used during wet weather, where determined by a soil scientist or a designee. 55. Mulch and seed new or disturbed fill slopes. General road measures 56. Purchaser or contractor-utilized roads rutted or otherwise damaged by purchaser/contractor operations shall be spot rocked or otherwise suitably repaired. Drainage structures shall be protected or repaired as necessary. The road surface shall be out-sloped, if possible, during maintenance operations. Road surfaces expected to be used during wet weather, in areas crossing serpentine soils, should be rocked to prevent roadbed deformation (rutting) during wet conditions. 57. Dispose of unsuitable slide and excess fill in stable, non-floodplain sites. Disposal of suitable slide, fill and excess fill may be used to restore natural or near-natural contours, as approved by geotechnical engineer or other qualified personnel. Fill material will be inspected by a botanist or weed specialist prior to moving for presence of noxious weeds. If noxious weeds are present, they will be treated prior to moving the fill, and the disposal site will be monitored in the future and treated as necessary. 58. Minimize disturbance of existing vegetation within the road clearing limits, at stream crossings and approved disposal sites to the extent necessary to protect the hydrologic function of the subject road. Mechanical treatment units 59. Mechanical skidding equipment is generally restricted to slopes less than 35 percent. On short steep pitches (greater than 35% slope, less than 45% slope, and less than 100 ft in length), mechanical skidding equipment is restricted to slash covered primary skid trails using flexible track skidders with low ground pressure equipment. 60. Ground-based mechanical equipment will only operate on fine-textured soils (all units except units 17, 22, 25, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 73, 74, 75, 79, and 80 which are rocky) when the top 8 inches of soil are dry (less than 18% moisture by weight), as evaluated by Forest soil scientist.
37 If the temporary roads do not naturally revegetate after 10 years, they will be revegetated to comply with the National Forest Management Act of 1976.
32 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
61. Wet weather logging is permitted on soils with compaction hazard rating of moderate or less (units 17, 22, 25, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 73, 74, 75, 79, and 80 which are rocky) with restrictions (see Field Guide to Soil Moisture Conditions for Operability of Logging Equipment and Shasta-Trinity Wet Weather Soil Compaction Hazard Rating). 61. Post-treatment total soil cover should be between 50 and 70 percent on metamorphics with at least 50 percent cover as fine organic matter (duff, litter, plant leaves/needles, fine slash (<3 inch material), etc.; all units except UIVC 49 and UIVC 17). On granitics, soil cover should be greater than 90 percent with at least 50 percent cover as fine organic matter (units UIVC 49 and UIVC 17). 62. Treatment areas susceptible to logging-based soil displacement38 (shallow granitic soils; units UIVC 49 and UIVC 17) will keep skidders (rubber tired or fixed track) on slopes less than 35%. On short steep pitches (greater than 35% slope, less 45% slope, and less than 100 ft in length) logs may be removed using flexible track skidders or endlining. Alternatively, these logs may be excluded from treatment. Avoid displacing topsoil (typically 2 to 4 inches) and exposing erosive subsoils on areas greater than 15 by 15 feet, unless mulched. Only operate on these soils when dry (less than 18% moisture by weight) down to 8 inches. 63. Retain existing large woody debris (LWD) whenever possible provided the amount of logs does not exceed fuel management objectives and does not cause a safety concern. 64. Erosion control measures shall be kept current immediately preceding expected seasonal periods of precipitation or runoff. Erosion control measures shall be effective to minimize soil erosion and prevent damaging concentrations of surface flow. Fuel Treatment Operations 65. The number of piles would generally not exceed 60 to 80 piles (5ftx5ft in size) per acre (3.5% to 4.5% of a treatment unit). 66. Fuel reduction activities (machine piling using brush rakes or grapple heads) should retain >50 percent of the existing surface duff (Forest Plan Soil Quality Standards). For machine piling on fine textured soils (all units except units 17, 22, 25, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 73, 74, 75, 79, and 80 which are rocky), weight restrictions should be set 6.0 PSI ground pressure or less and operate on dry39 soils less than 35 percent slope. 67. Excess activity created slash and existing surface fuels (where they exceed 16 inches in depth) may be machine piled or masticated on slopes less than 35 percent and hand piled on slopes greater than 35 percent.
38 Detrimental soil displacement is excessive topsoil moved laterally from its usual place by blading or pushed aside by machines or logs, most likely to occur on steep shallow soils. 39 Dry is defined as less than 18% moisture by weight.
33 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
68. Ground-based mastication operations on fine-textured soils (clay loams, clays, silty clay loams; all units except units 17, 22, 25, 39-48, 73-75, 79 and 80) should operate when: a. Soil moisture less than 30% by weight (evaluated by Forest soil scientist) to 8 inches in depth can be operated on with low ground pressure equipment (less than 6psi) on slopes less than 35%. b. Drive over masticated material to form a cushion to reduce displacement and compaction. c. For equipment with ground pressure over 6psi, operations will be conducted when the soils are dry (less than 18% moisture by weight) down to 8 inches on slopes up to 45%. d. To determine soil moisture operability in the field, use the “Field Guide to Soil Moisture Condition Relative to Operability”, on file at Shasta-Trinity National Forest Headquarters, Redding, CA. (evaluated by forest soil scientist or inspector trained by forest soil scientist). Naturally Occurring Asbestos 69. Mechanical operations should operate on slightly moist or moist soils to reduce dust levels that could contain naturally occurring asbestos (NOA) in ultramafic soils (units 35, 65-71, and 78). 70. All field personnel who will be working near earth-moving, or other dust-producing activities in areas underlain by ultramafic rock will be informed that NOA commonly occurs in that rock, and they will be provided with a map showing such areas. 71. Dust production will be prevented/minimized by applying effective dust abatement measures, such as applying water or other dust inhibitors to materials being worked; operating when soil conditions are moist enough to limit dust, but not be so wet as to result in rutting or sedimentation into streams; reducing vehicle speed; and avoiding dust-producing activities on excessively windy days. Ensure road surfaces are wet. Where needed, wet road surfaces with water trucks using sprinklers to reduce dust. 72. Where dust prevention in ultramafic areas is not possible, appropriate protection and mitigation measures will be applied so that Forest Service and contractor field personnel will not inhale such dust. These include closing windows on vehicles and turning on positive ventilation systems, or use of appropriate air filtration masks if other measures are not adequate. 73. If rock/soil waste is generated from ultramafic areas, such waste will be disposed of only where the underlying rock is also ultramafic, and it will not be mixed with other waste from non-ultramafic areas. When transporting NOA-containing material, avoid overloading trucks and cover with tarps to reduce dust. Ensure that piles of excavated material are wet and cover with tarps to reduce dust. General activities 74. Any project-related spills of hazardous material will be contained and cleaned up immediately. Contaminated soils will be removed to approved disposal areas. 75. Treatments within known geologically sensitive areas will be field reviewed and the prescription will be refined as needed by an earth scientist, silviculturist and/or
34 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
designee. A minimum 50-foot equipment exclusion buffer will be flagged above the crown or head of active or potentially active landslides or modified based on geoscientist site specific evaluation. No cutting of trees or other riparian vegetation will occur along landslides, except for trees that pose a threat to property or human health.
Air Quality 76. Prescribed burning will be implemented in accordance with California Code of Regulations, Title 17, Smoke Management Guidelines for Agricultural and Prescribed Burning. A Smoke Management Plan will be completed and submitted to the appropriate Air Quality Management District for approval prior to implementing any prescribed fire. 77. Use of prescribed fire will comply with Forest Service, California Air Resources Board and North Coast Unified Air Quality Management District guidelines. 78. Treatment through prescribed burns will be staged with maximum treatment of 12,600 piles per year in each impacted airshed. Activity fuel piles will not be constructed much bigger than 6 feet by 8 feet. To mitigate the potential for significant impacts and nonconformity, the Forest will coordinate prescribe fire in the airsheds to distribute the burn days appropriately throughout the year. The coordination will include communication with the North Coast Unified Air Quality Management District (ACMD), Shasta County ACMD, and Tehama County Air Pollution Control District personnel for adequate burn days, based on current air quality within the basin and weather conditions. The South Fork Management Unit will develop a plan that meets the objectives of the management unit and maintain conformity with the State Implementation Plans (SIP) and Clean Air Act (CAA). 79. All timber purchaser or service contractors working in units with serpentine soils will be informed and if equipment and operations cause the emission of any dust that is visible, they will be responsible for deciding if protection measures, such as respirators are necessary to protect workers on site from airborne asbestos fibers. 80. Monitor smoke transport and dispersion during prescribed fire.
Cultural Resources 81. If mechanical equipment is used in a treatment unit, all recorded cultural and archaeological resources will be flagged and avoided following the site protective guidelines in the Region 5 Section 106 Programmatic Agreement. However, vegetation within these sites can be removed using hand tools, so long as ground disturbance is minimized and features avoided. Woody material may also be chipped within the boundaries of historic properties so long as the equipment used does not create adverse effects to the site. 82. To ensure the previously recorded sites will be protected, management measures stipulated under the Programmatic Agreement Among the U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region (Region 5), California State Historic Preservation Officer, Nevada State Historic Preservation Officer, and Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Regarding the Processes for Compliance with Section106 of the
35 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
National Historic Preservation Act for Management of Historic Properties by the National Forests of the Pacific Southwest Region, Processes for Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for Management of Historic Properties by The National Forests of the Pacific Southwest will be applied. Specifically under Appendix E, Standard Resource Protection Measures 1.0 “Heritage Program Managers (HPMs), or delegated Heritage Program staff, shall ensure that Standard Protection Measures are implemented as appropriate for all subject undertakings managed under this PA. When these protection measures are effectively applied, Forests will have taken into account the effects of undertakings on historic properties. These management measures will avoid the potential for direct and indirect adverse effects to these recorded sites from the action alternative. The first management measure to be applied is under Appendix E of the PA, Standard Resource Protection Measures 1.0 Class I: Avoidance states, 1.2 Activities within historic property boundaries will be prohibited with the exception of using developed Forest transportation systems when the HPM or qualified heritage professional recommends that such use is consistent with the terms and purposes of this agreement, where limited activities approved by the HPM or qualified heritage professional will not have an adverse effect on historic properties, or except as specified below in sections 2.0 and 3.0 of Appendix E. 1.3 All historic properties within APEs shall be clearly delineated prior to implementing any associated activities that have the potential to affect historic properties. (1) Historic property boundaries shall be delineated with coded flagging and/or other effective marking. (2) Historic property location and boundary marking information shall be conveyed to appropriate Forest Service administrators or employees responsible for project implementation so that pertinent information can be incorporated into planning and implementation documents, contracts, and permits (e.g., clauses or stipulations in permits or contracts as needed). In addition to the stipulations above these actions may also be taken: 1.4 When any changes in proposed activities are necessary to avoid historic properties (e.g., project modifications, redesign, or elimination; removing old or confusing project markings or engineering stakes within site boundaries; or revising maps or changing specifications), these changes shall be completed prior to initiating any project activities. 1.5 Monitoring by heritage program specialists may be used to enhance the effectiveness of protection measures. The results of any monitoring inspections shall be documented in cultural resources reports and the Infra database. The recorded historic properties will be noted in the contract as controlled areas to be avoided. Contract administrators will insure these protective measures are followed. Consequently, if these procedures are carried out the action alternatives would have no direct or indirect effect on the recorded properties.
36 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
General Protection Measures 83. Forest Earth Scientists, contract administrators, and Engineers would maintain contact after the contract is finalized so that final locations of landings and temporary roads could be evaluated in the field if necessary. Coordination would also be established between the earth science and the fuels shop concerning burning activities. The project geologist would be available for consultation during implementation. 84. Implementation shall not unnecessarily damage young growth or other residual trees. 85. Felling and bucking shall be done to minimize breakage of logs included removed during the commercial operations and damage to residual trees. Comparison of Alternatives ______This section provides a summary of the general differences in design and effects of implementing each alternative considered in detail. Information in Table 4 is focused on activities and effects where different levels of effects or outputs can be distinguished quantitatively or qualitatively among the alternatives.
Table 4. Westside Plantation project comparison of alternatives considered in detail Treatments Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 No Action Proposed Action Reduced short term watershed impacts Potential plantation 0 2,239 1,036 commercial thin acres Potential plantation 0 3,294 4,497 non-commercial thin acres Target trees per acre in all treatment areas but Riparian Reserves Pine stands 300-800 60-135 60-135 Mixed conifer stands 300-1,000 60-135 60-135 Target trees per acre in 135-200 135-200 Riparian Reserves Pine stands 300-700 135 135 Mixed conifer stands 300-700 200 200 Maximum size tree cut N/A No limit No limit
37 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Treatments Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 No Action Proposed Action Reduced short term watershed impacts Potential treatment method by acres: Cable yarding N/A 0 0 Tractor Yarding N/A 2,239 1,036 Mastication and/or N/A 5,070 0 machine pile40 Mastication/machine N/A 2,239 0 pile in commercial units Mastication/machine N/A 2,831 0 pile in non- commercial units Hand Treatments41 N/A 463 4,497 Primary fuels treatments by acres42 Whole tree yarding 0 2,239 1,036 Hand Treatments43 0 463 4,497 Mastication/machine 0 2,831 0 pile and burn44
40 Under alternative 2, all units could be masticated and/or machine piled where slope is less than or equal to 35%. In commercially thinned units, the activity fuels could be masticated. 41 Hand treatments consist of felling trees with a chainsaw with follow up fuels reduction treatment such as hand pile and burn and/or jackpot burning where necessary. This acreage corresponds to the number of acres that are hand treated only (primarily those acres that are >35% slope). All acres could have hand piling and burning and/or jackpot burning after primary treatments if it is deemed necessary by the fuels specialist to meet desired fuel conditions. 42 All treatments may have secondary fuels reduction treatments that could include mastication (in commercial units), hand pile and burn, and jackpot burn. The acreages listed here correspond to the primary fuels treatments. 43 Hand treatments consist of felling trees with a chainsaw with follow up fuels reduction treatment such as hand pile and burn and/or jackpot burning where necessary. This acreage corresponds to the number of acres that are hand treated only (primarily those acres that are >35% slope). All acres could have hand piling and burning and/or jackpot burning after primary treatments if it is deemed necessary by the fuels specialist to meet desired fuel conditions. 44 This acreage is for units that will have mastication as the primary treatment. Areas that would be whole tree yarded could have follow-up mastication treatments if deemed necessary by the fuels specialist to achieve desired fuel conditions.
38 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Treatments Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 No Action Proposed Action Reduced short term watershed impacts Fuels/Wildfire Conditions Flame Lengths 4-12’ 1-4’ 1-4’ Rates of Wildfire 5-35’ a minute 1-6’ a minute 1-6’ a minute Spread Active Crown Fire Behavior Types Surface Fire Surface Fire Fire Fuel Loading 30-50 tons/acre 10-20 tons/acre 10-20 tons/acre Temporary roads, in 0 15.4 0 miles Total Riparian Reserve 0 523 523 Acres in Treatment Units Commercial 0 184 0 treatments in Riparian Reserves Non-commercial 0 339 523 treatments in Riparian Reserves Economics Cost of service work45 $0 $4,518,000 $6,268,750 Value of sawlogs $0 $1,080,752 Approximately $500,000 Potential net value $0 -$3,437,248 -$5,768,750 (cost to the Forest Service to implement) Commercial 0 person years46 58.3 to 84.8 29.2 to 42.4 employment (in person years of direct and indirect employment)
45 Service work refers to services paid for and contracted by the federal government without the exchange of a product (such as commercial timber); may include mastication, hand piling, pruning, etc. 46 Based on an ideal amount of work done by one person in a year.
39 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Treatments Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 No Action Proposed Action Reduced short term watershed impacts Service contract 0 124 171 employment (in person years of direct employment) Total employment (in 0 182.3 to 208.8 200.2 to 213.4 person years of direct and indirect employment) Estimated time for 100-110 years 60-70 years 60-70 years younger high site quality stands to reach Late-Successional Reserve characteristics Insect infestation risk All treatment areas but high low low Riparian Reserves Riparian Reserves high moderate moderate ERA values for HUC 5 and 7 watersheds Middle South Fork 6.4% 7.1 6.7 Trinity – HUC 5 Cave Creek-Swift 6.4% 7.0 6.6 Creek – HUC 7 Little Bear Wallow 4.3% 5.5 5.0 Creek-Hidden Valley – HUC 7 Miller Springs – HUC 7.3% 10.0 9.0 7 Upper Plummer Creek 4.5% 4.5 4.5 – HUC 7 Lower Plummer Creek 9.8% 10.2 9.8 – HUC 7 Upper Indian Valley 7.6% 9.3 8.0 Creek – HUC 7 Lower Indian Valley 8.0% 8.2 8.1 Creek – HUC 7
40 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Treatments Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 No Action Proposed Action Reduced short term watershed impacts Butter Creek Meadows 3.7% 6.1 4.2 – HUC 7 McClellen-South Fork 2.0% 2.9 2.4 Trinity River – HUC 7 Hitchcock Creek-Oak 13.9% 13.9 13.9 Flat – HUC 7 Fish Habitat impacts Short-term none none to negligible none to adverse negligible- adverse Long-term advserse beneficial beneficial Special Status Wildlife Habitat impacts Short-term None Negligible-minor Negligible-minor adverse adverse Long-term Adverse Beneficial Beneficial
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES This section summarizes the physical, biological, social and economic environments of the affected project area and the potential changes to those environments due to implementation of the alternatives. It also presents the scientific and analytical basis for comparison of alternatives presented in the chart above. Fuels For a more detailed discussion on fuels in the project area and methodology for analyzing the project impacts on fuels, see the Westside Plantation Fuels Report (Boucher and Gonzalez, 2014) located in the project record.
41 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Analysis Indicators and Methodology The Fire Family Plus software program was used to determine the 75th and 90th percentile weather conditions47 for the years from 1990 to 2013, using data from the Friend Remote Automated Weather Stations (RAWS) located in the project area. The 75th and 90th percentile weather conditions were used to represent average and peak fire season conditions, respectively.
Vegetation data was collected utilizing the Common Stand Exam protocol and entered into FSVeg software for processing. This information was exported into the Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS) and FFE models. These programs were used to determine existing and post- treatment surface and crown fuel conditions. It was also used to determine the potential fire behavior and effects associated with these conditions. The intent of modeling fuel treatments is to show relative changes in fire behavior between the no action and the action alternatives. The outputs are not absolutes and are bound by the assumptions and limitations of data collection methods and individual models; they do though allow for comparison of changes associated with different treatment levels. The spatial context for analysis is the boundary of the Westside Plantation project area, which occurs within the Klamath-Siskiyou Bioregion. The physical and financial impacts of large fires are well noted for the Klamath-Siskiyou Bioregion. The direct and indirect effects will occur as proposed treatments within the Westside Plantation project are completed over the next 10 years. The cumulative effects analysis covers this same time period.
Existing Condition The climate of the area is Mediterranean, with cool, wet winters and dry, warm summers. Precipitation falls primarily in October through April with an annual average of 33 to 37 inches (Western Regional Climate Center 2009). General winds are predominately westerly with diurnal winds having the greatest effect on fire spread. During fire season the speed and direction of these slope and canyon winds are affected by topography and vegetative cover. Historically typical fire season conditions occur between mid-May and late October. Fire Regime The most widespread fire regime in the Klamath Mountains is one of frequent, low to moderate- intensity fires. The steep slopes that run from low to higher elevations, changes in slope aspect and the influence of summer drought create these conditions (Skinner et al. 2006). Historically forest stands were multi-aged and had a high degree of spatial complexity at the landscape level (Wills and Stuart 1994, Taylor and Skinner 2003). Mean fire return intervals were in the range of 10 to 17 years with fire return intervals being longer on north slopes (Wills and Stuart 1994, Taylor and Skinner 2003). The fire rotation interval, the
47 Weather occurring 25% of the time is represented by the 75th percentile; weather occurring 10% of the time is represented by the 90th percentile. In other words, the most extreme hot and dry weather is reflected by the 90th percentile conditions, while 75th percentile weather conditions are more moderate.
42 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
amount of time it takes to burn an area or the equivalent acreage was 20 years (Taylor and Skinner 2003). Fire suppression began in the region in 1905 and became increasingly effective over the next 40 years. As fire suppression effectiveness increased shade tolerant species became established in the understory and forest density has increased. This has resulted in a reduction in spatial complexity as vegetation becomes more homogeneous (Skinner et al. 2006). The fire rotation interval has increased from 20 to 238 years (Taylor and Skinner 2003). Over the 400 years prior to effective fire suppression, there are no comparable fire-free periods within the bioregion where large landscapes went decades without simultaneous large fires (Skinner et al. 2006). The fire regime is now shifting towards one of infrequent higher severity fires. Pre-settlement Fire Occurrence Prior to European settlement a combination of lightning fires and Native American ignitions accounted for all fire occurrences. In the 1820’s when exploration of the Klamath Mountains brought non-native cultures to the area this added to the potential ignition sources (Skinner et al. 2006). Fire history studies noted that there was no increase in fire frequency with an increase in settlement (Taylor and Skinner 1998). Recent Fire Occurrence Wildfire ignitions causes from 1987 to 2007 and fires greater than 10 acres in size from 1987 to 2008 within the boundaries of Trinity County were reviewed (Table 5). The annual expected ignition frequency is 128 fires per year for federally protected acres in Trinity County. Within Trinity County the median acres burned by fires greater than 10 acres is 2,705 acres annually (range = 11 to 15,961 acres) for the period from 1987 to 2008 (21 years). The average number of acres burned for this time period is 30,458 acres annually (range = 11 to 47,659 acres). The statistical data suggests the probability of damage or loss to plantations and other natural resources is high for the project area. The effects of successful fire exclusion may increase the future probability of wildfire loss as increased fuel loading and altered stand structure increases fire severity and scale (Skinner et al. 2006, Agee and Skinner 2005).
Table 5. Large Fires (>10 acres) Trinity County 1987-2008 (21 Years). Size Class Size Class Number Acres Burned Average Size Acreage Range C 10 to 99 37 1597 43 D 100 to 299 13 2110 162 E 300 to 999 14 10205 729 F 1000 to 4999 22 55960 2544 G 5000 + 27 539288 19974 Total 113 609160
43 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Trends In 2008 approximately 171,200 acres of federal lands in Trinity County burned in wildfires, within the boundaries of these fires were approximately 6,775 acres of plantations 21 years of age and greater. These plantations sustained varying levels of fire effects ranging from minor consumption of surface fuels to stands where mortality was 50% and higher. Specifically in the Eagle and Cedar fires more than 2,900 acres of plantations were affected with 870 acres (25%) sustaining greater than 50% mortality. In the 22 year period from 1965 to 1986, 13,708 acres of federal land burned in wildfires in Trinity County compared to the period from 1987 to 2008 when over five hundred twenty one thousand (521,000) acres burned, a thirty-eight fold increase. Recent scientific research has shown a trend towards increased large fire frequency, longer wildfire durations and longer wildfire seasons since the mid-1980’s (Westerling et al. 2006). The authors suggest that this may involve both climate change and previous land-use effects in Northern California. In the absence of vegetation management, there is an increased potential for further loss of biological diversity in the event of future high severity large fires that damage or eliminate components of the ecosystem. “No treatment” or “passive management” can perpetuate the potential for high severity fire (Stephens et al. 2009). Statistical and empirical evidence suggests that in the future, with an absence of vegetation management, there will continue to be a cumulative loss of plantations as a result of unwanted fire. This will not meet the overall purpose of the project to develop and maintain vigorous and healthy forest stands that are resilient to disturbance. Along with the increasing trend in large fire frequency and acres burned, is an increase in fire suppression expenditures (Calkin et al. 2005). Average annual federal fire suppression expenditures are currently 1.6 billion dollars (USDA 2009a). Wildland Urban Interface The treatment area encompasses approximately 5,533 acres, and within that, 2,855 acres are classified as Wildland Urban Interface (WUI). When wildfire enters the WUI, there is the potential for loss of life, property, and other values even if homes have been made fire safe. Existing and Desired Fuel Profile The primary vegetation to be treated consists of conifer plantations ranging from 21 to 40 plus years of age. Tree species include Douglas-fir, white fir, ponderosa pine, sugar pine and incense cedar. There are several hardwoods species present including tanoak, Pacific madrone, Oregon white oak, big leaf maple and California black oak. Shrub types include Ceanothus sp., chinquapin and manzanita. Prior to plantation establishment, units had site preparation treatments. Treatments included yarding of un- merchantable debris (YUMD), pile and burn and broadcast burn while others had no treatment. Site preparation methods have a strong relationship to potential fire damage in plantations. Untreated units have the potential for the greatest damage from wildfire while broadcast and machine piled units have less damage potential (Skinner and Weatherspoon 1995). Site preparation choice at the time of plantation establishment still affects fuelbed structure today.
44 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Pre-commercial thinning was implemented in some plantations; hand cutting with a chainsaw and leaving the cut material on the ground in the plantation was the primary treatment of activity fuels and is evident in plantations where this occurred. Manual and chemical brush control was also implemented in a portion of the units while other units have had no treatments since plantation establishment. Existing fuelbeds (see Table 6 and 7) can best be described by two categories: • Plantations where brush cover is greater than 40%; brush is the primary carrier of fire, represented by fuel model SH2. • Plantations where moderate load timber litter is the primary carrier of fire, represented by fuel model TL9.
In both situations previous and current management practices have created conditions where moderate to high severity fire has the potential to damage plantations. The surface fuelbed in combination with brush and conifer reproduction has created a ladder that will carry fire into the crowns of overstory trees creating conditions favorable for passive crown fire. Resistance to control is a measure of how difficult a fire is to suppress; increased fuel loading in combination with flame lengths greater than 4 feet creates a high resistance to control when suppressing unwanted wildfires (Andrews and Rothermel 1982). Fuelbed conditions and potential fire behavior create moderate to high resistance to control in these plantations. The desired conditions (Table 6 and 7) for the treatment units in this project area are coarse woody debris (sound wood exceeding three inches in diameter) averaging 10 to 20 tons per acre, and fuel bed depth below 16 inches. This will create flame lengths of less than 4 feet, rates of spread of less than 20 feet per minute (0.23 MPH), surface fire on slopes less than 35% and passive crown fire on slopes greater than 35%. This will allow direct attack by initial attack forces using hand tools to contain a fire. Table 6. Existing and desired Fuel Models Fuel Existing or Definition Flame Length Rate of Spread Model Desired (feet) (feet / minute) TL1(181) Desired The primary carrier of fire is 0-1 0-1 compact forest litter TL3(183) Desired The primary carrier of fire is 1-4 4-6 moderate load forest litter and light load coarse fuels TL9(189) Existing The primary carrier of fire is 4-8 5-20 very high load fluffy litter and/or needle drape SH2(142) Existing The primary carrier of fire is 8-12 25-35 woody shrubs and shrub litter
45 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Table 7. Existing and desired conditions for wildfire analysis under 90th percentile weather conditions. Standard Analysis Desired Condition Measurement Existing Condition ≤35% SLOPE ˃35% SLOPE Fuel Model TL9(189),SH2(142) TL1(181) TL3(183) Flame Length1 4-12’ 0-1’ 1-4’ Rates of Spread2 5-35’ a minute 0-1’ a minute 4-6’ a minute Fire Behavior Type3 Active Crown Fire Surface Fire Passive crown fire Fuel Loading 30-50 tons/acre 10-20 tons/acre 10-20 tons/acre
1Flame Length: 0-4’- Persons using handtools can generally attack fires at the head or flanks. Handline should hold the fire. 4-12’- Fires are too intense for direct attack on the head by persons using handtools. Handline cannot be relied on to hold fire. Equipment such as dozers, engines, and retardant aircraft can be effective. 2Rates of Spread: In order for suppression resources to be effective one of the variables is rates of spread vs. line production. The resource must construct line faster than the fire is traveling to be effective. 3Fire Behavior type: Surface fire - carried primarily by surface fuels and remains on the ground; Passive crown fire - torches individual or small groups of trees, but is driven by a surface fire; Active crown fire - produces a solid flaming front in the crowns of trees and can be independent of a surface fire. Crown fires cannot be attacked directly; suppression personnel must use indirect tactics with burnout operations or wait until the crown fire drops back to the ground and meets appropriate flame length and rate of spread criteria before direct attack can be initiated.
Canopy bulk density (CBD) describes the density of available canopy fuel in a stand. It is defined as the mass of available canopy fuel per canopy volume unit. When canopy bulk density is > 0.1 kg/m3 the potential for crown fire spread exists. The canopy bulk density in untreated stands averages 0.17 kg/m3 (range: 0.101-0.228 kg/m3) and the potential for active crown fire exists. Canopy base height (CBH) describes the average height from the ground to a forest stand’s canopy bottom. Specifically, it is the lowest height in a stand at which there is a sufficient amount of forest canopy fuel to propagate fire vertically into the canopy. Without treatment, canopy base heights will remain low at approximately 7 feet (range: 2-16 feet), creating conditions favorable for crown fire initiation.
Environmental Consequences No Action - Alternative 1 The proposed thinning and fuel reduction treatments will not occur. There will be no change in the existing condition. Existing aerial and surface fuels will remain at their current levels and continue to accumulate over time. Fire suppression will continue to be difficult, control options will be limited to indirect attack and the potential for increased acres burned will be high. When wildfires occur, torching, crowning, and spotting will make control efforts at the fire’s head problematic. Probability of mortality is determined by the percentage of crown volume scorched by flames. The greater the percentage of crown scorch, the higher the potential for mortality. The
46 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
probability of mortality of plantation trees from the effects of wildfire under this alternative is high, averaging 26% in brush fuels and 28% in timber litter fuels under 90th percentile weather conditions. The probability of crown fire is the probability of individual trees torching in a forest stand. A torching situation is generally defined as one where tree crowns of large trees can be ignited by the flames of a surface fire or flames from burning crowns of small trees that reach the larger trees. There are sufficient ground and ladder fuels to initiate a crown fire and a sufficient canopy bulk density to sustain an active crown fire under severe conditions with the no action alternative. Stands in the area would not be fire resilient and the ecological characteristics of high frequency, low to moderate severity fire regimes would not be present. Proposed Action - Alternative 2 Alternative 2 treatments would considerably reduce fire effects within the treated units. Suppression forces could enter these areas and take appropriate actions as needed to manage fires to achieve the desired condition. The reduction in canopy cover would result in reduced crown fire and spotting. In commercial units green tree harvest and whole tree yarding would reduce the larger diameter merchantable material from the site. Mastication, hand and/or machine piling and burning or jackpot burning would treat the smaller diameter material and material not included in the previous treatment, where the fuel bed exceeds 16 inches in depth, resulting in reduced fuel height. Reduced fuel height educes flame length, rates of spread, and crown fire initiation. In non-commercial units thinning (by hand with a chainsaw or with a masticator) would reduce canopy cover and ladder fuels. Mastication, hand and/or machine piling, and burning or jackpot burning would treat the material on the ground, which would reduce fuel height. Reduced fuel height reduces flame length, rates of spread, and crown fire initiation.. After treatments the coarse woody debris is estimated to be approximately 10 to 20 tons per acre; these areas could be directly attacked with suppression resources increasing the chance of containing wildfires in the project area while maintaining resource needs. Coarse woody debris left on site, that is below the hand pile specifications (fuelbed less than 16 inches in depth), and does not exceed 20 tons per acre, would meet resource needs. Completed project activities would reduce coarse woody debris, lowering fire behavior and fire effects within the treated units. The fuel model in treated units would be represented by TL1 compact forest litter and TL3 moderate load forest litter and light load coarse fuels. The area outside treated units would burn the same as Alternative 1. Placement of the treated units would reduce overall fire size within the project area by reducing fireline intensities and fire effects providing opportunity for suppression forces to take appropriate actions (Finney 2001). Fuels on the forest floor would consist of small diameter material and scattered larger logs. Snags and large logs may be present in the units to meet resource needs and Forest Plan direction. These guidelines were developed with consideration for fire and its role in developing and sustaining these ecosystems. Suppression forces would not be hindered by high densities of coarse woody debris, high canopy cover or by fire effects in the treated units. This would allow immediate and
47 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
appropriate direct suppression action to be taken. The effect on fire suppression forces beyond year 20 would depend on the continued maintenance of the stands. Any maintenance activities would be planned as a separate project. Stands that are maintained and managed to achieve the desired condition would not adversely impact future suppression. In comparison to Alternative 1, over time Alternative 2 would result in relatively lower surface fuel loads and potential flame lengths. While there is still potential for mortality in treated areas, it would remain lower than that of Alternative 1 for wildfires occurring under 90th percentile weather conditions, where potential future fires are expected to kill natural regeneration, planted conifers, brush, and residual larger trees. Thinning from below removes smaller trees, raising the effective height to crown base and leaves larger more fire resilient trees, reducing the probability of mortality. Removing whole trees and lowering remaining fuel bed depth to 16 inches will reduce flame lengths and lower crown fire initiation. Whole tree yarding, mastication, machine piling, hand piling and burning is effective at minimizing activity fuels resulting in minimal increase in pre-treatment surface fuel levels (Stephens et al. 2009). Post treatment fuel bed depth will be slightly deeper than pre-treatment depths, but remaining activity fuels would become compacted and would combine with the pre-treatment fuelbed over the next ten years, decreasing flame length over time. Timber litter or brush would again be the primary carrier of fire at that time. Reduced Short Term Watershed Impacts - Alternative 3 In comparison to Alternative 2, Alternative 3 would result in slightly higher fuel loadings and flame lengths until post timber treatment activities can be completed. Alternative 3 has no mechanical post treatment activities; all work would be completed by hand treatments. As a result of hand treatments having a higher cost and production rates being slower, fuels will be on the ground longer. Coarse woody debris will be slightly higher in this alternative but still within the 10 – 20 ton range; therefore, this difference will be unlikely to measurably affect fire behavior. Cumulative Effects for Both Action Alternatives Future foreseeable actions include Red Fir Restoration project and Rattlesnake Fuel Reduction and Forest Health. When fully implemented the thinning and fuels reduction treatments of those two projects along with this project will reduce fire hazard. The cumulative impact of all past, present, and foreseeable silviculture and fuels-related actions will be an increase in areas with low fire hazard, an improvement in firefighter safety, an increase in wildfire management options, and a reduction in fire size. Comparison of Action Alternatives Alternatives 2 and 3 differ in the amount of time fuels will be on the ground post treatment and the amount of larger material left on site. There are two reasons for this difference; the added cost to hand treat fuels compared to the mechanical cost to treat the same fuels, and hand treatments cannot treat as much of the larger material. Most of the large woody debris greater than 15 inches diameter will be left on site under alternative 3. This larger amount of large woody debris is unlikely to make a difference in fire behavior, so the following tables combine the action alternatives for comparison to the no action alternative.
48 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Table 8. Comparison of alternatives for Westside Plantation Fire Effects under 90th Percentile Weather. Alternative Fuel Type Slope Flame Rate of Mortality Fire Type Length Spread (feet) (Feet/min) Alternative TL9 ≤35% 5 7 24% Active 1 Crown Fire ˃35% 6 11 31% Active Crown Fire SH2 ≤35% 5 7 22% Active Crown Fire ˃35% 6 9 30% Active Crown Fire Action TL1 ≤35% 1 1 10% Surface Alternatives ˃35% 1 2 10% Surface TL3 ≤35% 1 2 10% Surface ˃35% 1 2 10% Surface
Table 9. Comparison of alternatives for Westside Plantation Fire Effects under 75th Percentile Weather. Alternative Fuel Type Slope Flame Rate of Spread Mortality Fire Length (Feet/min) Type (feet) Alternative 1 TL9 ≤35% 5 8 17% Active Crown Fire ˃35% 5 10 28% Active Crown Fire SH2 ≤35% 4 5 5% Active Crown Fire ˃35% 5 7 21% Active Crown Fire
49 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Alternative Fuel Type Slope Flame Rate of Spread Mortality Fire Length (Feet/min) Type (feet) Action TL1 ≤35% 1 1 5% Surface Alternatives ˃35% 1 1 5% Surface TL3 ≤35% 1 1 5% Surface ˃35% 1 2 5% Surface
Vegetation For a more detailed discussion of vegetation in the project area and methodology for analyzing the potential effects to those resources, see the Westside Plantation Project Vegetation Report (Paris 2014a) located in the project record.
Analysis Indicators and Methodology The vegetation discussion is based on Forest stand examination data that is stored in the FSVEG data base. This database contains information that is systematically collected following Common Stand Exam guidelines and can be queried to provide vegetation attributes used in project analyses. Description of vegetative conditions within the proposed treatments areas are organized under the four criteria determined to be part of a properly functioning ecosystem (USDA 2000). An ecosystem that is properly functioning is thought to be resilient to perturbations in structure, composition, and biological or physical processes. Systems at risk are those that may be degraded beyond the range of resiliency and sustainability. The four ecosystem characteristics discussed are structure, composition, disturbance regime or processes (insect and disease, fire), and patterns. Vegetation structure is a means to express the balance of age and size classes for each vegetation type. The following elements are discussed as part of vegetative structure: size class distribution and crown cover; snags, downed logs, and woody debris; and old growth. Vegetative composition refers to the most common species present and their relative abundance. Insects and diseases will be discussed as part of vegetation processes. Fire is another vegetative process but it is covered under the Fuels section in this EA. Vegetation patterns are an indication of how ecosystems function among and between themselves. Vegetation attributes of patterns include size, shape, age class, distribution, fragmentation, and connectivity. The cumulative effects area for the vegetation resource discussion is based upon the project area boundary for the Westside Plantation Project. The cumulative effects analysis will discuss how the vegetative landscape may be affected by action or no action in the project area, considering other past, present, and foreseeable future actions. The direct and indirect effects will occur as proposed treatments within the Westside Plantation project are
50 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project completed over the next 10 years. The cumulative effects will occur within this same time period as this project and similar vegetation management projects within common watersheds are completed. This area was selected as the basis for describing cumulative effects because of the similar vegetative conditions within this area.
Existing Condition Table 10 displays the representation of both forested and non-forested vegetation types and non-vegetated types within the project area. The table is derived from the Regional Dominance Type classification.
Table 10. Westside Plantation Project Area by Vegetation Type. Vegetation Type Code for Regional Sum of ACRES Dominance Type 1 Barren BA 197.4 Huckleberry Oak CH 195.5 Upper Montane Mixed Shrub CM 4.7 Lower Montane Mixed Chaparral CQ 22.2 Upper Montane Mixed Chaparral CX 377.1 Pacific Douglas-Fir DF 27454.9 Douglas-Fir - Ponderosa Pine DP 172.3 Douglas-Fir - White Fir DW 8339.6 Annual Grasses and Forbs HG 284.7 Wet Meadows HJ 40.2 Urban-related Bare Soil IB 73.7 Jeffrey Pine JP 364.6 Mixed Conifer - Fir MF 288.8 Mixed Conifer - Pine MP 21767.5 Ultramafic Mixed Conifer MU 2038.6 Riparian Mixed Hardwood NR 4.8 Gray Pine PD 0.5 Ponderosa Pine PP 7.7 Canyon Live Oak QC 1692.2 White Alder QE 5.7 Oregon White Oak QG 231.9 Black Oak QK 1.0 Willow QO 1.7
51 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Vegetation Type Code for Regional Sum of ACRES Dominance Type 1 Tanoak (Madrone) QT 285.3 Red Fir RF 83.0 Tree Chinquapin TC 62.8 Rivers and Streams (natural, W1 81.1 flowing surface waters) Perennial Lakes and Ponds W2 8.6 White Fir WF 906.4 Grand Total 64,994.3
The project area was first settled by Europeans in the 1850’s and has experienced impacts to the forest vegetation since then. In the last 60 years considerable timber harvest activity has occurred within the project area including the use of the clearcut harvest method. Wildfires have also burned considerable acreage in the same time frame. Approximately 6,300 acres of harvest activities are present on National Forest System lands within the project area since 1958 with an additional 25,500 acres burned by wildfires. The clearcuts and suitable timberlands within the fires were typically planted with either ponderosa pine or Douglas-fir and the stands that have not been thinned are generally overstocked. This high stocking level coupled with fuel structure that typically has a low live crown base height, interconnecting crowns and ladder fuels leaves these areas with a high probability to stand replacing wildfire. The forest vegetation on the landscape of the project area can be grouped into several general conditions. • Multi-aged, multi-storied mature to old mixed conifer stands which may have had some previous partial removal harvest activities. These stands are exhibiting moderate mortality and increasing decadence due to a number of biological agents. These areas are not plantations and not proposed for treatment in this project. • Single-storied, intermediate-sized, young mixed conifer stands. Many of these stands have trees that currently exhibit a live crown ratio of 30-40 percent, a level that is considered the minimum to maintain adequate tree growth and vigor. The high density of these trees in the suppressed and intermediate crown positions is expected to result in high tree mortality in these classes, increasing down woody fuels and wildfire hazard. These stands also have the same insect and disease problems as the older stands, but are impacted to a lesser degree. These stands are Size Class 2 and 3 stands. (NOTE these are the areas proposed for treatment) • Single-storied, young stands that are the result of site prepared and planted units that were reforested primarily since 1990. These plantations are now in a well-stocked to overstocked condition with over 400 trees per acre, but tend to be free of serious insect and disease impacts because of the open structure of the stand. These stands are Size Class 1 and are not treated in this project.
52 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Vegetation Structure
Size Class Distribution and Crown Cover The size class of the plantations are dominated by Wildlife Habitat Relationship sizes 3 (6-11 inches dbh) and 4 (11-24 inches dbh). The basal area per acre currently ranges from about 90 square feet in younger, small diameter stands to well over 200 square feet in older, larger diameter stands. The stand density index ranges from about 200 to 450 which represents between 40 to 75 percent of maximum (SDImax). The index is an indication of competition between trees in the stand. The more dense the stand is, the greater the competition between trees, and the higher the risk of mortality is. This is a process called self-thinning. In general, a relative density of 25% of SDImax is associated with the onset of competition, 35% of SDImax is associated with the lower limit of full site occupancy, and 60% SDImax is associated with the lower limit of self-thinning (Long and Daniel 1990). Crown cover (CC) for layers of all trees within the plantations range from 50 to 75 percent. However, if crown cover is measured based upon trees that exceed 40 feet in height the range is from 10 to 65 percent (FVS runs). Spotted owl habitat requires the canopy cover from trees that are 40 feet tall or taller (Wolcott, K. pers. comm. 2009). Because canopy cover is generally a measure of late-successional habitat quality, it is not a useful metric to use with stands as young as the plantations being proposed for treatment in this project; therefore, these plantations are analyzed by trees per acre and basal area per acre.
Snags, Downed Logs, and Woody Debris The project area contains the desired number of larger snags and coarse woody debris (sound wood exceeding three inches in diameter) necessary to maintain soil productivity and meet structural diversity needs for wildlife. This is especially true within recent burned areas where large numbers of snags exist and will subsequently fall to the ground. However, as the snags begin to fall, the amount of large, coarse woody debris (logs) will increase, moving this component toward exceeding the desired condition for fuel loading. Desired fuel loading within the Late-Successional Reserve Management Prescription ranges from 5 to 12 tons per acre depending on the vegetation type (USDA 1999a). Snag representation and large log levels are deficient within proposed treatment areas as they are dominated by young, even aged stands. Where legacy trees and snags exist within the stands, they will be retained.
Old Growth Forests in, or approaching, the last stage of ecological succession are termed "old growth". These forests play an important role in maintaining biological diversity. Old growth forests have a unique structure and composition that provides important habitat for a wide range of associated plant and animal species. Old growth forests also have other intrinsic social and recreational values. Stands in the project units were assessed to determine if they met age and structural requirements to be classified as old growth. Four major structural attributes of old-growth in Douglas-fir forests are: live old-growth trees, standing dead trees (snags), fallen trees or logs on the forest floor, and logs in streams. Additional important elements typically include multiple canopy layers, smaller understory trees, canopy gaps, and patchy understory. Structural characteristics of late-successional and old-growth forests vary with vegetation
53 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
type, disturbance regime, and developmental stage. Minimum stand age necessary for classification as old growth is 80 years for Douglas-fir stands west of the Cascade Range (USDA, USDI 1994b). The oldest plantations in the project area are approximately 55 years. Based on the above structural characteristics and age, no treatment units are classified as old growth. Therefore, effects to old growth stands are not analyzed in the Environmental Consequences section. Vegetation Composition Conifer species, predominately Douglas-fir, white fir, ponderosa pine, Jeffrey pine, and gray pine dominate the vegetative composition of the project area. Hardwood species, predominately chaparral, huckleberry oak, black oak, madrone, white oak, live oak, and tanoak comprise a substantial stand component throughout the area. Black oak and madrone tend to occupy more productive sites while white oak and live oak are found on less productive sites. White alder is generally a substantial stand component along perennial stream-courses and adjacent to year-round wet areas. Vegetation Processes
Insects and Diseases Mature to old forested stands within the project area are generally exhibiting moderate mortality and increasing decadence due to a number of biological agents. Stands are impacted by dwarf mistletoe in the ponderosa pine, Jeffrey pine, and white fir. Black oak is being impacted by leafy mistletoe. Western pine beetle is active in the ponderosa pine and sugar pine stands, and Jeffrey pine beetle is active in Jeffrey pine stands killing both individuals and groups of these species. Fir engraver beetles are active in the white fir stands and in overstocked mixed conifer stands with a substantial white fir component. White pine blister rust is a serious and continuing problem throughout the area, affecting primarily younger age-class sugar pine. Previously harvested stands and stands affected by wildfire generally are affected by pathogens to a lesser degree especially within the proposed treatment areas.
Vegetative Patterns The project area falls on the southern boundary of the Klamath-Siskiyou Bioregion. The Klamath Mountains are an area of exceptional floristic diversity and complexity in vegetative patterns (Whittaker 1960, Stebbins and Major 1965). The diverse patterns of climate, topography, and parent materials in the Klamath Mountains create heterogeneous vegetation patterns more complex than that found in the Sierra Nevada or the Cascade Range (Sawyer and Thornburgh 1977). Conifer forests and woodlands are found in all elevational zones throughout the bioregion. The rugged, complex topography and resulting intermixing of vegetation in the Klamath Mountains defies a simple classification of ecological zones by elevation (Skinner et al. 2006). More specifically, fire, lightning or human caused, has been a major contributor to the complex vegetation patterns in the Klamath Mountains. Contemporary vegetation assemblages coalesced approximately 3,000 to 4,000 years ago when the climate cooled and became moister compared to the previous several millennia (West 1985, 1988, 1989, 1990; Mohr et al. 2000). Fire regimes have varied over millennia primarily due to variations in
54 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
climate. Several fire history studies describe fire regimes in parts of the Klamath Mountains over the last few centuries (Agee 1991; Wills and Stuart 1994; Taylor and Skinner 1997, 1998, 2003; Stuart and Salazar 2000; Skinner 2003a, 2003b; Fry and Stephens 2006). These studies indicate there are two periods with distinctly different fire regimes: (1) the Native American period, which usually includes both the pre-historic and European settlement period, and (2) the fire suppression period. The temporal patterns of fire occurrence in the pre–fire suppression period indicate that most stands experienced at least several fires each century. Over the 400 years prior to effective fire suppression, there are no comparable fire- free periods when large landscapes experienced decades without fires simultaneously across the bioregion (Agee 1991; Wills and Stuart 1994; Taylor and Skinner 1998, 2003; Stuart and Salazar 2000; Skinner 2003a, 2003b). Along with these changes in the fire regimes are changes in landscape vegetation patterns. Before fire suppression, fires of higher spatial complexity created openings of variable size within a matrix of forest that was generally more open than today (Taylor and Skinner 1998). This heterogeneous pattern has been replaced by a more homogenous pattern of smaller openings in a matrix of denser forests (Skinner 1995a). Thus, spatial complexity has been reduced (Skinner et al. 2006). Over 19,000 acres within the project area burned in 2008 (USDA 2011a). These fires burned from low to high intensity across this area. The fires created a mosaic pattern of impacts to existing vegetation from stand replacement to light understory burns. Within the moderate to high severity burn areas, it is estimated that 1,550 acres require artificial reforestation activities (these activities are ongoing). The remainder should regenerate naturally to initially shrub and hardwood tree species with conifers increasing over time as seed source is established and trees reach cone bearing age. Monitoring of these areas will determine if additional reforestation activities are needed. Additionally, implementation of the action alternatives will not contribute to a change in the green forest pattern in the area as the treatments will result in retention of the existing age class and stand shapes. Because of this Vegetative Patterns will not be discussed in Environmental Consequences.
