Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Environmental Assessment/FONSI

United States Department of Agriculture Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Final Environmental Assessment

Forest Service Plumas National Forest Mt. Hough Ranger District May 2018 For More Information Contact:

Daniel Lovato, Forest Supervisor

c/o: Christine Handler, Project Leader TEAMS Enterprise Unit Mt. Hough Ranger District 39696 Highway 70 Quincy, California 95971 Phone: 559-920-2188 Email: [email protected] Project specific website: http://www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=49421

Photo Description: Landscape view of Moonlight burned area featuring snags and chaparral understory. Photo taken by Moonlight Interdisciplinary Team, July 2016.

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD- 3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: [email protected]. USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender.

ii Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Contents

Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need ...... 1 Introduction ...... 1 Proposed Project Location ...... 1 Need for the Proposal ...... 3 Background ...... 3 Management Direction ...... 3 Purpose and Need ...... 8 Purpose 1 - Forest Health, Landscape Diversity and Resilience...... 8 Purpose 2 - Watershed Health ...... 14 Purpose 3 - Recreational Opportunities ...... 16 Public Involvement and Tribal Consultation ...... 17 Issues and Alternative Development ...... 17 Chapter 2 - Proposed Action and Alternatives ...... 19 Alternative A - No action ...... 19 Alternative B - Proposed action ...... 19 Restore Vegetation, Thin and Reduce Fuels ...... 19 Restore Watersheds and Roads ...... 25 Maintain Non-motorized and Motorized Trails ...... 27 Standard Management Requirements and Design Features ...... 27 Alternative C - California spotted owl interim recommendation ...... 27 Alternative D – Reforestation without the use of herbicides ...... 28 Alternatives considered but eliminated from detailed study ...... 28 Alternative E – Incorporate Firewise actions on private lands ...... 28 Alternative F – Maintain and improve roads and do not close them to public use ...... 29 Alternative G – Consider the use of grazing for release treatments ...... 29 Chapter 3 - Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and Alternatives ...... 31 Vegetation and Silviculture ...... 31 Affected Environment ...... 32 Alternative A – No action ...... 39 Alternative B – Proposed action ...... 46 Alternative C – California spotted owl interim recommendations ...... 60 Alternative D – No herbicide use ...... 60 Summary and Conclusion ...... 61 Fire and Fuels ...... 62 Affected Environment ...... 64 Alternative A – No action ...... 68 Alternative B – Proposed action ...... 69 Alternative C – California spotted owl interim recommendations ...... 74 Alternative D – No herbicide use ...... 74 Summary and Conclusion ...... 74 Air Quality, Greenhouse Gases, and Carbon ...... 74 National Ambient Air Quality Standards ...... 75 Greenhouse Gasses and Carbon Sequestration ...... 76 Affected Environment ...... 77 Alternative A – No action ...... 79 Alternative B – Proposed action ...... 80

Mt. Hough Ranger District - i – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Alternative C – California spotted owl interim recommendations ...... 82 Alternative D – No herbicide use ...... 83 Summary and Conclusion ...... 83 Soil ...... 83 Affected Environment ...... 84 Alternative A – No action ...... 86 Alternative B – Proposed action ...... 87 Alternative C – California spotted owl interim recommendations ...... 93 Alternative D – No herbicide alternative ...... 94 Summary and Conclusion ...... 94 Hydrology and Watersheds ...... 95 Affected Environment ...... 96 Alternative A – No action ...... 98 Alternative B – Proposed action ...... 99 Alternative C – California spotted owl interim recommendations ...... 104 Alternative D – No herbicide use ...... 105 Summary and Conclusion ...... 105 Non-Native Invasive Plants ...... 106 Affected Environment ...... 106 Alternative A – No action ...... 107 Alternatives B, C and D ...... 107 Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Plants ...... 108 Affected Environment ...... 109 Alternative A – No Action ...... 109 Alternative B – Proposed Action ...... 110 Alternative C – Spotted Owl Interim Recommendations Alternative ...... 112 Alternative D – No herbicide Alternative ...... 112 Summary and Conclusion ...... 113 Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Terrestrial Wildlife ...... 113 Affected Environment ...... 114 Alternative A – No action ...... 119 Alternative B – Proposed action ...... 121 Alternative C – California spotted owl interim recommendations ...... 135 Alternative D – No herbicide use ...... 137 Summary and Conclusion ...... 138 Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Aquatic Wildlife ...... 139 Affected Environment ...... 139 Alternative A – No action ...... 141 Alternative B – Proposed action ...... 141 Alternative C – California spotted owl interim recommendations ...... 146 Alternative D – No herbicide use ...... 147 Summary and Conclusion ...... 147 Human Health Risk Assessment ...... 148 Alternative A – No action ...... 148 Alternative B – Proposed action ...... 148 Alternative C – California spotted owl interim recommendations ...... 160 Alternative D – No herbicide use ...... 160 Transportation ...... 160 Affected Environment ...... 160 Alternative A – No action ...... 161 All Action Alternatives (Alternative B, C, and D)...... 161

Mt. Hough Ranger District - ii – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Summary and Conclusion ...... 163 Recreation ...... 164 Affected Environment ...... 164 Alternative A – No action ...... 166 Alternative B – Proposed action ...... 167 Alternative C – California spotted owl interim recommendations ...... 170 Alternative D – No herbicide alternative ...... 172 Conclusion ...... 173 Socioeconomics ...... 173 Affected Environment ...... 175 Alternative A – No action ...... 178 Alternative B – Proposed action ...... 178 Alternative C – California spotted owl interim recommendations ...... 181 Alternative D – No herbicide use ...... 183 Summary and Conclusion ...... 184 Cultural and Heritage Resources ...... 184 Affected Environment ...... 184 Alternative A – No Action ...... 185 Alternatives B, C, and D ...... 185 Finding of No Significant Impact ...... 186 Context ...... 186 Intensity ...... 186 References ...... 196 Appendix A – Maps ...... 213 Appendix B – Vegetation Treatments ...... 229 Appendix C – Transportation Activities ...... 249 System Road Decommission ...... 249 Non-system Road Obliteration ...... 249 System road and trail improvements for water quality ...... 250 Haul Roads ...... 250 Road Maintenance ...... 250 Road Reconstruction ...... 250 Temporary Roads ...... 251 Existing Motorized Trails Used for Harvest Operations ...... 251 Appendix D – Standard Management Requirements and Project-specific Design Features ...... 261 Air Quality ...... 261 Watershed and Soils ...... 261 Project Best Management Practices (BMPs) ...... 262 Riparian Conservation Area and Streamside Management Zone ...... 266 Aspen and Cottonwood Treatments ...... 268 Transportation ...... 269 Visual Quality Management ...... 269 Silviculture/Vegetation Management ...... 270 Botanical Resources ...... 271 Noxious Weeds ...... 271 Cultural Resources ...... 272 Terrestrial and Aquatic Wildlife ...... 273 Herbicide ...... 274

Mt. Hough Ranger District - iii – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Mining ...... 275 Recreation and Visitor Safety ...... 275 Implementation ...... 276 Project-specific Design Features ...... 276 Vegetation ...... 276 Fire and Fuels ...... 278 Water Quality, Riparian Habitats, and Sierra Nevada Yellow-Legged Frog Suitable Habitat ...... 278 Botany ...... 283 Recreation ...... 283 Wildlife ...... 284 Cultural Resources ...... 285 Monitoring ...... 285 Water Quality ...... 285 Soils...... 285 Heritage Resources ...... 285 Invasive Plant Species ...... 285 Wildlife ...... 286 Recreation ...... 286 Cultural Resources ...... 286 References Cited ...... 287 Appendix E – Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions ...... 289 Past, Present and Ongoing Actions Contributing to the Current Condition ...... 289 Historic, past and ongoing actions ...... 289 Effects of Moonlight Fire ...... 293 Post-fire Actions ...... 294 Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions ...... 295 Climate Change Effects on Project Area Resources ...... 296 Climate trends ...... 297 Observed Trends ...... 297 Projected Future Trends ...... 297 References ...... 297 Appendix F – Riparian Conservation Objectives ...... 300 References ...... 302 List of Tables

Table 1. Management areas, associated acres, and Plumas National Forest 1988 Land and Resource Plan reference pages ...... 4 Table 2. Management area prescriptions for the Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project ...... 5 Table 3. National Forest System road miles in the project area, by operational maintenance level ...... 14 Table 4. Summary of vegetation management actions proposed in the Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project area ...... 20 Table 5. Description of chemical formulation, application rate and type, and additives proposed for use in the Moonlight Restoration Project ...... 23 Table 6. Summary of proposed transportation management activities ...... 25 Table 7. Resource indicators and measures for assessing effects ...... 31 Table 8. Resource and indicator measures for vegetation - existing condition ...... 34 Table 9. Post Moonlight fire basal area losses across proposed reforestation and release areas...... 37 Table 10. Resource and indicator measures for vegetation - existing condition...... 40 Table 11. Wildlife habitat relationship lifeform for the proposed action and alternatives ...... 47

Mt. Hough Ranger District - iv – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Table 12. Resource and indicator measures for vegetation – alternative B ...... 48 Table 13. Snags per acre for the next ten years, as modeled by FVS, for wildlife habitat improvement areas1 ...... 56 Table 14. Resource indicators and measures for assessing effects ...... 62 Table 17. Resource indicators and measures for alternative B, by proposed treatment type for fire and fuels ...... 71 Table 18. Resource indicators and measures for assessing effects related to air quality, greenhouse gases, and carbon ...... 75 Table 19. Resource indicators and measures for the existing condition for air quality ...... 77 Table 20. Resource indicators and measures for alternative B direct and indirect effects to air quality .... 81 Table 21. Resource indicators and measures for alternative C effects to air quality ...... 82 Table 22. Resource indicators and measures for assessing effects to soil resources ...... 84 Table 23. Resource indicators and measures for the existing condition ...... 86 Table 24. Resource indicators and measures for alternatives B, C and D direct and indirect effects ...... 87 Table 25. Resource indicators and measures for alternatives B, C and D direct and indirect effects ...... 93 Table 26. Resource indicators and measures for alternatives B, C and D direct and indirect effects ...... 94 Table 27. Resource indicators and measures for assessing effects to hydrology and watershed condition 96 Table 28. Watershed condition class definitions...... 96 Table 29. Designated beneficial uses for project area streams (North Fork, Feather River) based on the water quality control plan ...... 97 Table 30. Resource indicators and measures for the existing condition ...... 98 Table 31. Resource indicators and measures for alternative 1 ...... 99 Table 32. Herbicide characteristics ...... 100 Table 33. Proposed road improvements and decommissioning within riparian conservation areas ...... 101 Table 34. Proposed stream crossing management actions ...... 102 Table 35. Resource indicators and measures for alternative B direct and indirect effects ...... 102 Table 36. Resource indicators and measures for alternative C direct and indirect effects ...... 104 Table 37. Resource indicators and measures for alternative D direct and indirect and cumulative effects ...... 105 Table 38. Threatened, endangered and sensitive plant indicators and measures for alternative B ...... 110 Table 39. Terrestrial threatened, endangered, and sensitive species that potentially occur within the Moonlight Fire Restoration project area ...... 114 Table 40. Selection of management indicator species for the Moonlight Fire Restoration project ...... 118 Table 41. Suitable spotted owl habitat types within the project area ...... 125 Table 42. Forest Vegetation Simulator model run for canopy cover and snags per acre under all alternatives for mechanical thinning, precommercial thinning, and wildlife habitat thinning prescriptions within the project area ...... 126 Table 43. Down wood in tons per acre within treatment areas ...... 126 Table 44. Treatments in California spotted owl suitable habitat per alternatives B and D ...... 127 Table 45. Treatments in goshawk suitable habitat per alternatives B and D ...... 131 Table 46. Acres of suitable mesocarnivore habitat and proposed treatment units for alternatives ...... 133 Table 47. Treatments in California spotted owl suitable habitat alternative C ...... 136 Table 48. Treatments in goshawk suitable habitat per alternative C ...... 137 Table 49. Determinations of effects on terrestrial Regional Forester sensitive species that potentially occur within the Moonlight Fire Restoration project area ...... 138 Table 50. Resource indicators and measures for alternative B direct and indirect effects to aquatic wildlife habitat ...... 142 Table 51. Western pond turtle resource indicators...... 146 Table 52. Description of chemical formulation, application rate and type, and additives proposed for use in the Moonlight Restoration Project ...... 150 Table 53 Reference doses of proposed pesticides ...... 155