Environmental Consequences The action alternatives (Alternative 2 and 3) are analyzed together because similar effects to the vegetation resource (except where noted). The same number of acres would be thinned. No Action - Alternative 1
Vegetative Structure Size Class Distribution and Crown Cover Under No Action, the planted stands would continue to grow at less than optimum rates which would delay the establishment of late-successional size classes by approximately 30 to 40 years (FVS, USDA 1999a). Height growth would be similar (FVS, USDA 1999a). Growth rates of trees within the plantations are generally slower than late-successional sized trees when they were a similar age (Tappeiner et al. 1997). This is because stocking levels were likely much lower in the early development of existing old growth, late-successional forests compared to existing natural stands and plantations (FVS, USDA 1999a) possibly due to a more frequent fire return interval and longer Douglas-fir establishment periods following
55 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
the previous replacement event (Poage and Tappeiner 2002). Hayes et al. (1997) suggests that thinning young stands may create growing conditions that are more similar to those historically present in developing old growth stands. Within 10 years, crown cover will develop within the younger plantations as the tree height exceeds 40 feet to over 50 percent within 20 years. Stands currently over 40 feet in height will have increasing crown cover for the next 20-30 years to between 60 to 70 percent before declining as self-thinning occurs within the stand (FVS). At the current rate of forestry related treatments within the project area, growth far exceeds removal. Average annual growth is more than four times the average mortality within the project area (FIA). Within the entire project area, forests would continue to become denser and older resulting in an increased representation of older structural classes with an increase in crown cover, and decadence. Snags, Logs and Woody Debris Snags, logs and woody debris would increase within the project area as stands become more dominated by late-successional structure with higher representations of decadence. If a wildfire occurred, the areas affected by moderate to high intensity fires would cause these stand components to be consumed. Standing snags would increase but after they fall to the ground a long-term (50+ yrs.) period would occur without desired snag levels until the areas regenerate and the successional pathways reestablish larger trees and more decadent stand conditions. Because of increases in forest fuels due to past fire suppression practices and the absence of an agent to remove fuels at a rate similar to the rate of accumulation, the extent of forest stand replacing fire is increasing across a significant part of the western US. Various lines of evidence suggest that contemporary fires in many low and middle elevation forest types in the project area burn at generally higher severities than before Euroamerican settlement (Miller et al. 2008). The delay in the establishment of late-successional size classes by approximately 30 to 40 years (FVS, USDA 1999a) would result in a corresponding delay in the recruitment of large diameter snags within the proposed treatment stands. Large woody debris recruitment would also be delayed compared to the action alternatives however, as the stands self-thin due to overstocking, an increased amount of total woody debris would be added to the stands.
Vegetative Composition Unthinned stands typically have lower tree seedling density, lower tall shrub frequency, lower low shrub cover, than thinned stands. This reduces the likelihood of development of multi- storied stands (Bailey and Tappeiner 1998). There may be reduced species richness in unthinned stands(Bailey et al. 1998). The representation of grass, forbs, and shrubs will decrease as crown closure occurs. There will be less similarity between vegetation composition of unthinned stands and old-growth stands than stands that would be thinned under the action alternatives (Bailey 1996). If a stand replacing wildfire occurs, the overly dense plantations will likely be replaced based upon field observations made during the 2008 fires. This will create conditions favorable to dramatic increases in sprouting plants especially obligate seeders that germinate as the result of fire (Quick 1956). These species include deer brush (Ceanothus integerrimus) wedgeleaf ceanothus (Ceanothus cuneatus) and whiteleaf manzanita (Arctostaphylos viscida ), greenleaf
56 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
manzanita (Arctostaphylos patula) which are well represented throughout much of the project area.
Vegetative Processes Insect and Diseases. As plantations mature and increase in diameter size, bark beetle infestation risk increases. When the residual square feet of basal area per acre exceeds 80, bark beetle risk begin to accelerate as stand densities increase in ponderosa pine stands. In most cases, the treatment units exceed a basal area of 80 square feet per acre and are at a high risk of infestation from bark beetles. Ultimately, in the absence of fire or other natural disturbance like wind, ice storms, and root diseases, bark beetle infestation will be the primary agent that replaces these stands with young stands. If a wildfire occurred, areas affected by moderate to high intensity wildfires would regenerate to early successional species and insect and disease levels would decline.
Cumulative Effects Because there are no project related impacts for Alternative 1, there are no cumulative effects. Action Alternatives – Alternatives 2 and 3
Vegetative Structure Size Class Distribution and Crown Cover There will be an increase in tree size as it relates to wildlife habitat relationship (WHR) from the thinning of plantations. The proposed thinning from below to approximately 100 to 135 trees per acre would increase mean diameter at breast height (dbh) of the stands by at least three inches in dbh which will move many stands up one WHR size class. Where thinned to approximately 200 trees per acre (in Riparian Reserves), mean diameter would increase approximately one inch. Average tree height is not affected by either alternative (FVS, USDA 1999a). Acceleration of the development of late-successional size characteristics would occur. Treatment will accelerate development by approximately 50 years under alternative 2. Late-successional characteristics on high site quality ground could be achieved around age 100 -110 with no treatment and age 60-70 with treatment (USDA 1999a). Removal of shrubs will further increase tree growth until crowns close and inter-tree competition returns (Zhang et al. 2006). Within Late-Successional Reserves up to 15 percent of the treatment units would be in heavily thinned patches or in openings up to 1/4 acre in size, to encourage individual tree development, some understory vegetation development, and the initiation of structural diversity. Crown cover (CC) would be reduced to 40 percent in all management areas except riparian reserves. Crown cover increases following treatment to 50 percent within 4 decades under the 40 percent crown cover treatment. The modeling does not include resprouting of hardwoods and ingrowth of conifers into the stands so the cover percent would be higher than modeled. The proposed thinning in stands of this age (20-55 yrs.) promotes development of large crowns (Long et al. 1983; Bailey 1996, Hoyer et al. 1996). This is due
57 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
to the retention of higher crown ratios on trees in thinned stands compared to unthinned stands (Marshall et al. 1992, Barbour et al. 1997). The basal area per acre currently ranges from about 90 square feet per acre in younger, small diameter stands to well over 200 square feet in older, larger diameter stands. Treatments would reduce densities to levels that reduce the risk to bark beetle infestation which is less than about 80 square feet per acre (Negron 1998, Negron and Popp 2004, Schmid and Mata 1992, Fettig et al. 2007). Stands dominated by Douglas-fir have an increased risk to bark beetle infestation when densities exceed about 120 square feet of basal area per acre and mean diameter exceeds 10 inches dbh. For stands dominated by ponderosa pine, risk increases at densities above between 60 to 100 square feet of basal area per acre depending on the site (ibid). Thinning to about 100 trees per acre is more effective at addressing bark beetle risk reduction than 200 trees per acre . Thinning to 40 percent crown cover results in a residual basal area per acre of approximately 80 square feet and reduces the risk rating to low (Chojnacky et al. 2000). Thinning to 200 trees per acre would retain basal areas over the 80 square feet of basal area per acre risk threshold or stands would grow back over the density threshold within 10 years (FVS). However, given the average stand diameter, proportion of ponderosa pine in the canopy, and the current level of bark beetle activity, the riparian reserve areas would be reduced to moderate risk (Chojnacky et al. 2000). Regional intent is to implement effective treatments to achieve multiple objectives including reduced bark beetle risk for at least 20 years (USDA 2004). Modeling indicates that basal area per acre reaches over 130 square feet three to four decades following implementation of alternatives 2 and 3 (FVS, USDA 1999a). The treatments comply with the Regional intent. Snags, Downed Logs, and Woody Debris Based on the number of existing snags created by fire mortality within and adjacent to the project area, there will be sufficient dead trees to meet or exceed the desired snag and large woody debris objectives for the project area. As stated in the Existing Condition section, within the treatment areas, desired existing snags and large woody debris (large logs) levels are deficient and will not change through implementation of the action alternatives.
Vegetative Composition Because of the disturbance caused by the initial logging or fire event within the proposed treatment areas, there is rich species diversity present within the stands. The proposed treatment is not expected to reduce that diversity (Kane 2007, Metlen and Fiedler 2006). The cutting, skidding, and ground based mastication activities will reduce the size and representation of hardwood and shrub species but most should resprout and could return to pre-treatment levels until subsequent crown closure begins to shade out the understory. Understory plants are relatively resilient to disturbances. This resilience is likely due to the presence of perennial plant species that are resistant to change in the short term and often resprout after disturbances (Fire Effects Information System 2013). Conifer composition is expected to change toward more shade intolerant late-successional species especially in the treatment areas within the Late-Successional Reserves in compliance with in the Late-Successional Reserve Assessment (USDA 1999a). Species preference for leave trees would be rust resistant sugar pine, Douglas-fir, ponderosa or Jeffrey pine, incense cedar, red fir, and white fir but could vary depending on the location of the treatment area and species present.
58 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Understory hardwoods would consist primarily of white and black oak, madrone, and tanoak with dominant and codominant (and intermediate in Riparian Reserves) trees of these species retained in the overstory where present. Following thinning and mastication shrub and hardwood would resprout and maintain pretreatment representation (Kane 2007). Understory species richness would be retained under both action alternatives and may increase in areas, such as Late-Successional Reserves, where the canopy is opened to allow sunlight down to the forest floor (Metlen and Fieldler 2006).
Vegetative Processes Insects and Diseases By thinning to less than 80 square feet of basal area per acre under alternative 2, reduction in long-term (20+ years) bark beetle risk (Negron 1998, Negron and Popp 2004, Schmid and Mata 1992, Fettig et al. 2007, Chojnacky et al. 2000) would occur within the proposed treatment units. Thinning at lower densities (60-120 sq. ft. of basal area per acre, 100 to 135 trees per acre, 40% CC) would provide for a more effective longer term treatment than at higher densities such as 200 trees per acre (FVS). Also see discussion under Size Class Distribution and Crown Cover above. Because of the higher residual tree stocking within riparian reserve areas, the treatment would be less effective than the remaining areas but would still be reduced to moderate risk (Chojnacky et al. 2000). Under alternatives 2 and 3, thinning of plantations will reduce long-term bark beetle risk (20- 30 years) by reducing densities below levels shown to be at risk to infestation.
Cumulative Effects48 Vegetative Structure Size Class Distribution and Crown Cover It is estimated that approximately 6,300 acres or 9.6 percent of the total 65,000 forested acres within the cumulative effects area for this project have had or will have tree harvest occur (from the 1950’s to the present). Most of the harvests within the cumulative effects area were intermediate thinning treatments or even aged regeneration cuts including clearcuts. Intermediate silvicultural treatments in the earlier harvests concentrated on removing larger trees. More recent treatments have focused on retention of the large diameter, late- successional species with a thinning from below prescription. Approximately 1,760 acres of harvest activities have occurred on non-Forest Service lands from 1999 to 2010 in the project area. Within land administered by the STNF, the action alternatives will not affect structure in older stands as treatments are limited to early successional plantations. Snags, Downed Logs and Woody Debris In 2008, approximately 1,500 acres burned at moderate to high intensity within the project area (USDA 2011a). Recent collected exam data within moderate to high burn intensity
48Present and reasonably foreseeable future projects used for cumulative effects analyses are listed in Appendix D. The effects of past actions are reflected in the descriptions of currently existing conditions.
59 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
areas indicates that the number of snags per acre over the recent fires generally meet or exceed the desired amounts as specified in the Forest Plan (McElroy 2009). The number of snags per acre recently has increased dramatically when bark beetle activity (FHP ADS 2008) and wildfires became more widespread in the project area. Natural snag recruitment would occur in all areas with large diameter trees currently planned for treatment. Past harvest activities within green stands did not consider the need to retain down logs or large woody debris until recently. Consequently, within areas harvested with the clearcut method, large woody debris is generally lacking. Based on ocular estimations, large woody debris is present to some degree but may be smaller in diameter than desired. Overall, stands generally exceed the desired fuel loading, although they are deficient in large woody debris. Implementation of either action alternative would allow for faster development of large diameter structure that will contribute to both desired snag numbers and large woody debris levels. Vegetative Composition The effects of the past fires and timber harvest activities followed by broadcast burning have combined to produce site disturbance necessary to maintain a rich understory species composition especially where species are present that are obligate seeders that germinate as the result of fire (Quick 1956). These species include deer brush (Ceanothus integerrimus), wedgeleaf ceanothus (Ceanothus cuneatus) and whiteleaf manzanita (Arctostaphylos viscida) that are well represented in the project area. The effects of the action alternatives and foreseeable actions on overstory tree species are similar to that described under Direct and Indirect effects. Cumulative effects to understory species are also similar to that described under Direct and Indirect effects. Disturbance from forestry practices and wildfire occurrence should cause these species to resprout and maintain pre-treatment composition levels. Understory species could increase in percent cover in the short-term with more open canopies but would decrease as the canopy closes and shades the understory species. Vegetative Processes Insects and Diseases The action alternatives would reduce insect and disease effects within the project area, and additional planned timber harvest projects (such as Red Fir Restoration project and Rattlesnake Fuels Reduction and Forest Health project) where stand densities are reduced would contribute to a higher resistance to bark beetle infestation within the project area. Botany For a more detailed discussion of botany in the project area and methodology for analyzing the potential effects to the resource, see the Westside Plantation Project Botany Biological Evaluation (Nelson 2014) located in the project record.
Analysis Indicators and Methodology The USDA Forest Service defines Sensitive species as those plant and animal species identified by a Regional Forester for which population viability is a concern, as evidenced by significant current or predicted downward trends in population numbers or density, or
60 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
significant current or predicted downward trends in habitat capability that would reduce the distribution of the species. Sensitive species are managed under the authority of the National Forest Management Act (PL 94-588) and the USDA Forest Service Manual Direction (FSM 2600). Management of sensitive species “must not result in a loss of species viability or create significant trends toward federal listing” (FSM 2670.32). The Sensitive Species List for the Pacific Southwest Region was updated on August 16, 2013. The full list of Sensitive species evaluated in the Botany Biological Evaluation is displayed in Appendix A of the Botany Biological Evaluation report. The Forest Plan provides additional protection to Sensitive species in the form of management goals to maintain or increase existing viable populations of sensitive species (pp. 3-26, 4-5). It also includes Standards and Guidelines, management direction pertaining to individual species, and specific management direction for each Management Area on the Forest. The Forest Plan extends Sensitive species protections to four plant species endemic to the Forest Plan area. Two of these Forest Plan Endemic species (FPE)—serpentine goldenbush and Dubakella buckwheat—occur within the Westside Plantation project perimeter and are included in this effects analysis. This effects analysis is based on information collected from Forest databases, historical records on file in the Shasta-Trinity Supervisor’s Office, herbarium records available through the California Consortium of Herbaria, California Natural Diversity Database records, and repeated site visits to the project area by the Forest botanist, by Adaptive Management Services Enterprise Team botanist Wendy Boes, and by Shasta-Trinity west side botanists from 1989 to 2013. In addition to the botanical surveys done prior to some of the timber sales that generated these plantations, and other incidental surveys done within the project area, field surveys were done specifically for this project, focusing on serpentine habitats in or near the plantations, wetlands and riparian areas in and near the plantations, roadsides, and landings. These are detailed in Appendix B of the Botany Biological Evaluation. Regarding Survey and Manage species, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Court Order of April 25, 2013 allows federal agencies to continue using the four “Pechman” exemptions as established in the October 11, 2006 modification of the January 9, 2006 Court Order. This Stipulation identified the following four general categories of exemptions from the 2001 Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines, including pre- disturbance surveys and known site management: 1. Thinnings in forest stands younger than 80 years of age; 2. culvert replacement/removal; 3. riparian and stream improvement projects; and 4. hazardous fuel treatments applying prescribed fire for noncommercial projects. This project only treats plantations stands that are less than 80 years old; therefore, it is exempt from Survey and Manage requirements.
Existing Condition Project elevation ranges from about 2000 to 5600 feet. The vegetation on serpentine soils ranges from nearly barren on heavily serpentinized shallow soils to conifer forest and woodlands of incense-cedar and Jeffrey pine on deeper soils over peridotite. Off serpentine, mixed conifer forest prevails. On South Fork Mountain, forests include tanoak and
61 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
chinquapin; and at higher elevations, red fir. Although some of the Sensitive plants known to occur in the project area are associated with serpentine or peridotite soils, the historical timber sales that generated the need for access roads and botanical surveys were not, for the most part, on ultramafic soils. Table 11 lists species that are of concern for the Westside Plantation Project, and species accounts follow.
Table 11. Sensitive and Forest Plan Endemic (FPE) species of concern for the Westside Plantation Project.49 This list includes species for which suitable habitat exists within the project area and the project area is within the range of the species, but currently have not been documented in the project area. Known to Also a Serpentine (S) occur Survey and Riparian (R) or Common name Scientific name within the Manage Rock Outcrop Project species (RO) associated? Boundary? (Y/N)? Vascular Plants brownie lady's Cypripedium R N Y slipper fasciculatum mountain lady's Cypripedium R N Y slipper montanum Oregon willow Epilobium oreganum S, R Y 50 N herb Tracy’s woolly- Eriastrum tracyi none N N stars serpentine Ericameria ophitidis S N N goldenbush Dubakella Mountain Eriogonum libertini S Y N buckwheat Umpqua green Frasera umpquaensis R Y N gentian Harmonia doris- Niles’ harmonia S Y N nilesiae California wild Iliamna latibracteata none Y N hollyhock Canyon Creek RO, both on and Sedum paradisum Y N stonecrop off serpentine
49 For the complete list of Sensitive plants, lichens, and fungi known or suspected to occur on the Trinity side of Shasta-Trinity National Forest, and the rationale for choosing these species of concern for the project, refer to Appendix A of the Botany Biological Evaluation. 50 One historic site that has not been seen since 1936; details on p. 10
62 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Known to Also a Serpentine (S) occur Survey and Riparian (R) or Common name Scientific name within the Manage Rock Outcrop Project species (RO) associated? Boundary? (Y/N)? Non-vascular Plants, Lichens, and Fungi veined water Peltigera gowardii R N N lichen
Serpentine-associated species - Habitat and Geographic Distribution There are three categories of serpentine associated rare plants in the South Fork Trinity River watershed that are of potential concern for this project— 1. Upland, disturbance tolerant species; these are tolerant of infrequent disturbance and may eventually recolonize road cuts, fills, gravel berms and old road beds-- Niles’ harmonia and serpentine goldenbush. 2. Upland, disturbance intolerant species; these do not recolonize disturbed areas— Dubakella Mountain buckwheat. 3. Wetland species; associated with springs, wet meadows, and pond margins—Oregon willow herb.
Disturbance-tolerant upland serpentine associates Serpentine goldenbush and Niles’ harmonia are serpentine associates that sometimes occupy road cuts, fill slopes, and roadside gravels; and are known to occur in the project area. Their natural habitats are shallow-soiled serpentine barrens or openings among trees and shrubs. These species have been found in roadbeds that have been closed or otherwise left undisturbed for a period of several years. Both of these upland species are nearly or completely endemic to the South Fork Management Unit. • Niles’ harmonia is an annual species whose numbers fluctuate annually with seasonal rainfall amounts and degree of disturbance. Because it has such a limited geographic range, this project area is an important part of available habitat. Seven populations occur within the project boundary, but none of these is near a plantation proposed for treatment in this project. One population is bisected by the Limedyke Mountain road off rd. 2N116, 0.2 mi from Cold Springs; that road will not be affected by this project. • Serpentine goldenbush is a short-lived subshrub, with no populations known to occur within the project boundary.
Disturbance-intolerant upland serpentine associates Dubakella Mountain buckwheat occupies intact serpentine soils on harsh to moderate sites, from serpentine barrens to Jeffrey pine/incense-cedar woodlands. These rarely colonize the road prism following disturbance. This upland species is nearly or completely endemic to the Rattlesnake Creek Terrane on the South Fork Management Unit. Dubakella Mountain buckwheat is known to occur in the project area. Because it has such a limited geographic range, this project area is an important part of their available habitat.
63 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
• Dubakella Mountain buckwheat is a long-lived subshrub, with two populations known to occur within the project boundary. Neither of these is near a plantation proposed for treatment in this project. One population abuts Copper Hill mine road, 1N05; this road will not be affected by the project.
Wetland serpentine associate Oregon willow herb occupies several small ultramafic wetlands in the South Fork Trinity River watershed, south and east of the project area. One historical site (CNDDB51 ) was reported from Forest Glen in 1936. This species is dependent for survival on a steady supply of water during the growing season, and is dependent for reproduction on protection from herbivores. • Oregon willow herb is a perennial, with no populations known within the project area other than a nonspecific site reported nearly 80 years ago, and not seen since. Older specimen records often cite the nearest landmark rather than the actual location, and there doesn’t appear to be suitable serpentine wetland habitat close to Forest Glen, raising the possibility that the plant was actually found farther away, outside the project area. No suitable habitat will be affected by the project. Non-Serpentine-Associated Sensitive Plant and Lichen Species—Habitat and Geographic Distribution There are four categories of non-serpentine associated rare plants and lichens that are of potential concern for this project — 1. Upland, disturbance tolerant species; tolerant of infrequent disturbance and may eventually recolonize road cuts, fills, gravel berms and old road beds—Tracy’s woolly-stars, California wild hollyhock 2. Rock outcrop inhabiting, disturbance-intolerant species—Canyon Creek stonecrop 3. Riparian and aquatic, disturbance-intolerant species; these do not readily recolonize disturbed areas—mountain lady’s-slipper, brownie lady’s-slipper, veined water lichen 4. Species of moist forest margins and openings, tolerant of only infrequent disturbance- - Umpqua green gentian
Upland disturbance-tolerant non-serpentine associates Tracy’s woolly-stars, a species of moderately disturbed roadsides and openings, is known from locations widely scattered around California. There is one occurrence near Hyampom, 2 miles north of the project area; this population was last seen in 1888. The nearest known extant sites are in Hayfork Valley in Trinity County and Cottonwood Creek in Tehama County. California wild hollyhock, is a species of openings and meadows in coast range conifer forests of NW California and adjacent Oregon. It is an early successional species
51 California Natural Diversity Database. https://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/
64 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project whose habitat is thought to have been historically sustained by frequent fire intervals, creating open canopy with high light levels. • Tracy’s woolly-stars is an annual species whose numbers fluctuate annually with seasonal rainfall amounts and degree of disturbance, with no populations known to occur within the project boundary. • California wild hollyhock is a robust, showy, short-lived perennial with four populations known to occur within the project boundary. None of these is near a plantation proposed for treatment in this project. One population abuts Rd. 4N12, the South Fork Mountain ridge road, 200 ft before Buck Spring, on both sides of the road, and could be affected by project road-related maintenance or other roadside effects.
Rock outcrop associates Canyon Creek stonecrop occurs on rock outcrops in forest and woodland settings which, except for quarry development, tend to be less influenced by management related disturbance. This species is known to occur on a variety of rock types, from 2500 to 6100 ft. elevation. A taxonomic study is currently underway that will redefine the identities of this and related stonecrop species, which will affect the number and geographic range of known populations. • Canyon Creek stonecrop is a mat-forming succulent species; one population is known to occur within the project boundary. Five populations of a related species, pale yellow stonecrop, when reevaluated during the taxonomic study, may be reassigned to this species. One sedum population occurs on rock outcrops along Road 1S14 at Copper Hill, just N of the rock pit, and could be affected by project road-related maintenance. None of the other sedum populations in the project area is near a project unit or a road that would be used for project activities.
Riparian and aquatic disturbance-intolerant non-serpentine associates Mountain and Brownie lady’s-slippers almost always occupy shaded, moist, undisturbed forest and have been documented from several populations on the Forest within close proximity to drainage pipe inlets or outlets on perennial streams. There is potential for some impacts at the stream crossing upgrade or culvert removal sites. Neither Brownie lady’s slipper nor mountain lady’s slipper have been documented in the project area. Goward’s waterfan grows on rocks in shallow, spring-fed, cold mountain streams. There are three populations of this species documented from Shasta-Trinity NF, all just south of the project boundary on South Fork Mountain, Other locations for this species are mostly in the Sierra Nevada; it also extends north to Alaska and Idaho. • Mountain lady’- slipper is a long-lived perennial, with no populations known to occur within the project boundary. • Brownie lady’- slipper is a long-lived perennial, with no populations known to occur within the project boundary. • Goward’s waterfan is a slow growing aquatic lichen, with no populations known to occur within the project boundary.
Species of moist forest margins and openings, tolerant of only infrequent
65 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
disturbance Umpqua green gentian is known in California from a cluster of populations on the southern end of South Fork Mountain, south of Highway 36W. Two of these occur within the project boundary, though they are south of the southernmost units proposed for treatment in this project. Habitat for this species is cool, moist Douglas-fir/white fir forest margins or openings from 5100-6000 feet elevation. • Umpqua green gentian is a long-lived perennial, with two populations known to occur within the project boundary. Neither of these is near a project unit nor a road that will be used in project activities.
Environmental Consequences No Action - Alternative 1 Under this alternative, no plantations would be thinned at this time; therefore, no impacts to Sensitive botanical species would occur.
Cumulative Effects Because there are no project related impacts associated with Alternative 1, there are no cumulative impacts. Proposed Action - Alternative 2 and Reduced Watershed Impacts – Alternative 3 This section describes impacts shared by Alternatives 2 and 3. There are no potential impacts that are not common to both action alternatives; therefore there is no separate discussion of impacts under those alternative headings.
Direct impacts of action alternatives resulting from plantation thinning and fuels treatments No Sensitive or Forest Plan Endemic species occur in the plantations proposed for thinning under the action alternatives; therefore there would be no direct impacts.
Direct impacts of action alternatives resulting from road reconstruction and maintenance Within the project boundary: • One population of Niles’ harmonia is bisected by the Limedyke Mountain road off road 2N116, 0.2 mi from Cold Springs; this road will not be used for this project. • One population of Dubakella buckwheat abuts Copper Hill mine road, 1N05; this road will not be used for this project. • One population of sedum grows on the roadcut just north of the rock pit at Copper Hill on Rd. 1S14. These could be affected by project road-related maintenance if plants grow low enough to be affected by road grading. • One population of California wild hollyhock (Iliamna latibracteata) abuts road 4N12, the South Fork Mountain ridge road, 200 feet before Buck Spring, on both sides of the road, and in several satellite populations within the next mile of road to the
66 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
northwest. These could be affected by project road-related maintenance or other roadside effects. Resource protection measure to abate direct impacts to Sensitive species Flagging and avoiding Sensitive species will abate potential direct impacts from road maintenance and reconstruction to California wild hollyhock and sedum.
Direct impacts of action alternatives resulting from use of temporary roads None of the temporary (existing non-system) roads planned for use under Alternative 2 pass through or near Sensitive or Forest Plan Endemic (FPE) species. Because some temporary roads may not occur in the currently planned location, Resource Protection Measures have been included to prevent impacts to sensitive botanical species. These temporary roads are not proposed for use under Alternative 3. Therefore neither action alternative will affect sensitive or FPE species through temporary road use.
Indirect impacts of action alternatives resulting from plantation thinning and fuels treatments There is potential impact from spread of weeds, particularly knapweed and scotch broom, which are present along roads and old landings (including many proposed for use as biomass sites for this project), and inside several plantations. Centaurea diffusa (diffuse knapweed) is usually a biennial plant (family Asteraceae) that forms dense infestations. Seeds disperse when stems break off and tumble in the wind. Diffuse knapweed is not very common in California, but is one of the most invasive species in many other western states (Cal-IPC 2014). Centaurea solstitialis (yellow starthistle) is a bushy winter annual (family Asteraceae) that occurs on 12 million acres in California. Yellow starthistle inhabits open hills, grasslands, open woodlands, fields, roadsides, and rangelands, and it is considered one of the most serious rangeland weeds in the state. It propagates rapidly by seed, and a large plant can produce nearly 75,000 seeds. Several insects from the Mediterranean region, including weevils and flies, have been employed as biocontrol agents for yellow starthistle with minor success (Cal-IPC 2014). Cytisus scoparius (Scotch broom) is a perennial shrub (family Fabaceae), which grows in sunny sites with dry sandy soil, and spreads rapidly through pastures, borders of forests, and roadsides. Cytisus scoparius can be found from the coast to the Sierra foothills. This weed crowds out native species, has a seedbank that can remain dormant for up to 80 years, diminishes habitat for grazing animals, and increases risk for wildland fires (Cal-IPC 2014).
Indirect impacts of action alternatives resulting from road reconstruction and maintenance, and use of temporary roads related to the project. One population of California wild hollyhock (Iliamna latibracteata) abuts road 4N12, the South Fork Mountain ridge road, 200 feet before Buck Spring, on both sides of the road, and in several satellite populations within the next mile of road to the NW. California hollyhock occupies open, early successional sites that are also good habitat for invasive plants. These hollyhock sites could be invaded by weeds transported via project road-related maintenance or other roadside effects.
67 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Resource Protection Measures to Abate Indirect Effects of weed transport and establishment on Sensitive species • Prior to implementation of timber operations, where the risk of spread is moderate to high, via contractor or force account, treat invasive plant-infested road medians, landings, processing areas or other clearings used in the course of project implementation proximal in time before the start of operations. Treatment may include machine removal, weed whacking, or hand treatments. Invasive plants or shrubs removed shall be placed on the edge of the clearing out of the way of operations to avoid retrieval on equipment. • Avoid staging equipment where invasive plants occur. If avoidance is not feasible, contractor shall treat staging areas prior to using (e.g. manual or mechanically remove) and maintain as needed throughout the life of the project. Place treated material on site and out of the way of equipment operations. • If feasible, avoid operations during the time of year when invasive plants pose the highest risk of spread; the two principal means of spread are through seed-infested mud and soil, or by masticating and roadside maintenance during ripe seed disperal time. • Each treatment unit shall identify sites for Forest Service vehicle cleaning and equip the sites sufficiently (i.e. high-pressure hose) to ensure mud or vegetative material trapped in tires or on the carriage of the vehicle can be effectively removed. • If there is a moderate to high risk of spreading invasives from an infested area to an uninfested area during operations and alternate project design features are not feasible to reduce risk of spread, equipment/machinery shall be cleaned prior to leaving the infested area and operating elsewhere. Conclusion
Determination of Effects for the Action Alternatives Based on the discussion above and the project Resource Protection Measures, Alternatives 2 and 3 will have no effect on: • Brownie lady’s-slipper; • Mountain lady’s-slipper; • Oregon willow herb; • Tracy’s woolly-stars; • Serpentine goldenbush; • Dubakella Mountain buckwheat; • Niles’ harmonia; • Califormia wild hollyhock; and • Canyon Creek stonecrop. Cumulative Effects Because there would be no effect on Sensitive species, no cumulative effects would occur.
68 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Wildlife For a more detailed discussion of wildlife in the project area and methodology for analyzing the potential effects to those resources, see the Westside Plantation Project wildlife reports (Goldsmith 2014a-f) located in the project record.
Analysis Indicators and Methodology This analysis is based on information such as data collected from Forest databases and the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), remote sensing vegetation analysis, direct surveys in the field, the most recent and appropriate scientific research or species information, and direct observation on site visits to the project area. Threatened and Endangered Species The only species listed under the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) and present in the project area is the northern spotted owl and its associated Critical Habitat. The analysis of impacts to the northern spotted owl focuses on direct effects (e.g., noise disturbance or injury/mortality) and indirect effects (e.g., degradation of suitable habitats). The analysis is bound by spatial and temporal boundaries. The ESA defines the spatial boundary for analysis as the Action Area. Under the ESA, the Action Area includes “all areas likely to be affected directly or indirectly by this proposed action” (50 CFR §402.02). This includes a buffer on each treatment area that will account for any individual whose known or assumed location lies outside of the treatment area, but whose territory may include the treatment area. The Pacific fisher and the California wolverine are both candidate species for listing under the ESA; they are also included on the Pacific Southwest Region Sensitive Species List and are addressed in this analysis as Sensitive Species. Sensitive Species The Sensitive Species List for the Pacific Southwest Region was updated in July, 2013 and the sensitive wildlife species evaluated in this document are displayed in Table 12. Analysis of potential effects on Forest Service Sensitive wildlife species focuses on direct effects (e.g., disturbance and injury/mortality) and indirect effects (e.g., modifying habitats suitable for these species).
Table 12. Sensitive Species list - USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region Common name Scientific name Also a Survey and Manage species (Y/N)? MAMMALS Pacific fisher Martes pennanti pacifica N American marten Martes americana N California wolverine Gulo gulo luteus N Pallid bat Antrozous pallidus N Townsend’s big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii N
69 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Common name Scientific name Also a Survey and Manage species (Y/N)? Fringed myotis (bat) Lasiurus blossevillii N BIRDS Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus N Northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis N Willow flycatcher Empidonax traillii N Yellow rail Coturnicops noveboracensis N REPTILES Western pond turtle Clemmys marmorata marmorata N AMPHIBIANS Cascade frog Rana cascadae N Foothill yellow-legged frog Rana boylii N Northern red-legged frog Rana aurora aurora N Southern torrent salamander Rhyacotriton variegatus N Shasta salamander Hydromantes shastae Y AQUATIC AND TERRESTRIAL INVERTEBRATES Western bumble bee Bombus occidentalis N California floater Anodonta californiensis N Topaz juga Juga (Calibasis)acutifilosa N Black juga Juga nigrina N Scalloped juga Juga [Calibasis] occata N Kneecap lanx Lanx patelloides N Montane peaclam Pisidium (Cyclocalyx) ultramontanum N Nugget pebblesnail Fluminicola seminalis N Shasta sideband snail Monadenia troglodytes troglodytes Y Wintu sideband snail Monadenia troglodytes wintu Y Shasta chaparral snail Trilobopsis roperi Y Tehama chaparral snail Trilobopsis tehamana Y Pressley (Big Bar) Hesperian snail Vespericola pressleyi Y Shasta Hesperian snail Vespericola Shasta Y
70 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Existing Condition Threatened and Endangered Species The key limiting habitat for the northern spotted owl is nesting habitat, which is generally limited to late seral forests that contain suitable nesting platform structures such as cavities, broken tree tops, and mistletoe brooms (Forsman et al. 1984; Gutierrez et al. 1995; Courtney et al. 2004). Many studies conducted during decades of research have documented that northern spotted owl survival and occupancy are positively correlated with increased amounts of late-successional forest. Forest stands used by the owl usually have a high canopy closure and high structural diversity (Dugger et al. 2005, Forsman et al. 1984, Thomas et al. 1990). No nesting habitat occurs within project units. Small mammals such as the dusky-footed woodrat comprise the bulk of the northern spotted owl’s diet though other mammals, birds, reptiles and insects are also preyed upon. Descriptions of foraging habitat range from forest stands with complex structure to forests with lower canopy closure and smaller diameter trees than those associated with nesting/roosting habitat (Thomas et al. 1990, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2008a, Solis and Gutierrez 1990, Gutierrez 1996). No foraging habitat occurs within project units. Dispersal habitat, at a minimum, consists of stands with adequate tree size and canopy closure to provide protection from avian predators. Fledgling owls disperse from nest territories typically from September to November (USDI 2008). Some dispersal habitat occurs within project units (approximately 553 acres). Critical habitat consists of specific geographic areas that contain features essential for the conservation of a threatened or endangered species and that may require special management and protection (USDI 2008). Direct effects to designated Critical Habitat are those effects that would alter the current suitability of the habitat to maintain Primary Constituent Elements (PCE) or Physical and Biological Features (PBFs) or that would affect the potential of the area to develop and maintain these PCE. Although indirect effects to a species through habitat manipulation do not occur if the animal is not present, effects to Critical Habitat PCE’s may occur regardless of the presence or absence of the listed species. Approximately 4,500 acres of project units occur within northern spotted owl Critical Habitat; however, none of those acres are currently suitable northern spotted owl habitat. Numerous documented northern spotted owl activity centers are present within 1.3 miles of treatment units (Figure 3). Protocol surveys have not been completed recently, and for the purpose of this analysis all suitable northern spotted owl habitats are presumed to be occupied.
71 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Figure 3. Northern spotted owl habitat in the Westside Plantation Project area and 52 vicinity.
52 Protocol surveys have not been completed recently, and for the purpose of this analysis all suitable NSO habitats are presumed to be occupied.
72 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Sensitive Species Pacific fisher (Martes pennanti pacifica) Pacific fishers are most closely associated with late-successional and old growth conifer forests throughout their range, with California populations showing a preference for riparian areas (Powell 1993, Powell and Zielinski 1994). Numerous studies have documented that resting/denning fishers in the western United States favor forest stands with large trees, large snags, coarse woody-debris, dense canopy closure, multiple-canopy layers, large diameter hardwoods, and steep slopes near water (Powell and Zielinski 1994; Seglund 1995; Dark 1997; Truex et al. 1998; Self and Kerns 2001; Aubry et al. 2002; Carroll et al. 1999; Mazzoni 2002; Yaeger 2005, Zielinski et al. 2004). Resting and denning trees must be large enough to bear the type of stresses that initiate cavities, and the type of ecological processes (e.g., decay, woodpecker activity) that form cavities of sufficient size to be useful to fishers (Zielinski et al. 2004). Yaeger (2005) also found that on the Forest, fisher favored resting locations away from roads and human disturbance. Pacific fishers have been observed across the South Fork Management Unit. Because of the lack of late-successional forest in the project units, there is no high-quality fisher habitat present. The older plantations proposed for treatment may be used by fishers to a lesser degree, for limited foraging and for movement to and from nearby areas with more suitable habitats. Wildlife databases include one fisher observation within a project unit and numerous observations in nearby areas. American marten (Martes americana) On the Forest this species is associated with higher elevation (>4,500 feet) late-successional red-fir stands (Buskirk and Powell 1994), and to a lesser extent with lower elevation conifer forest habitats similar to fisher habitat. Stand-level habitat characteristics that provide habitat for marten are the same as those discussed previously for fisher resting/denning habitat. The presence of fishers often excludes martens from the area (Buskirk and Powell 1994; Krohn et al. 1997; Small et al. 2003; Ruggierro et al. 2007). Habitat stratification appears to occur between these species, with marten occupying the higher elevations that support greater snow loads throughout winter months. Extensive survey work on the Forest using techniques suitable for detecting martens detected numerous fishers but no martens (Yaeger 2005; Zielinski et al. 2004; Seglund 1995). American martens have not been observed in the project area. The nearest recorded observation was approximately 23 miles to the northeast. Because of the lack of late- successional forest in the project units or temporary road beds, there is no high-quality marten habitat present. However, maximum elevation in the project area is approximately 5,100 feet, and older plantations at higher elevations may be used by martens for limited foraging and/or movement to and from nearby areas with more suitable habitat. California wolverine (Gulo gulo luteus) Coniferous forests are the primary habitats of wolverines, but they also make significant use of alpine habitats (Banci 1994). In north coastal areas, wolverines were historically observed in Douglas-fir and mixed conifer habitats, and likely also used red fir, lodgepole, wet meadow, and montane riparian habitats. Wolverines appear to select areas that are free of significant human disturbance, especially during the denning period from late winter through early spring (USDI 2003).
73 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
In California, wolverines historically occurred throughout the Sierra Nevada, Cascade, Klamath, and northern Coast ranges in alpine, boreal forest and mixed forest vegetation types (Schempf and White 1977). Zeiner et al. (1990) noted the wolverine is a scarce resident of North Coast mountains and the Sierra Nevada. Sightings have ranged from Del Norte and Trinity Counties, east through Siskiyou and Shasta counties in the Coast Range, and south through Tulare County. Most reported sightings in this region range from 1600 to 4800 feet in elevation, according to California Department of Fish and game records from 2005. There have been unconfirmed wolverine sightings reported on the Forest over the past 20 years, but no documented observations. Surveys conducted in California over that time span using remote cameras and track plate surveys, including survey sites on the Forest, have resulted in only one confirmed observation in the state, on the Tahoe National Forest in February, 2008 (Heil et al. 2008), and the project area is outside the current known range of this species (California Department of Fish and Game 2010). Pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus) The pallid bat has a wide distribution throughout the western United States, and can be abundant in many arid, low elevation regions (Sherwin and Rambaldini 2005). They roost in deep crevices in rock faces, caves, mines, bridges, cavities in trees, and occasionally in open buildings. Roosts protect bats from high temperatures. They are colonial and tend to hibernate in deep rock crevices and caves rather than migrating (Tuttle 1997). Wildlife databases show no observations of pallid bats in the project area. The nearest recorded observation was approximately 14 miles to the southeast. However, some habitats in the project area may potentially be suitable for this species. Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) This species occupies a variety of habitats ranging from coniferous forests and woodlands to deciduous riparian woodlands, semi-desert and montane shrub habitats. Townsend’s big- eared bats are strongly correlated with the availability of caves and cave-like roosting habitat, although they also make use of man-made structures such as abandoned buildings, water diversion tunnels, and bridges (USDA 2013; Zeiner et al. 1990; Arizona Game and Fish Department 1993), and show a preference for foraging along edges of riparian vegetation where conifers and deciduous riparian species support Lepidopteran prey species (Fellers and Pierson 2002, Arizona Game and Fish Department 1993). Wildlife databases show no observations of Townsend’s big-eared bats in or near the project area. The nearest recorded observation was approximately 10 miles to the east. Fringed myotis (Myotis thysanodes) The fringed myotis is a bat species occurring in a broad range of vegetative types but most commonly reported in pinyon juniper, oak, ponderosa pine and mixed confiner forest types (Keinath 2004). This species often forages along small streams (Pierson et al. 2001). Fringed myotis are morphologically adapted to forage in areas of relatively high vegetative “clutter,” such as interior forests and/or their edges, but not in wide openings such as clear-cuts or meadows (Pierson et al. 2001). Weller and Zabel (2001) found that day and night roosts in northern California were commonly found under tree bark and in tree hollows, and medium to large diameter snags provided important day and night roosting sites for this species. However, Lacki and Baker (2007) found that fringed myotis in Oregon and Washington use trees/snags as roosts much less than previously reported and instead favored caves, mines,
74 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
and buildings as solitary day and night roosts and hibernacula. This species also uses bridges and rock crevices as solitary day and night roosts, and has been shown to use lava flows on at least one occasion (Christy and West 1993). Roosts in these more permanent structures elicit high roost fidelity compared to more temporary roosts such as trees and snags (Lewis 1995, Weller and Zabel 2001). This species is rare in California, but is found throughout the state, from the coast (including Santa Cruz Island) to 5,900 feet or greater in elevation in the Sierra Nevadas (Keinath 2003). Wildlife databases show no observations of fringed myotis bats in the Westside Plantation Project units. The nearest recorded observation was approximately 3.5 miles to the east. Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) On the Forest Bald eagles typically utilize large trees protected from disturbance for nesting, and late-successional and old growth forests relatively close to large rivers or lakes for winter roosting sites. Their primary food source is fish, which are taken live or as carrion (Anthony et al. 1992; USDI 1986). On the Forest many large conifers provide potential nest sites on slopes overlooking Trinity Lake, Lewiston Lake, and the Trinity River. Other nests are located near major rivers. Wildlife databases show two bald eagle nest sites near the project area, approximately 0.8 and 2.2 miles from the nearest project units. Both are located near the South Fork of the Trinity River. Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) Northern goshawks primarily occupy ponderosa pine, mixed-species, and spruce-fir forests. They prefer late-successional and old growth conifer forests and slopes generally less than 35 percent, and may be susceptible to disturbance during the breeding season. Wildlife databases show no observations of this species within project units but numerous observations in the vicinity. Three nest sites have been recorded within 0.5 miles of project units. Willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii) Willow flycatchers are restricted to river corridors and moist or wet shrubby habitats in the arid West. Wildlife databases show no observations of this species in project units but numerous observations within 0.2 miles of project units in the Indian Valley area. Yellow rail (Coturnicops noveboracensis) Yellow rails are secretive birds inhabiting marshes, especially large marshes. They breed primarily in eastern Canada and north-central United States and winter primarily in the southeastern United States (Bookhout 1995). Their known range includes portions of southwest Oregon and northeastern and coastal California. The project area is well outside the known range of this species (Southwell 2002, Shuford and Garaldi 2008). Western pond turtle (Clemmys marmorata marmorata) Western pond turtles occur in a variety of habitat types associated with permanent or nearly permanent water. They concentrate in ponds and low flow regions of rivers and creeks such as side channels and backwater areas, and prefer creeks that have deep, still water and sunny banks. Basking sites such as rocks and partially submerged logs are important habitat components. During the spring or summer females may travel great distances away from ponds to find sites suitable for nesting, although the travel distance to most nest sites is <300
75 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
meters. Dry grassy areas are used as nest sites. These upland hibernation sites can occur as far as 500 meters from aquatic habitats (Jennings and Hayes 1994, Reese and Welsh 1998). Wildlife databases show no observations of this species in the project units, but several observations within approximately 1 mile of project units. Cascade frog (Rana cascadae) Cascade frogs inhabit high-altitude ponds, lakes, and streams within open coniferous forests from Washington to northern California. They can survive in ephemeral water bodies where at least some substrate remains saturated. Open, shallow water that remains unshaded during the hours of strong sunlight provide egg-laying sites. This species is believed to be relatively abundant in the Trinity Alps Wilderness (Fellers et al. 2007). Wildlife databases show no observations of cascade frogs in or near the project area. The nearest recorded observation was approximately 30 miles to the northeast in the Trinity Alps Wilderness. However, the maximum elevation in the project area is approximately 5,100 feet, and Cascade frogs may possibly inhabit portions of the project area, especially the western-most portion of the project area near the crest of South Fork Mountain. Foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii) Foothill yellow-legged frogs are found in or near permanent rocky streams in a variety of habitats, including ponderosa pine, mixed conifer and mixed chaparral. They are highly aquatic, spending most or all of their life in or near streams. They require shallow, flowing water, and display an apparent preference for small to moderate-sized streams with at least some cobble-sized substrate. They breed in shallow, slow flowing water with only partial shading. Adult foothill yellow-legged frogs are often seen breeding in pools on the main stem of the Trinity River in spring and moving to basking and foraging sites in the tributaries in the summer (Jennings and Hayes 1994, Zeiner et al. 1988). This species is widely distributed across the Trinity portion of the Forest. Wildlife databases show one observation of a foothill yellow-legged frog in a project unit in the Indian Valley area, and numerous observations near project units. Northern red-legged frog (Rana aurora aurora) Northern red-legged frogs inhabit perennial and intermittent watercourses in northern California north to British Columbia. These watercourses are typically bordered by dense growth of herbaceous or shrub species (Jennings and Hayes 1994, USDI 2002). Wildlife databases include no confirmed records of this species on the South Fork Management Unit, and the areas proposed for treatment are outside the known range of this species. This frog’s historic range includes Shasta but not Trinity County, and is restricted to lower elevation areas in the Sacramento Valley (Jennings and Hayes 1994, USDI 2002). In 2011 a Forest Service Fisheries survey crew documented a possible red-legged frog population in the upper portion of the Cottonwood Creek watershed within the Yolla Bolla Wilderness and within the boundaries of the Forest. However this drainage is entirely within the Wilderness area and approximately 23 miles southeast of the Westside Plantation Project area. Southern torrent salamander (Rhyacotriton variegatus) Southern torrent salamanders occur in aquatic habitats of conifer forests in the Coast Range from Mendocino County, California to northwestern Oregon. They occur in springs, seeps, small streams, and margins of larger streams, where they avoid open water and seek the
76 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
cover of moss, rocks, and organic debris in shallow, cold water (Welsh and Lind 1996, Jennings and Hayes 1994). They occur within a relatively narrow range of physical and microclimatic conditions. They are associated with cold, clear headwater to low-order streams with loose rocky substrates (low sedimentation) in humid forest habitats with large conifers, abundant moss, and greater than 80% canopy closure. The southern torrent salamander demonstrates an ecological dependence on streamside conditions of microclimate and habitat structure that in northwestern California are typically best created, stabilized, and maintained within late seral forests (Welsh and Lind 1996, Jennings and Hayes 1994). Southern torrent salamanders are closely associated with coastal areas, and the project area is approximately 47 miles from the Pacific Coast. However, the range of this species may include the western-most portion of the project area near the crest of South Fork Mountain. Wildlife databases show two recorded observations in this area, in tributaries of the South Fork of the Trinity River. Western bumble bee (Bombus occidentalis) Western bumble bees are generalist foragers, feeding on pollen and nectar from a diverse array of plant species. They are commonly found in riparian habitats, meadows and recently disturbed areas. Nests are often in abandoned rodent burrows, and less frequently in abandoned bird nests or open grassy areas (Evans et al. 2008, Koch et al. 2012, Xerces Society 2013). This species inhabits the Western US from the Great Plains to the Pacific Coast and from Alaska to Southern California. Populations in West Coast states have declined dramatically since the 1990’s. The most likely cause of this decline is the spread of pests and diseases from the commercial bee industry (Evans et al. 2008). Other threats include habitat alteration/removal in the form of agricultural intensification, livestock grazing, urban development and landscape fragmentation, which can reduce pollen and nectar sources and affect potential nest sites. Use of broad-spectrum herbicides can also reduce pollen and nectar sources. Additional threats to this species include invasive species, use of insecticides and climate change. Fire suppression may result in conversion of open meadows to forested habitats, reducing availability of meadow nest sites for this species (Evans et al. 2008, Koch et al. 2012, Xerces Society 2013). Wildlife databases include no records of this species on the Forest. Shasta salamander (Hydromantes shastae), California floater (Anodonta californiensis), topaz juga (Juga [Calibasis]acutifilosa), black juga (Juga nigrina), scalloped juga (Juga [Calibasis] occata) and kneecap lanx (Lanx patelloides), montane peaclam (Pisidium [Cyclocalyx] ultramontanum), nugget pebble snail (Fluminicola seminalis), Shasta sideband snail (Monadenia troglodytes troglodytes), Wintu sideband snail (Monadenia troglodytes wintu), Shasta chaparral snail (Monadenia troglodytes troglodytes), Tehama chaparral snail (Trilobopsis tehamana) and Shasta Hesperian snail (Vespericola Shasta). Shasta salamanders inhabit moist rocky areas such as limestone outcrops. Their distribution is limited to a small area near Lake Shasta, California (USDA 2013). California floaters are aquatic mollusks associated with lakes and slow rivers. Their distribution on the Forest is restricted to the Fall and Pit River systems in Shasta County (Furnish 2007). Topaz jugas are aquatic mollusks associated with large springs and their outflows. Their distribution on the Forest is restricted to Siskiyou County (Furnish 2007). Black jugas are aquatic mollusks inhabiting perennial streams. Their distribution on the Forest is restricted to tributaries of the
77 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Sacramento River system (California Department of Fish and Game 1981). Scalloped jugas are aquatic mollusks associated with large river systems. Their known distribution on the Forest is restricted to the lower Pit River (Furnish 2007, California Department of Fish and Game 1981). Kneecap lanx are also aquatic mollusks associated with large river systems. Their known distribution on the Forest is restricted to the Sacramento River and its large tributaries (California Department of Fish and Game 1981). Montane peaclams are aquatic mollusks associated with sand-gravel substrates. There are historical records of this species from the Pit River system, but there are no known extant populations on the Forest (Furnish 2007, USDI Bureau of Land Management 1997). Nugget pebblesnails are aquatic mollusks typically associated with large streams that have gravel-cobble substrate and clear, flowing water. Their distribution is limited to the area around Lake Shasta, California (Furnish 2007, USDA and USDI 1999). Shasta sideband snails and Wintu sideband snails are associated with limestone areas including caves and talus slopes. Their distribution on the Forest is limited to the area east of Shasta Lake, California (USDI 1999). Shasta chaparral snails are associated primarily with rockslides. Their distribution on the Forest is limited to the area east of Shasta Lake, California (USDI 1999). Tehama chaparral snails are associated with rocky talus areas. Their distribution on the Forest is limited to the area east of Shasta Lake, California (USDI 1999). Shasta Hesperian snails inhabit moist bottomlands and caves around Lake Shasta, California (USDI 1999). Pressley (Big Bar) Hesperian snail (Vespericola pressleyi) Pressley (Big Bar) Hesperian snails inhabit conifer and/or hardwood forest habitat in permanently damp areas within 200 meters of seeps, springs and stable streams. Herbaceous vegetation and leaf litter are common habitat elements associated with this species. Woody debris and rock refugia near water are used by the species during dry and cold periods (USDI 1999, Roth 1985). Wildlife databases show no observations of this species in the project area. The nearest recorded occurrence is approximately 0.1 miles southwest of a project unit.