Mt. Hough Ranger District - v – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Table 54. National Forest System road miles in the project area, by operational maintenance level ...... 161 Table 55. Resource indicators and measures for assessing effects to public recreation ...... 164 Table 56. Resource indicators and measures for the existing condition for recreation ...... 165 Table 57. Resource indicators and measures for alternative A ...... 166 Table 58. Resource indicators and measures for alternative B direct and indirect effects ...... 169 Table 59. Resource indicators and measures for alternative C direct and indirect effects ...... 171 Table 60. Resource indicators and measures for alternative D direct and indirect effects ...... 172 Table 61. Resource indicators and measures for assessing effects to social and economic conditions .... 174 Table 62. Resource indicators and measures for the existing condition ...... 175 Table 63. Population, race and ethnicity (2015) ...... 176 Table 64. Economic characteristics by county ...... 176 Table 65. Resource indicators and measures for alternative A ...... 178 Table 66. Resource indicators and measures for alternative B direct and indirect effects ...... 180 Table 67. Resource indicators and measures for alternative B cumulative effects ...... 181 Table 68. Resource indicators and measures for alternative C direct and indirect effects ...... 182 Table 69. Resource indicators and measures for alternative D direct and indirect effects ...... 184 Table 70. Comparison of vegetation management activities by alternative ...... 229 Table 71. Summary of actions proposed in the Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project area – alternative B (proposed action) and alternative D ...... 230 Table 72. Summary of actions proposed in the Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Area – spotted owl alternative (alternative C) ...... 239 Table 73. Summary of road actions proposed in the Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project ...... 249 Table 74. Proposed haul road maintenance and reconstruction for all alternatives ...... 252 Table 75. Standard best management practices (BMPs) for protecting water quality ...... 263 Table 76. Design criteria for riparian conservation areas by stream type* ...... 267 Table 77. Proposed action and applicable standard and guide numbers ...... 270 Table 78. Project-specific design features for vegetation management activities ...... 276 Table 79. Project-specific design features for fire and fuels ...... 278 Table 80. General design features to protect water quality, riparian habitats, and aquatic features ...... 279 Table 81. Activity buffers around water bodies1 within suitable habitat, and within occupied or critical habitat ...... 280 Table 82. Project-specific design features for sensitive and native plant communities ...... 283 Table 83. Project-specific design features for recreation ...... 283 Table 84. Project-specific design features for wildlife ...... 284 Table 85. Limited operating periods for wildlife species of concern ...... 284 Table 86. Project-specific design features for cultural resources ...... 285 Table 87. Range allotments within the analysis area ...... 291 Table 88. Reasonably foreseeable future actions ...... 296 List of Figures

Figure 1. Project area vicinity map ...... 2 Figure 2. Moonlight Fire area vegetation pre- and post-fire ...... 9 Figure 3. Major vegetation types before and after the Moonlight Fire of 2007 ...... 33 Figure 4. Existing condition on one unit of the proposed reforestation and release area ...... 37 Figure 5. Existing snags per acre for wildlife habitat improvement proposed action ...... 38 Figure 6. Vegetation condition under the no-action alternative for reforestation and release ...... 44 Figure 7. Mechanical thinning stand density indicator measures between 5 and 10 years after implementation begins for alternative B ...... 50 Figure 8. Post-treatment desired conditions for mechanical thinning stands ...... 51

Mt. Hough Ranger District - vi – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Figure 9. Precommercial thinning stand density indicator measures from 2017 through 2027 ...... 52 Figure 10. Precommercial thinning stand size and light environment indicator measures from 2017 through 2027 ...... 53 Figure 11. Post-treatment desired conditions for precommercial thinning stands ...... 53 Figure 12. Alternative B desired conditions for reforestation and release areas. From McDonald and Fiddler 1995...... 55 Figure 13. Prescribed fire desired conditions for wildlife habitat improvement areas ...... 57 Figure 14. Alternative D expected conditions for reforestation and release areas. From McDonald and Fiddler 1995...... 61 Figure 15. Depiction of flame length as measured from the midpoint of the active flaming zone to the average tip of the flames ...... 63 Figure 16. Range allotments shown in purple outline. Past fires are shown in pink (2007 Moonlight Fire), purple (2007 Antelope Complex), yellow (2006 Boulder Complex), green (2001 Stream Fire), and orange (2006 Hungry Fire) ...... 292 Figure 17. Map of the 2007 Moonlight Fire showing burn severity and ownership ...... 294

Maps

Map 1. Proposed action overview map ...... 214 Map 2. Alternative B proposed action, view 1 ...... 215 Map 3. Alternative B proposed action, view 2 ...... 216 Map 4. Alternative B proposed action, view 3 ...... 217 Map 5. Alternative B proposed action, view 4 ...... 218 Map 6. Alternative B proposed action, view 5 ...... 219 Map 7. Alternative B proposed action, view 6 ...... 220 Map 8. Alternative B proposed action, view 7 ...... 221 Map 9. Alternative B proposed action, view 8 ...... 222 Map 10. Alternative B proposed action, view 9 ...... 223 Map 11. Alternative B proposed action, view 10 ...... 224 Map 12. Alternative B proposed action, view 11 ...... 225 Map 13. Alternative B proposed action, view 12 ...... 226 Map 14. Alternative C overview map ...... 227 Map 15. Non-motorized trails proposed for maintenance ...... 228

Mt. Hough Ranger District - vii – Plumas National Forest

Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need Introduction We, the Mt. Hough Ranger District, are proposing management activities designed to restore the area affected by the 2007 Moonlight Fire; to reduce the negative fire effects to vegetation, watersheds, and recreation; and to enhance resiliency to future fires, droughts, insect and disease infestations, and climate change. We would implement these actions on the Mt. Hough Ranger District of the Plumas National Forest.

We prepared this environmental assessment (EA) to determine whether implementation of the proposed project may significantly affect the quality of the human environment and thereby require the preparation of an environmental impact statement. By preparing this EA, we are fulfilling agency policy and direction to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). For more details of the proposed action, see the Proposed Action and Alternatives section of this document. Proposed Project Location The project area is located on National Forest System lands on the Plumas National Forest, Mt. Hough Ranger District. It is approximately 5 to 15 miles north and east of Taylorsville, California and 20 to 30 miles northeast of Quincy, California (figure 1).

The project includes treatments in watersheds within and surrounding the Moonlight Fire perimeter in T26N, R10E sections 1, 12-14, 23-25; T26N, R11E sections 1-24, 29-31; T26N, R12E sections 1-34; T26N, R13E section 6; T27N, R10E section 1-3, 10-15, 22-27, 36; T27N, R11E sections 1-36; T27N, R12E sections 2-36; T27N, R13E sections 17-21,28-30; T28N, R10E sections 13-14, 23-27, 34-36; T28N, R11E, sections 1-36, and T28N, R12E, sections 5-9, 14-23, 26-35, Mount Diablo Base Meridian. The project area ranges from 2,560 to 7,800 feet in elevation (map 1 in Appendix A – Maps). The project area is within and northwest of Antelope Lake Recreation Area. Other notable features within the project area include: Taylor Lake, Diamond Mountains, and Wilcox Valley.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 1 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Figure 1. Project area vicinity map

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 2 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Need for the Proposal

Background In July 2007, the Antelope fire burned approximately 23,000 acres. Over 13,000 of those acres burned with high fire severity. Two months later in September of 2007, the Moonlight Fire burned into the Antelope Complex consuming an additional 65,000 acres; of which 37,000 acres were burned by uncharacteristically high severity, stand-replacing fire. The high severity of the fire can, at least in part, be attributed to past fire suppression and management that resulted in the accumulation of hazardous fuels and a shift to small diameter dense conifer stands across much of the fire area. These two fires converted a landscape historically dominated by long-lived conifer tree species (yellow pine, sugar pine, red fir, etc.) and characterized by frequent low severity fire regimes; to shrublands dominated by montane chaparral species (i.e. Ceanothus and Arctostaphylos species) with infrequent high severity fire regimes. Climate change, changing fuel dynamics and extreme fire behavior continue to put forested areas of the landscape at risk of comprehensive conversion to non-forest vegetation types.

The dramatic changes to the landscape from the fires also have impacted the fire area infrastructure.

• National Forest System trails in the area are being overgrown by the shrub species and becoming impassable. • Hazard trees continue to pose a safety risk for all Forest Service users. • Many National Forest System roads were damaged by the fires and use during suppression activities. The fire and loss of vegetation has altered the hydrology; with increasing runoff, peak flows, and flooding in post fire precipitation events resulting in ongoing impacts to the fire area watersheds.

In 2013, concern that post-fire conditions in the project area were impairing the resiliency of forest resources and infrastructure led to the development of the Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Strategy (USDA Forest Service 2013, from here on referred to as “the 2013 Strategy”). The purpose of the strategy was to:

provide a framework for restoration of natural resources, ecological processes, and human values affected by the Moonlight Fire. The overarching goal of restoration in the Moonlight Fire area is to maintain, create, and promote healthy and resilient systems, which may resemble the past, but are also better prepared for changing climates and human use patterns.