Environmental Consequences Threatened and Endangered Species
No Action - Alternative 1 Alternative 1 is the No Action Alternative. This alternative would authorize no federal actions and have no direct or indirect effects on northern spotted owl. No fire or safety impacts from the current condition would be mitigated at this time, and no forest health improvement work would take place. Cumulative Effects Because there are no direct or indirect effects of the no action alternative, there are no cumulative effects.
Proposed Action - Alternative 2 Based on field verification in the oldest plantations proposed for treatment, no suitable northern spotted owl habitat is present in project units. Dominant and co-dominant trees are undersized, few legacy trees remain in units, and the understory is dominated by dead tree
78 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
branches that obstruct northern spotted owl flight (see Figures 3-5 in the Wildlife Biological Assessment for photos of understory in representative units; Goldsmith 2014b). A total of four acres of temporary roads (not counting areas already inside the thinning units) will be used. No suitable northern spotted owl habitat will be affected. Approximately 3.7 acres are within northern spotted owl home ranges, and 0.9 of these acres are within northern spotted owl core areas. Temporary roads will be on existing unauthorized routes, or in the roadbeds that were used during the original harvest of these units whenever possible. The latter were cleared during the original harvest and compacted by heavy equipment, and were not replanted. As a result, although some of these roadbeds are immediately adjacent to suitable northern spotted owl habitat, they are in conditions similar to, but less developed than, the plantations themselves, and no suitable northern spotted owl habitat is currently present (Paris, R., pers. comm., 2014c). Approximately 80 new landings will be needed (Large, L., pers. comm., 2014), averaging 0.25 to 0.50 acres. Some may need to be located in northern spotted owl AC core areas, but no suitable northern spotted owl habitat would be affected. There is no suitable northern spotted owl habitat currently present in the thinning units, and no suitable northern spotted owl habitat will be affected at the two biomass landings outside thinning units. Landings are preferentially placed on existing landings created during previous management actions. If this is not possible, new landings will occur in plantation units. If this is not feasible, new landings will occur in areas that are generally open or have younger forest vegetation. Finally, if this is not possible, the removal of trees larger than 24 inches will be avoided, and no suitable northern spotted owl habitat will be affected. Due to their small size these openings will not prevent northern spotted owl movement between the suitable habitats in surrounding areas. Numerous documented northern spotted owl activity centers are present within 1.3 miles of treatment units (see Figure 3 above). Treatments within activity centers will benefit northern spotted owl by removing branches in the understory that currently obstruct northern spotted owl flight. In areas where other conditions for northern spotted owl dispersal already exist (approximately 10 percent of the thinning areas, or 553 acres), the proposed plantation thinning will open up the understory and facilitate northern spotted owl dispersal. The proposed action will be of particular benefit to northern spotted owl within activity center core areas, enhancing habitat connectivity and accelerating the development of nesting/roosting and foraging habitats. Effects to northern spotted owl Critical Habitat: The effects to Critical Habitat are identical to the indirect effects to northern spotted owl habitat identified in detail above. Cumulative Effects This cumulative effects analysis is bounded in space and time to properly evaluate whether there will be an overlap of effects caused by this project in combination with effects of other past, present, or future foreseeable actions. This analysis is bounded in space to include all affected 7th-field watersheds, and bounded in time to include all actions up to 20 years into the future. This reflects typical northern spotted owl distribution patterns, the predicted life span of individual northern spotted owl, and the potential for effects to individuals that may inhabit the project area at this time.
79 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
The effects of past actions are reflected in the descriptions of currently existing conditions. Lands surrounding the project area are primarily National Forest System lands, with private industrial forest lands and scattered private seasonal or permanent residences intermixed. Reasonably foreseeable future actions on these lands include continued forest management and rural residential/vacation use. Other ongoing activities on private and federal lands in the analysis area include annual road maintenance, recreation use and fire suppression. Present and reasonably foreseeable future actions include: • Private Timber Harvest Plans (164 acres) • Wallow Fire Salvage/Rehabilitation (198 acres) • Red Fir integrated vegetation management (532 acres thinning, 532 acres pile/burn) • Rattlesnake integrated vegetation management (46 acres thinning, 532 acres mastication) Potential effects of the project (Alternative 2) to northern spotted owl consist of disturbance/injury and habitat modification. This analysis will therefore focus on these two potential sources of cumulative effects. Disturbance/injury: Potential disturbance/injury from the project is limited to the time required for project implementation. Other activities in the analysis area consist primarily of continued private and federal forest management and rural residential/vacation use. Activities on adjacent lands result in risk of injury to northern spotted owl, primarily from mechanized forest management activities. These activities are very intermittent in nature in the analysis area, and represent a low level of risk at any given time. Limited operating periods (LOP’s) are incorporated into the project design to avoid disturbance to northern spotted owls during their breeding season (see the Resource Protection Measures). This measure will apply to all activities producing loud and continuous noise or smoke that will potentially disturb this species (see Westside Plantation Project Information Form/Biological Assessment). As a result of the LOPs and the limited nature of the proposed action, when the potential disturbance/injury effects of this project are added to the potential effects of current and foreseeable future actions, the potential effects of this project are not expected to result in cumulative adverse effects to northern spotted owl potentially using the suitable habitats in the analysis area. Habitat modification: Some suitable northern spotted owl habitats on adjacent parcels in the analysis area have been altered or removed through forest management/harvest and rural residential/vacation use. These activities are expected to continue at a low level of intensity. Some of the potential habitat modifications from this project may persist well into the future. Small trees will be removed and canopy cover may decrease slightly. Project effects will lessen over time as regrowth occurs in the treated stands. In the long term, Alternative 2 will favor the larger trees present by decreasing competition for sunlight, water and nutrients. The result will be accelerated development of the late-successional habitats that are favored by northern spotted owl. As a result of the minimal potential effects of Alternative 2 on habitat suitability for northern spotted owl, when the potential habitat modifications resulting from this project are added to the potential effects of current and foreseeable future actions, the potential effects of this project are not expected to result in cumulative adverse effects to any northern spotted owl potentially using the suitable habitats in the analysis area.
80 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Community Protection - Alternative 3 This alternative is identical to Alternative 2 except it would allow only hand thinning within Riparian Reserves (no mechanical entry in Riparian Reserves except on existing system roads), would not allow temporary road use to implement the project, and would include no secondary mechanical fuels treatments (no machine piling or mastication; only hand treatments would occur). Potential effects are thus less than with Alternative 2. Cumulative Effects Potential cumulative effects for Alternative 3 are less than Alternative 2 due to the smaller spatial extent and lower intensity of treatments. As a result, the potential effects of Alternative 3 are not expected to result in cumulative adverse effects to northern spotted owl.
Determination Alternative 2 and 3 may affect but are not likely to adversely affect the Physical and Biological Features (PBFs) and Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs) of northern spotted owl Critical Habitat for the following reasons: 1. Treatment areas (including temporary roads) include no suitable northern spotted owl habitat, and project activities will have no negative effect on suitable northern spotted owl habitat. 2. Effects to snags and large woody debris will be very minimal. As a result, no meaningful or measurable effects to northern spotted owl prey availability or foraging opportunities will result from project activities. 3. Existing, large (greater than 19 inches dbh) snags and downed logs within thinning units will be retained unless they pose a safety hazard. Snags felled for safety reasons will be left on site as logs. 4. A limited operating period is incorporated into the project design to prevent disturbance or direct effects to northern spotted owl. Sensitive Species
Action Alternatives- Alternatives 2 and 3 Pacific fisher Direct effects: Project activities may cause disturbance to fishers in or near treatment units. Increased road traffic will increase the possibility of vehicle-caused mortality, and individual fishers may leave the area temporarily during project implementation due to the presence of humans, equipment and increased noise. A Limited Operating Period has been incorporated into the project design to avoid disturbance to northern spotted owls during their breeding season. This will apply to all activities producing loud and continuous noise or smoke that would potentially disturb spotted owls. These protection measures will also decrease potential direct effects to Pacific fishers. Of the action alternatives, potential direct effects are greatest with Alternative 2, the Proposed Action. Potential direct effects of Alternative 3 are less than Alternative 2 due to its slightly smaller spatial extent (no temp roads) and lower intensity of treatments in Riparian Reserves. Indirect effects: Proposed treatments may result in modification of marginal fisher habitats. Canopy cover may be slightly reduced, trees hazardous to operations will be felled, and some
81 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
small openings (landings) may be created. Some material to be removed (small snags and down logs) may also be potentially useful to fishers or fisher prey species now or in the future. However, no late-successional habitat is present in project units or temporary road beds. The project design also favors retention of the largest existing trees and snags (legacies), and preserving these features will further limit potential effects to Pacific fisher habitat suitability. In the long term, the proposed treatments will accelerate the development of the late-successional forest habitats most favored by fishers. Of the action alternatives, potential indirect effects are greatest with Alternative 2, the Proposed Action. Potential direct effects of Alternative 3 are less than Alternative 2 due to its smaller spatial extent and lower intensity of treatments in Riparian Reserves. American marten Direct effects: If martens do use the project area, project activities may cause disturbance in or near treatment units. Increased road traffic will increase the possibility of vehicle-caused mortality, and individual martens may leave the area temporarily during project implementation due to the presence of humans, equipment and increased noise. A Limited Operating Period has been incorporated into the project design to avoid disturbance to northern spotted owls during their breeding season. This will apply to all activities producing loud and continuous noise or smoke that would potentially disturb spotted owls. These protection measures will also decrease potential direct effects to American martens. Of the action alternatives, potential direct effects are greatest with Alternative 2, the Proposed Action. Potential direct effects of Alternative 3 are less than Alternative 2 due to its smaller spatial extent and lower intensity of treatments in Riparian Reserves. Indirect effects: Proposed treatments may result in modification of marginal marten habitats. Canopy cover may be slightly reduced, trees hazardous to operations will be felled, and some small openings (landings) may be created. Some material to be removed (small snags and down logs) may be potentially useful to martens or marten prey species now or in the future. However, no late-successional habitat is present in project units or temporary road beds. The project design also favors retention of the largest existing trees and snags (legacies), and preserving these features will further limit potential effects to American marten habitat suitability. In the long term, the proposed treatments will accelerate the development of the late-successional forest habitats most favored by martens. Of the action alternatives, potential indirect effects are greatest with Alternative 2, the Proposed Action. Potential direct effects of Alternative 3 are less than Alternative 2 due to its smaller spatial extent and lower intensity of treatments in Riparian Reserves Pallid bat Direct effects: If pallid bats do use the project area, noise and/or smoke generated during project implementation could disturb bats and cause temporary abandonment of the area. Direct mortality could result from activities in project units or temporary road beds. Caves, mines and bridges will not be impacted, which will greatly reduce the potential for direct effects to pallid bats. Of the action alternatives, potential direct effects are greatest with Alternative 2, the Proposed Action. Potential direct effects of Alternative 3 are less than Alternative 2 due to its smaller spatial extent and lower intensity of treatments in Riparian Reserves.
82 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Indirect effects: Project activities will not cause any significant decrease in habitat suitability for this species for the following reasons: 1.) Their preferred roost sites, including caves, cliffs and rock crevices, will not be affected by project activities. 2.) All large snags will be retained except those hazardous to operations, and 3.) Post-implementation vegetative conditions will remain favorable to pallid bat prey species. Of the action alternatives, potential indirect effects are greatest with Alternative 2, the Proposed Action. Potential direct effects of Alternative 3 are less than Alternative 2 due to its smaller spatial extent and lower intensity of treatments in Riparian Reserves. Townsend’s big-eared bat Direct effects: If Townsend’s big-eared bats do use the project area, noise and/or smoke generated during project implementation could disturb bats and cause temporary abandonment of the area. Direct mortality could result from activities in project units or temporary road beds. Caves are protected areas within the Resource Protection Measures, which will greatly reduce the potential for direct effects to Townsend’s big-eared bats. Of the action alternatives, potential direct effects are greatest with Alternative 2, the Proposed Action. Potential direct effects of Alternative 3 are less than Alternative 2 due to its smaller spatial extent (lack of temporary roads) and lower intensity of treatments in Riparian Reserves. Indirect effects: Project activities will not cause any significant decrease in habitat suitability for this species for the following reasons: 1.) Caves are protected areas within the Resource Protection Measures, and 2.) the protection of riparian zones that has been incorporated into the project design will greatly reduce the potential for effects to the preferred roosting and foraging sites of this species. Of the action alternatives, potential indirect effects are greatest with Alternative 2, the Proposed Action. Potential direct effects of Alternative 3 are less than Alternative 2 due to its smaller spatial extent and lower intensity of treatments in Riparian Reserves. Fringed myotis Direct effects: Project activities may cause direct effects to this species. Noise generated during project implementation could disturb bats and cause temporary abandonment of the area. Direct mortality could result from mechanical thinning and fuels treatments in project units. Project design features will limit potential direct effects to this species. Preferred roosting and maternity sites for this species include caves, mines and buildings, and these features will not be affected by project activities. This species favors riparian zones, and the protection of these habitats incorporated into the project design will also reduce the potential for direct effects to this species. A Limited Operating Period (LOP) has been incorporated into the project design to avoid disturbance and potential direct impacts to northern spotted owls. This LOP will reduce the likelihood of affecting roosting bats since fringed myotis tend to move to lower and more southerly hibernacula in the fall months (Keinath 2003) and may leave the project area entirely by the time these areas will be treated. This LOP will also reduce potential impacts to nursery colonies or maternal roost sites. Of the action alternatives, potential direct effects are greatest with Alternative 2, the Proposed Action. Potential direct effects of Alternative 3 are less than Alternative 2 due to its smaller spatial extent and lower intensity of treatments in Riparian Reserves.
83 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Indirect effects: Project activities will not cause any significant decrease in habitat suitability for this species. Proposed treatments will reduce vegetative “clutter” in the forest understory by removing small trees and pruning the remaining trees, and some small openings (landings) may be created. However, reduction in forest canopy cover will be very minor, and treatments will not result in large forest openings resembling clearcuts or meadows. Preferred roosting and maternity sites for this species include caves, mines and buildings, and these features will not be affected by project activities. This species favors riparian zones, and the protection of these habitats will further reduce the potential for indirect effects to this species. Of the action alternatives, potential indirect effects are greatest with Alternative 2, the Proposed Action. Potential direct effects of Alternative 3 are less than Alternative 2 due to its smaller spatial extent and lower intensity of treatments in Riparian Reserves. Bald eagle Direct effects: Nesting bald eagles are often sensitive to human disturbance (USDI 2013). Due to the lack of large bodies of water, bald eagle foraging in project units is likely to be very limited or non-existent. Bald eagles may potentially forage in nearby areas. If so, increased road traffic may cause individual eagles to leave the area temporarily during project implementation due to the presence of humans, equipment and increased noise. A Limited Operating Period has been incorporated into the project design to avoid disturbance to northern spotted owls during their breeding season. This will apply to all activities producing loud and continuous noise or smoke that will potentially disturb spotted owls. These protection measures will also decrease potential disturbance and direct effects to bald eagles. Protection of riparian habitats incorporated into the project design will further reduce the potential for direct effects to this species. Of the action alternatives, potential direct effects are greatest with Alternative 2, the Proposed Action. Potential direct effects of Alternative 3 are less than Alternative 2 due to its smaller spatial extent and lower intensity of treatments in Riparian Reserves. Indirect effects: The proposed action will not have a substantial negative effect on habitat suitability for bald eagles. The project design favors retention of the largest existing trees and snags (legacies), and preserving these features will limit potential effects to bald eagle habitat suitability. The riparian protection measures incorporated into the project design also greatly reduce the potential for indirect effects to habitat suitability for this species. In the long term, the proposed treatments will accelerate the development of the late-successional forest habitats most favored by bald eagles. Of the action alternatives, potential indirect effects are greatest with Alternative 2, the Proposed Action. Potential direct effects of Alternative 3 are less than Alternative 2 due to its smaller spatial extent and lower intensity of treatments in Riparian Reserves. Northern goshawk Direct effects: Project activities may cause disturbance to goshawks in or near treatment units. Increased road traffic may cause individual goshawks to leave the area temporarily during project implementation due to the presence of humans, equipment and increased noise. A Limited Operating Period has been incorporated into the project design to avoid disturbance to northern spotted owls during their breeding season. This will apply to all activities producing loud and continuous noise or smoke that will potentially disturb spotted owls. These protection measures will also decrease potential disturbance and direct effects to
84 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project northern goshawks. The Forest Plan also requires protection of known goshawk nest sites (Forest Plan, 3-27). To this end, a limited operating period (LOP) will be imposed from February 1 to August 15 within 0.5 miles of all known goshawk nest sites to avoid disturbance at these sites during the breeding season. Of the action alternatives, potential direct effects are greatest with Alternative 2, the Proposed Action. Potential direct effects of Alternative 3 are less than Alternative 2 due to its smaller spatial extent (lack of temporary roads) and lower intensity of treatments in Riparian Reserves. Indirect effects: The proposed action is unlikely to have a significant negative effect on habitat suitability for northern goshawks. Changes in forest canopy cover will be very minimal, and some small openings (landings) may be created. Large trees will be favored for retention, and all large snags will be retained except those hazardous to operations. Post- implementation vegetative conditions are expected to be favorable to goshawk prey species. Overall, the proposed thinning is likely to significantly improve habitat suitability for goshawks by increasing their ability to successfully pursue prey in the forest understory. It will also accelerate development of the late-successional forest habitats favored by this species. Of the action alternatives, potential indirect effects are greatest with Alternative 2, the Proposed Action. Potential direct effects of Alternative 3 are less than Alternative 2 due to its smaller spatial extent (lack of temporary roads) and lower intensity of treatments in Riparian Reserves. Willow flycatcher Direct effects: Mechanical thinning and fuels treatments may cause disturbance to willow flycatchers using suitable habitats in or near treatment units. Increased road traffic may cause individuals to leave the area temporarily during project implementation. This species favors riparian zones, and the protection of these habitats incorporated into the project design will greatly reduce the potential for direct effects to this species. In addition, a Limited Operating Period has been incorporated into the project design to avoid disturbance to northern spotted owls during their breeding season. This will apply to all activities producing loud and continuous noise or smoke that will potentially disturb spotted owls, and will further decrease the potential for direct effects to willow flycatchers. Of the action alternatives, potential direct effects are greatest with Alternative 2, the Proposed Action. Potential direct effects of Alternative 3 are less than Alternative 2 due to its smaller spatial extent (lack of temporary roads) and lower intensity of treatments in Riparian Reserves. Indirect effects: The riparian protection measures have been incorporated into the project design will eliminate or greatly reduce potential effects to willow thickets. As a result, any indirect effects to willow flycatcher populations will be limited in intensity. Of the action alternatives, potential indirect effects are greatest with Alternative 2, the Proposed Action. Potential direct effects of Alternative 3 are less than Alternative 2 due to its smaller spatial extent and lower intensity of treatments in Riparian Reserves. Western pond turtle Direct effects: Project activities may cause disturbance to western pond turtles in or near project units. Increased road traffic will increase the possibility of vehicle-caused mortality, and individual pond turtles may be temporarily displaced during project implementation due
85 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
to the presence of humans, equipment and increased noise. Operations may also potentially affect eggs in nests. The protection of riparian habitats incorporated into the project design will greatly reduce the potential for direct effects to this species. Additionally, the Limited Operation Period incorporated into the project design to avoid disturbance to northern spotted owls during their breeding season will greatly decrease potential direct effects to western pond turtles as they leave riparian areas during their nesting season to travel to or from nesting areas, and this coincides with the northern spotted owl nesting season. Of the action alternatives, potential direct effects are greatest with Alternative 2, the Proposed Action. Potential direct effects of Alternative 3 are less than Alternative 2 due to its smaller spatial extent and lower intensity of treatments in Riparian Reserves. Indirect effects: The riparian protection measures incorporated into the project design will greatly limit potential effects to habitat suitability for western pond turtles. The proposed activities will also have little or no effect on dry grassy areas used as nesting sites. As a result, indirect effects to western pond turtle populations will be limited. Of the action alternatives, potential indirect effects are greatest with Alternative 2, the Proposed Action. Potential direct effects of Alternative 3 are less than Alternative 2 due to its smaller spatial extent and lower intensity of treatments in Riparian Reserves. Cascade frog Direct effects: If Cascade frogs do use the project area, project activities may cause disturbance to individuals in or near treatment units. Increased road traffic will increase the possibility of vehicle-caused mortality, and individual Cascade frogs may be temporarily displaced during project implementation due to the presence of humans, equipment and increased noise. The protection of riparian habitats incorporated into the project design will greatly reduce the potential for direct effects to this species. Of the action alternatives, potential direct effects are greatest with Alternative 2, the Proposed Action. Potential direct effects of Alternative 3 are less than Alternative 2 due to its smaller spatial extent (lack of temporary roads) and lower intensity of treatments in Riparian Reserves. Indirect effects: Cascade frogs are highly dependent on aquatic habitats, and spend little time in upland areas. The riparian protection measures incorporated into the project design greatly reduce the potential for indirect effects to the suitability of riparian habitats for this species. As a result, the overall potential for indirect effects to this species is limited. Of the action alternatives, potential indirect effects are greatest with Alternative 2, the Proposed Action. Potential direct effects of Alternative 3 are less than Alternative 2 due to its smaller spatial extent (lack of temporary roads) and lower intensity of treatments in Riparian Reserves. Foothill yellow-legged frog Direct effects: Project activities may cause disturbance to individuals in or near treatment units. Increased road traffic will increase the possibility of vehicle-caused mortality, and individual foothill yellow-legged frogs may be temporarily displaced during project implementation due to the presence of humans, equipment and increased noise. The protection of riparian habitats incorporated into the project design will greatly reduce the potential for direct effects to this species. Of the action alternatives, potential direct effects are greatest with Alternative 2, the Proposed Action. Potential direct effects of Alternative 3 are less than Alternative 2 due to its smaller spatial extent (lack of temporary roads) and lower intensity of treatments in Riparian Reserves.
86 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Indirect effects: Foothill yellow-legged frogs are highly dependent on aquatic habitats, and spend little time in upland areas. The riparian protection measures incorporated into the project design greatly reduce the potential for indirect effects to habitat suitability for this species. As a result, the overall potential for indirect effects to this species is limited. Of the action alternatives, potential indirect effects are greatest with Alternative 2, the Proposed Action. Potential direct effects of Alternative 3 are less than Alternative 2 due to its smaller spatial extent (lack of temporary roads) and lower intensity of treatments in Riparian Reserves. Southern torrent salamander Direct effects: Project activities may cause disturbance to individuals in or near treatment units. Increased road traffic will increase the possibility of vehicle-caused mortality, and individual southern torrent salamanders may be temporarily displaced during project implementation due to the presence of humans, equipment and increased noise. The protection of riparian habitats incorporated into the project design will greatly reduce the potential for direct effects to this species. Of the action alternatives, potential direct effects are greatest with Alternative 2, the Proposed Action. Potential direct effects of Alternative 3 are less than Alternative 2 due to its smaller spatial extent (lack of temporary roads) and lower intensity of treatments in Riparian Reserves. Indirect effects: Southern torrent salamanders are closely associated with aquatic habitats, and the riparian protection measures incorporated into the project design greatly reduce the potential for effects to habitat suitability for this species. As a result, the overall potential for indirect effects to this species is limited. Of the action alternatives, potential indirect effects are greatest with Alternative 2, the Proposed Action. Potential direct effects of Alternative 3 are less than Alternative 2 due to its smaller spatial extent (lack of temporary roads) and lower intensity of treatments in Riparian Reserves. Western bumble bee Direct effects: If western bumble bees do use the project area, project activities may cause some disturbance to individuals using suitable habitats in or near treatment units. Increased road traffic will increase the possibility of vehicle-caused mortality, and individual bees may be temporarily displaced during project implementation due to the presence of humans, equipment and increased noise. Use of insecticides is not proposed, so there will not be any mortality to this species from insecticide use. The protection of riparian habitats incorporated into the project design will reduce the potential for direct effects to this species. Of the action alternatives, potential direct effects are greatest with Alternative 2, the Proposed Action. Potential direct effects of Alternative 3 are less than Alternative 2 due to its smaller spatial extent (lack of temporary roads) and lower intensity of treatments in Riparian Reserves. Indirect effects: Project activities may have some effect on nest site availability largely through the effects of implementation activities, but this effect is likely to be limited and short in duration. Thinning, fuels reduction treatments and construction of temporary roads may affect flowering plants to some degree, but these treatments are not expected to result in a significant or long-term reduction in food availability to this species for the following reasons:
87 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
• This species is a generalist forager, utilizing a wide variety of flowering species as food sources. • Treatments are likely to have a relatively limited effect on flowering plants. • This project does not include use of herbicides, so there will be no effects to flowering plants from herbicide use. Of the action alternatives, potential indirect effects are greatest with Alternative 2, the Proposed Action. Potential direct effects of Alternative 3 are less than Alternative 2 due to its smaller spatial extent and lower intensity of treatments in Riparian Reserves.
Determinations The action alternatives may affect individual Pacific fishers, American martens, pallid bats, Townsend’s big-eared bats, fringed myotis, bald eagles, northern goshawks, willow flycatchers, western pond turtles, Cascade frogs, foothill yellow-legged frogs, southern torrent salamanders, western bumble bees, but potential effects to the population demography of these species are limited and insignificant, and will not cause a trend toward listing. There have been no documented occurrences of wolverines on the Forest for the last 20 years. If wolverines do occur on the Forest, it is highly unlikely they inhabit this project area. Road density and human usage is high compared to the interior portions of remote areas such as the Trinity Alps and Yolla Bolly Wilderness Areas, which are much more likely to provide the large secluded areas this species requires. Based on these factors the action alternatives will have no effect on California wolverines. Ground disturbing activities will not occur in any permanently damp areas within 200 meters of seeps, springs and stable streams, and no suitable habitat for the Pressley (Big Bar) Hesperian snail will be affected by project activities. Based on these factors, the action alternatives will have no effect on Pressley (Big Bar) Hesperian snails. The project area lies outside the known range of Shasta salamander, California floater, topaz juga, black juga, scalloped juga, kneecap lanx, montane peaclam, nugget pebble snail, Shasta sideband snail, Wintu sideband snail, Shasta chaparral snail, Tehama chaparral snail and Shasta Hesperian snail (USDI 1999, USDA Forest Service 1998), and northern red-legged frog. Based on this factor, the action alternatives will have no effect on any of these species.
Cumulative Effects Potential effects of the project alternatives to Forest Service Sensitive species consist of disturbance/injury and habitat modification. Some species analyzed in this report are subject to potential disturbance and/or injury from project activities, and some are subject to potential habitat modification. This analysis will therefore focus on these two potential sources of cumulative effects. Disturbance/injury: Potential disturbance/injury to Forest Service Sensitive species in or near the project area is described in the analyses for each individual species. Of the action alternatives, potential direct effects are greatest with Alternative 2. Potential direct effects of Alternative 3 are less than Alternative 2 due to its smaller spatial extent (lack of temporary roads) and lower intensity of treatments in Riparian Reserves. Potential direct effects of action alternatives will be relatively limited in intensity, and will be limited to the time required for project implementation. Other activities in the analysis area consist primarily of
88 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
forest management and scattered rural residential use. Activities on residential parcels result in risk of disturbance/injury to Forest Service Sensitive species, and forest management on private or National Forest System lands may also cause disturbance/injury. These potential effects are likely to be limited due to the scattered nature of these rural residences and the very intermittent nature of forest management activities in any given location. Populations of Forest Service Sensitive species inhabiting the project area are also likely to be relatively inured to these ongoing sources of potential disturbance/injury. As a result, when the potential direct effects of the project are added to the potential effects of current and foreseeable future actions, the potential effects of this project are not expected to result in cumulative adverse effects to any Forest Service Region 5 Sensitive species potentially using the suitable habitats in the analysis area, will have no significant effect on population demography of any of these species, and will not lead to a trend toward federal listing of any of these species. Habitat modification: Some of the potential habitat modifications from this project may persist well into the future. Of the action alternatives, potential indirect effects are greatest with Alternative 2. Potential direct effects of Alternative 3 are less than Alternative 2 due to its smaller spatial extent (lack of temporary roads) and lower intensity of treatments in Riparian Reserves. In the long term, both action alternatives will accelerate the development of the late-successional habitats that are the favored habitats of many Forest Service Sensitive species, thus increasing habitat suitability for those species. Some suitable habitats on the parcels in the analysis area have been altered through residential use and forest management. Potential future effects are likely to be limited due to the scattered nature of the rural residences and the very intermittent nature of forest management activities in any given location, and management patterns are not expected to change current overall conditions in any significant way in regard to habitat suitability for Forest Service Sensitive species. When the potential habitat modifications resulting from this project are added to the potential effects of current and foreseeable future actions, the potential effects of this project are not expected to result in cumulative adverse effects to any Forest Service Region 5 Sensitive species potentially using the suitable habitats in the analysis area, will have no significant effect on population demography of any of these species, and will not lead to a trend toward federal listing of any of these species. Management Indicator Assemblages Management indicator assemblages are groups of wildlife associated with vegetative communities or key habitat components, as identified in the Forest Plan (page 3-24). The Forest Plan directs resource managers to monitor assemblage habitat trends at the National Forest scale (Forest level). The Forest Plan permits the use of habitat components to represent the management indicator assemblages. This analysis considers the effects of the project on habitat of each potentially affected management indicator assemblage, and describes how these effects to habitat may influence Forest level trends. Two types of management indicator assemblages as identified in the Forest Plan are affected by the project:
89 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
• Openings and early seral habitat (Klamath mixed conifer and Ponderosa pine CWHR53 types, tree size 3 and 4) exists in the project area and will be affected by project implementation. • Chaparral: Chaparral habitat occurs in the project area and will be affected by project implementation. Although wildlife species population status and trend monitoring is not required by the Forest Plan, the Forest has selected appropriate representative species for management assemblages and collects and/or compiles data regarding population status and trend for these species at the Forest level. Population status is the current condition of the population measure for the representative species. Population trend is the direction of change in that population measure over time. The two representative species for openings and early seral habitat and chaparral habitat are the Nashville warbler and the wrentit, respectively. Population data of high reliability are available for these species, and are tracked/compiled at the Forest level.5455 The Nashville warbler is selected as an appropriate representative species for the openings and early seral assemblage because it is found in all of the opening and early seral assemblage CWHR types, and is strongly associated with specific habitat components that define the assemblage, and it occurs in the area. The Nashville warbler shows a preference for young, second growth conifer stands, a habitat component that is an indicator for the openings and early seral assemblage. The wrentit is selected as an appropriate representative species for the chaparral assemblage because it is strongly associated with specific habitat components that define the assemblage, and it occurs in the area. The wrentit shows a strong association with shrubby upland vegetation, a habitat component that is an indicator for the chaparral assemblage. The CWHR types listed in the table are moderately and highly suitable reproductive habitat for the representative species from the habitat suitability information provided in the CWHR program (CDFG 2008). The CWHR types that are part of the assemblages that are not listed in table below are used as low, moderate or high suitability feeding and cover habitat, and/or low suitability reproductive habitat by each species.
53 California Wildlife Habitat Relationship System. 54 The Forest compiles Breeding Bird Survey data (BBS) for the representative species, and reports them at the regional (BBS strata), California, and rangewide scales. Four BBS strata occur on the Forest. BBS data have varying degrees of reliability based upon sample size. Representative species selected for Forest level tracking have data with the highest reliability in at least one of the 4 strata that occur on the Forest. BBS data is available on the internet at: https://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/bbS/. 55 The Forest Level Management Indicator Assemblage Monitoring Report is available at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/stnf/landmanagement/planning
90 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Table 13. Management indicator assemblage habitat suitability for representative species. Management Reproductive CWHR Habitat Types Indicator CWHR Assemblage and Habitat Representative Suitability Species Openings and Moderate Klamath Mixed Conifer, Tree size 2, 3, 4, Canopy Early Seral Cover M Montane Hardwood – Conifer, Tree size 2, 3, 4, Canopy Nashville Cover M warbler Ponderosa Pine, Tree size 2, 3, 4, Canopy Cover M Oreothlypis Sierran Mixed Conifer, Tree size 2, 3, 4, Canopy Cover ruficapilla M Sierran Mixed Conifer, Tree size 5, Canopy Cover S, P, M White Fir, Tree size 2, 3, 4, Canopy Cover M High Klamath Mixed Conifer, Tree size 2, 3, 4, Canopy Cover S, P Montane Hardwood – Conifer, Tree size 2, 3, 4, Canopy Cover S, P Ponderosa Pine, Tree size 2, 3, 4, Canopy Cover S, P Sierran Mixed Conifer, Tree size 2, 3, 4, Canopy Cover S, P White Fir, Tree size 2, 3, 4, Canopy Cover S, P Chaparral Moderate Chamise Redshank Chaparral, Shrub size 2, 3, 4, Cover P Wrentit Chamise Redshank Chaparral, Shrub size 4, Cover S Chamaea Mixed Chaparral, Shrub size 2, 3, 4, Cover S, P fasciata Montane Chaparral, Shrub size 2, 3, Cover M, D High Chamise Redshank Chaparral, Shrub size 2, 3, 4, Cover M, D Mixed Chaparral, Shrub size 2, 3, 4, Cover M, D Canopy Cover classifications: S=Sparse Cover (10-24% canopy cover); P= Open cover (25-39% canopy cover); M= Moderate cover (40-59% canopy cover); D= Dense cover (60-100% canopy cover). Tree size classes: 1 = Seedling (<1") dbh; 2 = Sapling (1"-5.9" dbh); 3=Pole (6"-10.9" dbh); 4 = Small tree (11"-23.9" dbh); 5 = Medium/Large tree (>24" dbh); 6 =Multi-layered Tree (CDFG 2008). This analysis documents the effects of the Westside Plantation Project on habitat components of the openings and early seral and chaparral management indicator assemblages. The analysis used forest stand level vegetation and fuels data collected during stand exams performed by a silviculturist. These site specific data are the best available data for project level analysis. For each assemblage potentially affected by the project, the biologist evaluates a species strongly associated with the habitat components that define the assemblage. The species analysis is used to provide further context to project effects and the relationship of project habitat impacts to Forest level trends. Table 14 summarizes the pre- and post-treatment assemblage acres.
91 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Table 14. Summary of pre- and post-treatment terrestrial management indicator assemblage habitat acres within the Westside Plantation Project treatment areas. Assemblage Pre-treatment Post Treatment Change in MIS Habitat Acres* Habitat Acres Habitat Acres (No Action) (All Action Alts.) Openings and Early Seral 5,497 5,497 0 Chaparral 6 6 0 *Forest Service ownership only
Openings and Early Seral Assemblage Current Condition of the Habitat Factor(s) in the Project Area This project occurs on 5,497 acres of openings and early seral stand conditions. The habitat consists of Klamath Mixed Conifer CWHR type with size class 3 and 4 trees and moderate to dense canopy cover. Approximately 4,122 acres have moderate canopy cover and primarily size class 3 trees. Approximately 1,375 acres have dense canopy cover and size class 4 trees. Direct and Indirect Effects to Assemblage Habitat The project proposes to thin conifer plantations and conduct fuels treatments on 5,497 acres of openings and early seral habitat. The proposed treatments will impact openings and early seral assemblage habitat. CWHR tree size class will not be changed as a result of the project. Remaining trees will be characterized as size class 3-4 after treatment, and these size classes are included under early seral assemblage. Canopy cover in some areas will be slightly reduced from dense to moderate, but this will not result in a change in assemblage type because assemblage habitat includes all canopy cover classes of early seral trees. As a result, although the treated stands will be more open and less densely stocked with trees, they will continue to provide habitat for species associated with early seral stands. There will not be acreage change or conversion into another assemblage directly as a result of this project. Effects involve qualitative changes to habitat such as more open understory within early seral forests. Influence of Project Effects to Habitat Status and Trends at the Forest scale This proposed action will create more fire resistant stands of opening and early seral assemblage, with more open understory. To put the project’s influence into perspective, it affects less than 0.7% of the Forest wide assemblage habitat. Due to the small scale, even if potential indirect effects are realized, these effects are not expected to meaningfully influence Forest level habitat trends for management indicator assemblages. Cumulative Effects to Assemblage Habitat There is no change in the amount of openings and early seral assemblage as a result of this project, so there will not be cumulative effects. Direct and Indirect Effects to Breeding Habitat for Nashville Warbler The areas with moderate canopy cover constitute moderate quality Nashville warbler nesting habitat, and the areas with dense canopy cover do not provide Nashville warbler reproductive habitat. Project activities will convert 697 acres to moderate quality reproductive habitat by reducing canopy cover from dense to moderate. The project is thus likely to affect
92 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
approximately 4,122 acres of moderate quality Nashville warbler nesting habitat and convert an additional 697 acres from non-nesting habitat to moderate quality nesting habitat. In the short term, the project will decrease habitat suitability for the Nashville warbler by reducing the vegetative density in the understory. These areas will continue to provide habitat for the Nashville warbler, but project units will be more likely to be used for foraging until the understory vegetation recovers, with adjacent stands with more vegetative density in the understory used for nesting. In the long term, treatments are expected to cause the trees to grow more rapidly and accelerate the development of late seral conditions more quickly than the no action alternative. This will cause habitat suitability for Nashville warblers to decline in quality over time as the stand matures and trees transition to size class 5 and canopy cover increases. Relationship of Project-Level Habitat Impacts to Larger Nashville Warbler Population Trends In the long run, it is likely that early seral assemblage will decline slightly and late seral assemblage will increase slightly due to current and foreseeable forest practices of retaining and encouraging development of late seral forest. Typical practices on private timber land and the occurrence of wildfire on both federal and private lands within the Forest boundaries will continue to create early seral assemblage habitat. Population trends for the Nashville warbler are tracked and compiled at the Forest level.56 These data indicate a potential decline in species occurrence within the BBS strata that overlap the Shasta-Trinity National Forest, but the decline is weakly supported by statistical analysis (Sauer et al. 2008). In light of best available population data, project effects to habitat, and the ongoing contribution of habitat from wildfires and private timber harvest, the project is not likely to result in any meaningful change to population trends and habitat availability for the Nashville warbler.
Chaparral Assemblage Current Condition of the Habitat Factor(s) in the Project Area The project treatment units occur on 6 acres of moderately dense montane chaparral in CWHR shrub size classes 3 and 4, providing moderate quality nesting habitat for the wrentit. Direct and Indirect Effects to Assemblage Habitat The project proposes to thin conifer plantations and conduct fuels treatments on 6 acres of chaparral assemblage habitat. The CWHR shrub size class will not be changed as a result of the project. Chaparral density will be reduced as a result of the project, from CWHR rating moderate to CWHR rating sparse, but this will not result in a change in assemblage type because assemblage habitat includes all shrub density classes of chaparral vegetation. As a result, although the treated stands will be more open, they will continue to provide habitat for species associated with chaparral vegetation. There will not be acreage change or conversion into another assemblage directly as a result of this project.
56 The Forest Level Management Indicator Assemblage Monitoring Report is available at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/stnf/landmanagement/planning
93 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Influence of Project Effects to Habitat Status and Trends at the Forest scale In the long term, this proposed action would not affect Forest wide trends in chaparral habitat because it would not change the amount of habitat at the project level. Approximately 0.009% of Forest wide chaparral assemblage habitat, as tracked using Forest level data, will be somewhat affected by this project, but will remain as chaparral assemblage habitat. Cumulative Effects to Assemblage Habitat There is no change in the amount of chaparral assemblage habitat from the project, so there will not be cumulative effects on the assemblage habitat due to this project. Direct and Indirect Effects to Breeding Habitat for Wrentit The project treatment units currently provide 6 acres of moderate quality nesting habitat for the wrentit with moderate density mature shrubs. The project treatments will reduce density of the habitat from moderate to sparse, thus reducing the habitat quality to low quality nesting habitat for the wrentit. These effects will decrease over time as shrub regrowth occurs. Relationship of Project-Level Habitat Impacts to Larger Wrentit Population Trends Implementation of this project would likely not affect the Forest wide steady trend in chaparral assemblage habitat. Minor effects caused by this project are not likely to meaningfully impact Forest level habitat trends. Population trends for the wrentit are tracked and compiled at the Forest level. These data indicate a fairly stable population within the BBS strata that overlap the Shasta-Trinity National Forest. Most of the BBS strata that occur on the Forest show a slight decline, but these declines are not statistically supported. The population appears to be increasing in the Pitt-Klamath BBS strata, and this increase is statistically supported (Sauer et al. 2008). In light of best available population data, project effects to habitat, and Forest level habitat trends, the project is not likely to result in any meaningful change to population trends and habitat availability for the wrentit. Survey and Manage Forest Service guidance under the Northwest Forest Plan and the Shasta-Trinity National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) requires the agency to analyze projects for potential impacts to Survey and Manage Species. Survey and Manage requirements were originally established to address little-known species that were believed to be associated with old-growth and late-successional forest micro-habitats, and for which species experts were unsure whether or not the Late-Successional Reserve system was sufficient to provide for their conservation. The Survey and Manage program is a result of the 2001 Record of Decision and Standards and Guidelines for Amendments to Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer, and other Mitigation Measure Standards and Guidelines (USDA and USDI 2001). The species listed in the 2001 Survey and Manage Record of Decision (ROD) were selected “to more efficiently provide the level of species protection intended in the Northwest Forest Plan...for the management of habitat for late-successional and old-growth forest related species within the range of the northern spotted owl.” (ROD p. 1). Modifications to the requirements in the ROD included a Settlement Agreement filed in July, 2011, in Conservation Northwest et al. v. Sherman et al.
94 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
On April 25, 2013 the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the District Court's approval of the 2011 Settlement Agreement, concluding that "Because the consent decree allows for substantial, permanent amendments to Survey and Manage, it impermissibly conflicts with laws governing the process for such amendments" (Conservation Northwest v. Sherman, 715 F.3d 1181; 9th Circuit 2013). The 9th Circuit Court remanded the decision to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. As a result, the 2011 Settlement Agreement is invalid and the order issued by Judge Coughenour on December 17, 2009 is still valid. (The third EIS developed to revise the Survey and Manage requirements found the agencies in violation of NEPA). As a result the Forest Service is currently working under the 2001 Survey and Manage Record of Decision. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Court Order of April 25, 2013 allows federal agencies to continue using the four “Pechman” exemptions as established in the October 11, 2006 modification of the January 9, 2006 Court Order. This Stipulation identified the following four general categories of exemptions from the 2001 Survey and Manage Standards and Guidelines, including pre-disturbance surveys and known site management: • Thinnings in forest stands younger than 80 years of age; • culvert replacement/removal; • riparian and stream improvement projects; and • hazardous fuel treatments applying prescribed fire for non-commercial projects. This project only treats plantations younger than 80 years old; therefore it is exempt from Survey and Manage requirements due to the Pechman exemptions. Migratory Birds Opportunities to promote conservation of migratory birds and their habitats in the project area were considered during development and design of the Westside Plantation Project. A summary of potential effects and project design features to minimize these effects is provided below: • Potential impacts to migratory bird species will be minimized through the adherence of Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines for snags/down woody debris, riparian reserve buffers, limited ground disturbance, and maintenance of canopy closure. • Specific project design criteria include maintaining vegetation species diversity and composition and limiting vegetation treatment to only that necessary to achieve the fuels reduction and forest health goals identified in the project purpose and need. • The February 1 – July 10 limited operating period incorporated into the project design will greatly decrease potential effects to nesting migratory birds. Fish For a more detailed discussion of fish in the project area and methodology for analyzing the potential effects to the resource, see the Westside Plantation Project fish reports (Brock A and B 2014) located in the project record.
95 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Analysis Indicators and Methodology The analysis of impacts is focused on salmonids and their Habitat Indicators that may be affected by the proposed actions. Specifically, this analysis uses key indicators of habitat quality as identified through the Analytical Process (USDA-USDC-USDI 2004). Primary Habitat Indicators that may be affected by the proposed actions are Water Temperature; Suspended Sediment and Turbidity; Stream Substrate Character; Large Woody Debris; Streambank Condition; Change in Peak and Base Flows; and Riparian Reserves. These indicators are important to the survival of salmonids. Fine-grained sediment (smaller than about 4 millimeters in diameter) is often lethal to the eggs and emerging young of gravel bed- spawning salmonids; 100% mortality of young fish can occur when fines comprise over 30% of the stream substrate volume (Hicks, Hall, Bisson and Sedell 1991). Temperatures of 67-70 degrees F begin to stress salmonids, and temperatures exceeding that can be lethal. Salmonids begin to suffer mortality when fine sediment in the stream bed (substrate character) exceeds 15-20% of the total material present. Large woody debris (logs) provide habitat for salmonids and other fish. For high quality habitat, number and size of logs required is 40 or more pieces, greater than 12” in diameter, and 50 feet long or longer per mile of stream; amounts less than this indicate degraded habitat conditions. Streambank condition is related to erosion and sedimentation; preferably less than 10% of a channel’s streambank length should be actively eroding. Watersheds should be in Condition Class 1 or at worst, Condition Class II to prevent detrimental changes to peak and base flows. Riparian Reserves act as a buffer to sedimentation that originates outside of the reserve, and riparian vegetation provides stream shade, to help keep water temperatures cool. Preferred Riparian Reserve conditions are continuous riparian vegetation along stream channels, with 70% or better shade canopy. The National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service rely on these indicators to evaluate fish health because they are supported in the scientific literature as being both affected by land management, and relevant to the survival and recovery of the freshwater life stages of salmonid fishes (USDA-USDC-USDI 2004). The discussion of direct and indirect effects is organized by these Habitat Indicators. A detailed description of the life history of the anadromous fish species potentially affected by the project alternatives can be found in the fish Biological Assessment. Table 13 shows the special status species and habitats that are, or could be, within the assessment area.
Table 15. Special status fish species that could occur within the Westside Plantation Project area. Status Fish Species Endangered None Threatened Southern Oregon Northern California Coasts (SONCC) coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) and their designated Critical Habitat (CH) Proposed for None Listing Forest Service Upper Klamath-Trinity (UKT) Rivers Chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha); Sensitive Klamath Mountains Province (KMP) steelhead trout (O. mykiss); and Pacific Lamprey (Entosphenos tridentatus) Essential Fish Coho salmon and Chinook salmon Habitat Forest Service Spring-run Chinook salmon, Klamath Mountains Province, steelhead trout,
96 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Status Fish Species Management resident rainbow trout Indicator Species
The Northwest Forest Plan established and the Forest Plan incorporated the Aquatic Conservation Strategy (ACS) to maintain and restore riparian and aquatic habitats, and the species that depend on them (USDA and USDI 1994). Riparian Reserves are a major component of the ACS. Specific direction for management of Riparian Reserves is found in the ACS and in Forest Plan standards and guidelines. The standards and guidelines are designed to protect the unique functions (such as stream shade, sediment filtering and large wood recruitment to the stream) of near-stream areas and preserve their integrity by not engaging in activities that disturb soil or destabilize slopes within Riparian Reserves. An analysis of project compliance with the Aquatic Conservation Strategy is included in the Fish Specialist Report (Brock 2014) in the project record.