Based on the goals and objectives defined in the 2013 Strategy, we are now planning the Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project to propose specific restoration activities within the fire area. The proposed project is part of the Plumas National Forest Fire Restoration effort – a group of several projects proposing fire restoration activities. Fire settlement funds received by the Forest Service provide a unique opportunity to restore ecosystem health, function, and resilience within the areas affected by the Moonlight Fire in 2007.

Management Direction The proposed action is designed to be consistent with the direction, standards and guidelines for land management activities described in the Plumas National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (the Forest Plan) (USDA Forest Service 1988) as amended by the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 3 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

(SNFPA) Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision1 (USDA Forest Service 2004a, 2004b).

The project area is within Forest Plan management areas described in the table below.

Table 1. Management areas, associated acres, and Plumas National Forest 1988 Land and Resource Plan reference pages Acres of national forest system Management Area Forest Plan Reference Pages land within the project area 28 - Lights Creek 37,147 4-281 through 4-283 29 - Antelope 57,895 4-285 through 4-291 30 - Ward 39 4-295 through 4-297 40 – Last Chance 2,945 4-350 through 4-354

Land allocations and prescriptions from the 2004 SNFPA and 1988 Forest Plan that apply to this proposal are listed and summarized in table 2.

1 Direction for the Plumas National Forest is based on the 1988 Plumas National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (commonly referred to as the “Forest Plan”) and a major Forest Plan amendment. In August 1988, the Regional Forester signed the Record of Decision for the Forest Plan. In January 2004, the Regional Forester signed the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA) final supplemental EIS Record of Decision, which replaced the 2001 SNFPA Record of Decision. The 2001 SNFPA final EIS and Record of Decision are incorporated by reference in the 2004 Record of Decision on the SNFPA final supplemental EIS. The 2004 Record of Decision on the SNFPA final supplemental EIS directed the Plumas National Forest to implement the HFQLG Pilot Project. When the HFQLG Act expired on September 30, 2012, the Plumas began implementing 2004 SNFPA direction for all projects. The 1988 Plumas National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, as amended by the 2004 SNFPA final supplemental EIS Record of Decision, guides the proposed action and alternatives. The 2004 SNFPA Record of Decision (page 49-56) displays the standards and guidelines added to the 1988 Forest Plan.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 4 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Table 2. Management area prescriptions for the Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Approximate Land Allocation or National Forest General management direction and relevance to project area Prescriptions System Acres within Project Area Management treatments are designed to maintain or enhance recreation values associated with Rx-5 Recreation Area (Forest major reservoirs and recreation areas. The major recreation area contained within this project area is 3,400 acres Plan) Antelope Lake. The purpose is to provide convenient recreation facilities for the public and to preserve or improve the surrounding Forest. This prescription applies to all developed sites, which are listed in appendix H, Rx-6 Developed Recreation and to future sites constructed according to management area direction. Sites include campgrounds, 61 acres Site Prescription (Forest Plan) picnic areas, observation sites, boat launches, swimming beaches, trailheads, and documentary, interpretive, and information sites. Maintain existing physical characteristics of certain lands through low intensity management. Areas managed under this prescription include 1) non-forested lands, 2) non-productive forest lands, 3) productive forest lands that are not economical to manage 4) lands with substantial instability problems 5) lands scheduled for exchange and 6) certain lands with significant scenic, geologic, Rx-7 – Minimal Management ecological and cultural resource values. 5,200 acres Prescription (Forest Plan) This prescription applies to numerous areas within the project area and includes a large area near Red Rock and Diamond Mountain (1460 acres), portions of Lone Rock Valley (496 acres), steep topography on the east side of Lights Creek, and numerous areas surrounding Eisenheimer Peak, Tanners Rock, and Kettle Rock Management treatments are designed to appear natural by retaining variable forest structure mimicking healthy forest conditions that would not be visually evident and would remain visually subordinate within the retention and partial retention visual quality objective classes, respectively. Rx-10 Retention: This prescription includes the area around Kettle Rock, a buffer approximately 0.25 Retention: miles wide on both sides of the main travel route from Genesee Valley to Antelope Lake (Plumas Rx-10 and Rx-14 Visual 4,090 acres County Road 172 also known as Forest Service road 29N43) and a segment of land directly Quality Objectives (Forest Partial Retention: southwest of the Antelope Lake Recreation Area. Plan) 14,130 acres Rx-14 Partial Retention: This prescription applies to steep topography on the east side of lights Total: 18,220 acres creek, and to areas around Eisenheimer Peak, Tanners Rock, and Kettle Rock and is intermixed with Rx-7 in these areas. Additionally this prescription applies to large geographic areas south of Wildcat Ridge, directly north, east and south of Antelope Lake as well as adjoining Rx-10 that is along the main travel route from Genesee Valley to Antelope Lake (described above in Rx -10). Occupied and potential bald eagle habitat to encourage species recovery. These areas consist of 1) historical nesting territories, 2) suitable habitat for population expansion, and 3) foraging and roosting Rx-11 Bald Eagle Habitat habitat. 600 acres (Forest Plan) This prescription applies to an area that is directly adjacent and to the south of Antelope Lake and generally encompasses the area from the Antelope Valley Dam to Vista Point.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 5 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Approximate Land Allocation or National Forest General management direction and relevance to project area Prescriptions System Acres within Project Area General direction for the maintenance of established, recommended, or candidate research natural Rx-17 – Research Natural areas. Area Prescription (Forest 550 acres Plan) This prescription applies to the Mud Lake cypress groves that are designated as research natural areas. The wildland urban intermix zone (WUI) is near communities, areas with higher densities of residences, commercial buildings, and/or administrative sites. It is comprised of two zones: Defense zone: Defense zone – generally about 1/4 mile from human habitation. Fuel treatments will reduce wildland Wildland Urban Intermix 2300 acres fire spread and intensity sufficiently for suppression forces to succeed in protecting human life and (SNFPA) property. Threat Zone: 12,800 acres Threat zone – generally 1 1/4 mile buffer around defense zones. Fuels treatments are designed to reduce wildfire spread and intensity. California Spotted Owl and Management treatments are designed to avoid California spotted owl protected activity centers Northern Goshawk Protected (PACs) and northern goshawk protected activity centers, while strategically applying low intensity 5,700 acres Activity Centers understory hand thinning and prescribed fire around the perimeters to protect wildlife habitat from (SNFPA) high intensity fire behavior and effects. A home range core area (HRCA) is established surrounding each territorial spotted owl activity center detected after 1986. Management treatments are designed reduce surface and ladder fuels up to 8 California Spotted Owl Home inches dbh only (hand thinning) to retain: (1) two tree canopy layers; (2) all dominant and co-dominant 10,200 acres Range Core Area (SNFPA) trees at least 24 inches dbh; (3) all very large (greater than 45 inches dbh) old trees; (4) at least 50 to 70 percent canopy cover; and (5) all snags and higher than average down woody material. Critical aquatic refuges (CAR) include subwatersheds containing known locations of threatened, endangered, or sensitive species, highly vulnerable populations of native plant or animal species or localized populations of rare native aquatic- or riparian dependent plant or animal species. Critical Aquatic Refuge Management treatments are designed to be consistent with standards and guidelines associated with 24,000 acres (SNFPA) critical aquatic refuges and riparian conservation objectives (RCOs) in the 2004 Record of Decision on the SNFPA Final Supplemental EIS (FSEIS) (p.62-66) are designed to meet Clean Water Act and CA State water quality standards.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 6 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Approximate Land Allocation or National Forest General management direction and relevance to project area Prescriptions System Acres within Project Area Management treatments are designed to enhance habitat supporting viable populations of native and desired non-native plant, invertebrate and vertebrate riparian and aquatic dependent species, including the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog. The spatial placement of treatments is designed to preserve connectivity for riparian and aquatic dependent species within and between watersheds. Design criteria ensure new introductions of invasive species are prevented. The standards and guidelines for riparian conservation area (RCA) widths described below per the SNFPA ROD (page 42-43) were assessed to determine if boundaries should be adjusted for the project. The interdisciplinary team (IDT) reviewed the Diamond Landscape Assessment and the Moonlight Fire Restoration Strategy, and conducted an additional project-specific analysis of riparian conservation objectives (RCOs). There were no resource benefits identified to warrant modification of standard riparian conservation area widths. The following standard riparian conservation area widths apply to the project: Riparian Conservation Areas 15,800 acres (SNFPA) . Perennial streams: 300 feet on each side of the stream, measured from the bank full edge of the stream . Seasonally flowing streams (includes intermittent and ephemeral streams): 150 feet on each side of the stream, measured from the bank full edge of the stream . Streams in Inner Gorge: top of inner gorge . Special aquatic features or perennial streams with riparian conditions extending more than 150 feet from edge of streambank or seasonally flowing streams with riparian conditions extending more than 50 feet from edge of streambank: 300 feet from edge of feature or riparian vegetation, whichever width is greater . Other hydrological or topographic depressions without a defined channel: riparian conservation area width and protection measures determined through project level analysis. (SNFPA ROD). In general forests allocation, active management aims to maintain, and enhance a variety of Acres not within vegetative conditions in which forest structure and function generally resembles pre-settlement another management General Forest (SNFPA) conditions. Fuels treatments are strategically placed to modify wildfire behavior. Hazardous fuels are allocation or reduced in key areas to lessen the threat of high severity fire. prescription

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 7 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

In addition to ensuring consistency with the Forest Plan direction; for any proposed changes to the transportation system, the interdisciplinary team must conduct a travel planning analysis consistent with Forest service regulations and policy (36 CFR 212 Subpart A and B and Forest Service Manual 7710).

Finally, the proposed action must comply with numerous environmental laws and regulations including (but not limited to): the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, and the National Forest Management Act. Purpose and Need In developing the 2013 Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Strategy we evaluated the current condition of the project area, reviewed relevant management direction, and identified the desired conditions for the area. Based on the difference between the current conditions and the desired conditions, we developed the following goals, objectives, and needs for management of the Moonlight Fire area. This project does not address all of the needs identified in the 2013 Strategy. This is one of a number of site-specific projects that have been and will continue to be proposed as elements of a comprehensive Moonlight Fire area restoration.

Purpose 1 - Forest Health, Landscape Diversity and Resilience The 2007 Moonlight Fire and Antelope Complex resulted in a rapid and profound shift to conditions outside the natural range of variation for forest vegetation types across the project landscape (figure 2). As a result of the fire, large areas of conifer forest were converted to shrublands dominated by montane chaparral species (i.e. relatively short lived Ceanothus and Arctostaphylos species) characterized by infrequent, high severity fire regimes. Areas within the fire perimeter that did not burn remain vulnerable to insects, drought and fire. These large-scale impacts to forest composition and structure have increased vulnerability to insect outbreaks, drought-induced mortality, and large-scale high severity reburn events, as has been experienced in other large fire events on the Plumas National Forest such as the 2012 Chips fire reburn of the 2000 Storrie fire (Coppoletta et al. 2016; Cluck 2014).

In response to the impacts of past management and of the Moonlight Fire and Antelope Complex, we identified the following goals from the 2013 Strategy for ecosystem restoration within the Moonlight landscape:

• restore the long-term viability of appropriate forest types and reduce the potential for vegetation type conversion; • restore landscape diversity in species, seral stage, and structure; and • restore the forest landscape to one that is well-adapted to natural disturbance regimes and can respond to changes in climate and disturbance regimes.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 8 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Figure 2. Moonlight Fire area vegetation pre- and post-fire

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 9 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Objectives for Forest Health, Landscape Diversity and Resilience Specific objectives from the 2013 strategy we identified for inclusion with this project, include:

• enhance regeneration, remove encroaching conifers and reduce hazardous fuels in regenerating aspen stands and associated riparian areas; • restore the long-term viability of appropriate forest types and reduce the potential for vegetation type conversion, including reforestation of high severity fire areas and establishment of a long-term seed source of desirable species; • restore landscape diversity in terms of forest type, species diversity, forest structure, and forest age including: ♦ promoting development of early seral conditions (younger forests) into mid-seral conditions in stands that survived the fire; ♦ promoting open canopy later seral stands dominated by shade intolerant and fire-resistant species in the yellow pine and yellow pine dominated dry mixed conifer forest types • reduce hazardous fuels in areas near residential developments and protecting project area resources from high severity fire; and, • reduce fuel loading in California spotted owl protected activity centers to decrease future wildlife severity and preserve long-term spotted owl habitat viability.

Need for Action to Restore Forest Health, Landscape Diversity and Resilience Each of these objectives and associated needs for action are discussed in more detail below.

Need to reforest burned areas The Moonlight Fire burned large areas of the landscape at high severity. To begin restoring these sites, immediately following the fire we planted native conifer trees in an attempt to establish trees that would serve as a future seed source in the fire area. However, without site-preparation or follow-up release treatments to control the competing vegetation, new trees that were planted or naturally regenerating were quickly overgrown by shrubs.

While montane chaparral is an ecologically important early seral stage in conifer forest; the large patch size, and homogenous distribution of these areas across the landscape is far outside the range of natural variation for these pine dominated forests. The adverse effects of shrub competition and fuel loads on establishing forests effectively increases the risk of vegetation type conversion from forest to shrub land for decades, if not permanently, and reducing the diversity of vegetation across the landscape. High fuel loads from falling snags and regenerating shrubs have dominated these sites adversely affecting tree survival and growth and contribute to risk of high severity re-burn (Coppoletta et al. 2016).

To meet the objective of restoring landscape heterogeneity and reducing the potential for vegetation type conversion, there is a continuing need to reestablish native conifers in areas that burned with high severity to avoid site conversion from forest to shrub dominated landscapes. Artificial regeneration (planting) is the only method of assuring forested stand in the future. There is also a need to conduct site-preparation and release treatments to increase the success of planting.

Need to improve plantations Though the Moonlight Fire was predominately high severity and resulted in much of the landscape converting to montane chaparral, there are older mid-seral conifer plantations that survived the fire. These plantations are single-aged pine stands of small to medium-sized trees with very little diversity in species

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 10 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

or structure. The densities of these stands are high, leaving them at high risk of bark beetle mortality in the event of an insect outbreak (Oliver 1995). Post-fire, fallen trees and branches have increased surface fuels significantly and would drive high-intensity, stand-replacing fire behavior when fire enters these stands in the future.

The desired condition is for diverse stands in terms of forest type, species diversity, structure and age; which supports a landscape well-adapted to natural disturbance regimes and responsive to changes in climate and disturbance regimes. Therefore, there is a need to manage the plantations to increase stand diversity, reduce stand density, reduce fuel loading and support transition to a mid-seral forest structure.

Need to promote the development of mature forests The Moonlight Fire was predominately high severity and converted much of the landscape within the fire area to montane chaparral. As a result, there has been a major reduction in mature (mid to late seral) conifer forests in the Moonlight landscape. However, there are mature conifer stands directly adjacent to the fire area. These stands have similar conditions to the mature forests that existed pre-fire within the fire area. They are overly dense mature stands that contain larger trees, predominately shade-tolerant fir species such as white fir. These stands continue to accumulate fuels, increasing the potential for stand- replacing fire in these stands. The high density stands are also more susceptible to drought, insect infestation, and disease. Such potential for loss of these mature forests in the project area would compound the adverse cumulative effects to mature forests within the watersheds surrounding the Moonlight Fire Area.

The desired condition is for diverse stands in terms of forest type, species diversity, resilient stand densities, structure and age; which supports a landscape well-adapted to natural disturbance regimes and responsive to changes in climate and disturbance regimes. Therefore, there is a need to manage these late- seral stands to increase stand diversity as part of restoring overall landscape diversity. There is also a need to promote the development of mature forests by reducing the number of trees which will decrease inter- tree competition and promote long-term development of larger trees in stands that are more resilient to disturbance, including future wildland fires, insects and disease.

Need to restore aspen ecosystems Although quaking aspen forests (Populous tremuloides) occupy a small part of the Moonlight Fire landscape, they provide numerous ecological services and functions. Aspen support significant levels of biological diversity, provide critical wildlife habitat, supply forage for wildlife and livestock, and provide highly desirable scenic and hydrologic values (Sheppherd et al. 2006). Prior to the Moonlight Fire, a lack of disturbance (e.g. fire exclusion) had increased the level of conifer encroachment in many of the aspen stands, creating conditions that increased the risk of aspen decline. Where conifers have encroached on aspen stands, aspen regeneration is suppressed and can result in heavy fuel concentrations making the stands susceptible to high-severity fire. In addition, excessive browsing by livestock or wildlife can suppress new aspen sucker growth and impede aspen community expansion.

The impacts of the Moonlight Fire on aspen communities in the project area vary based on the fire severity within each stand and the degree of conifer encroachment prior to the fire. Areas of high severity fire may have enhanced conditions for aspen regeneration. However, high-severity fire also increased the density of conifer snags, increasing hazardous fuels within regenerating aspen stands. In some of the regenerating aspen stands, browsing by livestock has the potential to reduce aspen growth and vigor; and if not managed, may limit aspen recruitment. Aspen stands that did not burn, or burned at low severity in the Moonlight Fire, are still threatened by conifer encroachment.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 11 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

These factors increase the risk that aspen within the project area could be lost as a result of type- conversion to conifer-dominated forest. Therefore, there is a need to manage and restore aspen stands to ensure long-term viability and survival. In particular, there is a need to reduce conifer encroachment, reduce hazardous fuels (created by standing snags and ground fuels), and limit the effects of browsing on aspen regeneration.

Need to reduce hazardous fuels There is a need to reduce hazardous fuels throughout much of the project area where heavy fuel accumulations exist. In particular, there is a need to ensure hazardous fuels are not a threat in the wildland-urban interface. Wilcox Valley is a community within the project area where there are residential structures on private land adjacent to National Forest System lands. In the Wilcox Valley area, the forest overstory remained largely intact and unaffected by the Moonlight Fire, which may be in part due to treatments associated with the Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group (HFQLG) Hungry project which was completed less than ten years before the fire burned. The stands now need to be maintained. Fuels have accumulated as a result of the wildland fire. In particular, understory brush has grown rapidly in many areas in response to the fire. This understory brush is highly flammable and more susceptible to fire. Therefore, there is a need to reduce fuel loading in brush, dead trees and downed fuels.

Need to protect California spotted owl protected activity centers California spotted owls, a Region 5 Forest Service Sensitive species, occur in mixed-conifer and hardwood forests throughout the Sierra Nevada and the mountain ranges of southern California (Verner et al. 1992). Spotted owls nest in tree cavities and forage in late-seral, closed canopy conifer and mixed conifer-hardwood forests. Per the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment Record of Decision (USDA Forest Service 2004b), on the Plumas National Forest each home range core area is 1000 acres including a 300 acre protected activity center. Home range core areas are designated in the best available owl habitat in the closest proximity to (within 1.5 miles of) the protected activity center.

Frequent low to moderate severity fires, historically common within montane forests of the Sierra Nevada, maintain habitat characteristics essential for spotted owl site occupancy (Roberts et al. 2011). Currently, the risk of high intensity fire and the loss of habitat from stand-replacing fire are two of the essential challenges in the conservation of California spotted owl (USDA Forest Service 2015a). High severity wildfire has been shown to cause negative effects to spotted owl site occupancy (Lee and Irwin 2005, Roberts et al. 2011, North 2012, Clark et al. 2013).

As a result of the high severity burn within the Moonlight Fire, 96 percent of late seral closed canopy habitat (spotted owl nesting habitat) and 91 percent of total available spotted owl habitat (nesting and foraging) was modified by the fire (USDA Forest Service 2013). Seventeen of the 19 spotted owl protected activity centers affected by the Moonlight and Antelope Complex fires have been rendered unsuitable due to high severity wildfire effects (USDA Forest Service 2008). Wildlife occupying habitat modified during the fires was displaced into adjacent areas that may be of lower quality habitat or currently occupied. This may cause stress to both the individuals occupying the current areas and the individuals being displaced. Competition for available resources may kill individuals, reduce their health, and reduce reproductive success of individuals. These displacement effects are inevitable within the project area based on the degree of habitat loss. In addition, the large-scale conversion to an open early- seral montane chaparral vegetation type fragments the remaining suitable nesting, foraging and dispersal habitat for California spotted owls in the project area.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 12 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment combined with a heavy buildup of surface fuel are highly conducive to high-severity, stand-replacing fire events within the protected activity centers.

Due to the overwhelming loss of suitable forest habitat within the Moonlight Fire area, it is critical we retain remaining habitat within and adjacent to the fire perimeters and increase the fire resiliency of this habitat so that it can persist for both the short term (next decade) and long term (into the next century). Therefore, there is a need to reduce hazardous fuels within and adjacent to spotted owl protected activity centers at risk of high severity fire; to re-introduce fire into these fire-adapted ecosystems, and to integrate fire restoration with conserving old forests.

Need to provide access for vegetation management In order to conduct vegetation management and reforestation activities, there is a need to provide safe and efficient access for machinery, equipment, and staff. Long-term access is particularly important for reforestation treatments because it ensures the efficiency of long-term follow-up treatments such as release for survival and growth, and precommercial thinning which will: a) protect the reforestation investment, b) maximize the growth of the investment, and c) increase the investment resiliency to future disturbances such as fire.