Existing Condition The Forest Service (USDA 1999b) reported that the 1964 flood was the most significant event that affected fish populations and habitat conditions on the South Fork Trinity River. Summer and winter-run steelhead, fall and spring-run Chinook salmon, and Pacific lamprey are found in the mainstem of the South Fork of the Trinity below migration barriers. Other fish species occurring within the mainstem of the South Fork of the Trinity River are Klamath small-scale sucker (Catostomus rimiculus), resident rainbow trout and speckled dace (Rhinichthys osculus; USDA 1999b). Small tributaries entering from South Fork Mountain are not likely to significantly contribute to fish production due to the lack of flows and quantity of habitat needed to maintain populations of anadromous fish. There are 27 miles of stream utilized by anadromous fish and 50.4 miles of stream utilized by resident fish in the Hidden Valley watershed. Butter Creek is a major tributary to the Hidden Valley watershed (Foster and Wheeler Environmental Corporation 2001). In 1987 wildfires burned 43 percent of the Butter Creek watershed. Numerous plantations were planted in an attempt to reforest burned areas. These and other plantations cover 21.7 percent, or 5,085 acres of a 23,490 acre watershed in the Butter Creek drainage. Anadromous fish utilize the lower 1.6 miles of Butter Creek below a natural barrier and resident fish utilize in-stream habitat for 10 miles above the barrier (USDA 1994). Results of bulk sampling of stream substrates in 1989, that included gravel deposition areas, averaged 37.4 percent fine material less than 3.35mm in diameter in the anadromous reach of Butter Creek (USDA 1994). Additionally, existing cover was provided primarily by large rock substrate with woody material seldom found. Within lower Butter Creek and other areas of the Hidden Valley watershed, stream surveys have documented juvenile steelhead, Pacific lamprey, rainbow trout, speckled dace and the Klamath small-scale sucker. Resident rainbow trout were, and presumably still are, the only trout species currently found upstream of the anadromous fish barrier (USDA 1994). There are 5.8 total miles of stream utilized by anadromous fish and 47.5 miles of stream utilized by resident fish in the Plummer Creek watershed. There are 2.75 miles of stream accessible to anadromous fish within the mainstem Plummer Creek before a natural barrier is
97 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
reached. This entire area was habitat-typed in 1990. A total of 1,428 square meters of spawning habitat was inventoried of which 40 percent was suitable for steelhead, 22 percent for salmon, and 38 percent for trout (Foster and Wheeler Environmental Corporation 2001). Other fish known to inhabit the analysis area include speckled dace, Klamath smallscale sucker, and Pacific lamprey (Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation 2001). The South Fork Trinity River is listed as sediment impaired by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Clean Water Act section 303d in 1998. A total maximum daily load assessment (TMDL) has been completed. The drainages within the project area are included in the TMDL. A sediment source analysis for the mainstem of the Trinity River has been completed that includes the project area. Project area drainages are identified as reference (healthy) watersheds within the South Fork Trinity TMDL for sediment. Reference watersheds are defined as watersheds that are currently exhibiting high geomorphic, hydrologic, and biotic integrity relative to their natural potential condition and exhibit a stable drainage network. Physical and biological conditions suggest that aquatic and riparian systems are predominantly functional in terms of supporting dependent species and beneficial uses of water. Management-induced disturbances have not resulted in significant alteration of geomorphic, hydrologic or biotic processes, nor have concerns for such effects been raised to date.
98 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Figure 4. Westside Plantation Project fish habitat map with thinning units for Alternative 2.
99 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Farber et al. (1998) summarized the temperature monitoring data available for the South Fork Trinity River watershed as part of the EPA impaired waters evaluation. Several Forest Service stream temperature monitoring stations in or near the analysis areas were included in that evaluation. Key stations include points along the South Fork Trinity River, Butter Creek, Plummer Creek, and Cave Creek. Water temperatures in the main stem South Fork typically exceeded 20° C during the summer months. Tributary drainages were generally less than 20° C but did not offer any detectable cooling effect on the main stem waters. Subsequent Forest Service monitoring found that average daily maximum water temperatures increased from 18° C to 22° C on the main stem South Fork from Forest Glen to Hyampom. Most tributaries had average daily maximum temperatures of less than 18° C, with a few tributaries running under 15° C. Temperatures were continuously monitored during the summer of 2011 to establish baseline conditions. All creeks were within the Properly Functioning baseline condition (USDA-USDOC-USDI 2004). For temperature data for specific streams, see the fish Biological Assessment in the project record.
Environmental Consequences No Action - Alternative 1 While no direct or indirect project effects would occur under the no action alternative, there are some consequences to leaving the area in its current condition. The no-action alternative is a continuation of the current level of management without implementation of this project. Taking no action may affect fish and their habitat if a large wildfire were to occur later in time. All of the resultant disturbances (i.e. removal of vegetation and resulting erosion), if they occur, would adversely affect the Habitat Indicators described below. This in turn would adversely affect resident trout and lamprey in or nearest to the project area. Off-site effects could migrate downstream to adversely affect coho salmon Critical Habitat as well. Impacts of the no action alternative on fish would be associated with aquatic habitat impacts including loss of stream shade, loss of trees in Riparian Reserves that would otherwise be available for recruitment as large woody debris to streams, and increased erosion and sedimentation to streams. These effects could extend into adjacent watersheds if a fire burned out of control. If a future severe wildfire occurred, hydrophobic soils may result. Hydrophobic soils can be detrimental to fresh water life stages of salmonids because precipitation then tends to quickly run-off from the surfaces of hillslope soil instead of percolating into the soil column. Hence, large quantities of sediment-filled water can be quickly delivered to adjacent stream courses. Additionally, wildfires could result in the loss of vegetation and burned soils, which would increase stream temperatures through loss of shade, and cause destabilization of streamside landslides, which could increase sedimentation rates. Where stand-replacing fire occurs in streamside zones, riparian reserve shade canopy is lost, exposing streams to increased amounts of solar radiation. To experience a measurable increase in water temperature, however, relatively lengthy segments (1 or more miles) of streams must experience reductions in shade canopy. Loss of soil cover exposes soil to raindrop impact and subsequent erosion. Eroded soil moves from hillslopes to stream channels via surface runoff and landsliding. In sufficient quantities, fine sediment can reduce the abundance and quality of aquatic habitat. Where
100 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
large areas of riparian canopy are consumed, sediment producing impacts can be long-term in duration. Post-fire sedimentation would likely be chronic during runoff events and until vegetation and soil recovery occurred. A dense network of tree roots can add to the shear strength of potentially unstable slopes. This effect is generally limited to slopes prone to shallow-seated debris slide slope failures. Such slopes typically have thin soil profiles and relatively non-cohesive soils. Following stand-replacing wildfire, the root network begins to decay, leading to a condition of minimum shear strength a few years following the fire, causing destabilization of the streambank and the movement of landslide-generated sediment downstream from its point of origin. Landslides that result from this process can deliver massive amounts of sediment to stream channels, causing temporary impoundment, channel widening for several miles and near destruction of aquatic habitat for several years (Sidle and Ochiai 2006).
Large wood in streams supports greater habitat complexity for trout and salmon, while channels with fewer pieces of large wood have more simplified channels. The no-action alternative may cause indirect effects to fish and their habitat because groups of trees could be killed in Riparian Reserves if a large wildfire occurred. If overstory vegetation were damaged or lost, future large wood recruitment would be reduced. A reduction in large wood available for recruitment to streams at the 7th field scale could impact fish and their habitat downstream. Post-fire (short to mid-term) recruitment may increase due to the amount of dead trees. However, future long-term large wood recruitment in Riparian Reserves would likely be decreased and most closely would affect resident trout and Pacific lamprey. If a future wildfire spread to adjacent watersheds, similar impacts could occur to anadromous salmonids and coho salmon Critical Habitat Proposed Action - Alternative 2
Direct Effects Actions that will occur in flowing streams have the highest potential for direct effects to fish and their habitat. The project actions associated with roads, which includes water drafting for dust abatement and stream crossing installation/removal, have the potential to cause direct effects. Water drafting will occur at sites that are upstream from habitat accessible to salmonids whenever possible; however, drafting may occur at some sites that are accessible to resident trout, Pacific Lamprey, and anadromous salmonids. The NMFS 2001 water drafting specifications will be adhered to for all project-related water drafting within anadromous fish habitat, and Forest Plan water drafting guidelines will be adhered to outside of anadromous fish habitat. There is a very low probability of entrainment or impingement of juvenile fish due to the required low pumping rate. This low pumping rate would allow fish to swim away from intakes/screens, and fleeing intake pumps is the natural instinct of fish. Direct effects of water drafting would therefore be minimized to a negligible level through implementation of these water drafting guidelines. Due to inclusion of project- specific resource protection measures the effects of water drafting in anadromous fish- bearing reaches is discountable (extremely unlikely to occur) and will have insignificant (not meaningfully measured, detected, or evaluated) negative direct effects on coho salmon (including Critical Habitat), Chinook salmon, and steelhead or their habitats; and resident rainbow trout or Pacific Lamprey.
101 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Installation of stream crossings on temporary roads will disturb streambanks; however, crossings will be on old road beds that have been previously disturbed wherever possible. Stream crossings will be temporary, and streambanks will be recontoured back to their original morphology after the season of use. Effects to streambanks will be short term and will be associated with road/stream crossings. Stream bank disturbance at crossings will be in habitat that is not accessible to anadromous salmonids and will be limited to discrete areas along existing old road beds where possible. Implementation of construction BMPs and post-use rehabilitation will minimize potential adverse effects at the site scale and downstream. Stream crossing installation will not directly affect anadromous fish or their habitat because all proposed crossings are in streams that are not accessible to anadromous salmonids (analyses are based on the widest possible anadromous fish distribution). Implementation of BMPs will ensure that sedimentation and erosion at these sites are minimized. Other potential direct effect mechanisms include alteration of riparian habitat along trout- bearing stream reaches; these effects would only occur if project implementation resulted in reduced stream shade or large wood levels. Fuels reduction actions and plantation thinning will occur in Riparian Reserves. Potential impacts will be minimized through only allowing low ground pressure equipment in Riparian Reserves (masticators and feller bunchers) and excluding equipment from Equipment Exclusion Zones (EEZ; 100 feet buffer on each side of perennial streams). Effective shade over water will not be reduced below 80 percent of what already exists (via Resource Protection Measures). Hand work in EEZs will not result in direct effects to fish or their habitat because smaller trees that are cut will not be felled directly into the fish-bearing streams. If some logs are inadvertently felled into the stream, they would be left in place to provide large woody debris.
Indirect Effects Suspended Sediment/Stream Substrate Character Thinning outside of Riparian Reserves has a low probability of affecting sediment regimes. Thinning will occur in relatively small areas in each 7th field watershed. Due to the limited acreage proposed for thinning, as well as implementation of RPMs, changes to sediment regimes are not expected. Non-commercial thinning actions will occur in younger plantations using hand work (chain saws) and mechanical mastication. Hand work will have no effect on fish or their habitat. Mastication creates soil ground cover by chopping up vegetation. This masticated vegetation protects the soil from mechanical disturbance from the equipment and provides surface cover for soil protection. Thus, mastication is expected to increase the sediment filtering capacity of Riparian Reserves that are treated. The Resource Protection Measures require post treatment ground cover of 50 to 70 percent except for granitic soils, where 90 percent ground cover is required. Equipment operations are also limited near drainages (Equipment Exclusion Zones), providing an effective filter strip near streams. The combination of soil protection and streamside protection will limit erosion and protect water quality. Approximately 15 miles of temporary roads are proposed to access units that are greater than 100 feet from an existing forest system road. In most cases, the temporary road will follow the road bed that was used to access the unit for the original harvests; however some new
102 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
temporary road construction, including temporary stream crossings, may be necessary if the old road bed is not usable in its current condition. Road construction BMPs will be implemented for any temporary roads constructed for the project to ensure proper drainage and control of road related sediment. Temporary roads will primarily be used for one operating season and then rehabilitated; however, where temporary roads are used during wet weather operations, they will be rehabilitated the following dry season. There will be some localized sedimentation associated with the roads for the first winter until the rehabilitated roadbed stabilizes, particularly at temporary stream crossings. There should be no adverse impact to water quality from temporary road construction with implementation of BMPs. Temporary roads will result in minor disturbance to Riparian Reserves at each crossing location and thus are expected to have insignificantly negative effects on the sediment. Hauling on state and county roads has no probability of affecting turbidity or substrate in coho salmon Critical Habitat (CH). State and county roads are paved roads suitable for all season use. Hauling on Forest roads has a low probably of affecting turbidity or changing substrate in CH due to restrictions on wet weather operations and improved road drainage and rocked surfaces from reconstruction of main haul roads. Hauling on Forest roads may result in small negative effects, which cannot be meaningfully measured or detected, to turbidity and substrate in resident trout habitat. New temporary roads will disturb soils but will not be located in proximity to anadromous salmonid habitat. Thus, road work is expected to have insignificantly negative effects on anadromous fish and their habitat and resident trout habitat. Maintenance on existing roads will reduce sedimentation and improve road drainage, thus will have a slight beneficial effect. Riparian Reserves/Stream Water Temperature Thinning that occurs in Riparian Reserves has the potential for indirect effects if stream shade is altered and stream temperatures increase downstream. To minimize the potential for stream shade and water temperature alterations, effective stream shade will not be reduced below 80 percent where it currently exists. Only stands that do not meet desired conditions and that can be improved by thinning were selected for treatment. A majority of Riparian Reserve plantation thinning will occur in seasonal stream Riparian Reserves. Select perennial Riparian Reserves will be thinned using low ground pressure equipment (masticators and feller bunchers) in their outer zones with hand work in inner zones. Thinning will release healthy trees in plantations and accelerate growth of remaining trees. In general, treatments within Riparian Reserves, including fuels reduction treatments and plantation thinning, have a high probability of affecting sediment due to the close proximity of work to streams. Acreage of Riparian Reserves proposed for treatment under this project is very limited in extent. Low ground pressure masticators or feller bunchers will be used in outer zones of Riparian Reserves where slopes are less than 35%, and only hand work will occur in inner zones and on slopes greater than 35%. Both of these treatment methods result in increased soil cover and protection from erosion. Resource Protection Measures will be implemented so that fuels treatment can occur while preserving key functions of Riparian Reserves including sediment filtering capacity and stream shade. The stands that are targeted for treatment are over stocked, increasing the potential for more severe effects to sediment regimes if a wildfire occurs in the future. If a wildfire occurred without fuels reduction treatments, adverse effects to soils and watershed processes are likely (including changes to sediment regimes). Fuels reduction actions in over stocked plantations within Riparian
103 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Reserves will reduce the effects of a future fire and will release larger, healthy, dominant trees to help improve the over-all function of Riparian Reserves. Potential perennial stream crossings on temporary roads would be located on existing old roadbeds (unauthorized routes and original roadbeds used during plantation establishment) whenever possible. Many of these crossings formerly had logs placed in the streamcourse with fill over the top (‘Humboldt crossing’). Following hauling in the 1950s, the logs were removed and a portion of the fill was pulled back from the stream. Brush and young trees (< 20 feet tall) have encroached on the road prism on both sides of the creek. These will be cut and piled during the placement of the culvert when the crossing is reconstructed. Trees/shrubs on the fill and cut slopes will be retained. Additional fill will likely need to be pulled prior to culvert placement. When hauling is complete, additional fill will be pulled back from the crossing so that the original stream level is re-established and the culvert removed. This will result in an improved drainage compared with the current condition. Actions that reduce stream shade or result in sediment inputs to streams can cause direct or indirect effects to stream temperatures. Thinning and fuels reduction actions that occur in Riparian Reserves have the potential for indirect effects if stream shade is altered and stream temperatures increase downstream. To minimize the potential for stream shade and water temperature alterations, effective stream shade will not be reduced below 80 percent where it currently exists. Only stands that do not meet desired conditions and that can be improved by thinning were selected for treatment. A majority of Riparian Reserve thinning will occur in seasonal streams. Riparian Reserves will be thinned using low ground pressure equipment (masticators and feller bunchers) in their outer zones with hand work in inner zones. Healthy trees capable of increased growth will be retained in plantations and the thinning is expected to accelerate growth of these retained trees. Areas proposed for treatment are characterized by the following conditions: trees are over- stocked and suppressed, and stands do not meet desired conditions. Fuels reduction actions within these types of stands will have beneficial effects as these actions will release larger, dominant trees that could provide shade but that are suppressed due to over-crowding. This work will be accomplished while retaining dominant shade trees. Thinning suppressed or over-crowded stands of trees that currently do not provide shade to streams will accelerate the growth of remaining trees while maintaining stream temperatures. Temporary roads will require stream crossings and vegetation removal. Vegetation removal could have the potential to affect stream temperatures, but does not impact stream temperatures for the following reasons 1) crossings will be on old road beds that have been previously disturbed wherever possible; 2) each area of disturbance is limited to the width of a temporary road (25 feet); 3) BMPs will be implemented to minimize disturbance at each site during installation and removal; and 4) crossing sites are not contiguous along streams or concentrated in one watershed but are dispersed throughout several seasonal streams and 7th field watersheds. Large Woody Debris Since fuels reduction is proposed in Riparian Reserves, there is risk that large wood recruitment zones could be affected. However, mastication and feller bunchers will be restricted to 100 feet from the stream (Equipment Exclusion Zone) and hand work in inner zones will not remove larger trees that may recruit to streams. The project will not affect
104 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
short term recruitment of large wood through protection of larger trees in inner zones of Riparian Reserves while the project will have long term beneficial effects to stands by releasing larger, healthier trees. Thinning and fuels reduction in seasonal streams will have no effect on large wood downstream (habitat accessible to anadromous salmonids) since these streams are too small to float a log large enough to function as large woody debris. Further, in these areas, any standing dead snags (except for those that are hazardous which would be felled and retained as logs) and larger, healthy trees will be retained for future recruitment. Temporary road work has the potential to reduce large wood levels through vegetation removal at stream crossings. However, these crossings are on old road beds that have been previously disturbed whenever possible, and minimal vegetation clearing will be required. Additionally, there is a Resource Protection Measure that states that where temporary roads are not placed on old road beds, removal of large trees will be avoided.
Cumulative Effects A thorough Project cumulative effects analysis has been conducted and documented in the project Water Resources Report (Mondry 2014). Model results are summarized below. Results of the CWE analysis show slight increases in surface erosion risk with substantial recovery within one year post treatment, and negligible increases in both mass wasting potential and overall disturbance levels. The project would not contribute cumulatively to other effects because effects would be minor, dispersed, and of relatively short duration and, therefore, insignificantly negative at the 7th field and 5th field watershed scales. Prescribed fire treatments are expected to improve watershed conditions in the long term. Reduced Short Term Watershed Impacts - Alternative 3 Alternative 3 is not addressed in detail here because of the difficulty in distinguishing measurable or consequential differences between the proposed action and this alternative regarding potential impacts to aquatic biological resources. Material resulting from hand thinning in Riparian Reserves would not be removed, thereby eliminating 193 acres from commercial thinning; however, it could be piled and burned. If this material is left on site, it could contribute toward hotter burns in project Riparian Reserves in the future, which could offset the short term advantages of creating less disturbance by leaving the hand-thinned material within the Riparian Reserves (vs. commercially removing it). Any short-term sedimentation reduction resulting from not using temporary roads to access treatment units would be partially offset by one of the units requiring a longer skid trail. Any increased fuel loads remaining on site due to the elimination of commercially treated acres could contribute to more severe wildfire burns later in time when compared to the proposed action. Hotter combustion of these additional fuels would promote greater surface erosion in those units that would be eliminated from commercial treatment under this Alternative.
Cumulative Effects Because the effects of Alternative 3 on aquatic resources would be less than Alternative 2, the cumulative effects of Alternative 3 are also minor, dispersed, and of relatively short duration, and therefore, insignificantly negative at the 7th field and 5th field watershed scales.
105 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Summary of Effects to Project Elements
Table 16. Summary of effects for the action alternatives of the Westside Plantation Project on anadromous fish habitat. The symbols are defined as follows: - = Insignificantly negative effect; 0 = Neutral effect; + = Long-term positive effect; -/+ = Insignificant short-term negative effect followed by long-term positive effect. Indicator Fuels Reduction Fuels Reduction Road Related Mechanical pile burning, Actions Thin mastication, hand treatments Temperature 0 0 0
Suspended Sediment / Turbidity 0 0 -/+ Chemical Contamination / 0 + 0 Nutrients Physical Barriers 0 0 0
Substrates / Embeddedness 0 0 0 Large Woody Debris 0 0 0 Pool Frequency and Quality 0 0 0 Large Pools 0 0 0 Off-channel Habitat 0 0 0 Refugia 0 0 0 Average Wetted Width / 0 0 0 Maximum Depth pools Streambank Condition 0 0 - (water drafting) Floodplain Connectivity 0 0 0 Peak/Base Flows -/+ -/+ - (water drafting) Drainage Network 0 0 0 Road Density/Location 0 0 0 Disturbance History -/+ -/+ 0 Riparian Reserves 0 + -
Determinations Sensitive and Management Indicator Species Upper Klamath Trinity (UKT) Rivers Chinook salmon, Klamath Mountain Province (KMP) Steelhead, and Pacific Lamprey are listed as Forest Service Sensitive species in Region 5.
106 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Spring-run Chinook salmon, spring-run steelhead, winter-run steelhead and resident rainbow trout are considered Management Indicator Species. The same habitat and project element analysis describe previously with regard to SONCC coho salmon and CH applies to these remaining fish species as well. The incorporated resource protection measures would minimize or prevent adverse effects to anadromous salmonids and Pacific lamprey and their habitats at the site scale and minimize effects to these species downstream at the 7th- and 5th-field watershed scales and in the South Fork Trinity River. A trend towards listing under the ESA is not anticipated, and viability is not at risk relative to this project because short-term effects on aquatic habitat would be insignificant, and the project would not negatively affect anadromous fish habitat in the long term. Endangered Species Act Listed Fish Species The effects determination for the action alternatives for the Westside Plantation Project is “may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect” (NLAA) Southern Oregon and Northern California Coast coho salmon and their designated Critical Habitat. The following factors contribute to the NLAA affect determination: • Wildfire is a natural watershed disturbance in the project area. Consideration of the natural fire regime indicates that wildfire is likely in the near future. Continued unmanaged wildfire in the project area is likely to threaten watershed resources. Project treatments are expected to help protect aquatic ecosystems from potentially severe effects of future wildfire.
• SONCC coho salmon have evolved in the context of natural fire regimes and associated watershed conditions.
• There will be no direct impacts to SONCC coho salmon.
• Resources Protection Measures incorporated into the project design will minimize sediment delivery into streams.
• The project is expected to cause short-term low magnitude increases in stream sediment during high flows due to temporary road construction. These levels are discountable and are not expected to adversely affect SONCC coho ability to spawn, forage or rear in, near or downstream from the project area.
• Because the project will be implemented over a 10 year period and the proportion of any 6th- field watershed treated with prescribed fire is limited to no more than 10% per year, associated watershed effects will be distributed over space and time.
Essential Fish Habitat The effects analysis considers effects on Pacific salmonid habitat in general, and since habitat requirements and effects mechanisms for coho and Chinook salmon are similar, the effects of the project as analyzed are identical for EFH. Therefore, the project will not adversely affect coho salmon and Chinook salmon EFH.
107 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Hydrology For a more detailed discussion of hydrology in the project area and methodology for analyzing the potential effects to the resource, see the Westside Plantation Project Water Resources Report (Mondry 2014) located in the project record.
Analysis Indicators and Methodology The scope of analysis for water resources includes an assessment of stream channels and the surrounding hydrologic units at various scales (Hydrologic Unit Code [HUC] 5 through 8) associated with the project area, a review of water resource data, and evaluation of predicted post-treatment water quality conditions. This analysis provides the basis for determining compliance with the Shasta-Trinity National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan), the Clean Water Act as defined by Basin Plan objectives, and executive orders. The temporal scope for this assessment includes the short term direct and indirect effects on water quality. The cumulative watershed effects analysis includes consideration of potential impacts to water resources from past, present and reasonably foreseeable projects. The South Fork Trinity River is included on California’s Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 303(d) list as water quality limited due to sediment. Sedimentation in the watersheds was judged to exceed the existing Water Quality Standards (WQS) necessary to protect the beneficial uses of the basins, particularly the cold water fishery. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for these watersheds (EPA 1998). The TMDL concludes that while the needed water quality improvements varies for each of the indicators, an overall improvement of about 30% is reasonable to achieve target conditions. The TMDL is implemented by the North Coast Regional Board. The South Fork Trinity River is also listed as impaired for temperature, but no TMDL has been established. The North Coast Board policy for TMDL implementation was established by Resolution No. R1-2004-0087. In part, the policy relies on available authorities to reduce controllable sediment discharge in impaired waters, including the use of waivers of discharge requirements. The Forest Service contributes to the reduction of sediment discharge through implementation of BMPs, implementation of a forest restoration program which includes a sediment source inventory and road decommissioning program, compliance with discharge waivers and implementation of Forest Plan standards and guidelines for watershed management. The Shasta-Trinity Land and Resource Management Plan (Forest Plan) established a methodology to evaluate and manage watershed condition, which was documented in Appendix H of the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) prepared for the Forest Plan. That analysis established Threshold of Concern (TOC) values for specific planning watersheds that are represented by various watersheds (HUC5) and sub watersheds (HUC6). The FEIS analysis was documented in an assessment of watershed condition based on comparing the watershed disturbance level measured by the equivalent road area (ERA) methodology (Haskins 1986). The ERA methodology is an accounting tool that documents past actions and converts the different disturbance types to “equivalent road areas (ERA’s)”
108 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
to compare and track disturbance levels using a common unit of measure. The ERA method can be used to evaluate and compare proposed future actions by estimating the added level of disturbance that would result from project implementation. It is important to note that ERA primarily assesses upland/hillslope disturbance which does not necessarily predict aquatic or instream impacts. A watershed characterization is assigned based on a comparison of the level of disturbance (measured in ERA’s) to the TOC. As previously stated the Shasta-Trinity National Forest utilizes the TOC at the 5th and 6th-Field watershed scale. While the ERA can still be considered at smaller scales (7th-Field watersheds), it is not explicitly evaluated relative to a TOC (Mai, C., pers. comm., 2013). The Forest Plan uses the following criteria to describe a Cumulative Effects Risk Levels: Low Risk (low disturbance level) ERA is less than 40 percent of TOC (watershed condition is at or near potential) Moderate Risk (moderate disturbance level) ERA is between 40 and 80 percent of TOC (watershed condition is between potential and a point near tolerance) High Risk (high disturbance level) ERA is greater than 80 percent of TOC (watershed condition is near or exceeding tolerance) Disturbed watersheds recover over time. The CWE process assumes that vegetative treatments recover over a 30-year period and that roads do not recover unless they are decommissioned. Fires are included in the CWE analysis with the effects based on acres of high and moderate burn severity. Fire recovery depends on several factors including burn severity, precipitation patterns, vegetation re-growth, and watershed recovery treatments (Robichaud 2000). For this analysis, fire impacts were assumed to follow a non-linear recovery within 10 years, with the majority of the recovery occurring within the first four years. The calculation of ERA for each proposed treatment is based on treated acres converted to disturbance coefficients assigned to each yarding system. Disturbance coefficients used in the analysis are summarized in table 17. When proposed treatments identify options, the coefficient selected is based on the practices with the greatest impact and represents the combined disturbance of harvest, yarding, activity fuel piling, and burning. For this project yarding would be ground based, and fuels treatments would either be hand pile and burn or mastication, depending on slope. As the ERA estimates were predicted using the most disturbing treatment technique they would tend to over-predict potential impacts.
Table 17. ERA disturbance coefficients used in CWE analysis. Treatment ERA Disturbance Coefficient Hand cutting with a chainsaw 0.00 Hand pile and burn 0.04 Mastication/Tractor pile and burn 0.04 Tractor thin, whole tree yard 0.14
109 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
The Forest Service has also established a national Watershed Condition Framework (WCF) (USDA 2011b) that is applied at the HUC6 level. The WCF establishes a nationally consistent reconnaissance-level approach for classifying watershed condition using a comprehensive set of 12 indicators that are surrogate variables representing the underlying ecological, hydrological, and geomorphic functions and processes that affect watershed condition. Primary emphasis is on aquatic and terrestrial processes and conditions that Forest Service management activities can influence. The Forest Service Manual (FSM) uses three classes to describe watershed condition (FSM 2521.1): Class 1 watersheds exhibit high geomorphic, hydrologic, and biotic integrity relative to their natural potential condition. Class 2 watersheds exhibit moderate geomorphic, hydrologic, and biotic integrity relative to their natural potential condition. Class 3 watersheds exhibit low geomorphic, hydrologic, and biotic integrity relative to their natural potential condition. The three watershed condition classes are directly related to the degree or level of watershed functionality or integrity: Class 1 = Functioning Properly. Class 2 = Functioning at Risk. Class 3 = Impaired Function. Individual indicators are rated as “Good”, “Fair”, or “Poor”, with the ratings corresponding to conditions class I, II, and III respectively. Based on the WCF analysis drainages east of the South fork Trinity River are functioning at risk and those west of the river are functioning properly. Implementation of one or more of the project alternatives could affect water resources by impacting riparian vegetation, associated riparian habitat, and increasing erosion and sedimentation. Resource factors that will be evaluated to determine the potential environmental consequences of the alternatives on water resources and overall water quality are: • Sedimentation; • Impact to riparian areas; and • Water temperature. The action alternatives were also evaluated for compliance with the Forest Plan standards and guidelines and the CWA. The primary indicator to determine compliance with the CWA is implementation of BMPs.
Existing Condition The Westside Plantation Project is located primarily in the Middle South Fork Trinity 5th- Field watershed of the South Fork Trinity River sub-basin (figure 5) with negligible project acreage (~ 15 acres) in the Lower Hayfork Creek 5th-Field watershed along ridges where several units cross over the watershed boundary slightly.
110 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Figure 5. Middle South Fork Trinity and Lower Hayfork Creek watersheds.
The South Fork of the Trinity River divides the analysis area into east and west sections. Tributaries to the west of the river are characterized by steep gradient incised channels draining South Fork Mountain (USDA 2001). Lower reaches of the channels have pronounced inner gorge features, and mass wasting (landslides) is common within the inner gorge and adjacent to the South Fork. Tributaries to the east of the river drain the more stable Hayfork Creek/Rattlesnake Creek Terrane. The lower portion of the Butter Creek watershed has steep slopes and both Butter Creek and lower Indian Valley Creek are incised in deep canyons. The upper portion of the watershed has relatively subdued topography, characterized by gently sloped hills and valleys (USDA 1995). Most of the precipitation occurs during the winter months, and falls primarily as rain at the lower elevations, with snow common at the higher elevations. This combination of rain and snow produces a hydrograph that peaks in response to rain events, with a steady decline in flow through the spring. Summer flows are low and stable. Stream flow in these watersheds is not regulated. Major peak flows are often tied to “rain on snow” events, when a warm rain event follows a colder snow event. The combination of melting snow and high antecedent soil moisture increases runoff significantly. The 1964 flood is an extreme example of the magnitude of runoff that a rain on snow event can produce. For analysis purposes the watershed is further divided into 4 6th-Field watersheds and 10 7th- Field watersheds. Table 18 lists the named watersheds through the HUC 7 level.
111 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Table 18. Hierarchy of Named Hydrologic Units within the Analysis Area Name HUC Area in Level Acres South Fork Trinity River Sub Basin 4 596,149 Middle South Fork Trinity River Watershed 5 118, 626 Cave Creek -Miller Springs sub watershed 6 26,326 Cave Creek-Swift Creek 7 9,538 Little Bear Wallow Creek-Hidden Valley 7 9,794 Miller Springs 7 6,994 Plummer Creek sub watershed 6 16,222 Upper Plummer Creek 7 7,954 Lower Plummer Creek 7 8,269 Butter Creek sub watershed 6 23,459 Upper Indian Valley Creek 7 7,679 Lower Indian Valley Creek 7 5,926 Butter Creek Meadows 7 9,854 Sulfur Glade Creek-Waldorf Flat sub watershed 6 22,780 McClellan-South Fork Trinity River 7 6,955 Hitchcock Creek-Oak Flat 7 11,793
Forest Service monitoring has found that average daily maximum water temperatures increase from 18° C to 22° C on the main stem South Fork from Forest Glen to Hyampom as shown in Table 19. Most tributaries had average daily maximum temperatures of less than 18° C, with a few tributaries running under 15° C.
Table 19. Summary of stream temperature monitoring data for locations in or near the project area. Site Site Name Days of Avg. Avg. Avg. Difference ID Record Daily Daily Daily Max and Max Min. Avg. Min. (°F) (°F) (°F) (°F) Tributaries 156 Naufus Creek 893 57.18 50.69 53.41 6.49 174 Glen Creek 1,055 55.32 51.85 53.65 3.46 57 Plummer Creek 87 54.6 52.89 53.76 1.71 17 Rattlesnake Creek 1,065 58.82 53.97 56.4 4.85 (Upper) 21 Cave Creek 397 58.13 54.84 56.52 3.29 25 Jesse Creek 96 60.71 55.34 57.74 5.37 115 Post Creek 766 64.63 54.05 58.76 10.59 134 Plummer Creek at mouth 1,035 62.03 56.88 59.25 5.15
112 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Site Site Name Days of Avg. Avg. Avg. Difference ID Record Daily Daily Daily Max and Max Min. Avg. Min. (°F) (°F) (°F) (°F) Mainstem 23 South Fork Trinity River 1,324 65.23 58.94 61.96 6.29 at Forest Glen 22 South Fork Trinity River 559 66.58 58.88 62.48 7.71 below Cave Creek 110 South Fork Trinity River 1,128 68.76 62.37 65.46 6.39 above Plummer Creek 26 South Fork Trinity below 1,633 70.32 62.29 65.92 8.03 Butter Creek 171 South Fork Trinity River 1,090 71.53 63.32 67.01 8.2 at Hyampom
The EPA (1998) compiled sediment source data as part of the TMDL evaluation. The analysis area for the proposed action falls within the Upper South Fork sub basin evaluated by the EPA, and sediment yields average 1,050 tons per square mile per year, with management related sources of sediment accounting for 34% of the sediment loading. Non- management related mass wasting contributes 50% of the sediment load, while non- management related surface and bank erosion contributes the remaining 16% of the sediment load. Two notable mass wasting features occur within and adjacent to the analysis area. As reported by Fitzgerald (2005) the Hitchcock and Sulphur Glade slides annually turn the mainstem South Fork of the Trinity River turbid from April through June. Water samples taken in June 2003 measured suspended sediment concentration in the South Fork above the slide as 0.51 mg/l and below the slide as 91.7 mg/l. This material remains in suspension for several miles below the slide. During discharge, the surface runoff from the slide itself had a measured suspended sediment concentration of 36,885 mg/l. For an average season these features can yield up to 6,000 tons of fine sediment that are contributed directly to the South Fork. These slides are considered non-management related sediment sources. The Trinity County Resource Conservation District (TCRCD) developed a water quality monitoring program under contract with the California Department of Fish and Game, and produced a draft final report on the program in 2003 (TCRCD 2003). Suspended sediment and turbidity were monitored at six locations, with one station located above the analysis area on the South Fork near Forest Glen. The suspended sediment load for water years 2002 and 2003 at that location was 42 and 91 tons per square mile. Based on the Sacramento River water year index, 2002 was a dry year and 2003 was above normal in terms of runoff. There are 235 miles of Forest Service roads and 345 miles of total roads in the analysis area and road density ranges from 0.4 to 5.8 miles per square mile. Roads alter several physical watershed conditions that can impact water quality, including surface flow, run-off patterns, and sedimentation (Trombulak and Frissell 2000). Roads contribute over half of the management-related sediment yield for the Upper South Fork
113 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
(EPA 1998). North State Resources (NSR) completed a road related Sediment Source Inventory under contract to the Forest Service for 435 miles of road in the South Fork Trinity sub basin (NSR 2011). The inventory included 83 miles of Forest Service roads within the 30 HUC8 sub drainages. The inventory identified sediment sources and categorized the priority of each source for treatment. Gully and rill erosion was the most common erosion type in the inventory. Road maintenance to improve road drainage was recommended as a treatment to reduce gully and rill erosion. The Hidden Valley Watershed Restoration Project analyzed the roads in the Hidden Valley watershed for restoration opportunities by road closure or decommissioning. Alternative 3, approved in July 2005, proposed to decommission 38 miles of road, decommission 3.1 miles of road to trail, and hydro close 5.5 miles of road. The Shasta-Trinity National Forest maintains a forest-wide assessment of watershed condition, which was updated at the HUC 8 drainage scale for the project watersheds after the 2008 fires (USDA 2008). Figure 6 displays the location of those HUC 8 sub drainages and the disturbance levels / risk classes after the 2008 fires.
Figure 6. 2008 disturbance levels at the subdrainage HUC 8 scale for the Westside Plantation Project area.
114 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Table 20. Summary of current disturbance levels estimated from computed ERA values. Alternative 1 (Alt 1) is the “no action” alternative; therefore, it represents the existing condition. These numbers include all timber harvest on private lands that were on record through 2013. They do not include future foreseeable Forest Service projects. HUC Name Watershed Alt 1 ERA (%) Level Acres 5 Middle South Fork Trinity 118,626 6.4% 7 Cave Creek-Swift Creek 9,538 6.4% 7 Little Bear Wallow Creek-Hidden Valley 9,794 4.3% 7 Miller Springs 6,994 7.3% 7 Upper Plummer Creek 7,954 4.5% 7 Lower Plummer Creek 8,269 9.8% 7 Upper Indian Valley Creek 7,679 7.6% 7 Lower Indian Valley Creek 5,926 8.0% 7 Butter Creek Meadows 9,854 3.7% 7 McClellen-South Fork Trinity River 6,955 2.0% 7 Hitchcock Creek-Oak Flat 11,793 13.9%
The ERA analysis in Table 20 includes past impacts and reasonably foreseeable future timber harvest on private lands. The private land timber harvest is concentrated in the Hitchcock Creek-Oak Flat and McClellen-South Fork Trinity River HUC 7 drainages. Past projects included in the ERA analysis include the Hidden Valley Watershed Restoration Project as currently implemented and tracked on the road system inventory. Road decommissioning associated with the Hidden Valley project reduced the disturbance level in several of the HUC 7 drainages associated with this project, including McClellen-South Fork Trinity River. The reductions in disturbance associated with the Hidden Valley road decommissioning have been off-set by the increase in disturbance associated with logging on private land.
Table 21. Summary of watershed condition and key indicators from the WCF analysis for the Westside Plantation Project area. NF Water Road and Sub Watershed Watershed Riparian ownership Quality Trail (HUC6) Condition Condition (%) Condition Condition West side drainages Little Bear Wallow Functioning Properly 93 Good Poor Good Creek- Sulphur Glade Functioning Properly 70 Good Fair Fair Creek East side drainages Plummer Creek Functioning at Risk 62 Fair Fair Poor Butter Creek Functioning at Risk 77 Fair Poor Poor Rattlesnake Creek Functioning at Risk 74 Good Poor Poor
115 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Figure 7. Watershed condition based on the Watershed Condition Framework assessment for the Westside Plantation Project area.
A comparison of the ERA disturbance model and the Watershed Condition Framework shows that Plummer Creek, and Butter Creek subwatersheds actually have relatively low levels of existing disturbance, however they are still considered to be Functioning at Risk due to poor ratings for road and trail condition. The other subwatershed ratings are consistently rated between the two models. Trends in watershed condition are difficult to quantify. Watershed condition in the Little Bear Wallow drainages has improved as managed areas on South Fork Mountain recover from prior treatments and roads are decommissioned. Improvements to Sulfur Glade Creek drainages are limited due to frequent entries on private land, and persistent sediment issues associated with the Hitchcock Creek and Sulfur Glade Creek slides. Butter Creek and Plummer Creek were on a recovering trend from the 1987 fires that was interrupted in 2008 by the Lime fire.
Environmental Consequences No Action - Alternative 1 The No Action Alternative would result in no change to water quality because there are no project related impacts. The units are re-vegetated and soil cover is present in sufficient quantity to minimize surface erosion. Recovery from past management activities and the recent wildfires will continue. Watershed response to large landscape fires would remain unchanged. Approximately 23 percent of the plantations greater than 21 years in age burned with moderate or high soil burn
116 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
intensity during the 2008 fires. This corresponds to the 25 percent of plantations that burned with greater than 50 percent stand mortality. Soils burned at this level of intensity tend to produce greater watershed response after wildfire, potentially impacting water quality.
Cumulative Effects Because there are no project related effects for the no action alternative, there are no cumulative effects. Proposed Action - Alternative 2
Effects of Thinning The effects of thinning on water quality depend on the method used to thin the trees. Hand thinning of trees with chain saws has little effect on water quality. Workers walking through the units cause minimal ground disturbance and the slash created by the thinning increases ground cover, reducing the potential for surface erosion. Mechanical thinning using masticators would also have a minimal impact on water quality. Masticators usually travel across the top of slash and have the net effect of increasing ground cover and thus reducing the potential for surface erosion. Equipment Exclusion Zones established within the Riparian Reserves would protect the slopes adjacent to the streams from mechanical equipment, providing an effective buffer. Commercial thinning by ground based equipment has the potential to impact water quality by disturbing the soil and increasing erosion, concentrating water with skid trail patterns, and damaging stream banks and stream channels if operations are allowed in the Riparian Reserves. Vegetation removal within Riparian Reserves may also impact stream temperatures by reducing stream shade, and reduce habitat components by removing sources of large woody debris; however, this project incorporates Resource Protection Measures that would prevent these impacts from occurring. Alternative 2 proposes commercial treatments within 184 acres of mapped Riparian Reserves. Implementation of BMP 1-10, tractor skidding design will minimize water concentration, particularly within topographic depressions, and BMP 1-8, Riparian Reserve designation will ensure additional protection for stream courses. Equipment Exclusion Zones would be established within the Riparian Reserves, maintaining effective filter strips adjacent to streams. Thinning restrictions that require maintaining at least 80% effective shade in Equipment Exclusion Zones where it currently exists would prevent project related impacts to water temperature. No large legacy trees will be removed as part of the thinning project so future sources of large woody debris will not be affected. These measures will ensure water quality and riparian and aquatic habitat are protected.
Effects of Fuels Reduction Treatments Treating fuels by hand cutting with a chainsaw, hand piling, or mastication has little potential to impact water quality. Hand cutting with a chainsaw distributes material and increases surface cover, helping to reduce erosion without additional site impacts. Hand piling concentrates the fuels in small piles that leave small patches of ground with limited ground cover when the piles are burned. Ground cover in the areas adjacent to the piles is enough to minimize any impact and limit the movement of soil. A Resource Protection Measure requires that hand piles be placed in a checkerboard pattern to avoid alignment of the
117 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project disturbed areas. Mastication also distributes fuel and increases ground cover. Hand piling and mastication are limited to the outer sections of the Riparian Reserves to protect riparian vegetation and areas adjacent to the channels. No primary fire ignition will occur within the Equipment Exclusion Zone and activity fuel will be hand cut with a chainsaw and piled outside of Equipment Exclusion Zone for burning. Reducing fuels within the plantations is the most effective method to reduce burn severity during landscape scale fires. Residual fuels will be treated by hand cutting with a chainsaw, hand piling, and pile burning to meet target fire intensity levels. After treatment, potential water quality impacts within the plantations from landscape scale fires should be reduced.
Effects of Road Use Alternative 2 will use existing open Forest Service roads, open an estimated 12 miles of Forest Service roads that are currently closed to public travel, and construct an estimated 15 miles of temporary roads. Temporary roads can have short term impacts on water resources if located near or across aquatic features. For this project, there would be stream crossings associated with some of the temporary roads accessing the units. Temporary roads would primarily be used for one operating season. When use of a temporary road is extended during wet weather operations, any stream crossings would be left in place until the following dry season, and then removed, to prevent impacts to wet soils by removing the crossing during the wet season. In general, implementation of BMPs and Resource Protection Measures will reduce potential for erosion during use, and will reestablish soil and watershed conditions after use when the temporary roads are closed and rehabilitated. Maintenance of existing roads will correct some of the drainage issues identified during the sediment source inventories, improving overall road condition, reducing road surface erosion, and limiting sedimentation. With implementation of BMPs temporary road construction and use is anticipated to have negligible effects on downstream water quality. There will be some short term increases in turbidity during dewatering and watering the channels during construction, and there will also be some localized sedimentation as the channels adjust to their profiles after the road is removed. Most of the channel adjustment would occur during the first significant runoff event of the season. Reduced Short Term Watershed Impacts - Alternative 3 The effects of alternative 3 will be similar to Alternative 2, but impacts would be slightly less. There would be a reduction in the amount of commercial thinning due to the lack of temporary road access, lack of commercial treatments within Riparian Reserves, and no mastication or machine piling. Thinning in Riparian Reserves would be limited to hand treatments. No equipment would operate within the Riparian Reserves, essentially increasing the width of the Equipment Exclusion Zone to the entire Riparian Reserve compared to Alternative 2. However, hand piling and pile burning would still occur within the Riparian Reserves, outside of the Equipment Exclusion Zone width established in Alternative 2. Impacts described in Alternative 2 are the same for Alternative 3, but impacts of commercial thinning using ground based equipment would occur on fewer acres, and impacts of mastication, machine piling, and temporary roads would not occur under this alternative.
118 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Cumulative Effects of Alternative 2 and 3 The following tables summarize 2014 analysis and results for the Westside Plantation Project. The following tables apportion acres of mechanized thinning for Alternatives 2 and 3 at the 7th-Field watershed scale.
Table 22. Westside Plantation Project 7th-Field watersheds and distribution of thinning acres for Alternative 2. The data assumes all 5,516 acres would be tractor thinned in 1st year (2015). HUC7 ID Activity Acres Cave Creek-Swift Creek 347 Little Bear Wallow Creek-Hidden Valley 766 Miller Springs 1,265 Upper Plummer Creek 5 Lower Plummer Creek 253 Upper Indian Valley Creek 882 Lower Indian Valley Creek 67 Butter Creek Meadows 1,517 McClellan-South Fork Trinity River 396 Hitchcock Creek-Oak Flat 18 Sum 5,516
Table 23. Westside Plantation Project 7th-Field watersheds and distribution of fuels reduction treatment acres for Alternative 2. The data assumes 2,743 acres would be tractor piled and burned in 2nd year (2016) in commercial units. HUC7 ID Activity Acres Cave Creek-Swift Creek 231 Little Bear Wallow Creek-Hidden Valley 114 Miller Springs 374 Upper Plummer Creek 0 Lower Plummer Creek 253 Upper Indian Valley Creek 645 Lower Indian Valley Creek 39 Butter Creek Meadows 924 McClellan-South Fork Trinity River 146 Hitchcock Creek-Oak Flat 18 Sum 2,743
119 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Table 24. Westside Plantation Project 7th-Field watersheds and distribution of thinning acres for Alternative 3. The data assumes that 2,036 acres would be tractor thinned in the 1st year and no subsequent mechanical fuels treatments. HUC7 ID Activity Acres Cave Creek-Swift Creek 114 Little Bear Wallow Creek-Hidden Valley 487 Miller Springs 765 Upper Plummer Creek 5 Lower Plummer Creek 0 Upper Indian Valley Creek 194 Lower Indian Valley Creek 16 Butter Creek Meadows 298 McClellan-South Fork Trinity River 157 Hitchcock Creek-Oak Flat 0 Sum 2,036
Table 25. Modeled % ERA for Westside Plantation Project Alternative 2 at the 5th- Field watershed scale. Note that the ERA Threshold of Concern (TOC) for this watershed is 14%. Watershed Name Watershed Acres % Equivalent Roaded Area (ERA) 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Middle South Fork Trinity River 118,626 6.4 6.4 7.1 7.4 8.0
Table 26. Modeled % ERA for Westside Plantation Project Alternative 2 at the 7th- Field watershed scale. Note that TOC values are applicable to larger watersheds on the order of 6th- and 5th-Field Hydrologic Unit Codes per Forest Plan direction. Watershed Name Watershed Acres % Equivalent Roaded Area (ERA) 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Cave Creek-Swift Creek 9,538 6.4 6.4 7.0 7.3 7.2 Little Bear Wallow Creek- 9,794 4.3 4.3 5.5 5.5 5.4 Hidden Valley Miller Springs 6,994 7.3 7.3 10.0 10.5 10.1 Upper Plummer Creek 7,954 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.6 Lower Plummer Creek 8,269 9.8 9.8 10.2 10.6 10.5 Upper Indian Valley Creek 7,679 7.6 7.6 9.3 10.4 10.0
120 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Watershed Name Watershed Acres % Equivalent Roaded Area (ERA) 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Lower Indian Valley Creek 5,926 8.0 8.0 8.2 8.2 8.2 Butter Creek Meadows 9,854 3.7 3.7 6.1 7.2 6.8 McClellan-South Fork Trinity 6,955 2.0 2.0 2.9 3.4 3.5 River Hitchcock Creek-Oak Flat 11,793 13.9 13.9 13.9 14.4 14.8
Table 27. Modeled % ERA for Westside Plantation Project Alternative 3 at the 5th- Field watershed scale. Watershed Name Watershed Acres % Equivalent Roaded Area (ERA) 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Middle South Fork Trinity River 118,626 6.4 6.4 6.7 6.7 7.4
Table 28. Modeled % ERA for Westside Plantation Project Alternative 3 at the 7th- Field watershed scale. Watershed Name Watershed % Equivalent Roaded Area Acres (ERA) 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Cave Creek-Swift Creek 9,538 6.4 6.4 6.6 6.6 6.6 Little Bear Wallow Creek-Hidden 9,794 4.3 4.3 5.0 4.9 4.9 Valley Miller Springs 6,994 7.3 7.3 9.0 8.7 8.6 Upper Plummer Creek 7,954 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.6 Lower Plummer Creek 8,269 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.8 9.8 Upper Indian Valley Creek 7,679 7.6 7.6 8.0 7.9 7.9 Lower Indian Valley Creek 5,926 8.0 8.0 8.1 8.0 8.0 Butter Creek Meadows 9,854 3.7 3.7 4.2 4.1 4.1 McClellan-South Fork Trinity River 6,955 2.0 2.0 2.4 2.6 2.9 Hitchcock Creek-Oak Flat 11,793 13.9 13.9 13.9 14.4 14.8
The model results indicate that watershed disturbance as assessed by the equivalent roaded area (ERA) metric is relatively low for the Middle South Fork Trinity 5th-Field watershed. At this scale the ERA peaks at 8% for Alternative 2 in 2018. This value is approximately half of the threshold of concern for the watershed. ERA values are higher at the 7th-Field
121 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
watershed scale ranging to near 15% for the Hitchcock Creek-Oak Flat watershed in 2018. However, the Westside Plantation Project only proposes activities on 18 acres of this watershed. In comparing results of Alternatives 2 and 3 at the 7th-Field scale the maximum difference of 3.1 % ERA occurs in the Butter Creek Meadows watershed in 2017. Conclusion Implementation of either Alternative 2 or 3 is not expected to adversely impact water quality or beneficial uses. Water quality impacts described in the analysis will be limited in scope and context. Overall the project watersheds will exhibit moderate hydrologic integrity relative to their natural potential condition. The action alternatives will comply with Forest Plan direction and the Clean Water Act. These conclusions are supported by the following information: • The project will implement BMPs as well as project specific resource protection measures. Implementation of BMPs is an important component of meeting Clean Water Act and Forest Plan requirements. • Activities within Riparian Reserves will be limited to protect stream channels and maintain water temperature. • Temporary road construction is located in low risk watersheds that exhibit high hydrologic integrity relative to their natural potential condition both before and after project implementation. • Activities in high risk watersheds are limited. Overall Forest Service project implementation (past and present) will improve long term conditions. • Implementation of the project will be monitored to ensure BMP and resource protection measures are implemented and corrective action taken as necessary.