Desired Conditions for Forest Health, Landscape Diversity and Resiliency • Landscape is comprised of different tree sizes and age in various ranges of stand density, canopy cover and tree species diversity including more shade-intolerant species such as oak and ponderosa pine (USDA Forest Service 2004b, p.48). • Landscape is more resilient to disturbances including insects, disease and fire (USDA Forest Service 2004b, p.48). • Forest structure is more characteristic and resilient of an active fire regime. Open forest canopies and gaps improve stand structure, complexity, and landscape heterogeneity. Stand structure varies according to topographic location, such as aspect, slope position, and site quality, creating high levels of horizontal and vertical diversity at the stand and landscape-scale. Desired forest attributes include uneven-aged, multi-storied stands dominated by legacy structures composed of large, fire-adapted trees (USDA Forest Service 2004a, p. 4). • Uneven-aged multi-storied stands are dominated by large, fire-adapted, shade-intolerant trees, similar to pre-settlement conditions (USDA Forest Service 2004b, p.48). • Aspen stands have low levels of conifer encroachment. Low and moderate intensity fire is reintroduced to restore ecological function to achieve desired enhanced tree growth, vigor and regeneration of aspen sprouts, while suppressing conifer regeneration (USDA Forest Service 2004a, p. 64). • Landscape diversity increases within pine-oak-grassland forest types historically located on south facing and /or lower elevation stands. These stands also contain a diversity of hardwood age and size classes such that each class is sufficiently abundant to replace and recruit large hardwoods (USDA Forest Service 2004b, p. 53). • Habitat connectivity is maintained within forest types across the landscape (USDA Forest Service 2004b, p. 31, 53-54). • Surface and ladder fuels conditions are such that crown fire ignition is highly unlikely (USDA Forest Service 2004b, p. 34, 49-50). • The openness and discontinuity of crown fuels, both horizontally and vertically, result in very low probability of sustained crown fire (USDA Forest Service 2004b, p. 34, 49-50).

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 13 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

• Protected activity centers continue to provide habitat conditions that support successful reproduction of California spotted owl and northern goshawk (USDA Forest Service 2004b, p. 45).

Purpose 2 - Watershed Health There are approximately 370 miles of National Forest System roads within the project area. The Forest Service designates National Forest System roads and trails that are open to public motor vehicle travel on the Plumas National Forest Motor Vehicle Use Map. Approximately 82 miles of National Forest System road are open to only highway legal vehicles, approximately 250 miles of roads are open to all motor vehicles. In addition, the project area includes 38 miles of National Forest System motorized trails that are open to all vehicles and 0.02 miles of trail that is open only to vehicles 50 inches in width or less. In addition, there are numerous miles of non-system roads which were built in the past but have not been or are not currently maintained by the Forest Service.

Table 3. National Forest System road miles in the project area, by operational maintenance level Type of Road Miles Not Maintained for Passenger Car, High Clearance Vehicles 234 Dirt Road, Suitable for Passenger Car 19 Gravel Road, Suitable for Passenger Car 59 Paved Road 22 Total 370 miles

Roads that are not properly maintained or that were originally constructed with insufficient drainage features may have the potential to cause profound impacts to streams. The streams in the Moonlight Fire area were affected prior to the fire by past actions such as road construction, timber harvest, mining, and grazing activities. However, two years prior to the Moonlight Fire, stream conditions were generally improving in the area (USDA Forest Service 2007). Approximately six percent of roads were found to require some level of reconstruction and roughly three percent of roads were causing resource damage and would likely have been decommissioned (USDA Forest Service 2007).

The Moonlight Fire impacted streams in the area by reducing forest canopy cover, which decreased water uptake by trees and increased the amount of water running across soils and into streams (Grant et al. 2008). Seasonal flooding and the incidental sediment transport from spring runoff increased due to post- fire hydrological changes and unusual amounts of rain and snow. The effects of these fires and the consequent flooding damaged roads and increased sedimentation throughout the project area.

The Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station and Utah State University conducted a geomorphic road analysis and inventory study (the study) in the Moonlight Fire area in 2015 (USDA Forest Service 2015b). The study looked at how soil sediments from roads and specific features of roads, such as stream crossings and drainage ditches; or events such as landslides; impacted streams and watersheds in the Moonlight Fire area. The study located specific drain points causing sedimentation problems which could be corrected or improved by road reconstruction activities.

Due to the impacts of past management and fire effects on the landscape, the 2013 Strategy identified the following goals for watershed restoration:

• Protect the desirable hydrologic characteristics that exist, or that are recovering from the fire, from management actions.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 14 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

• Evaluate known problem areas to see if they represent a cost effective opportunity to enhance or restore hydrologic function. • Locate new opportunities for enhancement or restoration. • Maintain and restore healthy riparian areas to protect water quality, protect stream banks from accelerated erosion, and enhance habitat for aquatic species. Previous planning efforts have also reviewed roads within the analysis area. In 2010, the Plumas National Forest completed their travel management planning decision (per 36 CFR 212, Subpart B) designating a system of roads and trails open to public use and prohibiting cross-country travel (USDA Forest Service 2010). During the planning effort, National Forest System roads across the Forest were evaluated to determine whether or not they should be part of a designated system open for public travel. Non-system roads (unauthorized routes) were also evaluated to determine if they should be included in the National Forest road system and if they should be open. Some of these non-system roads are within the project area, and have been classified as unsuitable for adding to the system or for public use. However they have not been obliterated because the Plumas travel management ROD does not authorize physical decommissioning; deferring that action to opportunities as they are identified in future projects and analyzed with opportunities for public involvement. In addition, starting in 2015, the Plumas National Forest conducted a travel analysis process, (per 36 CFR 212, Subpart A) (USDA Forest Service 2016). This process reviewed National Forest System roads and identified risk and benefits of the roads. Based on this analysis, the interdisciplinary team made recommendations for roads that were likely needed or those that were not likely needed for future use, recreational opportunities, and forest management. Some of these ‘not needed’ roads occur within the project area and are causing sediment delivery into project area streams.

Objectives for Watershed Health Specific objectives identified for this project include:

• Improve road drainage at locations on National Forest System roads and off-highway vehicle (OHV) trails that are currently causing substantial sediment delivery. • Decommission and/or obliterate unneeded roads and non-system roads to stabilize soil and restore natural drainage patterns

Need for Action to Improve Watershed Health

Need to maintain, reconstruct, realign, decommission and obliterate roads There is a need to decommission unneeded National Forest System roads, to obliterate non-system roads, and to maintain system roads to reduce road-related soil erosion and associated sedimentation rates and improve transportation infrastructure and decommission unneeded infrastructure. In addition to reducing sedimentation, decommissioning, obliteration, and maintenance would also restore soil productivity and infiltration capacity, resulting in more natural storage and release of storm runoff.

There is also a need to reduce future maintenance costs of the road network while still providing for legitimate uses of National Forest System land including improved access and fire escape routes in certain areas.

Desired Conditions for Watershed Health • Meet project needs and future resource management needs while reducing future maintenance costs.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 15 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

• Provide safe public access and travel while reducing adverse impacts to water, soil quality, and ecological functions associated with the transportation system. • Prioritize rehabilitating road-related non-point source pollution (near stream erosion) by improving road drainage features within the existing road prism, decommissioning classified National Forest System roads, and obliterating unclassified roads inside riparian conservation areas to achieve desired riparian conservation objectives (USDA Forest Service 2004b, pp. 33-34). • Enhance aquatic wildlife species habitat quality by increasing riparian plant species and reducing sediment delivery.

Purpose 3 - Recreational Opportunities The project area contains approximately 17 miles of hiking trails (these include the Antelope-Taylor, Middle Creek, and Cold Creek trails). In addition, as described above there are approximately 280 miles of road and trail open to off-highway vehicles (OHVs).

The Moonlight Fire resulted in a large scale transition from conifer forest to montane chaparral. This transition has also impacted recreational opportunities in the project area. Project area non-motorized and motorized trails that previously traveled through forested stands are now unsafe and impassable due to hazard trees and snags and the overgrowth of shrubs along the trails. In particular, Antelope-Taylor Lake, Middle Creek, and Cold Stream non-motorized trails have been impacted by this brush growth.

In addition, as described in the section above, many roads and trails that are used for motorized recreation have been damaged by the fire, resulting in impacts to water quality.

Due to the impacts of past management and fire effects on the landscape, the 2013 Strategy identified the goal of providing safe access for dispersed recreation.

Objectives for Recreational Opportunities Specific objectives from the 2013 strategy were identified for inclusion with this project, including:

• Restore burned trail segments through brushing, removing, and/or trimming vegetation along the trails to safely accommodate hikers, equestrians, and bicyclists. • Restore and repair trail tread for proper width, drainage, stabilization, and slope. • Restore and improve trail safety by removing hazard trees along trails. • Repair and replace all fire damaged structures to support the trail system such as bridges, turnpikes and culverts.

Need for Action to Restore Recreational Opportunities There is a need to improve trail safety by removing hazard trees along the trails, and there is a need to remove and manage brush growth along the trails to ensure the trails are accessible for their designated use. In particular, there is a need to remove brush on the non-motorized trails. There is a need to maintain, repair, or improve the motorized and non-motorized trails to reduce watershed impacts (see also Purpose 2 above).

Desired Conditions for Recreational Opportunities • Project area trails remain open to provide for a variety of recreational opportunities, maintenance costs are reduced, and conflicts between users are minimized (USDA Forest Service 1988, p. 4-3).

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 16 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Public Involvement and Tribal Consultation The project was first listed on the Plumas National Forest Schedule of Proposed Actions in spring of 2016. We solicited public comments for the Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project scoping period from August 10 through September 30, 2016; and posted supplemental legal notices in the Feather River Bulletin and Portola Reporter on August 10, 2016, and in the Lassen County Times on August 9, 2016. The notices consisted of a description of our proposed action and request for public comments, and an internet link with additional project information. We also mailed and emailed a scoping letter containing similar information to a mailing list of interested parties including: Federally-recognized tribes, relevant local governmental organizations, mining claimants, those who have previously indicated an interest in Mt. Hough Ranger District Projects, and those who own property within or near the project area. A complete list of interested parties who received project information is available in the project record.

On September 13 and 15 we hosted public information meetings in local communities to share information about the project with interested members of local communities. Approximately 40 individuals signed in to these meetings.

Twenty-three individuals, groups, or agencies submitted written responses during the public scoping period. The interdisciplinary team reviewed these comments and used them to develop the issues and alternatives used for the environmental analysis presented in this EA. Issues and Alternative Development Issues (cause-effect relationships) serve to highlight effects or unintended consequences of our proposed action. Identifying issues provides us with opportunities to clearly compare trade-offs for the responsible official and the public and reduce potential adverse effects during the analysis (FSH 1909.15 Chapter 12.4). In other words, issues serve to focus the effects analysis and can help us to develop proposals to minimize effects.