Geology For a more detailed discussion of geology in the project area and methodology for analyzing the potential effects to the resource, see the Westside Plantation Project Geology Report (delaFuente 2014) located in the project record.
Analysis Indicators and Methodology The Forest Plan requires that unstable areas be evaluated as part of project planning. Furthermore, it requires that areas with a high probability of mass wasting from ground disturbing activities be protected. A combination of reviewing Forest GIS layers for Geology and field sampling was done in order to evaluate and protect unstable areas. A number of proposed units and pre-existing, but unmaintained roads were walked to identify unstable areas. Rock types were observed to verify bedrock mapping available in the Forest’s GIS bedrock layer. Direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the Proposed Action were analyzed. An analysis of effects relevant to geology for each activity was made. Cumulative effects temporally include 50 years in the past and 50 years in the future. The extent of the analysis includes the 7th field watersheds that intersect the project.
122 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
The Northwest Forest Plan, as incorporated into the Forest Plan, defines all active landslides and inner gorges as part of the Riparian Reserve. Active landslides are defined as having occurred within 400 years, or roughly the maximum age of a timber stand likely to occupy the site (USDA and USDI 1994). Indicators of active landsliding can include tension cracks in the surface, tilted trees, curved trees, unexpected wet areas or springs, sag ponds, and geomorphic features such as hollows and hummocky terrain (Chatwin, et al. 1994). Active landslides can be deep-seated or shallow. Deep-seated landslides are normally not initiated during a single rain event, but shallow slides may occur during a single rain event. However, antecedent moisture conditions may play a part in shallow landsliding (Sidle and Ochiai 2006). Root systems are generally well-above the basal slip surfaces of deep landslides (as seen in the project area; see Existing Conditions section below), and as a result, do not help stabilize them. However, large changes in evapotranspiration associated with tree removal can affect groundwater hydrology (harvesting makes more water available) and facilitate reactivation of dormant landslides. Roads can trigger or activate larger deep-seated landslides (up to acres in size) by diverting water through stream capture, or with large cuts into the toe zones or large fills on the heads of such features (Sidle and Ochiai 2006). Debris flows consist of water-charged slurries of rock, soil and organic material which travel rapidly down steep stream channels (15%-50%), and occasionally in channels as gentle as 5%. They can be triggered by shallow landslides, rapid introduction of sediment from rills and gullies, or mobilization of bed material under high flow conditions.
Existing Condition Figures 8 and 9 show the bedrock and geomorphic condition of the project area. From west to east, the project area includes rocks of the Rattlesnake Creek, Galice, and South Fork Mountain Schist geologic terranes. Many granitic intrusive bodies are dispersed across the landscape (see bedrock map). Several proposed thinning units lie within the Bear Wallow Pluton in the Little Bear Wallow Creek watershed. The Rattlesnake Creek Terrane occupies the eastern 2/3 of the project area, and forms a broad, northwest-trending band. It contains numerous bodies of ultramafic rock dispersed throughout, along with a few very small marble outcrops (“Carbonate” on the bedrock map). The ultramafic rock is important because it can contain naturally occurring asbestos (crysotile variety). The marble is important because it frequently contains caves and fossils. Dormant landslides are common, and reactivated portions are capable of delivering large volumes of sediment to stream systems. Those in the project area are primarily deep seated slumps and earthflows, and are characterized by hummocky topography with steep but eroded head scarps, gentle flat benches, and steep toe zones. The South Fork Trinity River experienced widespread landsliding during the major flood of 1964, during which huge volumes of sediment were delivered to the river. Sediment from the 1964 event has been working its way downstream, pushed by moderate flows, and smaller flood events, such as those in 1997 and 2006, which delivered more sediment to the stream system.
123 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Figure 8. Bedrock map for the Westside Plantation Project area.
124 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Figure 9. Geomorphic map for the Westside Plantation Project area.
125 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Environmental Consequences No Action - Alternative 1 Alternative 1, the No-Action alternative provides a background from which to analyze the other alternatives’ direct, indirect, and cumulative effects. The existing condition section above discloses trends that would be expected with the No-Action alternative. Trends of further growth of plantations with densely stocked trees and gradual fuel buildup would continue. Current landslide rates would continue, punctuated by periodic landslide and flood events.
Cumulative Effects Because the no action alternative includes no project related actions and therefore would have no effect, there would be no cumulative effect. Proposed Action - Alternative 2 The application of geologic resource protection measures would protect unstable lands and minimize direct, indirect, and cumulative effects associated with the Proposed Action. Direct effects of falling and tractor yarding include physical disturbance to the soil, including compaction, associated with falling and removing trees with heavy equipment. Falling of trees can result in the knocking down and uprooting of adjacent trees in some situations. Indirect effects of ground disturbances from yarding can result in concentration of overland flow if furrows are created, or if the ground has been compacted. Such concentrated flow can accelerate erosion. Direct effects of mastication include ground disturbances and grinding of woody material into smaller particles. Indirect effects of ground disturbance and compaction from mastication can include concentration of overland flow. However, the addition of fragmented woody material to the soil offsets this. Machine piling creates ground disturbance, and physical concentration of woody material. It can also cause compaction under certain soil moisture conditions. Indirect effects of ground disturbance from machine piling can include concentration of overland flow in some situations. Opening of existing non-system roads as temporary roads would remove trees and brush that have become established in the roadbed. Maintenance and upgrading of existing system roads would disturb the road surface and reroute surface runoff in a beneficial manner. Resource Protection Measures require consultation with the project Geologist on a case-by- case basis if potentially unstable or unstable conditions are encountered during road or landing construction. Measures also include minimizing cut and fills and draining any encountered subsurface water. Indirect effects of opening closed roads can be both positive and negative. On the one hand, existing surface drainage issues are corrected, but on the other, removal of vegetation can remove root support which may have been providing root support to older road fill material. Construction of new landings and use of existing landings would remove vegetation; disturb soil/regolith; on steeper ground, alter slopes through cuts and fills; and potentially reroute surface runoff. Indirect effects of constructing new landings can include destabilizing natural
126 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
slopes if cuts are large or creation of unstable fill if placed on steep slopes and not compacted. Resource protection measures are designed to prevent such occurrences. Hand cutting of fuels would cut and move woody material. Indirect effects of hand treating fuels include reduced potential for high severity fire. Pile burning would create small openings covered with ash and charred material. Indirect effects of pile burning include rapid runoff from small localized areas where the fire consumes all woody material, and reduces soil permeability.
Cumulative Effects In general, adverse cumulative effects for the Proposed Action are anticipated to be very small and of short duration (less than 20 years) because no new roads are being built, new landings will not be on steep slopes and will be away from unstable areas. Also, geology resource protection measures will protect unstable areas from ground disturbance and removal of excessive vegetation. Overall, with implementation of all resource protection measures, plus the correction of existing road drainage issues, the cumulative effect of Alternative 2 would be very small. Reduced Short Term Watershed Impacts - Alternative 3 Direct, Indirect, and cumulative effects are very similar to the Proposed Action. By leaving temporary roads undisturbed, and slightly reducing commercial thinning area, the overall short term adverse effects would be slightly smaller. However, this is offset by the fact that long term beneficial effects of thinning and fuel reduction would be smaller, such that the potential for high severity fire would be slightly higher, since less fuel reduction would occur. The same would be true for stand health, in that less thinning would occur. Soils For a more detailed discussion of soils in the project area and methodology for analyzing the potential effects to the resource, see the Westside Plantation Project Soils Report (Rust 2014) located in the project record.
Analysis Indicators and Methodology The National Soil Management Handbook (USDA 2010) defines soil productivity and components of soil productivity, and establishes guidance for measuring soil productivity. In determining a significant change in productivity, a 15% reduction in inherent soil productivity potential will be used as a basis for setting threshold values. Threshold values would apply to measurable or observable soil properties or conditions that are sensitive to significant change. The threshold values, along with aerial extent limits, would serve as an early warning signal of reduced soil productive capacity, where changes to management practices or rehabilitation measures may be warranted. Management activities have potential to cause various types and degrees of disturbance. Soil disturbance is categorized into compaction, displacement, puddling, severe burning, and erosion. Properties, measures, and thresholds of concern relative to soil disturbance were developed at the Forest level, and are known as Soil Quality Standards (Forest Plan 4-25). The effects of each alternative on the soil resource have been assessed using the Forest Plan.
127 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Soil quality analysis standards provides values that indicate when changes in soil properties and soil conditions would result in significant change or impairment of the productivity potential, hydrologic function, or buffering capacity of the soil. The Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines for soils state that in an even-aged managed stand no more than 15% of the area shall be in a nonproductive state (landings, roads, and main skid-trails) on matrix lands (Forest Plan, 4-25). These standards apply to the soil project bounding area only (thinning units). The Forest Plan soil compaction standard and guideline threshold is exceeded when more than 15% of an area (aerial extent) exceeds a 10% reduction in soil porosity. The following soil quality standards apply for the project:
o Soil Stability. Erosion is the detachment, transport, and deposition of soil particles by water, wind or gravity. Vascular plants, soil biotic crusts, and litter cover are the greatest deterrent to surface soil erosion. Visual evidence of surface erosion may include rills, gullies, pedestalling, soil deposition, erosion pavement or loss of the surface "A” horizon. Erosion models are also used to predict on-site and off-site soil loss (water erosion prediction project (WEPP) and/or the erosion hazard rating (EHR)).
o Erosion: (tons/acre) – Maintain sufficient soil cover to prevent accelerated soil erosion from exceeding the rate of soil formation. Erosion needs to be less than or equal to 1 ton/acre depending on slope and parent material which equates to an erosion hazard rating in the low range. Cover necessary to keep erosion less than 1 ton/acre: . Granitics – 90% or greater cover necessary. . Metasediments – 50 to 70% cover necessary. • Soil Hydrology. This function is assessed by evaluating or observing changes in surface structure, surface pore space, consistence, bulk density, infiltration or penetration resistance using appropriate methods. Increases in bulk density or decreases in porosity results in reduced water infiltration, permeability and plant available moisture.
o Compaction: (acres) - Maintain at least 90% of the total soil porosity found under natural conditions, as measured at 4 to 8 inches below the soil surface. Soil porosity is the standard to measure compaction and it puts change on a relative basis per soil type. Soil porosity is the area of the soil matrix that is occupied by soil voids (maco-pores) that air and water circulate through the soil. Compaction causes a decrease in porosity and for management purposes porosity is a better value to measure impact changes. A 10 percent reduction in total soil porosity corresponds to a soil bulk density that indicates possible impairing soil compaction (depending on texture).
o Soil Hydrologic Function: - Ability of water to move through the soil in a metered way. Hydrologic function will be evaluated on how much its function is impaired.
128 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
o Soil moisture regime and drainage classes: - Must be maintained where plant growth or plant community composition is dependent upon natural conditions. • Nutrient Cycling. This function is assessed by evaluating the vegetative community composition, litter, coarse woody material, and root distribution. These indicators are directly related to soil organic matter, which is essential in sustaining long-term soil productivity. Soil organic matter provides a carbon and energy source for soil microbes and provides nutrients needed for plant growth. Maintain organic matter in kinds and amounts sufficient to prevent significant nutrient cycle deficits, and to avoid impaired physical and biological soil conditions.
o Soil organic matter in the upper 12 inches of soil is at least 85 percent of the total soil organic matter found under undisturbed or natural conditions. [displacement standard]
o Fine organic matter occurs on at least 50 percent of the area; this includes litter, duff, and woody material < 3 inches diameter. Organic matter left (surface horizon depth after treatment) and tons of duff and mulch that is less than 3 inches left) for nutrient recycling (generally 4 to 8 tons/acre). [nutrient cycling standard]
o Large woody material, when occurring in the forested area, is at least 5 logs per acre in contact with the soil surface; and represents the total range of decomposition. Adjust the number of logs/acre to account for ecological type potential. [soil biology standard] • Displacement (area-square feet). Impaired Soil Displacement: Avoid excessive topsoil being moved laterally from its usual place in the profile by blading or pushed aside by machines or logs. Usually areas greater than 20 square meters (15 feet by 15 feet area) where greater than 2 inches of topsoil removed. • Ultramafic soils with potential NOA. Naturally Occurring Asbestos (NOA) creates an open travel safety concern of dust inhalation. Soil Cover/Erosion Many land use activities have the potential to cause erosion rates to exceed natural soil erosion or soil formation rates. In order to assess the potential risk of a given soil to erode, an erosion hazard rating (EHR) was developed (R-5 FSH 2505.22). The EHR system is designed to assess the relative risk of accelerated sheet and rill erosion. This rating system is based on soil texture, depth, clay percent, infiltration of soil, amount of rock fragments, surface cover (vegetative and surface rocks), slopes, and climate. Risk ratings vary from low to very high with low ratings meaning low probability of surface erosion occurring. Moderate ratings mean that accelerated erosion is likely to occur in most years and water quality impacts may occur for the upper part of the moderate numerical range. High to very high EHR ratings mean that accelerated erosion is likely to occur in most years and that erosion control measures should be evaluated. These ratings assume varying amounts of vegetation cover depending on degree of vegetative management. Erosion hazard
129 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
is dependent on slope, texture, depth, and rock fragment cover (assuming a bare exposed soil with no cover). Soil Resiliency Index Soil resiliency refers to the ability of a soil to resist or recover its healthy state in response to destabilizing influences. Soil Resiliency index rates soils on their ability to resist degradation from disturbance. It is based on resiliency to erosion, burning, compaction, displacement, puddling and churning, and whole-tree removal which are the common soil stressors from timber and fuel operations. Soil loss tolerance refers to how much cover or topsoil can be lost without compromising the soil productivity, or the level of disturbance forest soils can tolerate before they become less productive due to cumulative effects (based on Region 5 Soil Interpretation Ratings; USDA 1999c). Soil Resource Bounding Area For soil erosion, soil compaction, and soil fertility the soils analysis was bounded only to the project activity units for space and time. The analysis focused on soil productivity and on-site erosion potential. By adhering to the Forest Plan soil quality standards for onsite erosion, compaction, and soil fertility (USDA 1995), soil productivity is maintained or improved.
Existing Condition Soils within the project area have predominately formed on timbered mountain sideslopes and ridges. Soils formed on steep areas (greater than 40% slope) are moderately deep (20 to 40 inches) gravelly loams to very gravelly clay loams. Soils formed on flatter areas (less than 40% slopes) are moderately deep to deep (40 to 60 inches) loams to gravelly clay loams (see Table 29). Rock types help determine soil textures and depth. Within the Westside Plantation Project area, four major rock types exist (Table 29). Granitics are loamy sand to sandy loams, metasediments are loams or clay loams, where serpentines are clay loams to clays. Current soil conditions for the Westside Plantation Project action area watersheds are landscapes with moderate to high past use. Metasedimentary soils are moderately susceptible to erosion and erosion from past use has been low. Fine-textured metasedimentary soils are susceptible to compaction and compaction from past use has been limited to only a few areas of high use. Most soils in the action area are rocky soils that resist compaction. Serpentine soils are susceptible to erosion and compaction, but erosion and compaction from past use has been low due to the lack of merchantable timber in these areas. Current erosion levels in the project area are low due to adequate cover. The plantations in the project treatment units are deficient in large logs due to past management practices. The fires of 2008 (Lime Fire) have reduced soil cover in some areas and erosion in those areas is at moderate to moderately high levels (depending on soil burn severity). These areas are small and amount to less than 1% of the project area. Compaction levels are unaffected and have recovered (below Forest Plan soil quality standard thresholds) on all areas except main skid-trails and landings (5% of area). Soil Cover/Erosion Fine textured soils (less than 35 % rock fragments) have the highest erosion hazard ratings for the project soils. Soils with rock fragments greater than 35% have the lowest erosion hazard ratings due to textures and rock fragments providing a locking matrix that resists most
130 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project erosion. Steep granitic soils have the highest erosion hazard ratings and metamorphic and serpentine soils have moderate to low erosion hazard ratings. Soil Resiliency Index By combining soil stress ratings an overall resiliency rating can be assigned for each soil. Soil resiliency index ratings show steep granitic soils as having a low resiliency rating. The rest of the soils in the project area have moderate resiliency rating meaning standard soil mitigation measures will be sufficient to protect soil productivity. For steep granitic soil within the project area, additional soil mitigation measures will be necessary to protect their productivity. Naturally Occurring Asbestos (NOA) Large bodies of serpentinite occur within the project area and could contain NOA. Asbestos occurs in six different forms; five belonging to the amphibole group (Tremolite, Actinolite, Anthophylite, Crocidolite, and Amosite) and one belonging to the serpentine group (Chrysotile) (Van Gosen 2007). All of these minerals are of the fibrous nature making them asbestiform (fibers with greater than a 3:1 length to width ratio). In California the most common form is Chrysotile with the five amphibole types in smaller concentrations. The Environmental Protection Agency has issued warnings “that any inhalation of asbestos fibers is potentially hazardous” (Abelson 1990, EPA adopted all forms of asbestos as a hazardous air pollutant pursuant to Section 112 of the Federal Clean Air Act 1990). Mitigations to deal with dust inhalation are listed in the design feature section. Most serpentinite is dispersed throughout the project area and many roads are affected. A NOA hazard analysis was completed for roads intersecting NOA to determine areas with the likelihood of encountering NOA. Appendix C of the Westside Plantation Soils Report shows 27.7 miles of roads are intermittently affected by NOA. Risk ratings range from very low to high with 4.5% of the roads having ratings as high.
131 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Table 29. Westside Plantation Project soil ratings (50-70% cover). Soil Type Depth1 Rock Surface AWC Rock Risk of Compaction Erosion Type2 Texture3 (in/in)4 Fragments Burn Rating5 Hazard6 (%) Damage Flat D-VD MS L 0.14-0.17 5-15 Low High Low Metamorphics Steep MD MV Vg L 0.07-0.09 35-65 Mod Low Low Metamorphics Steep Granitics D G Sl 0.09-0.12 5-15 High Low High Flat Serpentines MD S G Cl 0.09-0.13 15-35 Low High Low Steep Serpentines S S Vg Cl 0.10-0.14 35-65 Mod Mod Low 1Depth Classes: S=Shallow (10-20”), MD=Mod Deep (20-40”), D=Deep (40-60”),VD=Very Deep (>60”) 2Rock Type Parent Material: MS=Metasediments, MV=Metavolcanics, G=Granitics, S=Serpentine 3Surface Texture: L=Loam, Vg=very gravelly, Sl=Sandy Loam, Cl=Clay loam, G=Gravelly 4AWC=available water holding capacity 5Compaction: Low=Beneficial, Mod=Slight harm, High=Moderate harm
6Soil cover for erosion hazard calculated as 50 to 70% cover.
132 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Figure 10. Westside Plantation Project soils map.
133 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Environmental Consequences Three alternatives are being proposed for the Westside Plantation Project: Alternative 1 (no action), Alternative 2 – Proposed, and Alternative 3 – (reduced watershed impact). Each alternative will be assessed using the three evaluation criteria developed from the Soil Quality Standards and are displayed in Table 30:
Table 30. Soil Quality Standards Matrix for Alternatives – Direct and Indirect Effects Soil Quality Standard Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Erosion hazard Low Low Low Compaction hazard Low Moderate Moderately low Forest slash (tons/acre) 30-50 tons/acre 10-20 tons/acre 10-20 tons/acre Anticipated cover 90 - 100% cover 65 - 85% cover 90 - 100% cover Topsoil displacement None Slight Slight NOA Dust No exposure Moderate exposure Low exposure
No Action - Alternative 1 No project activities would occur under this alternative; therefore, this alternative would have no effect on project area soils.
Cumulative Effects This alternative would have no effect on soils; therefore, it would have no cumulative effects. Proposed Action - Alternative 2 This alternative treats 5,533 acres through commercial and non-commercial thinning (commercial thinning will use mechanical harvesters and grapple skidders and non- commercial thinning will use masticators, and handfalling).
Commercial Thinning No impairing compaction is anticipated with this alternative due to soil design features that limit operations to when soils are dry enough to operate mechanical equipment without causing soil impairment. Soil erosion will be low due to anticipated cover after treatment. Topsoil displacement will be slight due to most displacement with tractors and masticators being limited to small areas that have no effect on soil productivity because the aerial extent is so small (well within Shasta-Trinity land management plan standards). Thinning operations will cause some soil disturbance such as rutting, displacement, erosion, and compaction. Levels of soil disturbance would be in the moderate range, i.e. less than 15% (4 to 8% decrease in soil porosity), with a 14 to 17% increase in area of disturbance. This level of impacts does not exceed soil quality standard thresholds for erosion, compaction, churning, or displacement.
134 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Non-Commercial Thinning Non-commercial thinning would consist of light impact treatments such as mastication, pruning and hand falling, which will provide soil cover. These treatments would cause minimal soil impacts well below soil quality standard thresholds. In areas with post project soil cover of 65 to 85% (mastication or handfalling), erosion will be low (less than 1 ton/acre; discountable rate compared to natural background rates). Compaction and displacement will be minimal due to less ground disturbing activities. Mastication on moist soils can cause compaction and displacement but with the soil mitigation features for this project these effects will be greatly minimized. Mastication rearranges the fuels in a unit, increasing soil cover, temperature, moisture and microbe activity. Mastication can potentially cause short-term Carbon/Nitrogen imbalance if too much of the masticated material is incorporated into the soil. The fires of 2008 on the Forest burned large patches of land with mixed intensity (mostly low to moderate intensity). Some plantations were affected by the fires, and had mixed burn intensities including some areas of high mortality. Partial consumption of soil organic matter, duff, and litter is common in these partially burned plantations. Mastication and handfalling provides cover to curb erosion, conserves soil moisture, reduces higher soil temperatures (due to fire), provides food substrates for microbes, and provides resumption of soil nutrient cycling after fire. These conclusions are based on on-going and current research (USDA 2001).
Fuel Reduction Treatments Hand pile and jackpot burning could occur in every unit, but will only occur in units where primary activity fuels treatments (whole tree yarding in commercial units and handfalling in non-commercial units) are not sufficient to reach the desired post project fuels conditions. Handfalling treatments will be beneficial for soil resources by providing soil cover, with 3-10 inch size pieces that break down rapidly into fine litter, and slowly incorporate into the soil. Hand piling can create concentrations that burn hot, but these areas are limited in size and create mosaic patterns that are not significant on an areal extent. Organic matter would be present in sufficient amounts in the upper 12 inches of soil by leaving up to 85 percent of soil organic matter in undisturbed conditions. This insures long- term nutrient recycling and buffering. Post project litter and duff would occur over at least 50 percent of the activity area and in each unit. Most soil microbes exist in soil litter, organic layers, and upper soil layers (Powers, pers. comm., 2003). Since cover will be increased by mastication and handfalling, forming thick organic matter duff, soil microbial activity will be enhanced and soil nutrients will be returned to the site. Soil Quality Standards state that large woody debris density should be at least 5 logs per acre in contact with soil, >20 inches in diameter, 10 feet or longer, and decay class 3 – 5. Logs in this category, where they exist in project units, would be protected from burning. At least 2 logs per acre in decay class 1 or 2 would also be left on site, where they currently exist within units. Plantations tend to be deficient in large woody debris density due to past management practices. Because the plantations in this project area are deficient in large woody debris density, handfalling or mastication of brush and saplings will substitute for this soil cover requirement.
135 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Cumulative Effects In the project treatment units, pre-harvest legacy compaction amounted to a 9.0% decrease in porosity on skid-trails that occupy 12% of the units. After harvest, project treatment units would have a 9.8% decrease in porosity (only 0.8% increase in impacts compared to legacy compaction), but now occupies 21% of the area; this level of impacts is below the soil quality standards compaction threshold because the decrease in soil porosity is not greater than 10%. Within the project units (soil resource bounding area), past effects are mostly out of the range of time and space since most past effects have stabilized or diminished. The exception is the lack of snags and large logs within the units. The plantations have not yet developed to the point where they are recruiting snags and large logs. The action alternatives would help the stands to develop to the point of large log and snag recruitment more quickly than the no action alternative. Future foreseeable activities will not occur on the soil bounding area (project activity units). Reduced Short Term Watershed Impacts - Alternative 3 Effects on soil under Alternative 3 are less than Alternative 2. This alternative has less impacts due to less mechanical thinning and mastication that cause some compaction and displacement.
Cumulative Effects Because Alternative 3 would have less impact on soils than Alternative 2, cumulative effects are also less; therefore, the cumulative effects from Alternative 3 are below soil quality standard thresholds. Conclusion The project would have negligible direct and indirect effects on soils. Direct and indirect effects would not be significant enough to affect soil productivity. Cumulative effects would also be insignificant. Cultural Resources For a more detailed discussion of cultural resources in the project area and methodology for analyzing the potential effects to those resources, see the Westside Plantation Project Cultural Resources Report (Arnold 2014) located in the project record.
Analysis Indicators and Methodology
Effects Analysis: To analyze the cumulative effect(s) on archaeological resource sites, the unit of measure used to quantify this is based on a linear scale that measures potential adverse effect. The relative proximity of archaeological resources to ground disturbing activity (GDA) increases the likelihood of direct and indirect effects. GDA could be a linear travel route like a road or harvest unit in a timber sale. Although this method is based on inference, it captures the potential for a site to be affected by inadvertent actions (dispersed recreation) or direct actions (artifact looting). Most sites beyond 100 meters from some manner of GDA suffer far less chance for adverse effects. Sites within 100 meters or less generally suffer a greater potential for adverse effects. Heritage Cumulative Effects: This
136 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Heritage resource analysis has been completed in accordance with the CEQ memorandum of June 24, 2005, regarding “guidance on the consideration of past actions in cumulative effects analysis.” In addition, this analysis incorporates guidance identified in the R5 white paper titled “Analysis of Cumulative Effects in NEPA” dated 8/4/2005. Bounding the Effects: An archaeological site is a concentration of cultural material and features. The extent of this concentration as mapped in the field is the geographic unit for analyzing direct and indirect effects. Site area is calculated from this map in square feet or meters, but for consistency with other resources area will be stated in acres. Analysis of cumulative effects to recorded sites will encompass the proposed treatment units, which is the Area of Potential Effect (APE). Time Frame: For this discussion, time frame for direct and indirect effects will be the extent of the undertaking and subsequent management actions. Cumulative effects will take into account past actions, present, and foreseeable actions. This analysis will also factor in disbursed recreation events. Foreseeable actions will also undergo analysis of their potential effects to recorded archaeological properties.
Existing Condition The affected resource area is called the Area of Potential Effect (APE). For Heritage resource management analysis the APE is essentially the proposed project actions and area these actions will take place within (treatment units), with a 100 foot buffer. The APE has a total of 12 archaeological sites adjacent or within plantation units planned for thinning; the table below lists the previously recorded sites.
Table 31. Archeological sites in the Area of Potential Effect for the Westside Plantation Project. Site Number Site Name Type57 National Register Status 05145200032 Lemonade Springs PRE Not eligible 05145200033 Miller Springs Site PRE Eligible 05145200066 Lemon Spring PRE Eligible 05145200114 Block 2 Prehistoric PRE Eligible 05145200122 Snowball PRE Eligible 05145200151 Expect Site PRE Eligible 05145200152 Lost Site PRE Indeterminate 05145200291 Aggressive Squirrel PRE Indeterminate 05145200292 Overlooked Spring PRE Indeterminate 05145200293 Amazon Spring Site PRE Indeterminate 05145200345 Miller’s Neighbor PRE Eligible 05145200403 Stetsonfull O’ Lemonade PRE Not known
57 TYPE refers to the type of archaeological site. PRE means prehistoric and HIST historic.
137 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Environmental Consequences Actions Considered: Table 32 below shows the potential for direct and indirect impacts of both action alternative considered along with other management actions affecting Heritage Resources. These were the only sites recorded within the APE treatment units for the Westside Plantation Project. Table 32. Westside Plantation Project level of potential effect on archeological resources. Recorded Archeological Sites High Medium Low Low to No Effect Lemon Spring X Block 2 Prehistoric Site X Snowball X Expect Site X Lost Site X Aggressive Squirrel Site X Overlooked Spring X Miller’s Neighbor X
The no action alternative would have no effect because no silvicultural and fuel treatment actions would occur.
The action alternatives would have a greater potential to cause adverse effects to recorded heritage properties and would need to be managed and monitored. Historic properties noted above were identified during past survey work on various timber sale projects. These surveys covered the current project treatment units being proposed. No new survey was needed for this project. However, to ensure the previously recorded sites will be protected management measures stipulated under the Programmatic Agreement (PA) Processes for Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for Management of Historic Properties by The National Forests of the Pacific Southwest will be applied. Specifically under Appendix E, Standard Resource Protection Measures 1.0 “Heritage Program Managers (HPMs), or delegated Heritage Program staff, shall ensure that Standard Protection Measures are implemented as appropriate for all subject undertakings managed under this PA. When these protection measures are effectively applied, Forests will have taken into account the effects of undertakings on historic properties. These management measures will avoid the potential for direct and indirect adverse effects to these recorded sites from the action alternative. The first measure to be applied is under Appendix E of the PA, Standard Resource Protection Measures 1.0 Class I: Avoidance states, 1.2 Activities within historic property boundaries will be prohibited with the exception of using developed Forest transportation systems when the HPM or qualified heritage professional recommends that such use is consistent with the terms and purposes of this agreement, where limited activities approved by the HPM or
138 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project qualified heritage professional will not have an adverse effect on historic properties, or except as specified below in sections 2.0 and 3.0 of Appendix E. 1.3 All historic properties within APEs shall be clearly delineated prior to implementing any associated activities that have the potential to affect historic properties. (3) Historic property boundaries shall be delineated with coded flagging and/or other effective marking. (4) Historic property location and boundary marking information shall be conveyed to appropriate Forest Service administrators or employees responsible for project implementation so that pertinent information can be incorporated into planning and implementation documents, contracts, and permits (e.g., clauses or stipulations in permits or contracts as needed).
In addition to the stipulations above these actions may also be taken: 1.4 When any changes in proposed activities are necessary to avoid historic properties (e.g., project modifications, redesign, or elimination; removing old or confusing project markings or engineering stakes within site boundaries; or revising maps or changing specifications), these changes shall be completed prior to initiating any project activities. 1.5 Monitoring by heritage program specialists may be used to enhance the effectiveness of protection measures. The results of any monitoring inspections shall be documented in cultural resources reports and the Infra database. The recorded historic properties will be noted in the contract as controlled areas to be avoided. Contract administrators will insure these protective measures are followed. Consequently, if these procedures are carried out the action alternatives would have no direct or indirect effect on the recorded properties. Both action alternatives would have no effect on the identified archaeological sites. The action alternatives have the potential to adversely affect these resources, but with protection and administrative actions taken there would be no effect.
Cumulative Effects Because neither action alternative would have an effect on the identified archaeological sites, there would be no cumulative impacts. Socioeconomics For a more detailed discussion of economics in the project area and methodology for analyzing the potential effects to those resources, see the Westside Plantation Project Socioeconomics Report (Paris 2014b) located in the project record.
Analysis Indicators and Methodology Analysis indicators of socioeconomic effects include economic consequences of the proposed actions and employment. The employment impact is calculated based on estimated direct and indirect employment and the 2008-2012 average annual wage for Trinity County.
139 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
The monetary value of the proposed action was derived using costs that local contractors and processors have experienced in 2012 and 2013 with sawlog, biomass harvesting and hauling. The mastication, machine piling, hand thinning, hand piling, and burning costs used in this analysis was obtained from recent contract rates on the Forest. The value of the stumpage is calculated as this amount will offset the costs on the project. The value of the product output for the proposed action, sawlogs and biomass, was obtained by averaging 2013 value for the net volume (measured as million board feet, MBF) in Trinity County and an estimated value of $25.00 per green ton for biomass (BDT). In terms of energy generating capacity, according to UC researchers, one BDT burned in a typical commercial boiler fuel will produce 10,000 pounds of steam and 10,000 pounds of steam will produce about 1,000 horsepower or generate 1 megawatt hour (MWH) of electricity (Ingram 2013). In California, one megawatt hour is worth between $121 and $140 (Electric Choice 2013). Total sawlog value is calculated by multiplying the total volume by the current stumpage rate of $203.78/MBF. If the costs of the project are higher than the value of stumpage, then the Forest Service will have a net financial loss from the project and additional funding will be required from the Forest Service to make up the difference. If the value of the stumpage is higher than the costs, a net financial benefit will be realized from the project. Unless specified otherwise, the geographical bounding used to measure the affected socioeconomic environment in this analysis is Trinity County. Census and employment data are compiled at the county level, which makes an analysis within those bounds possible. Further, the direct socioeconomic effects discussed below will be, in most cases, limited to Trinity County. In the case of indirect and cumulative effects, the geographic bounding of the analysis may change to include effects beyond Trinity County. Temporal bounding for this analysis was also determined according to the two factors of available data and possible effects. The parameters employed for both geographic and temporal bounding are further explained within the individual analyses in this report. Throughout this report, the state of California is used as a reference point for Trinity County’s socioeconomic indicators because it provides a meaningful unit for comparison. Data from the last two censuses are used in the analysis. Environmental Justice refers to the social equity in bearing the burdens of adverse environmental effects that may result from a proposed action. Some ethnic minorities, elderly, and low income populations have historically experienced a disproportionate share of adverse affects resulting from large infrastructure projects. According to EO 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations, dated February 11, 1994, minority and low-income populations must not be disproportionately adversely affected by transportation or other such projects. In addition, and in light of the fact that Trinity County has an aging population, the effect of the project on individuals over 65 was analyzed. The previous section of this report discusses the presence of minority, low-income families, and elderly persons. Employment impacts on the population can be defined in terms of direct and indirect effects. Direct effects are associated most strongly with local communities where logging and sawmilling activities occur. Indirect effects, removed in space or time from the proposed action, are associated typically with major urban areas supplying goods and services to the local communities. Logging and milling activities typically require four to seven person
140 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
years58 of employment per million board feet of timber processed. Indirect employment ranges from seven to nine person years per million board feet of timber harvested (USDA 2009b).
Existing Condition The proposed project area is located in Trinity County, in northwestern California. Trinity County occupies 3,208 square miles. With a current population of 13,448 (U.S.Census Bureau 2014), the population density is approximately 4.2 residents/square mile. The county seat and largest city is Weaverville, population 3,600. Hayfork, with a population of 2,368, is the closest population center within the vicinity of the proposed project area (U.S.Census Bureau 2011). Trinity County lost population or grew much more slowly between 1900 and 1930 than the overall California population. The 1940s through 1970s saw Trinity County’s growth rate aligned more closely with the state. Trinity County’s population has been slowly growing since 1990 and is expected to continue this pattern for the next forty years. The time period of 1900 to 2050 was chosen to give a historical view of Trinity County’s population growth as compared to California as a whole. See the Socio-economic report for more detailed data about population trends in Trinity County compared to California. Trinity County’s population trends show a higher than average elderly population when compared to the state of California and to historical averages in the county itself. In 1990, 62.79% of Trinity County’s population was under 45 years of age; in 2000 the proportion had decreased to 50.66%. In contrast, the state of California’s population average age has increased only slightly: 72.20% of the population was below 45 years of age in 1990, and 68.88% of the population was below 45 years of age in 2000. Trinity County’s age distribution trend has departed further from the state’s average (U.S.Census Bureau 2009). See the Socio-economic Report for more detailed data on age trends in Trinity County compared to California. At approximately 88.8%, Whites are the predominant ethnic group in Trinity County and comprise the majority of the population within the county according to the 2010 census. American Indians and Alaskan Natives represent just fewer than 5% of Trinity County residents, with other ethnic groups composing the remaining population. Data from 1990 and 2009 estimates are included to provide sufficient data for trend analysis. The number of White, Asian, and American Indian/Alaskan Native residents has decreased since 1980 while all other ethnic groups have increased. Percentages add to greater than 100% because of mixed ethnicities. During the period from 2005-2009, on average 15.1% of the population of Trinity County was below the poverty line, compared to 13.2% of California’s population. The median household income for Trinity County is approximately 43% below the state median. While there is a higher percentage of homeownership in Trinity County than state-wide (76.6%
58 Based on an ideal amount of work done by one person in a year.
141 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
compared to 57.9%), the median value of owner-occupied homes for Trinity County is half as much as the state median value for owner-occupied homes. The data discussed above indicate that Trinity County has a white aging population that is economically disadvantaged when compared to the state of California as a whole. The high age and homeownership rate combined with the low medium income indicate that the population in both Shasta and Trinity Counties are less likely to be mobile than other people in the State. The sparse population density of Trinity County indicates that the population is very sensitive to the management or inaction of a few large landowners or land managers (including the Forest Service) within the county as they have fewer people to absorb effects. The average annual wage in Trinity County for all industries in 2008 to 2012 was $36,569 (2012$), compared to the average annual wage for all industries in the state of California that year, at $61,400 (2012$). Average pay and income in Trinity County are significantly lower than the average in California across all sectors except for Natural Resources and Mining. Timber-industry-related jobs fall into the Natural Resources and Mining sector. Data from 2001 to 2009 were analyzed to show the recent trends in Trinity County and the state of California (see the Socio-economic Report for more detailed data). While wages in all sectors have risen on average in California as a whole and in Trinity County, the Natural Resources and Mining sector is the only industry sector that has seen a net increase in wages in Trinity County over the eight year period. Employment data from 2001 to 2009 are analyed to show the recent trends in Trinity County and the state of California. Timber-industry-related jobs are included in the Natural Resources and Mining sector. Trinity County’s proportion within each employment sector is similar to the state of California for this time period. Natural Resources and Mining comprise only 1.40% of the total employment in Trinity County, less than the percent for the state of California (see the Socio-economics Report for other employment data). Unemployment in Trinity County is consistently much higher than unemployment in the state of California as a whole. It has remained relatively constant since 1999 with only small fluctuations that mirror state trends. In 2009, the unemployment rate was 17.3% in Trinity County and 11.4% in the state.
Environmental Consequences Both action alternatives will require millions of dollars in appropriated funding and grants to implement the project over a 10 year period. In addition, the action alternatives will result in an estimated annual increase in employment from 29.15 (Alternative 3) to 84.3 (Alternative 2) person years being created in Trinity County over the 10 year implementation period for the commercial timber alone. Although there is a high proportion of lower income people living in Trinity County, as well as a number of tribal groups of Native Americans, all action alternatives considered here will have similar impacts on the entire population of Trinity County. The Forest contacted tribal groups about this project and the tribes did not express any interest or concern about this particular project. This project should have a positive effect on employment and a corresponding positive impact on low income populations and tribal groups. The project will provide opportunities for direct and indirect jobs throughout all of Trinity County with the opportunity to maintain
142 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
stable companies. Because the project is scattered throughout Trinity County, contractors hired to implement the project are likely to use nearby services and accommodations adjacent to individual project implementation areas. Additionally, each action alternative will provide seasonal employment opportunities for local residents. The contractors that are selected to implement projects in either action alternative will need services from fuel distributors, part suppliers, manufacturers plus legal and professional services from residents and businesses in and around Trinity County. No Action - Alternative 1 No economic benefits would be realized from the no action alternative, and it would create no receipts or cost. There would be no management activities in the assessment area that would generate cost. No direct or indirect employment would result from this alternative. Proposed Action - Alternative 2 Alternative 2 will result in approximately 5.3 mmbf of primarily small Douglas fir, and small amounts of white fir, incense cedar, and pine sawlogs being made available to local mills and 27,093 green tons to local wood fired power plants. Since the local markets for small diameter plantation pine are limited in and adjacent to the project area, most of the small diameter pine removed in this project will be converted into fuel chips. In addition to providing the above raw material to local sawmills and wood fired power plants, Alternative 2 will require a large workforce to implement the planned non-commercial thinning and associated fuels reduction activities of hand cutting with a chainsaw, and hand piling and burning where necessary. The amount of mastication that is planned for the non-commercial thinning activities will provide enough work for approximately one to two excavators with mastication heads for a 10 year period, depending on appropriated dollars. There are 3,294 acres of non-commercial units and 2,239 acres of commercial units. Out of the commercial units, 1,224 acres are marginally commercial and may likely require appropriated dollars to thin and managed the fuels in these units. Implementation of Alternative 2 would require an expenditure of approximately $4,518,000 for contracts to thin 3,294 acres of non-commercial and 1,224 acres marginally commercial plantations from 24 to 56 years in age on the west side of the Shasta-Trinity National Forest. Forty two percent of commercial units have sawlog potential totaling 5,303,522 board feet. At a 2013 stumpage value of $203.78/MBF, value of the sale would be $1,080,752. Another 27,093 green tons of biomass may be removed from the densest units in the project (44 percent of units with commercial potential). At $23.37/green ton, the biomass will generate $633,163.41. All or most of this value will be utilized to yard the material from the units and transportation of the material to the mill or biomass plant. The remaining fifty six percent are marginally commercial. Commercial value of these units and the opportunity to remove material will be revisited during implementation. With implementation of Alternative 2, an estimated from 58.3 to 84.8 person yearsof direct and indirect employment would be generated in and around the project area for the
143 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project commercial harvest portion of the project. For service work,59 an estimated 124 person years of direct employment would be generated in and around the project area. Reduced Short Term Watershed Impacts - Alternative 3 Alternative 3 will result in approximately half of the commercial timber sale material generated in Alternative 2. Alternative 3 will require a larger workforce to implement the relatively larger amount of non-commercial thinning and associated fuels reduction activities of hand piling and mulching material onsite. The amount of mastication that is planned for the non-commercial thinning activities will provide enough work for approximately one to three excavators with mastication heads for a 10 year period, depending on appropriated dollars. Implementation of Alternative 3 would require an expenditure of approximately $6,268,750 for contracts to thin 4,497 acres of non-commercial and 518 acres of marginally commercial plantations in the project. The average cost per acre of these treatments is higher due to treating larger material that would have been removed in Alternative 2. The commercial material (sawlogs and biomass) available for removal would be reduced by approximately half. With implementation of Alternative 3, an estimated from 29.15 to 42.4 person years of direct and indirect employment would be generated in and around the project area for the commercial harvest portion of the project. For service work, an estimated 171 person years of direct employment would be generated in and around the project area. Alternative Comparison
Table 33. Comparison of Project Costs, Output, and Employment for all Alternatives Comparison Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Criteria Cost of Service Work $0 $4,518,000 $6,268,750
Volume of Sawlogs 0 BF 5,303,522 BF Approximately in Board Feet 2,600,000 BF Value of Sawlogs $0 $1,080,752 Approximately $500,000 Volume of Biomass 0 tons 27,093 green tons 13,500 green tons
Commercial 0 person years 58.3 to 84.8 person 29.15 to 42.4 person Employment years of direct and years of direct and indirect indirect Service Contract 0 person years 124 person years of 171 person years of Employment direct direct
59 Service work refers to services paid for and contracted by the federal government without the exchange of a product (such as commercial timber); may include mastication, hand piling, pruning, etc.
144 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Climate Change and Air Quality Increasingly, the relationships between human-caused emissions, climate change, and the role of forests as carbon sinks are being documented (IPCC 2001). Although uncertainty exists in quantifying the impact of emissions on climate, a global warming of 1.4 to 5.8 degrees centigrade is projected by 2100 (IPCC 2001). Adapting to climate change and its potential impacts poses challenges and opportunities for managing resources, infrastructure and the economy. Forests and rangelands are seen as part of the solution to reducing atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases; however, the magnitude of the opportunity for carbon storage and carbon trading is not well quantified or thoroughly understood (USDA 2007). The use of future climate scenarios and ecological models suggests that the impact of climate change on ecosystems could include increases in ecosystem productivity in the short-term and shifts in the distribution of plants and animals in the long term (Joyce and Birdsey 2000). As climate changes advance, there are some indications that there will be increases in disturbances such as forest fires, drought and insects (USDA 2007). Based on the best available science, it is too speculative to factor any specific ecological trends or substantial changes in climate into the analysis of environmental impacts of individual projects. For example, changes in wildlife ranges and habitat in forested environments due to climate change are not well understood; therefore, such issues are outside the scope of the this Project analysis. Currently, the best available science concerning climate change is not adequate to support reliable predictions about ecological interactions and trends at the local (site-specific) scale. In general, based on predictions of a warming climate and increases in disturbances such as insects and wildfire, it is expected that treatments proposed in this Project would benefit forests though thinning and fuels treatments designed to reduce stress on trees, increase growth, promote species diversity, and reduce risk of loss due to wildfire. Managing forests for carbon sequestration is a poorly understood science but utilization of durable wood products and active forest management is believed to be an effective method of carbon sequestration (IPCC 2001). Vegetation management treatments will not eliminate fire from the project area but can help change fire behavior, thereby likely reducing carbon dioxide emissions resulting from wildfire. For more information on the status and trends of the nation's resources and climate change, go to the Research and Development Resources Planning Act Assessment website at http://www.fs.fed.us/research/rpa/. To date there have been no published climate change or vegetation change modeling carried out for the Forest. However, in January of 2011 the Forest completed an analysis of current trends and probable future trends in climate and climate driven processes for the Forest and surroundings lands (Butz and Safford 2011). This summary looked at local trends for precipitation and temperature and regional trends for hydrology, forest fires and forest structure. The future predictions based on their research was that temperatures were increasing and precipitation would remain similar or be slightly reduced compared to today. For hydrology their prediction was that there would be a trend towards lower snow water equivalent and earlier snowmelt will continue. Vegetative conditions suitable for hardwood forest are projected to expand while those suitable for conifer-dominated forests are projected
145 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
to contract. There will also likely be more frequent and more extensive fires throughout western North America. According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Green Book updated December 14, 2012 the closest Non-attainment Designated Area60 is the city of Sacramento, California which is 158 air miles from the project; the communities of Hayfork, Peanut, and Forest Glen are closer to the project area but are not as well populated. The Yolla Bolly-Middle Eel Wilderness south of the project area is located in a Class I Federal airshed subject to Section I 69A of the Clean Air Act. The Forest Service voluntarily follows the guidelines assigned by the California Air Resource Board to limit state-wide exposure on a cumulative basis, in compliance with the Clean Air Act. All pile burning under Alternatives 2 and 3 will be consistent with the provisions of the North Coast Unified Air Quality Management District rules and regulations through the permit process. This project would reduce fuel loading in project units, which would reduce wildfire impacts.
60 Non-attainment designated areas are areas that experience persistent air quality problems.
146 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
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 environmental assessment: Interdisciplinary Team Members Table 34. Interdisciplinary team members for the Westside Plantation project. Specialist Specialty Ken Boucher/ Jim Gonzalez Fuels Specialist Randi Paris Silviculturist Susan Erwin Botanist Mark Goldsmith Wildlife Biologist William Brock Fisheries Biologist Brad Rust Soil Scientist Anna Arnold Implementation Coordinator Mark Arnold Archeologist Zack Mondry Hydrologist Juan Delafuente Geology Jeff Bryant Economics and Logging Systems Talitha Derksen Environmental Coordinator, Writer/Editor Kathy Roche Ecosystem Staff Officer Chris Losi Forest Environmental Coordinator Tom Hall District Ranger Dave Myers Forest Supervisor
Federal, State, and Local Agencies U.S. Fish and Wildlife National Marine Fisheries Service North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board Tribes Under the Region 5 106 PA, section 7.5 Consultation with Indian Tribes and Native American Traditional Practitioners is an important component of identification and
147 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project evaluation activities conducted to meet the Forest’s Section 106 responsibilities. The Forest Supervisor shall ensure that consultation with Indian tribes and Native American Traditional Practitioners begins at the earliest stages of planning for an undertaking and continues throughout the process as appropriate. The Forest Supervisor shall ensure that consultation provides an Indian tribe a reasonable opportunity to identify its concerns about historic properties; advise on the identification and evaluation of historic properties, including those of traditional religious and cultural importance to them; identify Native American Traditional Practitioners who should be consulted; provide its views on the undertaking’s effects on such properties; and participate in the resolution of adverse effects. The Forest Supervisor shall be prepared to continue consultation throughout the planning and implementation stages of an undertaking. Policy and guidance for consultation is provided in FSM 2360. There are no federally recognized tribes in the South Fork Management area requiring direct consultation. However, in this area there are two non-recognized Native American groups, the Nor-Rel-Muk Wintu and the Tsnungwe. They were contacted as part of normal section 106 consultations for this project as an interested party. In addition, the Theodoratus’ Mapping Project (1985), and Bauman’s Harrington Collection of Indian Placenames in North Central California (1981) maps were checked. These sources show no traditional cultural properties within the APE for this project. No comment has been received from the interested parties concerning any potential adverse effects to recorded archaeological sites, and no response has been received expressing concern how this project may effect areas of spiritual or traditional use.
148 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
REFERENCES Ableson, P.H. 1990. The Asbestos Removal Fiasco. Science v. 247, pg 1017. Agee J.K., and C.N. Skinner. 2005. Basic principles of forest fuel reduction treatments. Forest Ecology and Management 211(1–2):83-96. Andrews, P. L. and R. C. Rothermel. 1982. Charts for interpreting wildland fire behavior characteristics. General Technical Report INT-131. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, UT. Anthony, R.G., R.L. Knight, G.T. Allen, B.R. McClelland and J.I. Hoges. 1992. Habitat use by nesting and roosting bald eagles in the Pacific Northwest. Trans. N. Am. Wildl. Nat. Res. Conf. 68pp. Arizona Game and Fish Department. 1993. Arizona Wildlife Views Special Heritage Edition, Bats of Arizona. Vol. 36, No. 8. 36 p. Phoenix, AZ. Arnold M. 2014. Westside Plantation Project: Heritage Report. USDA, Forest Service, Shasta-Trinity National Forest. Available online at the project website: http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/nepa_project_exp.php?project=25380. Aubry, K.B., C.M. Raley, T.J. Catton and G.W. Tomb. 2002. Ecological characteristics of fishers in the southern Oregon Cascade Range: final progress report: 1 June 2002. Olympia (WA): USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Bailey, J.D. 1996. Effects of stand density reduction on structural development in western Oregon Douglas-fir forests—A reconstruction study. PhD Dissertation, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR. Bailey, J.D. and J.C. Tappeiner. 1998. Effects of thinning on structural development in 40- to 100-year-old Douglas-fir stands in western Oregon. Forest Ecology and Management 108:99-113. Banci, V. 1994. Wolverine. In: Ruggiero, L.F., K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, L.J. Lyon and W.J. Zielinski, tech. eds. The scientific basis of conserving forest carnivores, American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine in the Western United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM- 254. Ft. Collins, CO: USDA, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experimental Station, pp. 99-123. Barbour, R.J., S. Johnson, J.P. Hayes and G.F. Tucker. 1997. Simulated stand characteristics and wood product yields from Douglas-fir plantations managed for ecosystem objectives. Forest Ecology and Management 91:205-19. Boucher K. and J. Gonzalez. 2014. Westside Plantation Project Fuels Report. USDA,Forest Service, Shasta-Trinity National Forest. Bookhout, T.A. 1995. Yellow Rail (Coturnicops noveboracensis). The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Available online at http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/139. Accessed 2013.
149 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Brock, W. 2014a. Westside Plantation Project Fish Biological Assessment / Biological Evaluation. USDA Forest Service, Shasta-Trinity National Forest. Available online at the project website: http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/nepa_project_exp.php?project=25380. Brock, W. 2014b. Westside Plantation Project Fish Report. USDA Forest Service, Shasta- Trinity National Forest. Available online at the project website: http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/nepa_project_exp.php?project=25380. Buskirk, S.W. and R.A. Powell. 1994. Habitat ecology of fishers and American martens. In: Buskirk S.W., A.S. Harestad, M.G. Raphael and R.A. Powell (eds). Martens, sables and fishers: biology and conservation. Ithaca (NY): Cornell University Press. Pp. 283- 296. Butz R., H.D. Safford. 2011. A summary of current trends and probable future trends in climate and climate-driven processes for the Shasta-Trinity National Forests and surrounding lands. USDA, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2010. California wolverine range map. California Wildlife Habitat Relationship system. Available online at: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cwhr/cawildlife.aspx. Accessed in 2013. California Department of Fish and Game. 2008. California Department of Fish and Game and California Interagency Wildlife Task Group. California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) version 8.2 personal computer program. Sacramento, California. California Department of Fish and Game. 1981. California Fish and Game Journal, July, 1981. Volume 67, Number 3. Cal-IPC. 2014. California Invasive Plant Inventory Database; http://www.cal-ipc.org/paf/ California Invasive Plant Council. Accessed 2014. Calkin, D.E. K.M. Gebert, G. Jones, and R.P. Neilson. 2005. Forest service large fire area burned and suppression expenditure trends, 1970-2002. Journal of Forestry Volume 103(4): 179-183. Carroll, C.R, W.J. Zielinski and R.F. Noss. 1999. Using presence/absence data to build and test spatial habitat models for the fisher in the Klamath region, USA. Conservation Biology 13(6):1344-59. Chatwin, S.C., D.E. Howes, J.W. Schwab, and D.N. Swanston. 1994. A Guide for Management of Landslide-Prone Terrain in the Pacific Northwest. British Columbia Ministry of Forests. Chojnacky, D.C., B.J. Bentz, and J.A. Logan. 2000. Mountain pine beetle attack in ponderosa pine: Comparing methods for rating susceptibility. Christy, R.E and S.D. West. 1993. Biology of bats in Douglas-fir forests. USDA Forest Service Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, Oregon. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-308. February 1993. Courtney, S.P., J.A. Blakesley, R.E. Bigley, M.L. Cody, J.P. Dumbacher, R.C. Fleischer, A.B Franklin, J.F., Franklin R.J. Gutierrez J.M. Marzluff and L. Sztukowski. 2004. Scientific evaluation of the status of the Northern spotted owl. Sustainable Ecosystems Institute. Portland, OR.
150 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Dark, S.J. 1997. A landscape-scale analysis of mammalian carnivore distribution and habitat use by fisher [MSc thesis]. Arcata (CA): Humboldt State University. delaFuente J. 2014. Westside Plantation Project Geology Report. USDA, Forest Serivce, Shasta-Trinity National Forest. Available online at the project website: http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/nepa_project_exp.php?project=25380. Dugger, K.M., F. Wagner, R.G. Anthony and G.S. Olson. 2005. The relationship between habitat characteristics and demographic performance of northern spotted owls in southern Oregon. The Condor 107:863-878. EPA. 1998. South Fork Trinity River and Hayfork Creek sediment total maximum daily loads. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9. Evans, E., R. Thorp, S. Jepsen and S.H. Black. 2008. Status review of three formerly common species of bumble bee in the subgenus Bombus. Report to Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation. Available online at: http://www.xerces.org/wpcontent/uploads/2009/03/xerces_2008_bombus_status_review. pdf. Accessed July 17, 2013. Farber, Stuart; Rankin, Darrel; and Viel, Tim. 1998. Water Temperatures in the South Fork Trinity River Watershed in Northern California. Timber Products Company, Shasta- Trinity National Forest, and Natural Resource Conservation Service. 38p. Fellers, G.M. and E.D. Pierson. 2002. Habitat use and foraging behavior of Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) in coastal California. Journal of Mammalogy: February 2002, Vol. 83, No. 1. Pp. 167-177. Fellers, G.M., K.L. Pope, J.E. Stead, M.S. Koo, and H.H. Welsh, Jr. 2007. Turning Population Trend Monitoring Into Active Conservation: Can We Save the Cascades Frog (Rana cascadae) in the Lassen Region of California? Herpetological Conservation and Biology 3(1):28-39. Fettig, C.J., K.D. Klepzig, R.F. Billings, A.S. Munson, T.E. Nebeker, J.F. Negrón and J.T. Nowak. 2007. The effectiveness of vegetation management practices for prevention and control of bark beetle outbreaks in coniferous forests of the western and southern United States. Forest Ecology Management. Fire Effects Information System. 2013. Available online at: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/. Accessed 2013. Finney, M.A., R.C. Seli, C.W. McHugh, A.A. Ager, B. Bahro and J.K. Agee. 2006. Simulation of long-term landscape-level fuel treatment effects on large wildfires. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station General Technical Report 41. Fitzgerald, J. 2005. Hidden Valley Watershed Restoration Project, Hydrologist Report, Cumulative Watershed Effects Analysis. Shasta-Trinity National Forest, South Fork Management Unit. On file at the Hayfork Ranger Station, Hayfork, CA. Forsman, E.D., E.C. Meslow and H.M. Wight. 1984. Distribution and biology of the spotted owl in Oregon. Wildlife Monographs 87:1-64.
151 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation. 2001. Hidden Valley, Plummer Creek, and Rattlesnake Creek Watershed Analysis. Shasta-Trinity National Forest, South Fork Management Unit. On file at Hayfork Ranger Office, Hayfork, CA. Furnish, J. 2007. Guide to sensitive aquatic molluscs of the U.S. Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region. Report PCA-L-568. Available online at: http://relicensing.pcwa.net/documents/Library/PCWA-L%20568.pdf. Goldsmith M. 2014a. Westside Plantation Project Wildlife Project-level Management Indicator Assemblage Report. USDA, Forest Service, Shasta-Trinity National Forest. Available online at the project website: http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/nepa_project_exp.php?project=25380. Goldsmith M. 2014b. Westside Plantation Project Wildlife PIF-Biological Assessment. USDA, Forest Service, Shasta-Trinity National Forest. Available online at the project website: http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/nepa_project_exp.php?project=25380. Goldsmith M. 2014c. Westside Plantation Project Migratory Bird Report. USDA, Forest Service, Shasta-Trinity National Forest. Available online at the project website: http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/nepa_project_exp.php?project=25380. Goldsmith M. 2014d. Westside Plantation Project Survey and Manage Report. USDA, Forest Service, Shasta-Trinity National Forest. Available online at the project website: http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/nepa_project_exp.php?project=25380. Goldsmith M. 2014e. Westside Plantation Project Wildife Biological Evaluation. USDA, Forest Service, Shasta-Trinity National Forest. Available online at the project website: http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/nepa_project_exp.php?project=25380. Goldsmith M. 2014f. Westside Plantation Project Wildife Report. USDA, Forest Service, Shasta-Trinity National Forest. Available online at the project website: http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/nepa_project_exp.php?project=25380. Graham, R.T., S. McCaffrey, and T.B. Jain. 2004. Science basis for changing forest structure to modify wildfire behavior and severity. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. General Technical Report 120. Gutiérrez, R. J., A. B. Franklin and W. S. Lahaye. 1995. Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis), The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Available online at: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/. Accessed 2013. Haskins D.M. 1986. A management model for evaluating cumulative watershed effects. California Watershed Management Conference. November 18-20. West Sacramento, CA. Hayes, J.P., S.S. Chan, W.H. Emmingham, J.C. Tappeiner, L.D. Kellogg, and J.D. Bailey. 1997. Wildlife response to thinning young forests in the Pacific Northwest. Journal of Forestry 95 (8): 28-33. Heil, J., A. Westling, R. Giller and S. Martarano. 2008. Additional evidence of wolverine found in the Tahoe National Forest. Tahoe National Forest news release, March 21, 2008. Helms, J.A. 1998. The dictionary of forestry. CAB International: The Society of American Foresters, Wallingford.
152 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Hicks, Hall, Bisson and Sedell 1991. Responses of Salmonids to Habitat Changes. In: American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19: 483-518. Hoyer G. E., N. A. Andersen, and D D Marshall 1996. Levels of-growing stock cooperative study in Douglas-fir: Report No 13-- The Francis Study: 1963-90. USDA Forest Service. Pacific Northwest Research Station Research Paper, PNW-RP-488. IPCC. 2001. Climate change 2001: Synthesis report. . In: Watson RT, Team CW, editors. Cambridge, United Kingdom; New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. p. 398. Jennings, M.R. and M.P. Hayes. 1994. Amphibian and reptile species of special concern in California. California Department of Fish and Game. 255 pp. Joyce L., and R.A. Birdsey. 2000. The impact of climate change on America's forests: a technical document supporting the 2000 USDA Forest Service RPA assessment. Fort Collins, CO: US Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. Kane J.M. 2007. Fuel loading and vegetation response to mechanical mastication fuels treatments. Master’s thesis, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA. Keinath, D.A. 2004. Fringed Myotis (Myotis thysanodes): a technical conservation assessment. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available online at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/ fringedmyotis.pdf. Accessed 2013. Keinath, D.A. 2003. Species assessment for fringed myotis (Myotis thysanodes) in Wyoming. USDI Bureau of Land Management, Wyoming State Office, Cheyenne, Wyoming. Koch, J., J. Strange and P. Williams. 2012. Bumble bees of the Western United States. USDA Forest Service, Agricultural Research Service. 144 pp. Available online at: http://www.fs.fed.us/wildflowers/pollinators/documents/BumbleBeeGuideWestern2012.p df. Accessed in 2013. Krohn, W.B., W.J. Zielinski and R.B. Boone. 1997. Relations among fishers, snow and martens in California: Results from small-scale spatial comparisons. Pp. 211-232 in: Proulx, G., H.N. Bryant and P.M. Woodard. Martes: taxonomy, ecology, techniques, and management. Provincial Museum of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada. Lacki, M.J. and M.D. Baker. 2007. Day roosts of female fringed myotis (Myotis thysanodes) in xeric forests of the Pacific Northwest. Journal of Mammalogy, Vol. 88, No. 4 (Aug., 2007), pp. 967-973. Large, L. 2014. Personal Communication. Shasta-Trinity National Forest, Weaverville Ranger District Office, Weaverville, CA. Lewis, S.E. 1995. Roost fidelity of bats: a review. Journal of Mammalogy, Vol. 76, No. 2 (May, 1995), pp. 481-496. Long, J.N., and T.W. Daniel. 1990. Assessment of growing stock in uneven-aged stands. Western Journal of Applied Forestry 5(3): 93-96. Mazzoni, A.K. 2002. Habitat use by fishers (Martes pennanti) in the southern Sierra Nevada [MSc thesis]. Fresno (CA): California State University.
153 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Mai, C. 2013. Personal Communication. Shasta-Trinity National Forest, Supervisor’s Office. Redding, CA. McElroy, K. 2009. E-mail regarding results of snag inventory within the Trough Salvage Sale project area. On file at Weaverville Ranger Station office, Weaverville, CA. Marshall, D.D., J.F. Bell, and J.C. Tappeiner. 1992. Levels-of-growing stock cooperative study in Douglas-fir. Report 10—The Hoskins study, 1963–83. USDA Forest Service Resource Paper 448. Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. Metlen K.L., and C.E. Fiedler. 2006. Restoration treatment effects on the understory of ponderosa pine/Douglas-fir forests in western Montana, USA. Forest Ecology and Management 222: 355-369. Miller, J.D, H.D. Safford, M. Crimmins, and A.E. Thode. 2008. Quantitative Evidence for Increasing Forest Fire Severity in the Sierra Nevada and Southern Cascade Mountains, California and Nevada, USA. Ecosystems 12(1):16-32. Mondry, Z. 2014. Westside Plantation Project Water Resources Report. USDA, Forest Service, Shasta-Trinity National Forest. Available online at the project website: http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/nepa_project_exp.php?project=25380. Negron J.F., 1998. Probability of infestation and extent of mortality associated with the Douglas-fir beetle in the Colorado Front Range. Forest Ecology and Management 107: 71–85. Negrón and J.B. Popp 2004. Probability of ponderosa pine infestation by mountain pine beetle in the Colorado Front Range, Forest Ecology and Management 19: 17–27. Nelson, J. K. 2014. Westside Plantation Project Botany Biological Evaluation and Specialist Report. USDA, Forest Service, Shasta-Trinity National Forest. NSR. 2011. South Fork Trinity River, Sacramento River Headwaters, Sediment Source Inventory. North State Resources, Redding, California. On file at Shasta-Trinity National Forest headquarters office, Redding, CA. Paris, R. 2014a. Westside Plantation Project Silviculture Report and Prescription. USDA, Forest Service, Shasta-Trinity National Forest. Available online at the project website: http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/nepa_project_exp.php?project=25380. Paris, R. 2014b. Westside Plantation Project Economic Report.USDA, Forest Service, Shasta-Trinity National Forest. Available online at the project website: http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/nepa_project_exp.php?project=25380. Paris, R. 2014c. Personal Communication. Shasta-Trinity National Forest, Weaverville Ranger District Office, Weaverville, CA. Pierson, E.D., W.E. Rainey and C.J. Corben. 2001. Seasonal patterns of bat distribution along an altitudinal gradient in the Sierra Nevada. Report to California State University at Sacramento Foundation, Yosemite Association, and Yosemite Fund, 70 pp. Poage, N.J., and J.C. Tappeiner. 2002. Long-term patterns of diameter and basal area growth of old-growth Douglas-fir trees in western Oregon. Canadian Journal of Forest Resources 32: 1232–1243.
154 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Powell, R.A. 1993. The fisher: life history, ecology and behavior. 2nd ed. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Powell, R.A. and W.J. Zielinski. 1994. Fisher. In: Ruggiero, L.F.; K.B Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, L.J. Lyon and W.J. Zielinski, tech. eds. The scientific basis of conserving forest carnivores, American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine in the Western United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-254. Ft. Collins, CO: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experimental Station, pp. 38-73. Quick, C.R. 1956. Viable seeds from the duff and soil in sugar pine forests. Forest Science 2: 36-42. Reese, D.A. and H.H. Welsh. 1998. Habitat use by western pond turtles in the Trinity River, California. Journal of Wildlife Management; (62)3:842-53. Robichaud, P.R. 2000. Forest Fire Effects on Hillslope Erosion: What we know. USDA – Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Moscow, Idaho. Roth, B. 1985. A new species of Vespericola (Gastropoda: Pulmonata: Polygyridae) from the Klamath Mountains, California. Wasmann Journal of Biology, Volume 42 (for 1984), number 1-2, pages 84-91, April 8. Ruggierro, L.F., K.B. Aubry, S.W. Buskirk, L.J. Lyon and W.J. Zielinski. 2007. American Fisher, Marten, Lynx and wolverine: The Scientific Basis for Conserving Forest Carnivores in the Western United States. PSW-GTR-RM-254. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. Rust B. 2014. Westside Plantation Project Soils Report. USDA,Forest Service, Shasta-Trinity National Forest. Available online at the project website: http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/nepa_project_exp.php?project=25380. Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2008. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966 - 2007. Version 5.15.2008. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD. Schempf, P.F. and M. White. 1977. Status of six furbearer populations in the mountains of northern California. USDA Forest Service, Region 5, CA. 51pp. Schmid J.M., and S.A. Mata. 1992. Stand density and mountain pine beetle-caused tree mortality in ponderosa pine stands. Research Note RM-515. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO. Seglund, A.E. 1995. The use of rest sites by the Pacific fisher. Masters of Science Thesis. Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA. Self, S.E. and S.J. Kerns. 2001. Pacific fisher use of a managed forest landscape in Northern California. Sierra Pacific Research and Monitoring. Wildlife Research Paper No 6. Sherwin, R. and D. A. Rambaldini. Antrozous pallidus. Pallid Bat Working Group 2005. Accessed at http://wbwg.org/species_accounts/vespertilonidae/anpa.pdf. Shuford, W. D., and T. Gardali, editors. 2008. California Bird Species of Special Concern: A ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western
155 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California, and California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento. Sidle, R.C., and H. Ochiai. 2006. Landslides: Processes, Prediction, and Land Use. Washington, DC: American Geophysical Union. Available online st: http://www.agu.org/books/wm/v018/index.shtml Skinner, C.N., and C.P. Weatherspoon.1996. Plantation characteristics affecting damage from wildfire. Proceedings: Seventh Annual Forest Vegetation Management Conference. January 1996. Skinner, C.N., A.H. Taylor, and J.K. Agee. 2006. Klamath Mountains Bioregion. In: Sugihara N.G., J.W. Van Wagtendonk, K.E. Shaffer, J. Fites-Kaufman, and A.E. Thode, editors. Fire in California's Ecosystems. Los Angeles: University of California Press. p. 170-194. Small, M.P., K.D. Stone and J.A. Cook. 2003. American marten (Martes americana) in the Pacific Northwest: population differentiation across a landscape fragmented in time and space. Molecular Ecology (12)89-103. Southwell, D.K. 2002. Conservation assessment for yellow rail (Coturnicops noveboracensis). USDA Forest Service, Eastern Region Conservation Assessment. December 18, 2002. On file at Shasta-Trinity National Forest headquarters office, Redding, CA. Stephens, S.L., J.J. Moghaddas, C. Edminster, C.E. Fiedler, S. Hasse, M. Harrington, J.E. Keeley, E.E. Knapp, J.D. McIver, K. Metlen, C.N. Skinner, and A. Youngblood. 2009. Fire treatment effects on vegetation structure, fuels and potential fire severity in western U.S. forests. Ecological Applications, 19(2):305-320. Tappeiner, J.C., D. Huffmand, D. Marshall, T.A. Spies and J.D. Bailey. 1997. Density, ages and growth rates in old-growth and young-growth forests in coastal Oregon. Canadian Journal of Forest Research. Taylor, A.H., and C.N. Skinner. 1998. Fire history and landscape dynamics in a late- successional reserve, Klamath Mountains, California, USA. Forest Ecology and Management 111: 285-301. Taylor A.H., and C.N. Skinner. 2003. Spatial patterns and controls on historical fire regimes and forest structure in the Klamath Mountains. Ecological Applications 13(3):704-719. Thomas, J.W., E.D. Forsman, J.B. Lint, E.C. Meslow, B.R. Noon and J. Verner. 1990. A Conservation Strategy for the Northern Spotted Owl. Report to the Interagency scientific committee to address the conservation of the Northern spotted owl. Portland, OR. May 1990. 427 pp. TCRCD. 2003. South Fork Trinity River Water Quality Monitoring Project, Agreement No. 01-412-250-0 Draft Final Report. Trinity County Resource Conservation District. Weaverville, California. Trombulak, S.C. and Frissell, C.A. 2000. Review of Ecological Effects of Roads on Terrestrial and Aquatic Communities. Conservation Biology, pages 18-30, Volume 14, No. 1, February 2000.
156 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Truex R.L., W.J. Zielinski, R.T. Golightly, R.L.Barrett and S.M.Wisely. 1998. A meta- analysis of regional variation in fisher morphology, demography, and habitat ecology in California [draft report submitted to California Department of Fish and Game]. Arcata, California: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Redwood Sciences Lab. Tuttle, M.D. 1997. America’s neighborhood bats. University of Texas Press, Austin, Texas. Revised 1997. U.S. Census Bureau. 2011. 2005-2009 American Community Survey. www.factfinder.census.gov. Accessed 2011. U.S. Census Bureau. 2014. State and County Quickfacts. http://quickfacts.census.gov. Accessed 2014. U.S. Census Bureau. 2014. Annual estimates of the resident population for Counties of California. www.census.gov/prod/www/abs/decennial/index.htm. Accessed 2014. USDA. 2010. National Soil Management Handbook. USDA Forest Service. USDA. 1994. Butter Creek Watershed Analysis. Shasta Trinity National Forest, South Fork Management Unit. Available online at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/stnf/landmanagement/planning. USDA. 1995. Shasta-Trinity National Forests Land and Resource Managment Plan. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Shasta-Trinity National Forest. Available online at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/detailfull/stnf/landmanagement/planning/?cid=stelprdb5108815& width=full. USDA. 2013. Forest Service Regional Forester's Sensitive Species List. U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. USDA. 1999a. Forest-wide Late-Successional Reserve Assessment. Forest Service, Shasta- Trinity National Forest. Redding, CA. Available online at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/stnf/landmanagement/planning. USDA. 1999b. Upper South Fork Trinity River, Happy Camp Creek Watershed Analysis. Shasta-Trinity National Forest, South Fork Management Unit. Available online at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/stnf/landmanagement/planning. USDA. 1999c. Pacific Southwest Soil Management Interpretations. USDA Forest Service, Region 5, Vallejo, CA. USDA. 2000 (Draft). Properly functioning condition – rapid assessment process. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Ogden, UT. USDA. 2001. Fuel Reduction Alternatives at the Wildland-Urban Interface. Pacific Southwest Experimental Station, Redding, CA. USDA. 2004. Letter from Regional Forester Jack A. Blackwell. Conifer forest density management for multiple objectives. USDA Forest Service, Region 5. USDA. 2007. Interim update of the 2000 Renewable Resources Planning Act assessment. Forest Service. p. 123.
157 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
USDA. 2008. Cumulative Watershed Effects Analysis. Shasta-Trinity National Forest November 2008. Unpublished document. ACT2 Enterprise Team. On file at the Shasta- Trinity National Forest headquarters office in Redding, CA. USDA. 2009a. Guidance for implementation of federal wildland fire management policy. USDA Forest Service. USDA. 2009b. Gemmill Thin Project: Draft supplemental environmental impact statement. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Shasta-Trinity National Forest, South Fork Management Unit. USDA. 2011a. The Threat of Deforested Conditions in California’s National Forests. USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region. Available online at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/rsl/projects/postfirecondition/. USDA. 2011b. R5 FSH 2509.22 - Soil And Water Conservation Handbook, Chapter 10 - Water Quality Management Handbook. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. Vallejo, California. USDA. 2013. Forest Service Regional Forester's Sensitive Species List. U.S. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. Available online at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5435266.xlsx USDA. 2013. Digital Photoseries. Pacific Northwest Research Station. Seattle, WA. http://depts.washington.edu/nwfire/dps/. Accessed 2013. USDA and USDI. 1994. Record of Decision for amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management planning documents within the range of the northern spotted owl; standards and guidelines for management of habitat for late-successional and old-growth forest related species within the range of the northern spotted owl. Portland, OR. USDA and USDI. 1994. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact statement on management of habitat for late-successional and old-growth forest related species within the range of the northern spotted owl. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management. Portland, OR. USDA and USDI. 1999. Survey and Management Recommendations – Aquatic Mollusks. March 3, 1999. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management. Available online at: http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/surveyandmanage/MR/AQMollusks/im99-038.htm. USDA and USDI. 2001. Record of Decision and Standards and Guidelines for Amendments to the Survey and Manage, Protection Buffer and other Mitigation Measures Standards and Guidelines. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management, Portland, OR. USDA, USDC and USDI. 2004. Analytical Process for Developing Biological Assessments for Federal Actions Affecting Fish Within the Northwest Forest Plan Area. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, U.S. Department of Commerce National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service and U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Land Management, Portland, OR.
158 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
USDC and NMFS. 2001. Water-Drafting Specifications. U.S. Department of Commerce National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest Region. Available online at: http://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/publications/hydropower/water_drafting_specifi cation_guidelines.pdf. USDI. 1986. Pacific Bald Eagle Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Portland, Oregon. 163pp. USDI. 1997. Survey Protocol for Aquatic Mollusk Species from the Northwest Forest Plan, Version 2.0. October 29, 1997. Bureau of Land Management. Available online at: http://www.blm.gov/or/plans/surveyandmanage/SP/Mollusks/acover.htm. USDI. 1999. Field Guide to Survey and Manage Terrestrial Mollusk Species from the Northwest Forest Plan. Bureau of Land Management, Oregon State Office, Portland, OR. USDI. 2002. Recovery Plan for the California Red-Legged Frog (Rana aurora draytonii). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Portland, Oregon: 180 p. USDI. 2003. Finding for a Petition to List as Endangered or Threatened Wolverine in the contiguous United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Federal Register Vol. 68, No. 203. October 21, 2003. USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Final Recovery Plan for the Northern Spotted Owl, Strix occidentalis caurina. US Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. 142pp. USDI. 2013. Bald eagle natural history and sensitivity to human activity. US Fish and Wildlife Service. Available online at: http://www.fws.gov/midwest/eagle/conservation/baea_nhstry_snstvty.html. Accessed 2013. USDA Forest Service 1999. Upper South Fork Trinity River, Happy Camp Creek Watershed Analysis. Shasta-Trinity National Forest, Redding, CA. Available online at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/main/stnf/landmanagement/planning. Weller. T.J. and C.J. Zabel. 2001. Characteristics of fringed myotis day roosts in northern California. Journal of Wildlife Management 66(3):489–497. Welsh, H.H., and A.J. Lind. 1996. Habitat correlates of the Southern torrent salamander in Northwestern California. Journal of Herpetology, Vol. 30, No 3, pp. 385-398. Westerling, A.L., H.G. Hildalgo, D.R. Cayan, and T.W. Swetnam. 2006. Warming and earlier spring increase Western U.S. forest wildfire activity. Science 313: 940-943. Western Regional Climate Center 2009. http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/Climsum.html Accessed 2009. Wills, R.D. and J.D. Stuart. 1994. Fire history and stand development of a Douglas fire/Hardwood forest in Northern California. Northwest Science 68(3): 205-212. Wolcott, K. 2009. Personal Communication. Shasta-Trinity National Forest, Headquarters Office, Redding, CA. Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation. 2013. Bumble bees: western bumble bee (Bombus occidentalis). Available online at: http://www.xerces.org/western-bumble-bee/.
159 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Yaeger, S. 2005. Habitat at fisher resting sites in the Klamath Province of northern California. [MSc Thesis]. Humboldt State University, Arcata, California. 75p. Zielinski, W.J., R.L. Truex, G. Schmidt, R. Schlexer, K.N. Schmidt, and R.H. Barrett. 2004. Resting habitat selection by fishers in California. Journal of Wildlife Management (68)475-492. Zeiner, D.C., W.F. Laudenslayer Jr., K.E. Mayer and M. White. 1990. California's Wildlife. Volume III: Mammals. Sacramento, California: California Statewide Wildlife Habitat Relationships System, Department of Fish and Game. Zeiner, D.C., W.F. Laudenslayer Jr., and K.E. Mayer. 1988. California's Wildlife, Vol. I. Amphibians and Reptiles. California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA. Zhang, W., O. Oliver, and M.D. Busse. 2006. Growth and development of ponderosa pine on sites of contrasting productivities: relative importance of stand density and shrub competition effects. Canadian Journal of Forestry Research 36: 2426-2438.
160 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
APPENDIX A: RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS Summary The Shasta-Trinity National Forest first listed the Westside Plantation Project in the Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) July 2008. Starting on September 23, 2008 the project preliminary purpose and need, original proposed action, and maps of the original proposed action were posted to the Shasta-Trinity web page at http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/project_content.php?project=25380. On September 23, 2008, 248 postcards were mailed to potentially interested participants. The postcards requested public comment on the project and described how to receive additional information on the project, and listed the web address where the original proposed action and maps could be found. Thirty-five scoping letters and maps describing the proposed action were sent to interested and affected citizens, agencies and tribes on September 24, 2008, or within the scoping period. A legal notice describing the public scoping comment process for this project was published in the Record Searchlight on September 24, 2008. The notice requested public comments from September 24 to October 24, 2008. Public comments received were reviewed by the project interdisciplinary team and evaluated for issues that would create a need for changes to the proposed action and/or development of additional alternatives. Response to Comments The Forest received comment letters from the following individuals and groups: Joseph Bower for Citizens for Better Forestry, Ryan W. Hadley of Sierra Pacific Industries, Clarence Rose, Richard J. Svilich of American Forest Resource Council, Denise Boggs of Conservation Congress, David L. Loeffler of the Hayfork Fire Protection District, Nick Goulette of the Watershed Research and Training Center and Kimberly Baker, Public Land Advocate from EPIC- Environmental Protection Information Center. In addition, the Forest received comments from Maggie E. Robinson of California Regional Quality Control Board, dated December 15, 2008. Public comments are summarized below and exact quotes from public comment letters are used wherever possible to most accurately capture public concerns. The Forest reviewed all public comments received, extracted comments relating to potential issues about the project and developed a response. Issues are points of concern or debate over the environmental effects of a project. In most cases, general statements of support or disapproval that do not provide sufficient project-specific information from which to respond are not included here. All information presented in public letters was considered during Environmental Assessment development, although every item does not appear in this summary. Comments captured were categorized. Non key issues are identified as: (1) does not meet the purpose of and need for action and/or is outside the scope of the analysis; (2) already decided by law, regulations, Forest Plan or other higher level decision; (3) irrelevant to the decision to be made; (4) conjecture and not supported by scientific or factual evidence; (5) already addressed in the proposed action description or is a result from implementing the project; or (6) effects are displayed in the analysis. Original full- text comment letters are available in the project record.
A-1 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Comment Author and Date of Comment Response # Correspondence 1 Joseph Bower, Regarding your NEPA document on the above project, The scale of the project was reduced to 5,533 acres. The amount of Citizens for Better please analyze the impacts of doing an unknown temporary road construction that would be used under Alternative 2 Forestry amount of road construction and reconstruction and is known (15.4 miles), and can be analyzed. No temporary roads 10/01/2008 how it can be mitigated. would be built under Alternative 3. No new system roads would be constructed under either action alternative. 2 Joseph Bower, The proposed prescription by Jeff Paulo is insufficient Up to 85% of brush will be treated within each unit, in a mosaic Citizens for Better to deal with existing problems. Many plantations have pattern, leaving approximately 15-30% of the brush for habitat Forestry brush that is 6 to 8 feet in height and diameter. How purposes. The brush that is treated may be masticated, jackpot 10/01/2008 will the brush be removed and disposed of? It cannot burned or hand piled and burned. Resource protection measures be burned on site amongst the crop trees. are in place to prevent damage to remaining trees during any jackpot or pile burning. Machine piles and hand piles are constructed so as to protect residual trees as much as possible. Sometimes when landings are kept small for resource protection, it can be difficult to build piles at a sufficient distance. Damage to residual trees will be reduced to the extent possible and there are timber contract provisions that require this. 3 Joseph Bower, Each plantation should be treated and prepared for fire The following treatments are included in the proposed action and Citizens for Better by limbing the crop trees and removing any fuel Alternative 3: Pruning (limbing of crop trees) may occur in Forestry accumulations around the base. Whole tree yarding plantations after initial treatments if deemed necessary by the fuels 10/01/2008 should be used and the tops and limbs are chipped at specialists; additional fuels treatments such as removal of fuel the landing for sale or used for erosion control. accumulations around the base of trees, if deemed necessary by the fuels specialist; and whole tree yarding would be used in all commercially treated stands. 4 Joseph Bower, The proposed 40 percent canopy cover is too sparse Chapter 3 of the EA summarizes the fire/fuels analysis results with Citizens for Better and will result in rapid re-growth of brush. Research respect to thinning effects on fire behavior. Additional information Forestry shows 40 percent results in hotter, dryer and more can be found in the Fuels Report in the project planning record. A 10/01/2008 wind conditions. A minimum of 60 percent or more will 60% canopy cover alternative was considered but eliminated from result in cooler, damper, stiller conditions so fire can detailed study for reasons discussed in chapter 2 of the EA. move through the plantation doing minimal damage. 5 Joseph Bower, Each plantation should be funded to assure cleanup Fuels reduction treatments are incorporated into the project design, Citizens for Better and reintroduction of fire to the site. Upon completion including using whole tree yarding in commercially thinned units. Forestry fuel loads should be low. Secondary fuels treatments may occur after primary treatments if 10/01/2008 deemed necessary by the fuels specialist, and will be completed as funding and personnel are available. Potential reintroduction of fire to the site is outside of the scope of this NEPA analysis. Sites may be reviewed in the future for potential reintroduction of fire, but this would require separate NEPA analysis
A-2 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Comment Author and Date of Comment Response # Correspondence 6 Joseph Bower, I suggest the project proceed on Matrix/AMA first to In the last 5 years over 5,000 acres of plantations have been Citizens for Better establish a record of successfully completing projects thinned in the western portion of the Forest. These areas can be Forestry before attempting projects in Late-Successional reviewed to measure success, and are reported in monitoring 10/01/2008 Reserve. reports. Treatment priority is determined by proximity to communities-at-risk, high fuel hazards, commercial removal opportunities and resource effects. If you would like to visit treated stands, please contact the District Ranger and he can arrange a field trip. 7 Joseph Bower, Riparian Reserves should be treated only by hand, The proposed action includes restricted mechanical treatment within Citizens for Better keeping machines out, and leaving a minimum 80 the Riparian Reserve land allocation, but no ground-based Forestry percent canopy cover. Only ground and ladder fuels machinery operation within equipment exclusion zones. Equipment 10/01/2008 should be removed. exclusion zones are defined as 50 feet from both sides of intermittent/ephemeral channels; 100 feet from both sides of perennials; and inner gorges with a 50 foot buffer. The amount of canopy cover within the Riparian Reserves would approximate 60% with the proposed action (alternative 2) and alternative 3; effective shade over water would not be reduced from 80% where it currently exists. Although limbing and pruning would be included in the site specific stand prescription, treatment would mostly be thinning from below. 8 Joseph Bower, How will crop trees be protected from damage during Damage to residual trees is minimized as much as possible during Citizens for Better logging? logging operations. Some damage is unpreventable due to the Forestry nature of logging, but damage is reduced to the extent practicable. 10/01/2008 The contract administrator will ensure that damage is limited.
A-3 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Comment Author and Date of Comment Response # Correspondence 9 Joseph Bower, A diameter limit needs to be established to ensure the An alternative including a 21inches dbh limit on the size of trees cut Citizens for Better largest trees remain along with any legacy trees. was considered but eliminated from detailed study for reasons Forestry Hardwoods should not be cut to avoid re-sprout discussed in Chapter 2 of the EA. Within matrix land allocations, 10/01/2008 bushes. Variable density thinning may be beneficial for mature legacy trees would not be removed unless they pose a wildlife. safety threat or are diseased or dying; and within Riparian Reserve and Late-Successional Reserves, diseased or dying trees would take precedence for removal, unless the diseased/dying tree is comparatively larger than average tree size in the surrounding stand and/or provides high quality wildlife habitat now or in the future. As noted in Chapter 2 under silviculture prescription, large hardwoods would be retained and may be pruned or trimmed; multi- stemmed hardwoods may be reduced to the dominant 2-3 stems. Healthy intermediate hardwoods would be retained in Riparian Reserves. A variable spacing prescription would be implemented, which specifies that there is no minimum distance between leave trees, for the development stand diversity. The treatment prescriptions are described in detail in Chapter 2. 10 Ryan W. Hadley, I hope that much consideration is given to the The project would be implemented with a mix of both commercial Anderson Division economic feasibility when projects are proposed. Due and non-commercial contracts. Project economics was reviewed Forester to a steadily declining timber supply largely due to the and is documented in Chapter 3. Sierra Pacific USFS, manufacturing facilities are few and far Industries between. Fuel costs are the primary reason projects 10/03/2008 become unfeasible when they are far from a processing or manufacturing facility and the product value being offered is too low. Rather than spend time putting plans together think about whether or not the project is one that can reasonably be accomplished. Hand thinning is very expensive and yields no commercial products and leaves fuel on the ground, which typically has to be burned, increasing fire danger. Mechanical thinning on older plantations can be economical when volume / acre is maximized and facilities are close by.
A-4 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Comment Author and Date of Comment Response # Correspondence 11 Clarence Rose It would have been more accurate to replace the word The Shasta-Trinity National Forest strives to prioritize the need for Weaverville, CA “manages” with “is responsible for managing”. The thinning of plantations, but funding and personnel are limited. There 10/16/2008 fact is, many of these plantations have not and are not is generally a greater need than there are funds allocated to being managed, to the detriment of the Forest and the planning and implementation. The proposed action strives to rural communities in and around the Forest. Thinning remedy this within the project area. The intent is to plan additional of plantations (especially in the precommercial phase), plantation thin projects after the planning for this project is properly applied, should not be deferred until growth complete. has slowed, rather it should take place while the stands are still vigorous. 12 Clarence Rose Plantation thinning can and should be used to aid The treatments will improve forest health, reduce stand replacing 10/16/2008 forest health, reduce fire risk, provide jobs, hasten the fire risk, provide jobs and hasten the development of mature forest development of mature forests, and enhance future structure. Economical wood products resulting from implementation timber and fiber production. In some cases, small saw of this project would be provided under contract to local wood logs, pulp chips, and biomass feedstock can carry all product infrastructure. Chapter 3 has a summary of economic or a portion of the cost. effects from this project with a more detailed report in the project file. 13 Clarence Rose All acres on which plantations where established Treatment priority is determined by proximity to communities-at-risk, 10/16/2008 should be thinned. This work is way overdue on high fuel hazards, and commercial removal opportunities. thousands of acres. The work should be done first on plantations that are near rural communities that are at risk from wildfire. 14 Richard J. Svilich, During your analysis seriously consider project Plantations older than 30 years old would be considered for Northern implementation economics. Some of the proposed commercial small diameter sawtimber removal. Commercial value California plantations (generally >40 years of age) have the would be based on the size of material available, the location of the Representative opportunity to remove commercial size material. Most treatment stand, access to the unit and proximity to processing AFRC, of this material currently has very little market value. In facilities. Economics is summarized in Chapter 3 of the document most cases an economical sale offering may not be with a more detailed report in the project record. 10/21/2008 generated from the proposed action. Our advice is to complete a quick economic analysis in order to evaluate project value. In most cases we recommend the Forest either look at Integrated Resource Service Stewardship Contracting or Service Contracting as the options for implementation.
A-5 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Comment Author and Date of Comment Response # Correspondence 15 Richard J. Svilich, Since variable spacing is desired and many trees need Currently, a designation by prescription is planned for use which Northern to be removed we recommend the Forest explore includes leave tree marking example units. Other tools may be California designation by description or designation by implemented at a later time. Representative prescription options in order to save on contract AFRC, preparation costs as well as achieving the desired results. 10/21/2008 16 Richard J. Svilich, The proposed action (project design features) states The proposed action has been modified to state that within matrix Northern “no old or large legacy trees within managed stands land allocations, mature legacy trees would not be removed unless California would be removed.” In order to meet purpose and they pose a safety threat or are diseased or dying; and within Representative need statement 2 we believe the statement should Riparian Reserve and Late-Successional Reserves, diseased or AFRC, state “no old or large legacy trees within managed dying trees would take precedence for removal, unless the stands would be removed as long as they don’t pose a diseased/dying tree is comparatively larger than average tree size 10/21/2008 threat to increase or spread disease to the remaining in the surrounding stand and/or provides high quality wildlife habitat plantation trees.” There may very well be instances now or in the future. where overstory trees will contain disease (mistletoe or root rot) and leaving them on site would pose a hazard of spread to the understory plantation trees, which would not meet the designed purpose and need. 17 Richard J. Svilich, The project design features also state “Tree species The prescriptions are primarily to thin from below with a leave tree Northern diversity would be maintained or increased by species preference to retain vigorous non-blister rust infected sugar California managing for mixed conifer and hardwoods. The pine, Douglas-fir, ponderosa/Jeffrey pine, incense cedar and white Representative largest trees in each stand would be retained.” These fir while encouraging species diversity. All dominant and co- AFRC, two statements contradict one another. Many of the dominant hardwood species would be retained and would count in plantations were originally planted with one or two spacing criteria. Intermediate hardwoods would also be retained in 10/21/2008 species. These one or two species would generally be Riparian Reserves. The Late-Successional Reserve prescription the larger trees within the stands. Other species clearly shows priority trees to be retained are more shade tolerant present would have regenerated naturally and are species, encouraging tree species diversity. usually a smaller diameter class. In order to promote species diversity some of these smaller size trees would have to be retained meaning some of the larger trees would have to be removed. We believe these statements should reflect these common situations in order to promote species diversity.
A-6 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Comment Author and Date of Comment Response # Correspondence 18 Richard J. Svilich, Retaining existing hardwoods will require larger The desired condition to maintain hardwoods and diversify stand Northern openings and wider spacing. Hardwoods are early structure were primary in developing the prescription in the Late- California seral species and in order to maintain them in the Successional Reserve. In general, the use of variable density Representative stands for an extended time period they will need thinning helps to accomplish these desired conditions by removing AFRC, adequate light and no overtopping from conifers. competition around some intermediate, codominant, and dominant hardwoods. 10/21/2008 19 Richard J. Svilich, During your analysis display how long the thinning Chapter 2 states that silvicultural prescriptions will be effective for Northern treatments will be effective and when additional 20 years. Broadcast prescribed burning is not part of the proposed California treatments will be necessary to meet your project action or any of the alternatives, but the Forest Service agrees that Representative objectives. The Forest Service track record for reentry future underburning may be a logical tool to maintain lower fuel AFRC, into stands is generally on a long time frame. Most of loads and/or reduce brush. these stands will not be realistically entered again for 10/21/2008 another 30-40 years. The treatments planned for this initial entry should take that into account. Prescriptions developed should allow these stands to continue to freely grow for at least a 30-40 year time frame in order to meet long term objectives for all associated land allocations. This may mean opening the stands up considerably. An argument is sometimes made this allows for brush invasion. One of the key objectives of these treatments is provide stand conditions for prescribed burning. This burning will mitigate any brush concerns that may arise and within an adequate timeframe crowns will be dense enough to discourage large amounts of brush re-growth. 20 Denise Boggs, We should have received the documents automatically The commenter was notified of the project during scoping and the Executive when they were sent to everyone else. We also Forest Service provided all available project information requested. Director, question the advisability and legality of cherry-picking, The scoping mailing list for this project was very large due to the Conservation which members of the public receive a postcard and large area of the original proposed action, thus postcards were the Congress which receive more substantive information. most expedient and efficient way to get the word out to the most people that might be interested in the project. It avoided more 10/21/2008 extensive amounts of paperwork being sent to many people that were not interested in the project.
A-7 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Comment Author and Date of Comment Response # Correspondence 21 Denise Boggs, The scoping notice states an EA will be prepared for Due to information gained during internal scoping and public Executive this project that intends to thin 33,000 acres. This scoping comments such as this, the project reduced the amount of Director, document is not adequate to assess the environmental acres to be thinned to 5,533, and limited the area to a single fifth Conservation impacts that will be associated with such a massive field watershed. An EA will be prepared based on the new proposed Congress project. The Forest has the opportunity to address the action and alternatives that were developed during this scoping plantation ‘problem’ appropriately by initially conducting process. Impacts to Late-Successional Reserve and late- 10/21/2008 an EIS. According to the maps, the majority of the successional habitat related species are analyzed in the EA. If the plantations are in Late-Successional Reserve habitat EA analysis results in a finding of significant impact, then an EIS will that is essential for the continued viability of the be prepared. Northern spotted owl and other threatened, endangered and sensitive species. A 33,000 acre project will impact said species as well as water quality and soils. The FS needs to take the requisite ‘hard look’ at potential impacts and that requires an EIS analysis. 22 Denise Boggs, We recommend the FS make its first attempt at In the last 5 years over 5,000 acres of plantations have been Executive thinning plantations in Matrix areas. The Forest has not thinned in the western portion of the Forest. These areas can be Director, demonstrated its ability to thin with a ‘light touch’ reviewed to measure success, and are reported in monitoring Conservation anywhere on the Forest, much less in Late reports. Congress Successional Reserve habitat. The FS could do several demonstration projects in Matrix areas to 10/21/2008 assure the public and other federal agencies it can do a good job.
A-8 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Comment Author and Date of Comment Response # Correspondence 23 Denise Boggs, The scoping notice states no new permanent system The project has been reduced in scale from 33,000 acres to 5,533 Executive roads would be constructed, but temporary road acres in one fifth field watershed in response to public comments Director, construction, reconstruction of unclassified roads, and such as this one. The system roads being considered for Conservation classified system road reconstruction and maintenance reconstruction for this project are part of the National Forest Congress will be included. Since 33,000 acres are proposed for Transportation System (and are being considered in subpart A of thinning across the Forest, there is likely to be a lot of the Motorized Travel Management process); therefore, 10/21/2008 road work involved. The Forest is already heavily reconstruction of these roads constitutes maintenance, and does roaded with some areas exceeding 8 miles per sq/mi. not increase the road density. The temporary roads being Additional road impacts will be a significant impact that considered are roads that were used in the past to manage these must be analyzed in an EIS. There will likely be soil plantations, where the road prism still exists, but are not currently and water quality impacts from said reconstruction and National Forest Transportation System roads. These roadbeds will maintenance. In addition, how will the road portion of be used wherever possible. Temporary road construction and this project affect the Motorized Travel Management system road reconstruction are described in Chapter 2 and the Plan currently being developed? Finally, reconstruction effects, including the effects to soil and water, are described in of classified roads will add to the current road density. Chapter 3.Because the roads are temporary, the road density would The environmental analysis needs to show the road not effectively be increased. Alternative 3 was designed to address density pre and post project for each proposed thinning concerns over temporary roads brought up in public scoping area. comments and does not include temporary road construction or use. The proposed reconstruction of system roads is designed to decrease sediment mobilization. The project would close all maintenance level 1 roads opened under this project, would improve the condition of system roads that are used, and would decommission all temporary roads after use. Road densities would remain the same following project implementation. If the analysis in the EA comes to a finding of significant impact, an EIS would be prepared. 24 Denise Boggs, This project is likely to adversely affect the Northern The Wildlife and Fish BA and BE and MIA/S reports for this project Executive spotted owl, Pacific Fisher, American Marten, Northern are available in the planning record and on the Forest website and Director, Goshawk, Anadromous Fish species, as well as other provide details about the project affected environment and Conservation TES and MIS species on the Forest. A substantive BE environmental effects related to wildlife and fish. Chapter 3 provides Congress and BA, as well as consultation with the USFWS a summary. Informal consultation is ongoing for both northern should be conducted for this project. The spotted owl and threatened salmonids with USFWS and NMFS, 10/21/2008 environmental analysis must address an accurate and respectively. reliable correlation between habitat health and species health, and the methodology for measuring habitat must also itself be accurate and reliable.