An issue should be phrased as a cause-effect statement relating the proposed activities to effects. An issue statement should describe a specific action and the anticipated environmental effect(s) of that action. There is no set of standard issues applicable to every proposal, so it is important the responsible official, with the help of the interdisciplinary team, consider applicable laws, regulations, executive orders, and other input. Issues are often grouped by common resources, cause-effect relationship, common geographical area, or a common action. In addition, the issues were used by the interdisciplinary team to study and develop alternatives to the proposed action. The responsible official approved the issues which the interdisciplinary team has analyzed in-depth in the environmental analysis (FSM 1950.41), including:

• Issue 1 – Effects Herbicide Use: Commenters are concerned that using herbicides could affect soil microorganisms, water quality, and human health. To limit these potential effects, we would use design features and buffers to limit the risk of herbicides reaching water. The analysis displays effects to soil, water quality, and human health as a result of the proposed herbicide application and compared to the effects of alternative D (no herbicide application, described below). • Issue 2 – Dispersed motorized recreational opportunities: Commenters are concerned that decommissioning system roads could reduce dispersed motorized recreational opportunities and other associated recreational opportunities (camping, hunting, etc). When developing the proposed action, the Forest conducted travel analysis and considered the benefit of these roads for public recreation, therefore, effects are limited to general dispersed opportunities. Analysis will display the effects to recreational users as a result of the proposed decommissioning.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 17 – Plumas National Forest

Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Chapter 2 - Proposed Action and Alternatives National Environmental Policy Act regulations require us to “study, develop, and describe appropriate alternatives to recommended courses of action in any proposal which involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources” (40 CFR 1501.2(C)). Reasonable alternatives to the proposed action should meet the purpose and need and address any unresolved conflicts related to the proposed action. Alternatives were developed based on public scoping comments and regional policy requirements.

The proposed action and following alternatives were considered and are described in more detail below:

A. No-action alternative B. Proposed action C. California spotted owl interim recommendations alternative D. Reforestation without the use of herbicides Alternative A - No action Under the no-action alternative, current management plans would continue to guide our management of the project area. Several other/separate projects have been planned or are being planned to conduct Moonlight Fire restoration and this other work would continue as determined in the separate planning processes. This includes maintenance of roads, hazardous fuel treatments, treatment of invasive plants, and other activities. However, none of the proposed fuels reduction, reforestation, aspen restoration, road decommissioning or obliteration, and trail maintenance would be conducted. Current project area trends would continue and the goals and objectives of the 2013 Moonlight Fire Area Strategy would not be achieved.

The no-action alternative serves as a baseline to compare the effects of other alternatives and we analyze it to meet the requirements of the Forest Service Handbook, Section 190915, Chapter 10, 14.2. Alternative B - Proposed action The proposed action is the same as we presented in scoping, with minimal clarifications or corrections. To meet the goals, objectives, and needs we have identified, we are proposing vegetation restoration, fuel reduction, habitat protection, trail maintenance, and roadwork. The descriptions of the proposed actions follow. Appendix D lists the standard management practices and project-specific design features that we would use to minimize unintended effects to natural resources and forest visitors.

Restore Vegetation, Thin and Reduce Fuels Table 4 summarizes our proposed actions for vegetation management and the associated treatment activities. Appendix A – Maps shows our proposed vegetation and wildlife restoration activities. In addition, Appendix B – Vegetation Treatments shows the treatments by unit number. We anticipate the treatments below would be implemented over a time period of 5-10 years. These treatments and proposed actions are described in more detail below.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 19 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Table 4. Summary of vegetation management actions proposed in the Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project area Proposed Approximate Activities Action acres Reforestation and release 4062 Grapple Pile, Pile Burn, Underburn, Reforestation, and release treatments (mastication, hand grubbing, and/or herbicide 4062 application). Precommercial thinning 768 Precommercial Mechanical Thin, Grapple Pile, Pile Burn, Underburn 768 Mechanical thinning 3765 Hand Thin up to 6 inch, Pile Burn, Underburn 138 Hand Thin, Grapple Pile, Pile Burn, Underburn 130 Hand Thin, Pile Burn, Underburn 7 Mechanical Thin, Grapple Pile, Pile Burn, Underburn 3490 Aspen restoration 1928 Fence 8 Grapple Pile, Pile Burn, Underburn 140 Grapple Pile, Pile Burn, Underburn, Reforest 10 Hand fall large trees, Fence 21 Hand Thin up to 6 inch, Pile Burn, Underburn 75 Hand Thin, Grapple Pile, Pile Burn, Underburn 96 Mechanical Thin, Grapple Pile, Pile Burn, Underburn 1039 Mechanical Thin, Grapple Pile, Pile Burn, Underburn, Fence 6 Mechanical Thin, Grapple Pile, Pile Burn, Underburn, Manage and 16 Monitor Livestock, Fence if necessary Mechanical Thin, Hand Thin, Grapple Pile, Pile Burn, Underburn 508 Mechanical Thin, Hand Thin, Grapple Pile, Pile Burn, Underburn, 9 Manage and Monitor Livestock, Fence Hazardous fuel reduction 230 Hand Thin, Grapple Pile, Pile Burn, Underburn 230 Wildlife habitat improvement 1950 Prescribed burning and hand Thin up to 6 inch and Pile Burn if 1404 needed Prescribed burning and Hand Thin/Pile Burn if needed 546 Total Acreage 12,703 a - Treatment activities are defined on the following page. These treatments would occur in some combination over time and all activities may not be used on every acre or stand proposed for treatment. More detail regarding the types of treatments, sequences of treatments, and other considerations is included below.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 20 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Description of Vegetation Treatment Activities Each proposed action includes a combination of hand thinning, mechanical thinning, piling and burning, lopping and scattering, and/or mastication of fuels, and prescribed fire. These treatment activities are defined in the list below. A more detailed description of these treatment activities is provided in the following sections for each action proposed to meet the purpose and need.

• Thinning - This activity would reduce density in areas of forested cover. In addition, thinning includes removing surface fuels. Thinning can be achieved by either using a machine (mechanical) or manual labor (chainsaw). In both mechanical thinning and chainsaw thinning, smaller conifers as well as limbs and foliage may be removed as a biomass product that can be chipped2 or ground; piled and burned; exported from the forest; offered for fuelwood3, or used for power production or wood fiber products. ♦ Mechanical thinning - Mechanical thinning uses ground-based logging equipment to cut sawlog sized conifers 10 inches and greater at diameter at breast height (dbh). In most cases, these trees would be removed as a commercial product. Mechanical thinning also treats trees less than 10 inches dbh, which is considered biomass rather than sawlog material when it is sold as a product. Mechanical thinning consists of removing trees with a feller-buncher. The cut trees would typically be whole-tree yarded to landings by skidders, minimizing project-created slash and fuels in the woods. Trees to be cut would be designated through site specific silvicultural prescriptions. The cutting prescription would emphasize restoration of forest structure more characteristic of those that develop under active fire regimes. ♦ Chainsaw thinning- When mechanical thinning is not feasible some trees may be conventionally felled, bucked, and then skidded to landings. ♦ Hand thinning - Hand crews would thin from below cutting ground and ladder fuels into manageable sized pieces for piling and burning on site. Treatments would generally focus on trees less than 10 inches in diameter; however trees up to 14 inches may be taken (except where otherwise limited by the prescription). Some hand thinning treatments would be limited to trees less than 6 inches in diameter, as indicated in table 4. • Hand pile, grapple pile, and/or pile burn – Fuels would be piled by hand, with mechanized equipment, or a combination of both. Only grapple piling equipment with lifting capabilities would be used to minimize ground disturbance and maintain desired large woody debris. Piled material would concentrate on lighter fuels 8 inches in diameter or less. As much as possible, larger tree boles would be made available for firewood and firewood decks would be constructed in accessible areas. Piles would be burned during wet periods when the risks of escape are negligible. • Mastication - Mastication treatments would use several different types of equipment to chop, chip, crush, or otherwise break apart woody material such as small trees, brush, and slash into small pieces or chips. The material would be left on site and distributed throughout the stand. • Prescribed fire/Underburn - Prescribed fire reintroduces fire into a landscape in a controlled and systematic manner. We would use prescribed fire as a follow-up option for all primary treatments described above as well as a stand-alone treatment. Specific fuel moisture and weather conditions

2 Chip and hauling is a two-step process, where material cut in the stand is skidded to a landing and then chipped. Chipped material will include trees that are not merchantable as sawlogs, limbs, tops and other vegetation that can be put into a chipper. Chipped material would then be put into a large semi-truck and trailer set up, and this material will be hauled to any site that would accept it is co-generation material, where it can be burned as a source of power. 3 When offered for fuelwood, trees would be cut, and then sold either to a commercial firewood producer, or to any forest user who purchased a fuel wood cutting permit. Firewood would generally be smaller sized trees that are desirable as home heating fuel.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 21 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

must be met in order to manage fire intensity and ensure smoke impacts are minimized. Fire holding lines may include roads, trails, hand or machine lines, natural fire breaks, and snow. Hand held drip torches would typically be used for ignition; however, aerial ignition could also be used for larger firing operations. We would prioritize acres for implementation based on residual fuel loading, strategic placement, and technical feasibility.

Reforestation - Site Preparation, Planting and Release To restore conifer forests we would conduct site preparation, planting, and release on approximately 4,100 acres of forested areas that burned at high severity in the Moonlight Fire. We would stagger site preparation, planting and release treatments over time with about 1,000-1,500 acres per year of each treatment. To accommodate research objectives; we may vary timing, frequency and intensity of the various treatments from unit to unit.

Site preparation would consist of remove standing trees and snags that pose a hazard to workers, and reduce competition from chaparral vegetation. We would accomplish site preparation in a series of steps and could include: snag and hazard tree removal, brush pulling, hand or grapple pile, mastication, or pile burn. We would have standing trees and snags that pose a hazard to workers hand or mechanically felled. Most burned snags are now unstable, so machinery would be used if conditions were unsafe for manual falling or if it is more cost effective. Felled material would be cut and piled. Material that is on the ground (downed logs) would be piled. Using mechanical equipment, brush would be pulled and piled. When site conditions are appropriate we may use mastication. We would burn piles when they are cured.

Following site preparation, we would plant native conifers using a mixture of planting arrangements and densities. Conifer species we prescribe for each unit would be at the appropriate elevation zone, and species would be appropriate for the site. In general we would plant conifer species such as rust-resistant sugar pine, Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, Jeffery pine, red fir, and incense cedar. Planting conifers would replace the seed sources of desired species lost during the fire.

After planting, we would consider areas with suitable tree survival and stocking for release treatments to enhance seedling survival. Release treatments can include machine pulling and piling, mastication, hand grubbing or herbicide treatments. In some locations we would apply herbicides to control competing vegetation (target species would be the shrub species ceanothus, manzanita, Chinquapin, and bitter cherry). These release treatments would include repeated radial application of herbicide up to 5-7 feet surrounding planting sites. Herbicides would include glyphosate and triclopyr. We would treat sites with herbicides up to three times over a period of approximately a decade. These would be spot treatments using a backpack sprayer – broadcast application is not proposed. Treatments would occur in spring when plants are actively growing.