A-9 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Comment Author and Date of Comment Response # Correspondence 25 Denise Boggs, Due to the sheer enormity of the project area, a valid The scale of the proposed action has been reduced to 5,533 acres Executive cumulative effects analysis must be conducted. An in response to public scoping comments such as this one. Director, adequate analysis area must also be designated that Cumulative effects are summarized by resource in the EA Chapter Conservation reflects the proper scope of the project area. 3. More detailed analyses can be found in the specialist reports. Congress 10/21/2008 26 Denise Boggs, The proposed project claims it will reduce fuels. This The scale of the proposed action has been reduced to 5,533 acres Executive issue needs to be carefully examined in the in response to public scoping comments. Fuels reduction has been Director, environmental analysis. The Forest has a history of incorporated in the design of the project (see description of fuels Conservation creating enormous slash piles that exist for years reduction prescription in Chapter 2) and there are resource Congress without being addressed. These slash piles are fire protection measures that address how and where piles will be built. hazards alone, and also create additional hazards for The contract administrator will ensure that residual tree damage is 10/21/2008 the residual trees. For example in the East Fork project minimized during harvest operations. we personally photographed slash piles that were tons in weight, 20 feet high and touching the leaves of remaining trees, as well as abutting them. If those piles were to ignite it would take the surrounding forest with it. If the FS is proposing to thin 33,000 acres of plantations there will be literately thousands of tons of slash and this issue must be addressed. 27 Denise Boggs, We believe reducing canopy cover to 40% is too Under the proposed action, canopy closure is not used as a basis of Executive extreme. First of all, the prescriptions we have measurement, but it is anticipated the canopy cover would be Director, reviewed on the Forest often exceed 40% in violation reduced to approximately 40% except within the Riparian Reserves Conservation of the environmental analysis. Several projects we which would be 60% where it currently exists, and shade over water Congress reviewed that were supposed to maintain 40% canopy would not be reduced below 80% where is currently exists. As noted cover were actually reduced to 20-30%. If 40% canopy in Chapter 2, the Late-Successional Reserve prescription will be 10/21/2008 cover was accomplished it would allow additional varied to encourage development of Late-Successional Reserve sunlight and drying of the area. The undergrowth characteristics over time. The effects to TES and MIS species are would be exacerbated and additional fire risk would be disclosed in EA Chapter 3. Summary of effects on vegetation and created. A 40% canopy cover would also adversely fuels/fire effects are also addressed in Chapter 3 and in greater affect many of the TES and MIS species on the Forest. detail in the specialist reports. An alternative that considered a The proposal should not have a blanket canopy cover greater canopy cover was considered but eliminated from detailed goal – a one size fits all approach – each area should study for reasons discussed in Chapter 2 of the EA. be assessed for the resource values it holds. Late Successional Reserve habitat should not be reduced below 60% canopy cover.
A-10 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Comment Author and Date of Comment Response # Correspondence 28 Denise Boggs, The public is repeatedly told the FS has no funding for The scale of the proposed action has been reduced to 5,533 acres Executive various important natural resource issues such as in response to public comments such as this one. All resource Director, wildlife monitoring, or even providing information to the protection measures will be implemented as described in the Conservation public according to Mr. Remillard. A 33,000 acre resource protection measures section of Chapter 2. The contract Congress thinning project will require a lot of mitigation and administrator and the resource specialists will monitor therefore funding to implement it. How will the Forest implementation of the resource protection measures. If the 10/21/2008 pay for the mitigation and how will it be monitored to measures aren’t being implemented or they aren’t being effective, ensure it actually occurs? We do not believe this implementation can be halted and/or alterations in implementation project will support a FONSI in light of the size and strategies can be implemented. If the EA analysis does not result in duration of the project and impacts to TES species and a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI), then an EIS will be their habitat. But even with EIS mitigation measures prepared. The resource protection measures are incorporated into will still be necessary and we are concerned the Forest the design of the project, and are not mitigations that have to be does not have the resources to pay for or implement completed separately from the project. The resource protection the necessary mitigation. This issue needs to be measures are implemented as the project is being implemented. substantively addressed.
29 Denise Boggs, The analysis needs to demonstrate that thinning The vegetation, hydrology and biology sections in Chapter 3 of the Executive riparian areas is actually essential to their health. Far EA address the effects of treatment within the Riparian Reserves. Director, too often the logging that has occurred in riparian As noted in Chapter 2, the proposed action description, including Conservation areas has been harmful to vegetation, water quality the design features/protection measures are designed to minimize Congress and the species that require riparian habitat. There adverse effects to these areas (e.g. equipment exclusion zones, should not be any mechanical harvest at all in riparian restrictions on mechanical equipment, no cable yarding, no landings 10/21/2008 areas. If thinning is actually necessary it should be or skid trails) In addition, the project is designed to be consistent done by hand pruning. with Forest Service Soil Quality Standards and Best Management Practices, which minimize harmful effects to riparian habitat. The project only proposes to thin plantations within Riparian Reserves, not riparian vegetation. Currently the plantations that occur within Riparian Reserves in the project area are overstocked. Thinning the plantations within the Riparian Reserve would maintain and restore the sediment regime by reducing the potential for high- severity fire which increases risk of significant sediment production, and by helping to speed the development of mature streamside forest vegetation thereby more quickly providing a source of instream large wood which is a key for sediment retention, and metering sediment to receiving waters. This is consistent with the Aquatic Conservation Strategy. Alternative 3 was developed in response to this comment, and includes only hand treatments in Riparian Reserves.
A-11 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Comment Author and Date of Comment Response # Correspondence 30 Denise Boggs, The project must have established diameter limits and Under the proposed action and Alternative 3, older, mature, legacy Executive we recommend 20” dbh. This also meets the trees would not be felled unless they pose a hazard. In Matrix Director, recommendations of the “Eastside Screens” to protect areas, if an older tree is diseased and dying, it may be removed. In Conservation and preserve all live trees over 21” dbh. We note here Late-Successional Reserve and Riparian Reserves, all legacy trees Congress the value of retaining dead trees as well for snag and would be retained. Due to past timber management practices, the cavity dependent species. The scoping notice states plantations are likely to be fairly devoid of snags; where snags do 10/21/2008 thinning and fuels reduction will occur in “young exist, they will be retained. An alternative with a diameter limit of 21 managed stands” and later defines the age range from inches was considered but eliminated from detailed study for 21 to 55 years”. All 21” dbh trees between those ages reasons explained in chapter 2 of the EA. should still be retained. And any mature and/or large The project is located within the Klamath Mountains, west of the residual trees and/or legacy trees that may exist in Cascades in Region 5 and not within the area covered by Eastside plantations should also be retained. If the goal is Screens in Region 6. restoration of plantation areas and fire prevention, The goal of the project is management of plantations and fuels large diameter tree retention is the best way to achieve reduction. Large diameter trees will be retained where possible. that goal. 31 Denise Boggs, Because the scoping document is missing important The scale of the project has been reduced to 5,533 acres in Executive information, it is not possible for us to make complete response to public scoping comments. The preliminary EA, Director, substantive comments about the action’s impacts to including a detailed proposed action, will be provided to the public Conservation water quality, wildlife habitat, soil productivity, and a public comment period will occur at that time. The effects of Congress cumulative effects, and any other features of the the project to affected resources are disclosed in Chapter 3 of the project that have not been adequately disclosed in the EA and specialist reports, which are available in the project planning 10/21/2008 proposed action document. We recommend the record and available for review on the Forest website. It is unclear Forest take heed of NEPA’s “site specific” requirements from the comment what important information is missing from the and of the FS duty to meet all federal environmental scoping document, but the commenter will have additional laws as well as the Forest Plan. opportunities to comment on the project. 32 Denise Boggs, Please keep the Conservation Congress on the mailing Conservation Congress is on the Shasta-Trinity mailing list for this Executive list for this project and promptly mail us the draft project and will receive the EA upon completion at the beginning of Director, environmental analysis and associated specialist the public comment period. All specialist reports are available on reports immediately upon their release. the project website at: Conservation http://www.fs.fed.us/nepa/nepa_project_exp.php?project=25380 Congress
10/21/2008
A-12 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Comment Author and Date of Comment Response # Correspondence 33 David L. Loeffler Good practices should dictate the removal of heavy This project has been designed to appropriately manage Fire Chief concentrations of dead and down fuels to provide plantations, and to reduce fuels. This project is a plantation Hayfork Fire proper protection and optimum growth opportunities for management focused project, so no fire salvage would occur. Protection District those plantations. Have the treatment options been Utilization of the activity fuels as firewood is included as one of the reviewed to include 1. Fire salvage, 2 fuels treatment, fuels prescription treatments and will be used as possible. Biomass 10/21/2008 such as free use fire wood areas, Bio mass, or will be produced as a timber product from this project. Mastication chipping and using the material for erosion control? of non-commercial units and activity fuels in commercial units is included as part of Alternative 2. Mastication produces wood chips which are cast on the ground in the unit, providing erosion control. 34 David L. Loeffler Please consider that untreated burned areas are one This proposal is designed to maintain forest growth and health in Fire Chief of primary reasons major acreage was burned this fire young plantations and to reduce the potential for high severity stand Hayfork Fire season. And failure to remove these loading will again replacing wildfires in the treated stands. Addressing fire salvage is Protection District create a major threat to the Community of Hayfork and outside the scope of this project analysis. The project area has been the Fire District. reduced due to public scoping comments, and the area immediately 10/21/2008 around the community of Hayfork is no longer included in the project area. Your input will be considered for future projects. 35 Nick Goulette, The P and N should explicitly state the purpose of These statements have been explicitly included in the purpose and Deputy Director, thinning commercial timber and biomass in plantations need for this project. Implementation of the project would increase Watershed to provide a sustainable supply of fiber to support local growth rates. Depending on the land allocation in which the Research and processing facilities and community economies, as treatment unit is located, the plantations may not be suitable for a Training Center well as improve growth rates to ensure a sustainable sustainable supply of fiber in the future (i.e. late-successional 10/23/2008 supply in the future. These are both stated objectives reserves). In these instances, habitat for late-successional habitat of the Forest Plan to which the project directly tiers. related species would be improved in those areas. Chapter 3 addresses socio economics related to this project with a detailed report in the project record. 36 Nick Goulette, Treatment prescriptions should focus jointly on The silvicultural and fuels prescriptions for each stand take into Deputy Director, improving stand resilience to wildfire while also striving consideration slope, elevation, aspect and stand condition. Watershed for increased species and structural diversity. While Prescriptions focus on improving stand resilience to wildfire and Research and typical silvicultural and fuels prescriptions do indeed increasing structural diversity, while retaining a diversity of species. Training Center focus on enhancing species diversity (through favoring The prescription does not target a desired canopy closure, and 10/23/2008 underrepresented species for retention), they are often while it does strive for a particular spacing depending on stand simplistic in targeting a desired canopy closure (i.e. 40- characteristics, there is no minimum spacing between trees; a 60%) and stem spacing across units regardless of variable spacing criteria is used to create diverse stand densities. slope, elevation, aspect or stand condition.
A-13 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Comment Author and Date of Comment Response # Correspondence 37 Nick Goulette, Please consider an alternative, or amend the existing Variable spacing prescriptions are included in the design of the Deputy Director, alternative, to focus on variable density thinning, using proposed action and alternative 3. In addition the Late-Successional Watershed “skips and gaps” and striving for a mosaic of stand- Reserve prescription provides for even greater variability in post- Research and level conditions. Such prescriptions should take into treatment condition. Treated stands will have openings (less than Training Center account site specific stand level-conditions (particularly 0.25 acres in size) and denser areas. 10/23/2008 aspect), and focus on increasing structural diversity. Our best available science suggests that this “uneven- aged” silvicultural approach, using diameter as a proxy for age, will most-closely replicate and accelerate the development of historic structural conditions that support native biodiversity and will provide resilience in the face of wildfire and climate change. This approach will also lend itself to sustained harvest and yield over time without the need for large regeneration harvests, which have proven socially unacceptable on our forest. 38 Nick Goulette, Consider allowing thinning in upland Riparian The proposed action and alternative 3 include thinning in Riparian Deputy Director, Reserves classified as intermittent and ephemeral. Reserves associated with overstocked plantations. Riparian Watershed Particularly those that do not exhibit signs of annual Reserves will be verified during implementation. Where an Research and scour, as they behave much like upland forest in ephemeral Riparian Reserve is mapped but does not exist on the Training Center wildfire events and can serve as corridors through ground (typically upland draws without signs of annual scour) 10/23/2008 which stand-replacing wildfire may move into adjacent treatment will be based on the management prescription for that natural stands. area.
39 Nick Goulette, Consider adding mastication as a potential activity for Mastication has been added as a potential treatment in all units that Deputy Director, further reducing fuel loading (not listed in PA). are less than 35% slope. Non-commercial units could be masticated Watershed as a primary treatment and commercial units could be masticated Research and as a secondary treatment, to clean up remaining fuels after the unit Training Center has been commercially harvested. 10/23/2008 40 Nick Goulette, In some stands, it may be reasonable to consider All healthy dominant and co-dominant hardwood species would be Deputy Director, thinning hardwoods to select for single-stem retained and would count in spacing criteria. When hardwoods Watershed characteristics that will increase development of mass- have multiple stems, the dominant two to three stems would be Research and producing trees and accelerate attainment of fire retained. Intermediate and suppressed size class hardwoods would Training Center resilient characteristics. This should be extremely site- be removed except in Riparian Reserves where healthy 10/23/2008 specific and focused on those areas with maximum intermediate hardwoods would be retained. habitat potential for target wildlife species.
A-14 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Comment Author and Date of Comment Response # Correspondence 41 Nick Goulette, Open stand conditions dominated much of our historic Up to 85% of brush will be treated within each unit, retaining 15- Deputy Director, landscape, with brush species, such as ceanothus and 30% of the brush in each unit in a mosaic pattern for habitat Watershed manzanita, as important under story components. In purposes. Research and developing alternatives, please keep in mind that brush Training Center and small trees are not inherently hazardous fuel risks. 10/23/2008 It is a matter of their arrangement on the landscape, whether they are continuous, or part of a complex mosaic. A variable density approach to surface fuels will both provide affective changes to fire behavior and effects, while also reducing treatment costs by not requiring 100% live surface and ladder fuel removal. 42 Kimberly Baker, Broadly, we support small-diameter thinning of fire- Wildland Urban Interface areas are considered priority for plantation Public Land suppressed forests, particularly tree plantations and treatment. Advocate forests prone to uncharacteristic wildfire near homes EPIC- and communities. Hence we support the aspects of the Environmental proposed project that will accomplish the stated goals Protection and management objectives identified in the scoping Information Center notice. 10/24/2008 43 Kimberly Baker, We cannot overstate our extreme concern regarding Alternative 3 was developed in response to this comment; it Public Land the long-term impacts to soil health and hydrology from contains no temporary road building. The temporary roads that Advocate the construction of new (temporary) logging roads and would be built under Alternative 2 would be built on existing road EPIC- landings in the project area. Road building is a beds wherever possible. The road beds still exist and would be Environmental significant issue that must be given a hard look. We reconstructed for use and then rehabilitated once the project is Protection encourage to the Forest Service to develop and completed. Impacts from the temporary road use proposed under Information Center implement an action alternative that does not require alternative 2 and all other activities associated with the project are new temporary road construction. Clearly the vast analyzed in chapter 3 of the EA and in the project specialist reports 10/24/2008 majority of the project can be accomplished without available in the project record and on the project website. resorting the construction of yet more logging roads in these fragile watersheds. The units that “require” temporary road construction should be altered to hand- work units. The proposed action should reflect the intent of the scoping notice to identify stands that can be treated “from the existing road system.”
A-15 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Comment Author and Date of Comment Response # Correspondence 44 Kimberly Baker, A recent peer-reviewed article by Trombulack and It is assumed the reference is to Trombulack and C.A. Frissell, Public Land Frissell (2000) details some of the negative impacts of Review of ecological effects of roads on terrestrial and aquatic Advocate road construction and use on Terrestrial and Aquatic communities, Conservation Biology 14 (2000). This article EPIC- ecosystems. The forthcoming EA should address and discusses a wide variety of road impacts in places around the world. Environmental avoid the harmful impacts detailed in this study. The Forest Service acknowledges that roads have a negative effect Protection on the environment. The impacts of temporary road use and Information Center maintenance of existing roads is described in the EA. Road maintenance is included as part of this project, and would help to 10/24/2008 minimize road related impacts. Temporary roads (mostly within existing road beds) would be used for project implementation and then rehabilitated, leaving the project area in better condition with respect to roads than without project implementation. 45 Kimberly Baker, Please ensure that the impacts of proposed road Alternative 3 was developed in response to this comment, and other Public Land construction on road density, habitat fragmentation, similar comments; it does not include temporary road construction Advocate edge habitat and wildlife harassment are well or commercial treatments in Riparian Reserves in order to minimize EPIC- documented, or better yet, avoided in your project. impacts to aquatic resources. Under the proposed action Environmental Project-level planning should review the opportunities (alternative 2), temporary roads would be opened, utilized and Protection available to improve or maintain aquatic habitat. rehabilitated so would not result in net increases in road density. Information Center Through the interdisciplinary process, the cause of the Temporary road construction is analyzed in chapter 3 of the EA. problem should be identified and treated as well as the Impacts to wildlife and wildlife habitat are analyzed in chapter 3 of 10/24/2008 effects. Road construction, use, and maintenance may the EA, and in the wildlife specialist reports available in the project be the cause of any impaired status in the planning record and on the project website. Because temporary roads will area. Hence, the Forest Service must decrease, rather primarily be reconstructed one existing roadbeds, fragmentation than increase the road density in the project area. would not be increased by temporary road use. The South Fork Trinity River is listed as impaired for sediment and temperature; however, it is well-documented that the basin has naturally high sediment production from earthflows, landslides, and inner gorge landforms. Road-produced sediment is understood to be a fraction of the total production. Additionally, road-produced sediments have been on the decline as a result of watershed restoration activities (decommissioning, culvert retrofits, storm- proofing, etc.). Any temporary roads (mostly on existing roadbeds) used for implementation of this project would be decommissioned when they are no longer needed for project implementation, leaving the project area in improved condition compared to its current condition.
A-16 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Comment Author and Date of Comment Response # Correspondence 46 Kimberly Baker, Please be specific in the forthcoming EA as to which The scale of the proposed action was reduced to one 5th field Public Land watersheds have an impaired status, which are Key-1 watershed, the Middle South Fork Trinity River. The watershed falls Advocate watersheds, which watersheds are over the threshold within a Key watershed (Upper South Fork Trinity River). The Middle EPIC- of concern and how many acres of activity is planned South Fork Trinity River is listed as impaired for temperature and Environmental within them. sediment. A TMDL has been developed for sediment, but not for Protection temperature. The Middle South Fork Trinity River watershed is Information Center approximately 65,000 acres in size and there are 5,533 acres of treatments. The 5th field watershed within the project area is under 10/24/2008 the Threshold of Concern after project implementation. Impacts to the Middle South Fork Trinity River and subwatersheds within it are analyzed in the hydrology report and summarized in the EA. 47 Kimberly Baker, When preparing the EA, units should be classified not Units are classified by vegetation type for the analysis. All healthy Public Land only by seral stage but also by vegetation type. dominant and co-dominant hardwood species would be retained Advocate Where areas are predominantly hardwoods consider and would count in spacing criteria. When hardwoods have multiple EPIC- hand thinning only. Leaving the largest stems will help stems, the dominant two to three stems would be retained. Healthy Environmental to control re-sprouting and decrease the amount fine intermediate hardwoods would be retained in Riparian Reserves. Protection fuels and re-growth. This will also contribute to None of the plantations to be treated under this project are primarily Information Center biodiversity on the landscape. While hand thinning made up of hardwoods. Units that are not commercially viable may be more costly it would clearly attain the purpose would be hand thinned or masticated. No mastication would occur 10/24/2008 and need for the project, where mechanical treatments under Alternative 3. would fail. 48 Kimberly Baker, The forthcoming EA should equate and document the Chapter 2 of the EA explains the details of the proposed action. The Public Land amount of areas proposed for manual and mechanical amount of mechanical treatments is quantified there. The Advocate treatments. Only by knowing how many acres are mechanical treatment types for alternative 2 include mastication, EPIC- proposed for mechanical (what types?) can we analyze tractor logging, and machine piling. Alternative 3 does not include Environmental the effects to soil, wildlife and watersheds. We are mastication or machine piling. Protection glad to see that the proposed action does not include Information Center machine pilling. 10/24/2008 49 Kimberly Baker, The EA should consider prioritizing areas for treatment, The scale of the project has been reduced from 33,000 to 5,533. Public Land either by risk to private property or other valuable Plantations within WUI have been identified as higher priority than Advocate resources. Furthermore, it should consider a realistic the other plantations. The Forest recognizes that the plantations will EPIC- maintenance schedule and not only consider this as a need additional treatments in the future. The treatments within the Environmental one-time “fix”. Late-Successional Reserve have been designed to extend the Protection period of time between entries, in compliance with the Late- Information Center Successional Reserve Assessment. 10/24/2008
A-17 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Comment Author and Date of Comment Response # Correspondence 50 Kimberly Baker, When thinking about fire risk reduction, the ID Team An alternative that would retain 60-80% canopy cover throughout Public Land should be taking into account and documenting in the the treatment areas was considered but eliminated from detailed Advocate EA as to percentage of slope, aspect of slope and study for reasons explained in Chapter 2 of the EA. Percent slope EPIC- canopy cover. We highly recommend leaving at least and aspect are taken into consideration for the silvicultural Environmental a 60% canopy on northerly and 80% canopy closure prescription for each unit. In units that don’t meet the fuels goals Protection on south facing slopes. South facing slopes tend to be after initial silvicultural treatments, additional fuel reduction Information Center more dry and hot and have less productive soils. treatments would occur. Please be as specific as possible in the EA when 10/24/2008 documenting units. 51 Kimberly Baker, The EA should be very specific as to what types of The project proposes to thin plantations in Riparian Reserves. Public Land treatments are proposed in Riparian Reserves (RR), Some fuel reduction activities would also occur within Riparian Advocate where they are located and what types of reserves Reserves. The Riparian Reserve planning layer is developed by EPIC- they are, such as seeps, springs unstable slopes, etc. buffering streams and unstable areas mapped within the project Environmental RR should be treated very lightly upon initial entry, area. Occasionally additional riparian areas such as springs, seeps Protection leaving at least an 80% canopy closure, so as to not and wetlands are discovered when the project is being laid out on Information Center induce sedimentation, decrease moisture or open them the ground. When that occurs, the same protective measures are too much and impede travel by terrestrial species. applied to those Riparian Reserves. Primarily they are flagged and 10/24/2008 avoided. Commercial treatments could occur within RR with low pressure track mounted machinery under Alternative 2. Under Alternative 3, only hand treatments, with no commercial removal would occur. Only hand treatments could occur in the equipment exclusion zone in both alternatives. Effective shade over water in Riparian Reserves will not be reduced below 80 percent where it already exists.
52 Kimberly Baker, Late-Successional Reserves have very specific Plantation prescriptions for Late-Successional Reserve are intended Public Land standards and guidelines. Any activity proposed within to bring the treatment units closer to the desired condition, which Advocate them must maintain or restore Late Successional was derived from the Late-Successional Reserve Assessment and EPIC- Reserve conditions. The EA should be very specific as the Forest Plan. Also, treatments in the Late-Successional Reserve Environmental to what types of treatment and how many acres are were designed to require the longest period of time prior to reentry Protection proposed in Late Successional Reserves. into the stand, in compliance with the Late-Successional Reserve Information Center Assessment. A description of amount of Late-Successional Reserve that would be treated and the description of the treatments are 10/24/2008 included in the Chapter 2 of the EA.
A-18 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Comment Author and Date of Comment Response # Correspondence 53 Kimberly Baker, We expect the documentation and analysis on wildlife The wildlife Biological Evaluation and Biological Assessment for this Public Land to be thorough when detailing effects to Threatened, project analyze impacts to T&E Species and effects are Advocate Endangered and Sensitive, Management Indicator summarized in chapter 3 of the EA. Critical habitat areas are EPIC- Species and Survey and Manage Species. Are there described in the Biological Assessments. Impacts to sensitive Environmental units within Critical Habitat? Are there Special species (including goshawks, fisher and other species) are Protection Management Areas for Goshawks, fishers or other described in the Biological Evaluations. Impacts to species Information Center species? What are the effects to species concerning associated with RR are also described in these documents. treatment in RR’s? 10/24/2008 54 Kimberly Baker, Temporary spur road construction may increase road The temporary roads that would be used under Alternative 2 would Public Land density, result in habitat fragmentation, increase edge be built on existing roadbeds wherever possible. Temporary roads Advocate habitat, and result in harassment to wildlife. The EA rehabilitated after use. The wildlife discussion in EA Chapter 3 EPIC- should analyze the effects of roads on wildlife and discloses potential impacts to wildlife habitat from temporary road Environmental connectivity specifically. construction and use. Alternative 3 was developed to analyze the Protection project without temporary roads, in response to scoping comments Information Center such as this. 10/24/2008 55 Kimberly Baker, Overall we support thinning plantations but how they The scale of the project was reduced to 5,533 acres in response to Public Land are treated is significant, especially when considering a scoping comments such as this. Alternative 3 was developed in Advocate project on such a large scale. We believe that response to concerns over the temporary roads that would be used EPIC- construction of “temporary” roads and landings, under Alternative 2. An alternative with a dbh cut limit of 21 inches Environmental treatment within RR’s and amount of mechanical was considered but eliminated from detailed study for reasons Protection thinning all to be significant issues. Please consider discussed in chapter 2 of the EA. Chapter 3 of the EA analyzes fire Information Center an alternative that, does not propose “temporary” resilience of the canopy. Impacts to Critical Habitat are analyzed roads, limits the amount of landings, has a diameter and disclosed in the Wildlife Biological Assessment. Resource 10/24/2008 limit of 21”, and prescribes a fire resilient canopy and protection measures describing limitations on landings are does not downgrade or degrade Critical Habitat. described in the resource protection measure section of chapter 2 of the EA. 56 Maggie E. The Westside Plantation Project must be designed and The alternatives were designed to protect water quality through Robinson implemented to meet the water quality standards implementation of specific resource protection measures, including CA RWQCB - outlined in the Water Quality Control Plan for the North implementation of Best Management Practices, and will meet the Regional Water Coast (Basin Plan). standards in the Water Quality Control Plan. Quality Control Board 12/15/08
A-19 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Comment Author and Date of Comment Response # Correspondence 57 Maggie E. The Project should be designed and implemented in a The project was designed to provide protection to anadromous fish. Robinson manner that will provide protection and recovery for The fisheries BA located in the project file addresses potential CA RWQCB - coho salmon (Trinity River coho salmon are threatened effects from both action alternatives, and is summarized in chapter Regional Water under ESA), Chinook salmon, and steelhead trout. 3 of the EA. Quality Control Board 12/15/08 58 Maggie E. The Trinity River is EPA 303(d) listed as being impaired Watershed Analyses have been completed for the project area (see Robinson due to excessive sediment. To improve the Fish specialist report for more information). It is outside of the CA RWB - effectiveness of the Total Maximum Daily Load(TMDL) purpose and need of this project to implement road actions other Regional Water for sediment and protect beneficial uses the following than actions directly related to plantation management. Watershed Quality Control is recommended: restoration is outside the scope of this project, but the Forest is Board • Complete Watershed Analyses, particularly in undergoing planning for watershed restoration projects on the west 12/15/08 the Upper Assessment area and implement side of the Forest. Analysis of suction dredging is outside the scope recommendations of this project. Development of a Comprehensive Aquatic Monitoring Plan is outside the scope of this project. • Complete roads analysis and implement findngs with focus on TMDL hillslope targets • Continue cooperative watershed restoration with local watershed groups, TCRCD, and TMC • Evaluate and limit effects of suction dredge operations in stream reaches that overlap spawning sites • Develop and implement a Comprehensive Aquatic Monitoring Pan for the Basin, including: habitat, fish populations, management effectiveness
59 Maggie E. Tables E1 and E1 from the South Fork Trinity River Chapter 2 of the EA addresses the potential effects of both Robinson and Hayfork Creek TMDL for sediment was referred to. alternatives on water quality. Resource protection measures that are CA RWB - Related to this project, these tables address roads and designed to reduce impacts are described in chapter 2 of the EA. Regional Water timber harvest methods as having potential to affect Quality Control sediment delivery (i.e., stream crossings, annual road Board inspection and maintenance, road location, surfacing, 12/15/08 hydrologic connectivity, sidecast, clearcutting/tractor yarding in steep, potentially unstable streamside areas).
A-20 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Comment Author and Date of Comment Response # Correspondence 60 Maggie E. The South Fork Trinity River is EPA 303(d) listed as There is currently no approved temperature TMDL for the South Robinson being impaired due to excessive temperatures. To Fork Trinity River. A resource protection measure is included in the CA RWB - ensure compliance with temperature objective and project (both alternatives 2/3) to minimize the risk of this project Regional Water temperature TMDL, recommendations for this project increasing temperatures to streams. The design feature states, Quality Control are that perennial stream riparian buffer understory “Effective shade over water in Riparian Reserves will not be Board canopies not be reduced below 85% within the first 75’ reduced below 80% where it already exists.” A greater density of 12/15/08 of the buffer zone (50’ for intermittent streams) and not trees will be retained in Riparian Reserve than outside of Riparian be reduced below 65% for the remainder of the buffer Reserves (see silvicultural prescription in chapter 2 of the EA), and zone. All trees that provide shade to perennial and other Resource Protection Measures have been included to protect intermittent streams during critical summer months Riparian Reserves and Equipment Exclusion Zones. (June-Sept) whether the trees are inside or outside the riparian zone, are to be retained, when the overstory canopy within the first 75’ of perennial streams (50’ for intermittent streams) is less than 85% of the majority of trees are below their full site potential height or when the overstory canopy beyond the first 75’ for perennial streams (50’ for intermittent) is less than 65% or the majority of trees are below their full site potential height. Other prescriptions that demonstrate to the satisfaction of the RWB the temperature concern is met could be considered. 61 Maggie E. A CWE analysis should be included in the A CWE analysis was completed for the project and is summarized Robinson environmental analysis. Any watersheds that are over in Chapter 3. The watershed that the project occurs in would not CA RWB - or proposed to be elevated above established exceed the threshold of concern. The TMDL recommendations and Regional Water thresholds of concern should have project mitigation Basin Plan objectives have been taken into consideration (see the Quality Control measures designed to minimize and/or reduce hydrology specialist report). Board cumulative impacts to below the threshold of concern 12/15/08 upon completion of the project. Also the analysis should take into consideration the Trinity River TMDL and South Fork Trinity River and Hayfork Creek TMDL recommendations and targets as well as the Basin Plan temperature objectives and staff recommendations for meeting these objectives. 62 Maggie E. BMPS should be included in the analysis and any All of these issues are included in the resource protection measures Robinson contracts associated with this project that addresses: for the project (Chapter 2 of the EA). CA RWB - wet weather operation standards; width of the Regional Water streamside management zones along riparian areas; Quality Control erosion control measures to be implemented on areas Board disturbed by project activities covering both summer 12/15/08 and winter periods, and evaluation and delineation of A-21 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Comment Author and Date of Comment Response # Correspondence unstable areas including prescriptions for harvesting activities on or near unstable areas. 63 Maggie E. RWB is concerned that water quality protection The resource protection measures/BMPs will be in included in any Robinson measures proposed by project planning staff and contracts developed for the project and implemented by the contract CA RWB - described in the EA be understood and implemented administrators. Regional Water by contract administrators overseeing activities Quality Control proposed w/ this project. Board 12/15/08 64 Maggie E. If the Forest would like to receive a waiver from the The Forest will submit a notice of intent to comply with the Waiver of Robinson waste discharge requirements of Article 4 Waste Discharge Requirements for Nonpoint Source Discharges CA RWB - (commencing w/ Sec 13270) of Chat 4, Div 7 of the CA Related to Certain Federal Land Management Activities on National Regional Water Water code, the project must meet important eligibility Forest lands in the North Coast Region Order No. R1-2010-0029. Quality Control criteria as noted on the website: Subsequently, the Forest will wait to get confirmation of the project’s Board http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/northcoast/publications eligibility for Waiver coverage prior to commencing activities. 12/15/08 _and_forms/available_documents/timber_waiver/
A-22 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
APPENDIX B: ROADS PLANNED FOR USE DURING PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION Appendix B Table 1. Forest Service System roads planned for use in implementation of the Westside Plantation Project: Maintenance Level 1 Road Numbers Maintenance Level 2 and Greater Road Numbers 1N05 1N08 1N05A 1N10 1N05B 1N11 1N05D 1N11E 1N06 1N12 1N06A 1N15 1N10B 1N19 1N11 1N20 1N16 1N24 1N17 1N34 1N17B 1N35 1N21 1N35A 1N24D 1N43 1N24E 1S01 1N32 1S03 1N32A 1S04 1N32B 1S04C 1N33 1S05
B-1 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Maintenance Level 1 Road Numbers Maintenance Level 2 and Greater Road Numbers 1N33A 1S06 1N34C 1S11 1N35B 1S13 1N35C 1S14 1N35D 1S17 1N36 1S20 1S01C 1S23 1S02 1S26 1S07A 1S31 1S12 2N01 1S14H 2N03 1S14J 2N04 1S14K 2N06 1S15 2N07 1S23B 2N08 1S26 2N09 1S27 2N10 2N01B 2N10F 2N01C 2N10I 2N07A 2N10L 2N10E 2N10T
B-2 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Maintenance Level 1 Road Numbers Maintenance Level 2 and Greater Road Numbers 2N11A 2N10TA 2N14 2N10TAA 2N20 2N10V 2N20A 2N10X 2N21 2N10Y 2N21A 2N10YA 2N24 2N10YB 2N2761 2N10Z 2N33 2N11 2N34 2N11B 2N38 2N11C 2N41 2N11D 2N41A 2N13 2N41B 2N15 2N41C 2N16 2N42 2N16F 2N44A 2N18 2N45 2N22
61 The 2N27road was analyzed to be decommissioned under the Hidden Valley Watershed Restoration Project, but has not yet been completed. It will be decommissioned after use in this project.
B-3 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Maintenance Level 1 Road Numbers Maintenance Level 2 and Greater Road Numbers 2N49 2N23 2N49A 2N29 2N52 2N30 2N54 2N40 2N56 2N44 2N56A 2N46 2N58 2N48 2N58A 2N53 2N66 2N64 3N08A 31N66 3N08D 3N01 3N08F 3N08 3N22B 3N08L 3N22K 3N22 3N31 4N12 3N31A 4N12C
B-4 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
APPENDIX C: BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR THE WESTSIDE PLANTATION PROJECT Implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) are included in the Westside Plantation Project in order to meet applicable Forest Plan standards and guidelines for watershed resources, state water quality requirements, and agency policy. BMPs are described in the Forest Service Water Quality Management Handbook (R5 FSH 2509.22)(USDA 2011b). Implementation of BMPs occurs as part of a broader water quality management program. For project level work the primary tasks are planning, implementing, and monitoring BMPs. Other program elements not addressed in this project analysis include BMP effectiveness monitoring, baseline watershed monitoring, and watershed restoration. The following table provides a checklist for the application of BMPs during Planning, Timber Sale (TS) Contract, or Force Account (work done by Forest Service). Although many of the “Timber” BMPs were designed for TS Contracts, they can be used for work that is done by Force Account.
Appendix C Table 1. Best Management Practices for the Westside Plantation Project.
BMP Name, Objective, Application to the Westside Project and Direction Planning TS Contract Acct. Force BMP 1-1 Timber Sale Planning This BMP is implemented through the Riparian Reserve Process: To incorporate water quality Resource Protection Measures (RPMs) 13-26, and hydrologic considerations into specification of operational BMPs, Environmental the timber sale planning process. Analysis including interdisciplinary team office and field discussions, and incorporation of water quality protection measures in contracts or project plans for the Westside Project. BMP 1-2 Timber Harvest Unit Unit design is based on the existing plantations but Design. To ensure that timber treatment areas are modified based on Riparian harvest unit design will secure Reserves or unstable areas. favorable conditions of water quality and quantity, while maintaining desirable stream channel characteristics and watershed conditions. The design should consider the size and distribution of natural structures (snag and down logs) as a means of preventing erosion and sedimentation. BMP 1-3 Determining Surface Erosion hazard ratings are determined using the Erosion Hazard. To identify high- California Soil Survey Committee erosion hazard rating erosion hazard areas to adjust (EHR) system. RPMs 32, 35, and 37 restrict operations treatment measures and prevent or require treatments to reduce erosion. downstream water-quality degradation.
C-1 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
BMP Name, Objective, Application to the Westside Project and Direction Planning TS Contract Acct. Force BMP 1-4 Use of Sale Area Maps The sale administrator and purchaser will review these (SAM) and/or Project Maps for areas on the ground prior to commencement of ground Designating Water Quality Protection disturbing activities. Examples of water quality Needs: To ensure recognition and protection features that will be designated on the project protection of areas related to water map include: quality protection delineated on a SAM or project map. Location of stream courses and riparian zones to be protected, including the width of the protection zone for each area. Wetlands (meadows, lakes, springs, etc.) and other sensitive areas (such as shallow soils) to be protected. Boundaries of harvest units, specified roads and roads where hauling activities are prohibited or restricted, areas of different skidding and/or yarding methods, including post-harvest fuels treatments, and water sources available for purchaser’s use. BMP 1-5 Limiting the Operating The purchaser’s contract operation period will be Period of Timber Sale Activities: To limited to contract-specified periods when adverse ensure that the purchasers conduct environmental effects are not likely. The Sale their operations, including erosion Administrator will close down operations due to rainy control work, road maintenance, and periods, high water, or other adverse operating so forth, in a timely manner, within conditions in order to protect resources. the time frame specified in the Timber Sale Contract. Resource protection measures 38 and 39 establish limited operating seasons for soil and water resources. BMP 1-6 Protecting Unstable Lands. Unstable lands are mapped and included in the Riparian Reserve system and designated as an EEZ (RPM 41). Unstable areas are not treated if treatments result in irreversible adverse effects to soils, productivity, or watershed conditions. BMP 1-8 Streamside Management Riparian Reserves serve as Streamside management Zone Designation: To designate a zones (SMZs) as described in the hydrology report and zone along riparian areas, streams and the Riparian Reserve RPMs. wetlands that will minimize potential for adverse effects from adjacent Project activities within Riparian Reserves are more management activities. Management limited. This includes equipment exclusion zones, activities within these zones are reduced vegetation management, and canopy retention designed to improve riparian values. for shade. BMP 1-9 Determining Tractor Ground skidding and machine piling with tractors is Loggable Ground: To minimize limited to slopes between 35% and 45% (RPM 35). erosion and sedimentation resulting Endlining can be used to remove logs from steeper from ground disturbance of tractor slopes. logging systems. BMP 1-10 Tractor Skidding Design: The sale administrator and purchaser will designate all By designing skidding patterns to skid trails prior to ground disturbing activities (RPM best fit the terrain, the volume, 29). velocity, concentration, and direction of runoff water can be controlled in a manner that will minimize erosion and sedimentation.
C-2 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
BMP Name, Objective, Application to the Westside Project and Direction Planning TS Contract Acct. Force BMP 1-11 Suspended Log Yarding in The use of cable logging systems with suspended log Timber Harvesting: yarding is limited for this project. If cable systems are used, RMP 32 provides for erosion control treatment of 1. To protect the soil mantle from yarding corridors. excessive disturbance. 2. To maintain the integrity of the SMZ and other sensitive watershed areas. 3. To control erosion on cable corridors. BMP 1-12 Log Landing Location: RPMs 23, 24 and 27-34 establish criteria that will be To locate new landings in such a way used to locate log landings in areas that will minimize as to avoid watershed impacts and impacts to water resources. The Sale Administrator associated water quality degradation approves all log landing areas in advance of their use by the purchaser.
BMP 1-13 Erosion Prevention and Timber purchaser responsibilities for erosion control Control Measures during Timber Sale will be set forth in the Timber Sale Contract. Operations: To ensure that the Equipment will not be operated when ground conditions purchasers’ operations will be are such that excessive damage will result (RPM 38). conducted reasonably to minimize The kinds and intensity of control work required of the soil erosion. purchaser will be adjusted by the sale administrator to ground and weather conditions with emphasis on controlling overland runoff, erosion, and sedimentation. Erosion control work required by the contract will be kept current. At certain times of the year this means daily, if precipitation is likely or weekly when precipitation is predicted for the weekend. Erosion prevention measures must be applied no later than October 15 (RPM 39). BMP 1-14 Special Erosion RPMs 31, 32 and 37 include specific ground cover Prevention Measures on Disturbed requirements ranging from 50 % to 90%. Land. To provide appropriate erosion control and sedimentation protection for disturbed areas. BMP 1-16 Log Landing Erosion Landings will be properly cross-ditched, ripped (if soils Protection and Control: To reduce the are compacted), re-contoured (as necessary), and impacts of erosion and subsequent mulched after use and before the winter precipitation sedimentation associated with log period, whichever comes first (RMP 33 and 34). landings by use of mitigating measures. BMP 1-17 Erosion Control of Skid Erosion control measures will be installed on all skid Trails: To protect water quality by trails, tractor roads, and temporary roads. Erosion minimizing erosion and control measures include, but are not limited to, cross sedimentation derived from skid ditches (water bars), organic mulch, and ripping RMPs trails. 31 and 32). BMP 1-18 Meadow Protection during Meadows greater than 1 acre in size are included in the Timber Harvesting: To avoid damage Riparian Reserve system and subject to the equipment to the ground cover, soil, and exclusion RPM 14. hydrologic function of meadows.
C-3 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
BMP Name, Objective, Application to the Westside Project and Direction Planning TS Contract Acct. Force BMP 1-19 Streamcourse and Aquatic The suite of RPMs associated with the Riparian Protection: The objectives of this Reserve system are designed to maintain or improve BMP are to conduct management riparian values. actions within these areas in a manner that maintains or improves riparian and aquatic values. BMP 1-20 Erosion Control Structure During the period of the timber sale contract, the Maintenance: To ensure that purchaser will provide maintenance of soil erosion constructed erosion control structures control structures contracted by the purchaser until they are stabilized and working. become stabilized, but not more than one year after their construction. If the purchaser fails to do seasonal maintenance work, the Forest Service may assume the responsibility and charge the purchaser accordingly. The Forest Service sale administrator is responsible for ensuring erosion control maintenance work is completed. BMP 1-21 Acceptance of Timber The sale administrator must inspect erosion control Sale Erosion Control Measures before measures to ensure their adequacy prior to accepting Sale Closure: To ensure the adequacy closure on the unit and/or sale. of required erosion control work on timber sales. The purchaser is responsible for repairing erosion control treatments that fail to meet criteria in the Timber Sale Contract, as determined by the Sale Administer, for up to one year past closure of the sale. BMP 1-22 Slash Treatment in There will be no primary fire ignition within the Sensitive Areas: To maintain or Riparian Reserve EEZs (RPM 21). All burn piles must improve water quality by protecting be located outside of the Riparian Reserve EEZs (RPM sensitive areas from degradation 22). which would likely result from using mechanized equipment for slash disposal. BMP 1-24 Use of Special “C” No special “C” clauses are anticipated. Provisions: To use the option of inserting Special “C” provisions in the timber sale contract to protect water quality where standard “B” or “C” provisions do not apply or are inadequate to protect watershed values. BMP 1-25 Modification of the Once timber sales are sold, they are harvested as Timber Sale Contract: To modify the planned via the timber sale contract. At times, however, timber sale contract if new it will be necessary to modify a timber sale contract circumstances or conditions indicate because of new concerns about the potential effects of that the timber sale will damage soil, land disturbance on the water resource. If new evidence water, or watershed values. raises serious concerns to the Forest Service representative, an interdisciplinary team will be assigned to assess the evidence and implications.
C-4 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
BMP Name, Objective, Application to the Westside Project and Direction Planning TS Contract Acct. Force BMP 2-2 General guidelines for the The Westside Project will construct new temporary Location and Design of Roads: roads during the timber sale contract period. Most will Locate roads to minimize problems be short spurs from existing system roads to better and risks to water; aquatic, and access individual units. The proposed action includes riparian resources. Incorporate several temporary roads that will use abandoned road measures that prevent or reduce beds. RPMs 51 and 52 describe measures applicable to impacts, through design for temporary roads. construction, reconstruction, and other route system improvements.
BMP 2-3 Road Construction and Erosion control methods identified in RPMs 53 to 56 Reconstruction Minimize erosion and are designed to protect water quality from road sediment delivery from roads during management. The project will also have an erosion road construction or reconstruction, control plan as required by BMP 2-13. and their related activities BMP 2-4 Road Maintenance and RPMs 53 to 56 would also apply to road maintenance Operations.: To ensure water-quality activities. Road maintenance usually improves road protection by providing adequate and drainage, reducing road related erosion and improving appropriate maintenance and by water quality. controlling road use and operations BMP 2-5 Water Source Development RPMs 25 and 26 have been adopted to meet fisheries and Utilization: supply water for protection needs as well as maintaining water quality. road construction, maintenance, dust abatement, fire protection, and other management activities, while protecting and maintaining water quality. BMP 2-6 Road Storage: Ensure that This measure would apply to closed system roads that roads placed in storage are are opened for use during this project. maintained to so that drainage facilities and runoff patterns function properly, and damage to adjacent resources is prevented. Stored roads are managed to be returned to service, at various intervals. BMP 2-7 Road Decommissioning This measure would apply to the temporary roads used Stabilize, restore, and vegetate for the project. RPMs 51 and 52 implement this BMP. unneeded roads to a more natural state as necessary to protect and enhance NFS lands, resources, and water quality. BMP 2-8 Stream Crossings: There are several stream crossings needed for the Minimize water, aquatic and riparian temporary roads included in the proposed action. resource disturbances and related Crossings would be reviewed by appropriate resource sediment production when specialists prior to construction (RPM 52). constructing, reconstructing, or maintaining temporary and permanent water crossings. .
C-5 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
BMP Name, Objective, Application to the Westside Project and Direction Planning TS Contract Acct. Force BMP 2-9 Snow Removal and If snow plowing is required to access the project area, Storage: Prevent or reduce erosion, measures will be taken to minimize road surface sedimentation, and chemical pollution damage and maintain control of road surface runoff. that may result from snow removal and storage activities. BMP 2-10 Parking and Staging Parking and staging areas are not anticipated. Areas: Construct, install, and Equipment will be parked and staged on log landings. maintain an appropriate level of drainage and runoff treatment for parking and staging areas to protect water, aquatic, and riparian resources BMP 2-11 Equipment Refueling and Landings will be located outside of Riparian Reserves Servicing. Prevent fuels, lubricants, to minimize the potential for impact (RPM 23). A spill cleaners, and other harmful materials prevention and countermeasure plan (SPCC) is required from discharging into nearby surface if any mobile fuel source exceeds 1,320 gallons. waters or infiltrating through soils to contaminate groundwater resources. BMP 2-12 Aggregate Borrow Areas: No aggregate borrow areas are proposed for this Minimize disturbance to water, project. aquatic, and riparian resources when developing and using aggregate borrow sites BMP 2-13 Erosion Control Plans The erosion control plan provides a seamless transition (roads and other activities). between planning-level (NEPA) mitigation descriptions Effectively limit and mitigate erosion and on-the-ground implementation of erosion-control and sedimentation from any ground- measures tailored to site conditions. disturbing activities, through planning prior to commencement of project It will ensure that all disturbance-related mitigation activity, and through project requirements and provisions for field revisions or management and administration modifications are accurately captured in one during project implementation. comprehensive document for each project or activity BMP 5-2 - Slope Limitations for RPM 35 is designed to limit equipment based on slope. Mechanical Equipment Operation. Equipment is generally limited to slopes less than 35%, To reduce gully and sheet erosion and but can operate on slopes up to 45% if skid trails are associated sediment production by covered in slash. limiting tractor use. BMP 5-3 Tractor Operation RPM 14 establishes equipment exclusion zones for all Limitation in Wetlands and Meadows riparian areas, which would include meadows. To limit turbidity and sediment production resulting from compaction, rutting, runoff concentration, and subsequent erosion by excluding the use of mechanical equipment in wetland and meadows except for the purpose of restoring wetland and meadow function. BMP 5-4 Revegetation of Surface - RPMs 10 and 31 provide for seeding of disturbed disturbed Areas To protect water landings and skid trails if necessary to achieve ground quality by minimizing soil erosion cover requirements. through the stabilizing influence of vegetation foliage and root network
C-6 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
BMP Name, Objective, Application to the Westside Project and Direction Planning TS Contract Acct. Force BMP 5-5 Disposal of Organic Debris: Organic debris will either be lopped and scattered, hand To prevent gully and surface erosion piled and burned, or masticated. with associated reduction in sediment production and turbidity during and after treatment. BMP 5-6 Soil Moisture Limitations RPM 38 addresses limitations on equipment operations for Tractor Operations: To prevent to reduce soil compaction of wet soils. compaction, rutting, and gullying, with resultant sediment production and turbidity. BMP 6-2 Consideration of Water Prescribed fire is limited to burning hand piles. RPMs Quality in Formulating Fire 21 and 22 provide direction for burning in and around Prescriptions: To provide for water Riparian Reserves. quality protection while achieving the management objectives through the use of prescribed fire. BMP 6-3 Protection of Water Quality Fires will be allowed to back into riparian vegetation, from Prescribed Burning Effects: To but direct lighting within riparian vegetation will not maintain soil productivity, minimize occur (RPM 21). erosion, and minimize ash, sediment, nutrients, and debris from entering water bodies. BMP 7-3 Protection of Wetlands: To Ground disturbing activities will not occur in wetlands avoid adverse water quality impacts or meadows (RPM 14). associated with destruction, disturbance, or modification of wetlands. BMP 7-4 Oil and Hazardous A spill contingency plan and spill prevention and Substance Spill Contingency Plan and countermeasure plan (SPCC) must be prepared if Spill Prevention Containment and hazardous materials (including fuels and oils) exceed Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan: To 1320 gallons (See BMP 2-11). prevent contamination of water from accidental spills. RPM 40 requires that any project related spills be contained and cleaned up immediately. BMP 7-8 Cumulative Off-site The proposed action and alternatives were evaluating Watershed Effects: To protect the using the Equivalent Roaded Acres methodology identified beneficial uses of water developed by Haskins (1986) and adopted for use by from the combined effects of multiple the Land Management Plan. Refer to the hydrology management activities which report for more detail. individually may not create unacceptable effects, but collectively may result in degraded water-quality conditions.