• Glyphosate (trade names include Rodeo®) is one of the most widely used herbicides available. It is non-selective (broad spectrum), so it may injure non-target plants. It provides only post-emergent control and is not absorbed through roots. It is non-persistent and relatively immobile in soil. Plants treated with glyphosate can take several weeks to die; repeat application may be necessary to remove plants that were missed during the first application. • Triclopyr (trade names include GarlonTM 3A) provides pre- and post-emergence control of woody and broadleaf plants and resprout control as stump treatment on woody plants. It is selective and has little impact on grasses. It can reside in soils for up to 6 months. Formulations containing triclopyr butoxyethyl ester (BEE) are not being considered. The application rates and adjuvants shown in table 5 were used for analysis purposes as the maximum rates. Additives are discussed in more detail in the project Herbicide Risk Assessment Report.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 22 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Table 5. Description of chemical formulation, application rate and type, and additives proposed for use in the Moonlight Restoration Project Maximum Worksheet Proposed Mix Pesticide Trade Names ounces per Gallons per Adjuvant Application Rate percentage acre acre Rodeo® or 1.2 to 6 lbs. acid Non-ionic Glyphosate 38-192 2-6 percent 20 (15-25) equivalent equivalent per acre surfactant Triclopyr Garlon 3A™ 1.0 lb. acid Non-ionic 38-64 2 percent 20 (15-25) triethylamine salt or equivalent equivalent per acre surfactant

Herbicide application would follow applicable state regulations, label directions, and Forest Service policy. In addition, the standard management practices and project-specific design features from Appendix D would be followed, including timing restrictions and buffers on aquatic habitats.

Precommercial Thin Plantations We would precommercially thin approximately 800 acres of existing plantations that burned at low and moderate severity. This thinning would reduce hazardous fuels, increase individual tree growth and vigor, and enhance stand heterogeneity. Thinning would be mechanical, hand thinning or mastication requiring ground based equipment. The material we remove would be precommercial and small sawlog size. Where accessible, we would remove biomass from the site (chipped and hauled or left for firewood). Where we leave slash, it would be piled and burned. We would use mastication and chainsaws where trees are too small to support a commercial operation. We may vary treatment methods based on site-specific conditions. We would thin stands prescriptively to the appropriate residual basal area for the stand vegetation type, consistent with the standards and guidelines from the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (USDA Forest Service 2004b). Treatments would be followed with prescribed fire (underburning).

Mechanical Thin of Mature Stands We would use mechanical thinning on approximately 3,800 acres of existing mature forest stands that either burned at low and moderate severity or were not burned. We would thin stands using a variable density approach to improve stand resilience, species diversity and structural heterogeneity. Individual stand prescriptions would ensure the appropriate residual basal area for the stand vegetation type, consistent with the standards and guidelines from the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (USDA Forest Service 2004b). In some places these treatments would produce multi-product timber sales, removing commercial saw logs as well as biomass materials, where feasible. We would have remaining slash hand or grapple piled and burned. Treatments would be followed with prescribed fire (underburning).

Restore Aspen We developed site specific prescriptions within approximately 2000 acres of identified aspen stands4, which include the following types of treatments:

• removing conifers where they are encroaching on aspen stands to increase light availability and stimulate aspen regeneration;

4 Note that approximately 27 acres of private lands have been included within one aspen restoration unit near Taylor Lake for planning purposes. At this time, there is a proposed land exchange in which those private lands are proposed to become national forest system lands (Mammoth Base Area Land Exchange). A decision on the land exchange is expected in 2018. If the land exchange does not occur, these acres would be dropped from the proposed aspen treatment.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 23 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

• removing hazardous fuels (standing snags and ground fuels) from regenerating aspen stands to reduce the risk of future high severity fire; • hinging (cutting and or placing down trees as barriers) to protect regenerating aspen from excessive grazing; and • removing some mature aspen trees to enhance aspen regeneration (apical dominance). These treatments would be conducted through a combination of mechanical and chainsaw thinning, hand thinning, grapple piling, pile burning, and prescribed fire. Ephemeral streams adjacent to aspen stands would be included in these restoration treatments.

In aspen stands, we would retain conifers based on the severity of the fire and the number of remaining live conifers in the stand and surrounding landscape. Site specific prescriptions would consider the tradeoff between maximizing light to aspen individuals and maintaining live conifers, which are an important seed source in burned landscapes. Therefore, where high-severity fire burned large patches, we would retain more conifers (especially in the buffer surrounding the aspen) than in areas that burned in small patches of low to moderate severity.

In aspen communities with elevated fuel loads (e.g. high concentrations of large diameter (over 12 inches dbh) standing snags and logs) we would have material hand or grapple piled outside of the aspen root system. This treatment would create fuel loads that reflect the natural range of variability so that aspen communities would be more resilient when fire enters these areas in the future. In aspen communities with heavy fuel loads distributed throughout the stand, we would break up the continuity of fuels by grapple piling in patches, while avoiding damage to all of the aspen regeneration that has occurred since the Moonlight fire.

Fencing and hinging would protect some aspen stands from excessive browsing. In stands with moderate browsing, excessive browsing in small patches, or stands with limited access, we would have hinge barriers constructed in patches or along edges to protect aspen regeneration. Hinge barriers are created by felling live or dead conifers 3-4 feet above the ground while maintaining stem connection to the stump.

Apical dominance can limit aspen regeneration through the production of auxins into the roots which inhibit the initiation and development of additional suckers. Any disturbance that kills, stresses, or breaks the roots from the parent tree would initiate new aspen regeneration by interrupting auxin flow. In the Moonlight project area aspen stands where apical dominance is limiting aspen regeneration, we would have overstory stems hand felled to accelerate aspen regeneration.

Note that there may be additional smaller aspen inclusions within the other vegetation treatment units. Where these are found, we would implement the aspen release treatments described above.

Reduce Fuels in Wilcox Valley On approximately 230 acres surrounding Wilcox Valley we would prescribe hand thinning to maintain areas where hazardous fuels were previously treated. Any material removed is likely of precommercial size and may be chipped and hauled or used as firewood. We would have remaining material piled and burned. Alternatively, we may use mastication where it is not feasible or economical to remove material from the site. The thinning would be followed by prescribed fire. These prescriptions would favor fire resilient species such as pine, and also thin to lower residual densities to reduce risk of high severity fire in these stands.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 24 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Improve Wildlife Habitat We propose prescribed fire (underburn) in approximately 2,000 acres of spotted owl protected activity centers and home range core areas in order to protect and perpetuate old forest ecosystems dominated by large forest structures and multilayered canopies. When needed, we would use hand thinning prior to burning to reduce hazardous fuels to ensure the fire could be safely implemented and meet the desired conditions. Within protected activity centers trees less than 6 inches dbh would be hand thinned, piled, and burned. In some areas adjacent to protected activity centers trees less than 10 inches dbh would be hand thinned. Our project specific design features would address limited operating periods and the burn plan would outline the prescription for burning.

Restore Watersheds and Roads Table 6 summarizes our proposed actions for transportation management. Appendix A – Maps show the proposed transportation activities. We anticipate that the treatments below would be implemented over a time period of 5 to 10 years, often in conjunction with the vegetation treatments described above. These proposed actions are described in more detail below. It should be noted that the proposed action for transportation is based on field surveys conducted in 2016, however, in the spring of 2017 flooding within the project area may have changed road conditions substantially. Miles of transportation activities and watershed restoration may be modified slightly depending on the conditions of the roads at the time of implementation. Approximate miles are used for analysis purposes.

Table 6. Summary of proposed transportation management activities Proposed Action Approximate Miles System road decommissioning (currently designated for public motor vehicle use) 23 System road decommissioning (not currently designated for public motor vehicle use) 18 System trail decommissioning 0.15 Non-system route obliteration 14 System road improvements for water quality 551 System trail improvements for water quality 291 Haul Route Reconstruction 341 Haul Route Maintenance 1221 Temporary Roads 7 1 – Approximately 40 miles of road would receive both system road or trail improvements for water quality and would have improvements for use as a haul road. These roads are counted twice in the table above. Roads would be maintained or improved for water quality purposes prior to use for timber hauling. After timber hauling they would be returned to their improved condition. In addition, some roads proposed for decommissioning or obliteration would first be used as haul routes, and then decommissioned after hauling activities were completed.

Decommission and Obliterate Unneeded Roads We are proposing system road decommissioning and non-system road obliteration where access is no longer needed or sustainable, to reduce impacts to watersheds and provide safe and efficient transportation. We have identified 41 miles of National Forest System roads in the project area that are unneeded for management and are impacting project area resources, specifically resulting in sediment delivery to streams. We propose to decommission these roads. At a minimum, decommissioning would block the ends of the roads to traffic or remove roads from the corporate database after they have been naturally-reclaimed. Decommissioning may also include: removing culverts, subsoiling, outsloping, recontouring, and revegetating to restore infiltration and disperse surface runoff, and removing fill from stream crossings. Approximately 23 miles of the roads proposed for decommissioning are currently open

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 25 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

to all motor vehicle so decommissioning these roads would change the public transportation system. Decommissioning would close them to public use and remove them from the motor vehicle use map. For a detailed list of the National Forest System roads proposed for decommissioning, see appendix B.

We would obliterate approximately 14 miles of existing non-system routes. Non-system routes are those that were previously constructed on the landscape, but are not currently part of the existing forest transportation system and are not needed for future management activities. At a minimum, non-system road obliteration would include blocking the ends of the roads to traffic; and may include removing culverts, sub-soiling, out-sloping, re-contouring, revegetating to restore infiltration and disperse surface runoff, and removing fill from stream crossings. Some of these routes may be used during the project activities and then obliterated following use.

Improve System Roads and Trails We would improve the road and trail system to reduce impacts to watersheds and provide safe and efficient transportation, including maintenance and road reconstruction activities where needed to improve permanent access or recreational opportunities. A common treatment would be installing road dips to better disperse runoff from road surfaces and to frequently relieve roadway ditches so that the total length of ditches that flow to stream channels is substantially reduced, and to ensure that if a culvert is plugged the distance a stream may be diverted along the road would be minimized. We may need to place 2 to 3 inch diameter rock armor at the outlet of certain dips to dissipate erosive potential where erosion hazard is high. Additional improvements may include out-sloping road segments, constructing low water crossings (rocked stream fords for vehicles), and replacing culverts. National Forest System roads and trails in Lights Creek watersheds are a priority for reconstruction or improvements where road-generated sediment impacts streams, and there is a potential for drainage structures to fail catastrophically.

Access for product removal We need to conduct road maintenance and temporary road construction to accomplish the vegetation and habitat treatments described above. Improvements would improve road conditions as needed for safe and efficient hauling forest products. We currently estimate that approximately 170 miles of National Forest System road would be needed to access the treatment areas and remove forest product. Based on road condition surveys conducted in the summer of 2016, most of these haul routes would require some reconstruction or maintenance to accommodate heavy equipment and trucks. Maintenance and reconstruction would comply with best management practices requirements.