C-7
Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
APPENDIX D: PAST, PRESENT AND REASONABLY FORESEEABLE FUTURE PROJECTS USED IN CUMULATIVE EFFECTS ANALYSES Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects were derived from the following locations: • Forest Service Past Activities – Forest Service Activity Tracking System (FACTS) database (Ground Disturbing Activities By Watershed feature class in FACTS Geodatabase stored in project folder) • Forest Service Current and Future Foreseeable Actions – Schedule of Proposed Actions (April-June 2013) • Past Private Timber Harvest Plan – CalFire THP FTP site • Future Private Timber Harvest Plans – CalFire THP Website • Grazing – CalVeg data
Appendix D Table 1.Present and reasonably foreseeable activities for the Westside Plantation Project area organized in by the 7th field watersheds within the Middle South Fork Trinity River 5th field watershed. Activity Type Name Activity Acres Cave Creek-Swift Creek Mechanical harvest Private harvest THP 50 Agricultural Grazing from CalVeg 56 Mechanical harvest Rattlesnake Fuels Reduction 1 and Forest Health Little Bear Wallow Creek-Hidden Valley Mechanical harvest Private harvest THP 5 Agricultural Grazing from CalVeg 126 Miller Springs Mechanical harvest Private harvest THP 0 Agricultural Private grazing from CalVeg 38 Upper Plummer Creek Mechanical harvest Private harvest THP 0 Agricultural Grazing from CalVeg 14 Mechanical harvest Wallow Fire Salvage 66 Mechanical harvest Rattlesnake Fuels Reduction 45 and Forest Health
D-1 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Lower Plummer Creek Mechanical harvest Private harvest THP 0 Agricultural Grazing from CalVeg 46 Mechanical harvest Wallow Fire Salvage 111 Upper Indian Valley Creek Mechanical harvest Private harvest THP 0 Agricultural Grazing from CalVeg 28 Mechanical harvest Wallow Fire Salvage 21 Lower Indian Valley Creek Mechanical harvest Private harvest THP 0 Agricultural Grazing from Cal-Veg 20 Butter Creek Meadows Mechanical harvest Private harvest THP 0 Agricultural Grazing from Cal-Veg 34 McClellan-South Fork Trinity River Mechanical harvest Private harvest THP 32 Agricultural Grazing from CalVeg 78 Mechanical harvest Red Fir Restoration 148 Machine pile burn Red Fir Restoration 148 Fuels reduction: mastication Red Fir Restoration 148 Hitchcock Creek-Oak Flat Mechanical harvest Private harvest THP 77 Agricultural Grazing from Cal-Veg 182 Mechanical Harvest Red Fir Restoration 384 Machine pile burn Red Fir Restoration 384 Fuels reduction: mastication Red Fir Restoration 384
D-2 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
APPENDIX E: WESTSIDE PLANTATION PROJECT UNIT LIST WITH TREATMENT TYPES Appendix E Table 1. List of plantation treatment units, age of plantations, size of units, and types of treatments for both Action Alternatives of the Westside Plantation Project. All potential fuels treatments that may occur within treatment units are included, but a subset of those treatments that are most appropriate for each unit will be selected during implementation. Mast=mastication, MP=Machine Pile, HP=Hand pile, PB=Pile Burn, JB=Jackpot Burn. Alt 3 FACTS ID Forest Plan Alt 2 Fuels Unit Plantation Age Riparian Acres Alt 2 Method Alt 3 Method Fuels Number Prescription Treatment Treatment 0100102000 21 to 30 Years 7L 4.8 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0100102000 21 to 30 Years 8 0.0 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0100104000 21 to 30 Years 7L 56.4 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0110002000 21 to 30 Years 3 2.8 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0110101000 147 30+ Years 8 16.7 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0110101000 147 30+ Years 8 y 0.3 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0110102000 152 30+ Years 7L 29.8 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0110102000 152 30+ Years 7L y 3.4 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0110102000 152 30+ Years 7L 0.2 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0110103000 153 30+ Years 7L 28.3 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0110104000 30+ Years 7L 41.9 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0110104000 30+ Years 7L y 0.4 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0110105000 154 30+ Years 7L 24.1 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0110105000 154 30+ Years 8 6.5 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0110105000 154 30+ Years 7L y 0.9 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0110106000 30+ Years 7L 5.6 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0110106000 30+ Years 7L 23.5 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
E-1 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Alt 3 FACTS ID Forest Plan Alt 2 Fuels Unit Plantation Age Riparian Acres Alt 2 Method Alt 3 Method Fuels Number Prescription Treatment Treatment 0110106000 30+ Years 7L y 3.3 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0110106000 30+ Years 7L y 1.9 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0110107000 155 30+ Years 7L 29.1 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0110107000 155 30+ Years 7L y 9.0 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0110108000 156 30+ Years 7L 26.3 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0110108000 156 30+ Years 7L y 4.6 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0110109000 21 to 30 Years 7L 3.9 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0110109000 21 to 30 Years 8 0.1 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0110110000 21 to 30 Years 7L 26.4 Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0110110000 21 to 30 Years 7L y 0.8 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0110110000 21 to 30 Years 7L 0.9 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0110111000 21 to 30 Years 7L 23.0 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0110111000 21 to 30 Years 7L y 0.1 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0110112000 21 to 30 Years 7L 48.2 Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0110112000 21 to 30 Years 7L y 1.7 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0120001000 21 to 30 Years 7L 14.4 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0120002000 21 to 30 Years 7L 7.0 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0120003000 21 to 30 Years 7L 13.3 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0120003000 21 to 30 Years 7L y 0.8 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0120004000 21 to 30 Years 7L 9.8 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0120005000 21 to 30 Years 7L 8.1 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0120006000 21 to 30 Years 7L 9.1 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0120006000 21 to 30 Years 7L y 2.0 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0120007000 21 to 30 Years 7L 17.1 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
E-2 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Alt 3 FACTS ID Forest Plan Alt 2 Fuels Unit Plantation Age Riparian Acres Alt 2 Method Alt 3 Method Fuels Number Prescription Treatment Treatment 0120007000 21 to 30 Years 7L y 0.6 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0120008000 21 to 30 Years 7L 10.7 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0120008000 21 to 30 Years 7L y 0.7 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0120009000 21 to 30 Years 7L 5.1 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0120009000 21 to 30 Years 7L y 0.2 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0120009000 21 to 30 Years 7L y 0.0 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0120010000 21 to 30 Years 7L 31.0 Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0120010000 21 to 30 Years 7L y 3.8 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0120012000 21 to 30 Years 7L 13.3 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0120013000 21 to 30 Years 7L 9.3 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0120013000 21 to 30 Years 7L y 0.7 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0120013000 21 to 30 Years 7L y 0.0 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0120014000 133A 21 to 30 Years 7L 11.7 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0120014000 133A 21 to 30 Years 7L y 2.2 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0120014000 133A 21 to 30 Years 7L y 0.0 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0120015000 21 to 30 Years 7L 10.9 Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0120016000 21 to 30 Years 7L 6.5 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0120017000 21 to 30 Years 7L 1.0 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0120018000 145 21 to 30 Years 7L 8.8 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0120018000 145 21 to 30 Years 7L y 3.6 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0120018000 145 21 to 30 Years 7L y 0.0 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0120019000 147/148 21 to 30 Years 7L 9.4 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0120019000 147/148 21 to 30 Years 8 9.2 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0120019000 147/148 21 to 30 Years 8 y 0.4 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
E-3 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Alt 3 FACTS ID Forest Plan Alt 2 Fuels Unit Plantation Age Riparian Acres Alt 2 Method Alt 3 Method Fuels Number Prescription Treatment Treatment 0120020000 149 21 to 30 Years 7L 2.3 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0120020000 150 21 to 30 Years 7L 7.2 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0120020000 151 21 to 30 Years 7L 18.4 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0120021000 126A 21 to 30 Years 7L 14.2 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0120024000 21 to 30 Years 7L 8.1 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0120024000 21 to 30 Years 7L y 2.7 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0120025000 21 to 30 Years 7L 11.9 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0120026000 142 21 to 30 Years 7L 2.7 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0120027000 146 21 to 30 Years 7L 7.9 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0120027000 146 21 to 30 Years 7L y 1.1 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0120027000 146 21 to 30 Years 7L y 0.3 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0120028000 21 to 30 Years 7L 11.4 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0120028000 21 to 30 Years 7L y 0.1 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0120029000 21 to 30 Years 7L 6.7 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0120030000 21 to 30 Years 7L 4.0 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0120030000 21 to 30 Years 7L 13.6 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0120030000 21 to 30 Years 7L y 0.3 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0120030000 21 to 30 Years 7L y 0.3 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0120030000 21 to 30 Years 7L y 0.5 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0120031000 21 to 30 Years 7L 5.6 Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0120031000 21 to 30 Years 7L y 1.2 Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0120031000 21 to 30 Years 7L 1.3 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0120031000 21 to 30 Years 7L y 0.0 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0120032000 21 to 30 Years 7L 3.8 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
E-4 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Alt 3 FACTS ID Forest Plan Alt 2 Fuels Unit Plantation Age Riparian Acres Alt 2 Method Alt 3 Method Fuels Number Prescription Treatment Treatment 0120032000 21 to 30 Years 7L y 2.2 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0120033000 21 to 30 Years 7L 0.0 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0120033000 21 to 30 Years 7L 7.7 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0120033000 21 to 30 Years 7L y 1.1 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0120101000 139 30+ Years 7L 25.2 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0120102000 140 30+ Years 7L 52.4 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0120103000 141 30+ Years 7L 25.0 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0120103000 141 30+ Years 7L y 0.0 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0120104000 143 30+ Years 7L 18.7 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0120105000 144 30+ Years NON FS 0.0 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0120105000 144 30+ Years 7L 16.5 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0120105000 144 30+ Years 7L y 21.6 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0120106000 138 30+ Years 7L 12.5 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0120106000 138 30+ Years 7L y 0.0 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0120107000 137 30+ Years 7L 25.8 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0120107000 137 30+ Years 7L y 2.0 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0120107000 137 30+ Years 7L y 1.3 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0120108000 136 30+ Years 7L 15.0 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0120108000 136 30+ Years 7L 17.4 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0120108000 136 30+ Years 7L y 0.1 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0120108000 136 30+ Years 7L y 0.7 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0120109000 135 30+ Years 7L 33.4 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0120109000 135 30+ Years 7L y 0.1 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0120110000 134 30+ Years 7L 21.5 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
E-5 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Alt 3 FACTS ID Forest Plan Alt 2 Fuels Unit Plantation Age Riparian Acres Alt 2 Method Alt 3 Method Fuels Number Prescription Treatment Treatment 0120110000 134 30+ Years 7L y 0.7 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0120111000 133 30+ Years 7L 21.9 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0120112000 132 30+ Years 7L 28.9 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0120113000 131 30+ Years 7L 31.4 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0120114000 130 30+ Years 7L 31.3 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0120115000 128 30+ Years 7L 15.7 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0120115000 128 30+ Years 7L y 1.0 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0120116000 127 30+ Years 7L 37.0 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0120117000 129 30+ Years 7L 33.4 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0120118000 125/126 30+ Years 7L 33.8 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0130001000 21 to 30 Years 7L 13.1 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0130002000 21 to 30 Years 7L 7.6 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0130003000 120A 21 to 30 Years 7L 10.5 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0130004000 124A 21 to 30 Years 7L 10.8 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0130005000 121 21 to 30 Years 7L 22.1 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0130006000 21 to 30 Years 7L 12.8 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0130006000 21 to 30 Years 7L y 2.4 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0130008000 21 to 30 Years 7L 9.4 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0130101000 30+ Years 7L 24.1 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0130101000 30+ Years 7L y 0.2 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0130102000 30+ Years 7L 32.3 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0130102000 30+ Years 7L y 4.4 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0130103000 120 30+ Years 7L 27.9 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0130104000 124 30+ Years 7L 31.4 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
E-6 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Alt 3 FACTS ID Forest Plan Alt 2 Fuels Unit Plantation Age Riparian Acres Alt 2 Method Alt 3 Method Fuels Number Prescription Treatment Treatment 0130105000 123 30+ Years 7L 31.2 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0130105000 123 30+ Years 7L y 0.1 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0130106000 122 30+ Years 7L 45.0 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0130107000 30+ Years 7L 37.0 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0130107000 30+ Years 7L y 4.9 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0130108000 30+ Years 7L 22.3 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0130108000 30+ Years 7L y 0.3 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0130108000 30+ Years 7L y 0.0 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0130108000 30+ Years 7L y 0.4 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0130109000 21 to 30 Years 7L 41.1 Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0130109000 21 to 30 Years 7L y 0.9 Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0130109000 21 to 30 Years 7L 1.6 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0130109000 21 to 30 Years 7L y 0.5 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0140001000 003 21 to 30 Years 7L 12.4 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0140002000 004 21 to 30 Years 7L 2.0 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0140002000 004 21 to 30 Years 7L y 0.1 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0140003000 006 21 to 30 Years 7L 7.7 Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0140003000 006 21 to 30 Years 7L y 2.4 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0140004000 007 21 to 30 Years 7L 4.5 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0140005000 011 21 to 30 Years 7L 6.6 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0140101000 001 30+ Years 7L 21.4 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0140101000 001A 30+ Years 7L 5.4 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0140101000 001 30+ Years 7L y 0.0 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0140101000 001A 30+ Years 7L y 10.2 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
E-7 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Alt 3 FACTS ID Forest Plan Alt 2 Fuels Unit Plantation Age Riparian Acres Alt 2 Method Alt 3 Method Fuels Number Prescription Treatment Treatment 0140103000 002 30+ Years 7L 9.7 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0140103000 002A 30+ Years 7L 4.6 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0140103000 002A 30+ Years 7L y 0.6 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0140104000 005 30+ Years 7L 10.0 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0140104000 005 30+ Years 7L y 2.2 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0140105000 012 30+ Years 7L 21.2 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0140106000 009A 30+ Years 7L 7.8 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0140106000 009 30+ Years 7L 5.0 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0140107000 010 30+ Years 7L 15.8 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0140107000 010A 30+ Years 7L 4.5 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0140108000 008 30+ Years 7L 8.1 Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0140108000 008 30+ Years 7L 0.5 Commercial Thin HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0140108000 008A 30+ Years 7L 9.3 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0140108000 008 30+ Years 7L y 2.6 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0140110000 019 30+ Years 7L 6.6 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0140110000 019A 30+ Years 7L 0.7 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0140110000 019A 30+ Years 7L y 0.0 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0140111000 015B 30+ Years 7L 32.7 Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0140111000 015A 30+ Years 7L 8.8 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0140111000 015A 30+ Years 7L y 0.1 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0140111000 015B 30+ Years 7L y 7.6 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0140111000 015B 30+ Years 7L y 0.2 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0140111000 015B 30+ Years 7L y 0.2 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0140112000 012 30+ Years 7L 26.4 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
E-8 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Alt 3 FACTS ID Forest Plan Alt 2 Fuels Unit Plantation Age Riparian Acres Alt 2 Method Alt 3 Method Fuels Number Prescription Treatment Treatment 0140112000 012 30+ Years 7L y 3.6 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0140113000 014 30+ Years 7L 16.7 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0140113000 014 30+ Years 7L y 1.5 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0140114000 018 30+ Years 7L 15.8 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0140115000 022 30+ Years 7L 15.6 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0140115000 022A 30+ Years 7L 1.1 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0140115000 022A 30+ Years 7L y 0.3 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0140115000 022 30+ Years 7L y 3.0 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0140116000 021 30+ Years 7L 14.9 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0140116000 021 30+ Years 7L y 1.8 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0140116000 021 30+ Years 7L y 1.1 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0140117000 025 30+ Years 0.6 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0140117000 025 30+ Years 7L 17.6 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0140118000 020 30+ Years 7L 19.9 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0140118000 020 30+ Years 7L y 0.1 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0140119000 016 30+ Years 1.2 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0140119000 016 30+ Years 7L 12.0 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0140120000 017 30+ Years 7L 14.8 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0140121000 013 30+ Years 0.3 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0140121000 013 30+ Years 7L 27.0 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0140121000 013 30+ Years 7L y 0.0 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0150001000 039 21 to 30 Years 7L 9.8 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0150001000 039 21 to 30 Years 7L y 0.4 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0150002000 040 21 to 30 Years 7L 7.7 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
E-9 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Alt 3 FACTS ID Forest Plan Alt 2 Fuels Unit Plantation Age Riparian Acres Alt 2 Method Alt 3 Method Fuels Number Prescription Treatment Treatment 0150002000 040 21 to 30 Years 7L y 1.7 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0150101000 042 30+ Years 7L 20.2 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0150102000 038 30+ Years 7L 19.4 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0150102000 038 30+ Years 7L y 0.8 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0150104000 034 30+ Years 7L 19.3 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0150104000 034 30+ Years 7L y 0.1 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0150105000 033 30+ Years 7L 19.9 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0150105000 033A 30+ Years 7L 2.1 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0150105000 033A 30+ Years 7L y 0.5 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0150106000 032 30+ Years 7L 22.0 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0150107000 026 30+ Years 7L 18.4 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0150107000 026 30+ Years 7L y 0.4 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0150108000 027 30+ Years 7L 14.6 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0150108000 027 30+ Years 7L y 6.2 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0150109000 028C 30+ Years 7L 9.2 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0150109000 028A 30+ Years 7L 8.2 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0150109000 028B 30+ Years 7L 6.7 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0150109000 028C 30+ Years 7L y 6.8 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0150109000 028A 30+ Years 7L y 1.6 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0150109000 028B 30+ Years 7L y 0.1 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0150111000 037 30+ Years 7L 5.0 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0150111000 037 30+ Years 7L y 3.1 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0150112000 031 30+ Years 7L 30.2 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0150112000 031 30+ Years 7L y 0.1 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
E-10 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Alt 3 FACTS ID Forest Plan Alt 2 Fuels Unit Plantation Age Riparian Acres Alt 2 Method Alt 3 Method Fuels Number Prescription Treatment Treatment 0150114000 024 30+ Years NON FS 1.1 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0150114000 024 30+ Years 7L 27.8 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0150114000 024 30+ Years NON FS y 0.0 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0150115000 024 30+ Years 7L 28.2 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0150115000 024 30+ Years 7L y 0.0 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0150116000 023 30+ Years 7L 44.0 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0150116000 023 30+ Years 7L y 0.0 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0150117000 040 30+ Years 7L 39.1 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0150118000 041 30+ Years 7L 39.3 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0150119000 043 30+ Years 7L 27.2 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0150119000 043 30+ Years 7L y 0.0 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0150120000 044A 30+ Years 7L 3.4 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0150120000 044A 30+ Years 7L y 4.6 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0150120000 044A 30+ Years 7L y 0.0 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0150121000 045 30+ Years 7L 3.5 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0150121000 045A 30+ Years 7L 2.2 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0150121000 046 30+ Years 7L 19.8 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0150121000 046A 30+ Years 7L 1.2 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0150121000 045 30+ Years 7L y 1.1 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0150121000 045A 30+ Years 7L y 1.2 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0150121000 045 30+ Years 7L y 0.1 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0150121000 045A 30+ Years 7L y 0.0 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0150122000 029 30+ Years 7L 17.1 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0150122000 029 30+ Years 7L y 0.0 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
E-11 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Alt 3 FACTS ID Forest Plan Alt 2 Fuels Unit Plantation Age Riparian Acres Alt 2 Method Alt 3 Method Fuels Number Prescription Treatment Treatment 0150122000 029 30+ Years 7L y 0.9 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0160005000 047 21 to 30 Years 7L 7.2 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0160006000 048 21 to 30 Years 7L 7.4 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0330018000 114 30+ Years 7L 2.5 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0330018000 113 30+ Years 7L 1.2 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0330018000 114 30+ Years 7L y 1.4 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0330018000 113 30+ Years 7L y 0.6 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0330102000 109 30+ Years 7L y 1.0 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0330103000 112 30+ Years 7L 5.4 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0330103000 112 30+ Years 7L y 3.0 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0330104000 108 30+ Years 7L 1.8 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0330105000 115 30+ Years 7L 6.6 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0330114000 107 30+ Years 8 8.8 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0330114000 107 30+ Years 8 y 0.2 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0330116000 094 30+ Years 8 5.7 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0330117000 106 30+ Years 8 3.6 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0330117000 106 30+ Years 8 y 0.6 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0330118000 105 30+ Years 8 5.7 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0330119000 104 30+ Years 8 7.7 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0330120000 117 30+ Years 7L 10.1 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0330120000 117 30+ Years 8 37.7 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0330120000 117 30+ Years 7L y 1.7 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0330120000 117 30+ Years 8 y 3.6 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0330122000 116 30+ Years 7L 26.5 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
E-12 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Alt 3 FACTS ID Forest Plan Alt 2 Fuels Unit Plantation Age Riparian Acres Alt 2 Method Alt 3 Method Fuels Number Prescription Treatment Treatment 0340104000 064 30+ Years 8 2.4 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0340106000 069 30+ Years 8 5.2 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0340106000 069 30+ Years 8 y 0.2 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0340107000 093 30+ Years 8 10.4 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0350003000 21 to 30 Years 8 4.4 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0350004000 21 to 30 Years 8 4.0 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0350004000 21 to 30 Years NON FS 0.0 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0360001000 21 to 30 Years 8 16.1 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0360001000 21 to 30 Years 8 y 1.1 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0360002000 21 to 30 Years 8 7.6 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0360004000 21 to 30 Years 8 38.5 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0360004000 21 to 30 Years 8 y 5.4 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0360005000 21 to 30 Years 1 5.8 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0360005000 21 to 30 Years 8 0.7 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0360005000 21 to 30 Years 1 y 3.9 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0360005000 21 to 30 Years 8 y 0.0 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0360006000 21 to 30 Years 8 23.5 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0360006000 21 to 30 Years 8 y 3.7 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0360006000 21 to 30 Years 8 y 1.2 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0360009000 21 to 30 Years 1 31.5 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0360009000 21 to 30 Years 6 0.2 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0360009000 21 to 30 Years 8 0.8 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0360009000 21 to 30 Years 1 y 0.6 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0360010000 21 to 30 Years 8 13.5 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
E-13 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Alt 3 FACTS ID Forest Plan Alt 2 Fuels Unit Plantation Age Riparian Acres Alt 2 Method Alt 3 Method Fuels Number Prescription Treatment Treatment 0360010000 21 to 30 Years 8 y 0.9 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0360018000 21 to 30 Years 8 42.1 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0360018000 21 to 30 Years 8 y 0.6 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0360019000 21 to 30 Years 7F 17.8 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0360019000 21 to 30 Years 7F y 1.1 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0360020000 21 to 30 Years 1 0.0 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0360020000 21 to 30 Years 8 7.3 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0360037000 21 to 30 Years 8 30.0 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0380001000 21 to 30 Years 8 31.1 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0380003000 21 to 30 Years 8 6.1 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0380004000 21 to 30 Years 8 12.7 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0380004000 21 to 30 Years 8 y 7.5 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0380005000 21 to 30 Years 8 23.3 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0380005000 21 to 30 Years 8 y 3.5 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0380007000 21 to 30 Years 8 15.1 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0380007000 21 to 30 Years 8 y 1.0 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0380008000 21 to 30 Years 8 23.0 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0380008000 21 to 30 Years 8 y 0.7 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0380009000 21 to 30 Years 8 12.1 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0380009000 21 to 30 Years 8 y 1.5 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0380010000 21 to 30 Years 8 15.3 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0380011000 21 to 30 Years 8 13.9 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0380011000 21 to 30 Years 8 y 3.0 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0380012000 21 to 30 Years 8 52.4 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
E-14 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Alt 3 FACTS ID Forest Plan Alt 2 Fuels Unit Plantation Age Riparian Acres Alt 2 Method Alt 3 Method Fuels Number Prescription Treatment Treatment 0380012000 21 to 30 Years 8 y 3.6 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0380013000 21 to 30 Years 8 15.5 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0380013000 21 to 30 Years 8 y 4.4 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0380014000 21 to 30 Years 8 14.9 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0380015000 21 to 30 Years 8 34.2 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0380015000 21 to 30 Years 8 y 0.3 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0380016000 21 to 30 Years 8 11.0 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0380016000 21 to 30 Years 8 y 6.1 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0380017000 21 to 30 Years 8 9.8 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0380017000 21 to 30 Years 8 y 0.0 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0380018000 21 to 30 Years 8 23.9 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0380018000 21 to 30 Years 8 y 3.4 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0380019000 21 to 30 Years 8 10.8 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0380020000 21 to 30 Years 8 15.9 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0380020000 21 to 30 Years 8 y 2.3 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0380021000 21 to 30 Years 8 12.9 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0380022000 21 to 30 Years 8 9.0 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0380022000 21 to 30 Years 8 y 13.1 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0380023000 21 to 30 Years 8 7.7 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0380024000 21 to 30 Years 8 16.3 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0380024000 21 to 30 Years 8 y 1.6 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0380025000 21 to 30 Years 8 42.0 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0380025000 21 to 30 Years 8 y 4.9 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0380026000 21 to 30 Years 8 11.1 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
E-15 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Alt 3 FACTS ID Forest Plan Alt 2 Fuels Unit Plantation Age Riparian Acres Alt 2 Method Alt 3 Method Fuels Number Prescription Treatment Treatment 0380026000 21 to 30 Years 8 y 2.0 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0380027000 21 to 30 Years 8 7.9 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0380029000 21 to 30 Years 8 4.9 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0380029000 21 to 30 Years 8 y 0.0 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0380030000 21 to 30 Years 8 6.2 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0380031000 21 to 30 Years 8 1.1 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0380032000 21 to 30 Years 8 3.8 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0380032000 21 to 30 Years 8 y 1.2 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0380033000 21 to 30 Years 8 1.8 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0380033000 21 to 30 Years 8 y 1.2 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0380034000 21 to 30 Years 8 0.6 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0380034000 21 to 30 Years 8 y 0.1 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0380035000 21 to 30 Years 8 12.9 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0380035000 21 to 30 Years 8 y 0.2 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0380036000 21 to 30 Years 8 6.0 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0380044000 21 to 30 Years 8 12.6 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0380044000 21 to 30 Years 8 y 4.2 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0380050000 21 to 30 Years 8 6.0 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0380050000 21 to 30 Years 8 y 3.4 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0380051000 21 to 30 Years 8 10.5 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0380052000 21 to 30 Years 8 5.4 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0380053000 21 to 30 Years 8 7.4 Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0380054000 21 to 30 Years 8 2.9 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0380054000 21 to 30 Years 8 y 0.6 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
E-16 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Alt 3 FACTS ID Forest Plan Alt 2 Fuels Unit Plantation Age Riparian Acres Alt 2 Method Alt 3 Method Fuels Number Prescription Treatment Treatment 0380055000 21 to 30 Years 8 4.4 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0380056000 21 to 30 Years 8 6.9 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0380056000 21 to 30 Years 8 y 1.4 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0380057000 21 to 30 Years 8 2.6 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0380058000 21 to 30 Years 8 4.2 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0380059000 21 to 30 Years 8 5.9 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0380059000 21 to 30 Years 8 y 0.1 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0380060000 21 to 30 Years 8 6.3 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0380060000 21 to 30 Years 8 y 0.2 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0380061000 UIVC 31 21 to 30 Years 8 1.1 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0380061000 UIVC 31 21 to 30 Years 8 y 2.4 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0380062000 21 to 30 Years 8 7.6 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0380104000 UIVC 35 30+ Years 8 8.0 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0380104000 UIVC 35 30+ Years 8 y 0.4 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0380105000 UIVC 34 30+ Years 8 4.6 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0380105000 UIVC 34 30+ Years 8 y 1.4 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0380106000 UIVC 33 30+ Years 8 3.9 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0380107000 UIVC 33 30+ Years 8 7.9 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0380107000 UIVC 33 30+ Years 8 y 0.9 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0380108000 UIVC 32 30+ Years 8 0.9 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0380110000 30+ Years 8 0.8 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0380110000 30+ Years 8 y 0.7 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0380111000 UIVC 27 30+ Years 8 10.1 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0380111000 UIVC 27 30+ Years 8 y 0.0 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
E-17 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Alt 3 FACTS ID Forest Plan Alt 2 Fuels Unit Plantation Age Riparian Acres Alt 2 Method Alt 3 Method Fuels Number Prescription Treatment Treatment 0380112000 UIVC 28 30+ Years 8 4.8 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0380113000 UIVC 29 30+ Years 8 12.7 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0380113000 UIVC 29 30+ Years 8 y 1.3 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0380114000 UIVC 36 30+ Years 8 9.7 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0380114000 UIVC 36 30+ Years 8 y 3.0 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0380115000 30+ Years 8 6.9 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0380116000 UIVC 30 30+ Years 8 14.1 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0380116000 UIVC 30 30+ Years 8 y 0.0 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0380117000 UIVC 31 30+ Years 8 11.4 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0380117000 UIVC 31 30+ Years 8 y 1.2 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0380118000 UIVC 27 30+ Years 8 1.1 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0380119000 UIVC 19 30+ Years 8 1.7 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0380120000 UIVC 18 30+ Years 8 15.8 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0380121000 UIVC 20 30+ Years 8 0.9 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0380121000 UIVC 20 30+ Years 8 y 0.4 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0380122000 UIVC 16 30+ Years 8 1.0 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0380122000 UIVC 16 30+ Years 8 y 3.9 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0380123000 UIVC 17 30+ Years 8 4.3 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0380123000 UIVC 17 30+ Years 8 y 0.5 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0380125000 UIVC 21 30+ Years 8 44.9 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0380125000 UIVC 21 30+ Years 8 y 0.8 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0380128000 UIVC 25 30+ Years 8 5.1 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0380128000 UIVC 25 30+ Years 8 y 4.5 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0380130000 UIVC 26 30+ Years 8 6.4 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
E-18 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Alt 3 FACTS ID Forest Plan Alt 2 Fuels Unit Plantation Age Riparian Acres Alt 2 Method Alt 3 Method Fuels Number Prescription Treatment Treatment 0380130000 UIVC 26 30+ Years 8 y 1.4 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0380132000 UIVC 22 30+ Years 8 7.3 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0380133000 UIVC 23 30+ Years 8 4.2 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0380143000 UIVC 22 30+ Years 8 2.8 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0380145000 UIVC 22 30+ Years 8 7.7 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0380146000 UIVC 24 30+ Years 8 3.2 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0380146000 UIVC 24 30+ Years 8 y 2.0 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0390015000 21 to 30 Years 8 8.5 Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0390015000 21 to 30 Years 7L 5.4 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0390015000 21 to 30 Years 7L y 5.8 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0390015000 21 to 30 Years 8 y 0.0 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0390031000 21 to 30 Years 8 1.1 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0390061000 21 to 30 Years 8 4.0 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0390104000 UIVC 72 30+ Years 7L 2.5 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0390104000 UIVC 72 30+ Years 8 4.4 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0390104000 UIVC 72 30+ Years 8 y 0.4 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0390105000 UIVC 82 30+ Years 7L 4.6 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0390105000 UIVC 82 30+ Years 8 0.8 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0390106000 30+ Years 8 3.6 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0390112000 30+ Years 7L 4.7 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0390112000 30+ Years 7L y 3.2 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0390125000 21 to 30 Years 7L 6.5 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0390125000 21 to 30 Years 8 5.5 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0390125000 21 to 30 Years 7L y 0.2 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
E-19 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Alt 3 FACTS ID Forest Plan Alt 2 Fuels Unit Plantation Age Riparian Acres Alt 2 Method Alt 3 Method Fuels Number Prescription Treatment Treatment 0390125000 21 to 30 Years 8 y 1.1 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0390125000 21 to 30 Years 8 y 0.0 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400001000 21 to 30 Years 7L 8.2 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400001000 21 to 30 Years 8 0.3 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400001000 21 to 30 Years 8 y 0.0 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400002000 21 to 30 Years 8 12.1 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400002000 21 to 30 Years 8 y 0.0 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400003000 21 to 30 Years 8 1.6 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400004000 21 to 30 Years 8 12.9 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400004000 21 to 30 Years 8 y 0.2 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400004000 21 to 30 Years 8 y 1.6 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400005000 21 to 30 Years 8 2.3 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400006000 21 to 30 Years 8 6.2 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400006000 21 to 30 Years 8 y 0.0 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400006000 21 to 30 Years 8 y 0.5 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400007000 21 to 30 Years 8 4.5 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400008000 21 to 30 Years 8 12.1 Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400008000 21 to 30 Years 8 y 0.2 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400009000 21 to 30 Years 8 11.7 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400009000 21 to 30 Years 8 y 0.7 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400010000 21 to 30 Years 8 5.1 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400011000 21 to 30 Years 8 17.5 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400012000 21 to 30 Years 8 12.6 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400013000 21 to 30 Years 8 10.3 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
E-20 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Alt 3 FACTS ID Forest Plan Alt 2 Fuels Unit Plantation Age Riparian Acres Alt 2 Method Alt 3 Method Fuels Number Prescription Treatment Treatment 0400013000 21 to 30 Years 8 y 0.2 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400014000 21 to 30 Years 8 15.0 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400014000 21 to 30 Years 8 y 1.3 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400015000 21 to 30 Years 8 3.6 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400015000 21 to 30 Years 8 y 2.5 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400016000 21 to 30 Years 8 13.4 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400017000 21 to 30 Years 8 16.1 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400017000 21 to 30 Years 8 y 0.2 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400018000 21 to 30 Years 8 4.5 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400018000 21 to 30 Years 6 4.0 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400018000 21 to 30 Years 6 y 0.0 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400025000 21 to 30 Years 8 7.7 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400025000 21 to 30 Years 8 y 1.0 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400026000 21 to 30 Years 8 10.2 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400027000 21 to 30 Years 8 10.1 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400027000 21 to 30 Years 8 y 3.6 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400028000 21 to 30 Years 8 4.7 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400028000 21 to 30 Years 8 y 0.3 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400029000 21 to 30 Years 8 11.1 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400029000 21 to 30 Years 8 y 4.7 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400030000 21 to 30 Years 8 9.8 Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400030000 21 to 30 Years 8 y 3.4 Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400031000 21 to 30 Years 8 17.7 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400031000 21 to 30 Years 8 y 5.7 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
E-21 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Alt 3 FACTS ID Forest Plan Alt 2 Fuels Unit Plantation Age Riparian Acres Alt 2 Method Alt 3 Method Fuels Number Prescription Treatment Treatment 0400032000 21 to 30 Years 8 4.2 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400032000 21 to 30 Years 8 y 0.1 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400036000 21 to 30 Years 8 10.8 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400036000 21 to 30 Years 8 y 6.4 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400040000 21 to 30 Years 8 3.1 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400041000 21 to 30 Years 8 4.2 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400041000 21 to 30 Years 8 y 2.1 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400042000 21 to 30 Years 8 6.1 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400043000 21 to 30 Years 8 5.0 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400043000 21 to 30 Years 8 y 2.3 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400044000 21 to 30 Years 8 8.6 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400044000 21 to 30 Years 8 y 2.6 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400045000 21 to 30 Years 8 9.8 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400045000 21 to 30 Years 8 y 4.3 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400046000 21 to 30 Years 8 15.2 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400046000 21 to 30 Years 8 y 2.8 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400047000 21 to 30 Years 8 17.3 Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400047000 21 to 30 Years 8 y 1.4 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400048000 21 to 30 Years 8 3.2 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400049000 21 to 30 Years 8 20.9 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400049000 21 to 30 Years 8 y 0.2 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400050000 21 to 30 Years 8 18.6 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400051000 21 to 30 Years 8 7.3 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400051000 21 to 30 Years 8 y 2.1 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
E-22 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Alt 3 FACTS ID Forest Plan Alt 2 Fuels Unit Plantation Age Riparian Acres Alt 2 Method Alt 3 Method Fuels Number Prescription Treatment Treatment 0400052000 21 to 30 Years 8 5.7 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400052000 21 to 30 Years 8 y 1.5 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400053000 21 to 30 Years 8 4.8 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400054000 21 to 30 Years 8 4.6 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400054000 21 to 30 Years 8 y 0.2 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400055000 21 to 30 Years 7L 8.1 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400055000 21 to 30 Years 7L y 1.5 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400056000 21 to 30 Years 8 14.7 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400056000 21 to 30 Years 8 y 5.2 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400057000 21 to 30 Years 8 9.1 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400057000 21 to 30 Years 8 y 0.2 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400058000 21 to 30 Years 8 4.3 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400058000 21 to 30 Years 8 y 1.8 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400059000 21 to 30 Years 8 3.2 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400059000 21 to 30 Years 8 y 1.7 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400060000 21 to 30 Years 8 5.4 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400061000 21 to 30 Years 8 16.2 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400061000 21 to 30 Years 8 y 0.2 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400061000 21 to 30 Years 8 y 0.1 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400062000 21 to 30 Years 8 2.9 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400062000 21 to 30 Years 8 y 1.6 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400062000 21 to 30 Years 8 y 0.0 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400062000 21 to 30 Years 8 y 2.0 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400063000 21 to 30 Years 8 8.3 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
E-23 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Alt 3 FACTS ID Forest Plan Alt 2 Fuels Unit Plantation Age Riparian Acres Alt 2 Method Alt 3 Method Fuels Number Prescription Treatment Treatment 0400063000 21 to 30 Years 8 y 2.3 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400064000 21 to 30 Years 7L 14.0 Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400065000 21 to 30 Years 8 3.2 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400065000 21 to 30 Years 8 y 8.3 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400066000 21 to 30 Years 8 10.6 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400066000 21 to 30 Years 8 y 0.0 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400066000 21 to 30 Years 8 y 0.7 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400066000 21 to 30 Years 8 y 5.5 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400066000 21 to 30 Years 8 y 0.5 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400067000 21 to 30 Years 8 12.1 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400067000 21 to 30 Years 8 y 4.2 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400068000 21 to 30 Years 7L 1.5 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400068000 21 to 30 Years 8 0.9 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400069000 21 to 30 Years 8 7.9 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400069000 21 to 30 Years 8 y 1.0 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400070000 21 to 30 Years 8 8.1 Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400071000 21 to 30 Years 8 33.7 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400072000 21 to 30 Years 8 14.9 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400072000 21 to 30 Years 8 y 2.4 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400073000 21 to 30 Years 8 6.3 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400074000 21 to 30 Years 8 4.9 Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400074000 21 to 30 Years 8 y 1.8 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400075000 21 to 30 Years 8 9.5 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400075000 21 to 30 Years 8 y 0.3 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
E-24 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Alt 3 FACTS ID Forest Plan Alt 2 Fuels Unit Plantation Age Riparian Acres Alt 2 Method Alt 3 Method Fuels Number Prescription Treatment Treatment 0400076000 21 to 30 Years 8 6.6 Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400076000 21 to 30 Years 8 y 0.3 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400077000 21 to 30 Years 8 3.7 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400077000 21 to 30 Years 8 y 3.8 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400078000 21 to 30 Years 8 19.6 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400078000 21 to 30 Years 8 y 0.4 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400079000 21 to 30 Years 8 9.0 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400079000 21 to 30 Years 8 y 2.3 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400080000 21 to 30 Years 8 6.7 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400080000 21 to 30 Years 8 y 1.5 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400081000 21 to 30 Years 8 1.5 Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400081000 21 to 30 Years 8 y 1.7 Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400082000 21 to 30 Years 7L 3.9 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400082000 21 to 30 Years 7L y 3.0 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400083000 21 to 30 Years 7L 11.0 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400083000 21 to 30 Years 7L y 1.5 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400084000 21 to 30 Years 7L 3.7 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400084000 21 to 30 Years 7L y 2.5 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400085000 21 to 30 Years 7L 15.6 Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400085000 21 to 30 Years 7L y 5.5 Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400086000 21 to 30 Years 8 8.3 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400086000 21 to 30 Years 8 y 0.1 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400087000 21 to 30 Years 8 5.2 Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400087000 21 to 30 Years 8 y 0.6 Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
E-25 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Alt 3 FACTS ID Forest Plan Alt 2 Fuels Unit Plantation Age Riparian Acres Alt 2 Method Alt 3 Method Fuels Number Prescription Treatment Treatment 0400088000 21 to 30 Years 8 12.4 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400088000 21 to 30 Years 8 y 3.9 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400089000 21 to 30 Years 8 3.7 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400089000 21 to 30 Years 8 y 0.8 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400090000 21 to 30 Years 7L 3.5 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400091000 21 to 30 Years 8 14.8 Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400091000 21 to 30 Years 8 y 3.0 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400092000 21 to 30 Years 8 18.9 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400092000 21 to 30 Years 8 y 0.6 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400093000 21 to 30 Years 8 16.4 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400093000 21 to 30 Years 8 y 2.4 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400094000 21 to 30 Years 8 11.7 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400095000 21 to 30 Years 8 28.3 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400098000 21 to 30 Years 8 17.4 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400098000 21 to 30 Years 8 y 2.1 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400099000 21 to 30 Years 8 8.4 Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400099000 21 to 30 Years 8 y 1.4 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400100000 21 to 30 Years 8 6.3 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400100000 21 to 30 Years 8 y 0.1 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400102000 UIVC 69 30+ Years 8 9.9 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400102000 UIVC 69 30+ Years 8 2.6 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400103000 UIVC 68 30+ Years 8 10.0 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400103000 UIVC 68 30+ Years 8 y 4.1 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0400104000 UIVC 71 30+ Years 8 1.7 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
E-26 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Alt 3 FACTS ID Forest Plan Alt 2 Fuels Unit Plantation Age Riparian Acres Alt 2 Method Alt 3 Method Fuels Number Prescription Treatment Treatment 0400104000 UIVC 71 30+ Years 8 y 0.9 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0400105000 UIVC 70 30+ Years 8 3.3 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400105000 UIVC 70 30+ Years 8 y 0.1 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0400106000 UIVC 38 30+ Years 8 8.7 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400106000 UIVC 38 30+ Years 8 y 1.6 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0400107000 UIVC 37 30+ Years 8 16.6 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400107000 UIVC 37 30+ Years 8 y 0.1 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0400108000 UIVC 64 30+ Years 8 1.7 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400109000 UIVC 66 30+ Years 8 6.9 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400109000 UIVC 66 30+ Years 8 y 0.0 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0400110000 UIVC 63 30+ Years 8 5.5 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400110000 UIVC 63 30+ Years 8 y 2.4 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0400111000 UIVC 62 30+ Years 8 2.8 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400111000 UIVC 62 30+ Years 8 y 0.2 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0400112000 UIVC 61 30+ Years 8 4.3 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400113000 UIVC 58 30+ Years 8 2.2 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400113000 UIVC 58 30+ Years 8 y 2.1 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0400114000 UIVC 59 30+ Years 8 6.4 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400115000 UIVC 55 30+ Years 8 12.9 Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400115000 UIVC 55 30+ Years 8 y 2.8 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0400116000 UIVC 55 30+ Years 8 6.9 Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400117000 UIVC 57 30+ Years 8 4.3 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400117000 UIVC 57 30+ Years 8 y 1.6 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0400118000 UIVC 56 30+ Years 8 10.9 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
E-27 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Alt 3 FACTS ID Forest Plan Alt 2 Fuels Unit Plantation Age Riparian Acres Alt 2 Method Alt 3 Method Fuels Number Prescription Treatment Treatment 0400119000 30+ Years 8 5.2 Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400119000 30+ Years 8 y 0.4 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400120000 UIVC 54 30+ Years 8 y 5.3 Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0400120000 UIVC 54 30+ Years 8 14.0 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400121000 UIVC 52 30+ Years 8 3.5 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400121000 UIVC 52 30+ Years 8 y 0.2 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0400122000 UIVC 53 30+ Years 8 3.2 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400123000 UIVC 80 30+ Years 8 19.8 Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400123000 UIVC 80 30+ Years 8 y 2.2 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0400124000 UIVC 51 30+ Years 8 14.8 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400125000 UIVC 49 30+ Years 8 13.0 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400126000 UIVC 49 30+ Years 8 4.4 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400126000 UIVC 49 30+ Years 8 y 0.5 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0400127000 UIVC 47 30+ Years 8 1.3 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400127000 UIVC 47 30+ Years 8 y 0.0 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0400127000 UIVC 47 30+ Years 8 y 7.8 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0400128000 UIVC 48 30+ Years 8 1.8 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400128000 UIVC 48 30+ Years 8 y 3.6 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0400129000 UIVC 46 30+ Years 8 8.9 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400129000 UIVC 46 30+ Years 8 y 0.3 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0400130000 UIVC 81 30+ Years 8 1.0 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400130000 UIVC 81 30+ Years 8 y 2.0 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0400132000 UIVC 45 30+ Years 8 14.2 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400132000 UIVC 45 30+ Years 8 y 3.2 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
E-28 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Alt 3 FACTS ID Forest Plan Alt 2 Fuels Unit Plantation Age Riparian Acres Alt 2 Method Alt 3 Method Fuels Number Prescription Treatment Treatment 0400133000 UIVC 43/44 30+ Years 8 4.6 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400133000 UIVC 43/44 30+ Years 8 y 2.8 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0400134000 UIVC 42 30+ Years 8 5.1 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400134000 UIVC 42 30+ Years 8 y 8.8 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0400135000 UIVC 41 30+ Years 8 7.8 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400136000 UIVC 40 30+ Years 8 4.3 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400137000 UIVC 39 30+ Years 8 2.3 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400137000 UIVC 39 30+ Years 8 y 0.9 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0400138000 UIVC 60 30+ Years 8 10.8 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400140000 UIVC 67 30+ Years 8 24.1 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400141000 UIVC 65 30+ Years 8 13.3 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400141000 UIVC 65 30+ Years 8 y 8.9 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0400142000 UIVC 73 30+ Years 7L 6.8 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400142000 UIVC 73 30+ Years 7L y 1.0 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0400143000 UIVC 74 30+ Years 7L 11.3 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400143000 UIVC 74 30+ Years 7L y 4.7 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0400144000 30+ Years 7L y 1.4 Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400144000 30+ Years 7L 2.5 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400145000 UIVC 75 30+ Years 7L 13.2 Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400145000 UIVC 75 30+ Years 7L y 1.3 Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0400146000 30+ Years 7L 5.3 Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400147000 UIVC 50 21 to 30 Years 8 17.4 Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0400147000 UIVC 50 21 to 30 Years 8 y 3.3 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0410001000 21 to 30 Years 7L 6.0 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
E-29 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Alt 3 FACTS ID Forest Plan Alt 2 Fuels Unit Plantation Age Riparian Acres Alt 2 Method Alt 3 Method Fuels Number Prescription Treatment Treatment 0410001000 21 to 30 Years 7L y 0.6 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0410002000 21 to 30 Years 7L 0.4 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0410002000 21 to 30 Years 7L y 0.1 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0410003000 21 to 30 Years 7L 4.4 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0410003000 21 to 30 Years 7L y 0.9 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0410004000 21 to 30 Years 7L 3.5 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0410004000 21 to 30 Years 8 1.3 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0410017000 21 to 30 Years 7L 5.4 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0410021000 21 to 30 Years 8 15.5 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0410022000 21 to 30 Years 2 0.8 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0410022000 21 to 30 Years 6 13.6 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0410022000 21 to 30 Years 6 y 0.6 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0410024000 21 to 30 Years 7L 5.0 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0410102000 21 to 30 Years 7L 4.2 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0410104000 UIVC 79 30+ Years 7L 1.5 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0410104000 UIVC 79 30+ Years 7L y 0.6 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0410105000 21 to 30 Years 7L 1.4 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0410105000 21 to 30 Years 7L y 1.7 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0410106000 30+ Years 7L 5.3 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0410109000 UIVC 76 30+ Years 7L 12.9 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0410109000 UIVC 76 30+ Years 7L y 0.7 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0410111000 UIVC 77 30+ Years 7L 5.8 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0410111000 UIVC 77 30+ Years 7L y 3.3 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0410111000 UIVC 77 30+ Years 7L y 1.6 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
E-30 Environmental Assessment – July 2014 Westside Plantation Project
Alt 3 FACTS ID Forest Plan Alt 2 Fuels Unit Plantation Age Riparian Acres Alt 2 Method Alt 3 Method Fuels Number Prescription Treatment Treatment 0410111000 UIVC 77 30+ Years 7L y 0.2 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0410111000 UIVC 77 30+ Years 7L y 0.0 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0410112000 UIVC 78 30+ Years 7L y 4.1 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0410112000 UIVC 78 30+ Years 7L y 0.3 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0410112000 UIVC 78 30+ Years 7L y 2.2 Commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB 0580018000 21 to 30 Years 8 1.1 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0580018000 21 to 30 Years 8 y 0.0 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0580020000 21 to 30 Years 8 9.2 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
0600108000 UIVC 21 30+ Years 8 14.3 Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
WPT1 NEW 8 4.4 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
WPT2 NEW 8 10.3 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
WPT3 NEW 8 5.6 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
WPT3 NEW 8 y 2.1 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
WPT4 NEW 8 8.6 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
WPT4 NEW 8 y 0.1 Non-commercial Thin Mast, MP, HP, PB, JB Non-commercial Thin HP, PB, JB
E-31