Approximately 40 miles of road would receive both system road or trail improvements for water quality and would have improvements for use as a haul road. Roads would be maintained or improved for water quality purposes prior to use for timber hauling. After timber hauling they would be returned to their improved condition. In addition, some roads proposed for decommissioning or obliteration would first be used as haul routes or temporary roads, and then decommissioned after hauling activities were completed.

In addition, we may need temporary roads in some areas to access stands for management activities. Temporary road construction would include clearing and grubbing, excavating, blading, and installing drainage features. After management activities are completed, we would have temporary roads obliterated or decommissioned and disturbed areas restored by a combination of scarifying the surface to reduce soil compaction where needed, restoring drainage features, recontouring where needed, planting disturbed areas to reestablish vegetation cover and placing woody debris on the road bed clearing to discourage off- road vehicles. Temporary roads would not become part of the long-term road system. At this time, we estimate needing approximately 7 miles of temporary road construction, this represents a disturbance of approximately 20 acres of the project area.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 26 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Maintain Non-motorized and Motorized Trails In addition to the system trail maintenance described above, where project area non-motorized trails and motorized trails have been overgrown by brush, we would conduct trail maintenance and remove brush and hazard trees.

Standard Management Requirements and Design Features In order to reduce unintended effects we would implement standard management requirements and project-specific design criteria. Appendix D lists standard management practices and project-specific design features, which would minimize effects to natural resources and forest visitors. Alternative C - California spotted owl interim recommendation In 2015 the Regional Office issued Draft Interim Recommendations for the Management of California Spotted Owl (CSO) Habitat on National Forest System Lands (USDA Forest Service 2015a). The Regional Forester subsequently directed Forests to “include and analyze an alternative consistent with these interim recommendations for any environmental impact statement or environmental assessment prepared for site-specific, vegetation management projects within the range of the CSO [California spotted owl] on the Sierra Nevada National Forests” for projects scoped after August 20, 2015. Therefore, an alternative consistent with the draft interim recommendations will be included and analyzed in the environmental assessment.

This alternative is intended to reduce risk to California spotted owl habitat in the short term relative to the risk associated with current standards and guidelines. The recommendations incorporated into this alternative are intended to provide a balance of conserving existing high-quality habitat, enhancing habitat conditions through management, and reducing the risks of habitat loss through high-intensity fire (USDA Forest Service 2015a, page 2). The goals set forth in the Interim Recommendations are consistent with the overall goals for the Moonlight Fire Area Restoration project. The recommended management activities outlined in the Interim Recommendations are more restrictive than alternative B. To comply with the Interim Recommendations, alternative C would implement all of the actions described in the proposed action, however, there would be limits on mechanical treatments within specific “designated habitat” acres.

As described in the Interim Recommendations, designated habitat includes 1,000 acres for which at least 400 acres is over 70 percent canopy cover plus 300 acres is over 50 percent canopy cover, with the remaining 300 acres comprised of a fine-scale mosaic with small gaps within a landscape of suitable habitat (California Wildlife Habitat Relationship (wildlife habitat) classes 6, 5D, 5M, 4D, and 4M) (USDA Forest Service 2015a, pages 7-8, #3a-c). Also, at least 700 of the designated habitat acres must be contained within a 1000-acre territory circle (USDA Forest Service 2015a, page 7, figure 2). In cases where there is inadequate habitat with over 70 percent canopy cover, the best available habitat would be used to meet this criteria. In addition to the protected activity centers and home range core areas, additional acres of designated habited will be defined within the territories where needed to meet the 700- acre requirement.

Treatments prohibited within the designated habitat include: mechanical thinning, mastication, and grapple piling. Treatments within designated habitat would be limited to the removal of small-diameter woody material up to 6 inches dbh through hand-thinning, pile burning, and/or prescribed burning (USDA Forest Service 2015a, page 17, #6a).

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 27 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

More specifically:

1. 503 acres of the mechanical thinning treatments that would be mechanically thinned, grapple piled, or hand thinned in alternative B, would not have mechanical activities and would be limited to hand thinning up to six inches in diameter under alternative C. 2. 231 acres of aspen restoration treatments that would be mechanically thinned, grapple piled, or hand thinned in alternative B, would not have mechanical activities and would be limited to hand thinning up to six inches in diameter under alternative C. 3. 625 acres in the wildlife habitat improvement treatments that are hand thin up to 10 inches diameter or that include grapple piling under alternative B, would not have mechanical activities and would be limited to hand thinning up to six inches in alternative C. See table 70 in Appendix B – Vegetation Treatments for a more detailed comparison of alternative B and C.

The precommercial thinning treatments, hazardous fuels reduction treatments, and reforestation treatments would be the same as described under the proposed action. In addition, the watershed restoration activities (decommissioning, obliteration, and road maintenance) would be the same in this alternative. There would be some minor reductions in need for haul route maintenance and reconstruction and temporary road construction – at this time we estimate 14 fewer miles of haul road and one mile fewer miles of temporary road. Alternative D – Reforestation without the use of herbicides This alternative would be the same as the Proposed Action, except that there would be no herbicides used for the release treatments. Release treatments would include machine pulling and piling, mastication, or hand grubbing only. This alternative would be analyzed in response to public concerns about the potential effects of herbicides. Alternatives considered but eliminated from detailed study Federal agencies are required to rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternative actions and to briefly discuss the reasons for eliminating any alternatives that were not developed in detail (40 CFR 1502.14). Public comments we received in response to the proposed action provide suggestions for alternative methods for achieving the purpose and need. Some of these alternatives are outside the scope of the need for the proposal, duplicative of the alternatives we considered in detail, or are components that would cause unnecessary environmental harm. Therefore, we have considered a number of alternatives, but eliminated them from detailed study for the reasons summarized below. Alternative E – Incorporate Firewise actions on private lands One commenter suggests that the proposed action should include consideration of Firewise actions including distributing Firewise information to residents of the wildland-urban interface and conducting fine fuel removal on private property. The purpose and need for the project is to reduce fuels in the wildland-urban interface on national forest system lands, consistent with the Plumas National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (the Forest Plan) (USDA Forest Service 1988) as amended by the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA) Supplemental Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision (USDA Forest Service 2004a, 2004b). While there is also a need for and benefit to fuel reduction actions on private land within the wildland-urban interface, we do not have authority to implement activities on private lands. Therefore, the project focuses on activities occurring on federal lands and an alternative that conducts activities on private lands will not be considered in detail. However,

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 28 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

the Forest Service does provide information to local communities and private landowners regarding fire safe land management practices. Alternative F – Maintain and improve roads and do not close them to public use Commenters suggest that we should consider maintaining or improving roads to mitigate the effects of the current roads on project area watersheds, rather than decommissioning these roads. However, commenters do not suggest any specific roads that they would prefer to have remain open for public use. As stated in the project purpose and need, the primary concern is that roads in the project area are currently contributing to adverse effects to watersheds. Our interdisciplinary team conducted a review of the roads within the project area consistent with the travel management procedures from 36 CFR 212 and Forest Service Handbook 7709.55. Based on current forest level and project level analysis, the national forest system roads that we are proposing to decommission are roads we have determined are ‘not needed’ for future national forest management, consistent with 36 CF 212 subpart A. Therefore, the costs to maintain or improve these roads to a point that they no longer pose a risk to watersheds is not justified by the need for the road. At the same time, our review of the roads also identified numerous roads within the project area that are needed for future use and would be maintained or improved. Some of these roads would be improved as part of this project, if they are needed as access/haul routes for the vegetation management. Other planning for road maintenance in the Moonlights Fire Area is being conducted as part of separate projects so that it can be implemented more quickly. Therefore, an alternative that considers maintaining the roads proposed for decommissioning will not be considered in detail. Alternative G – Consider the use of grazing for release treatments Several commenter suggested that we consider holistic approaches that do not include using herbicides (hand crews, grazing, burning, tarping, mastication) for managing the brush encroachment and conducting the reforestation work. Our proposed reforestation work requires site preparation and release treatments all focused on removal of shrub species. We do propose using the tools recommended by commenters in these treatments. All of the site preparation work would be conducted by hand or grapple pile, mastication, and pile burning of the brush material and snags and no herbicide would be used. For release treatments machine pulling, mastication, and hand grubbing are considered, along with herbicide treatments. Herbicide release treatments are included because in our past experience, the mechanical or hand treatments were insufficient to prevent shrub competition and plantations were not successful. The herbicide use would occur primarily in those situations where mechanical treatment has failed to reduce competing shrub growth around planted trees.

Grazing is not a viable alternative to herbicides, machine piling, or hand grubbing for the release treatments. Under the proposed action, the machine piling, hand grubbing, or herbicide release treatments would occur on specific sites at a small scale in 5 to 7 foot radius circles around planted trees. Using grazing in this context would be much less manageable. For a release treatment to be truly effective, all competing vegetation must be removed within this radius without harm to the seedling. In addition, other impacts of grazing would not be desirable for reforestation goals (ex. animals could not favor browse vs. planted trees). One comment provides several case studies and recommendations for us to consider, which highlight grazing being applied in hazardous fuel reduction, noxious weed management and other applications. However, these are not applicable to the type of reforestation activity we propose. These references/examples do highlight some of the limitations of grazing in this application, such as damage to trees, ability of grazers to control shrub species (due to height or diameter size), transportation to the project sites, and containment. Therefore, an alternative that considers grazing as a replacement for herbicide use, will not be considered in detail.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 29 – Plumas National Forest

Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Chapter 3 - Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and Alternatives This section summarizes the aspects of the environment likely to be affected and the potential environmental effects (direct, indirect, and cumulative) that would result from undertaking the proposed action and alternatives for each impacted resource. Effects analysis will focus on disclosing the extent to which the alternatives meet the purpose and need, addressing public concerns (issues), providing sufficient analysis to determine if the effects would be significant, and compliance with relevant laws, regulations, and policies.

Cumulative effects analysis considers the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions that are described in Appendix E – Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions. In determining cumulative effects, the past, present, and future actions displayed in appendix E were added to the direct and indirect effects of the proposed action and alternatives.

Specialist reports contain more detailed analysis, detailed descriptions of methodology, and analysis data. These are summarized below and incorporated by reference. Resources that were not impacted and therefore not further analyzed include range resources and mineral resources. The project record, which contains project files, documents, and supporting information, is in electronic format and is available for public review, upon request, in accordance with 40 CFR 1506.6(f). Vegetation and Silviculture Analysis of effects to vegetation will focus on the extent to which the project proposals and alternatives satisfy the purpose and need for the project for forest health, landscape diversity and resilience. The resource indicators and measures listed in table 7 will be used to evaluate the effects of the proposed action and alternatives on meeting the various elements of the purpose and need.

Table 7. Resource indicators and measures for assessing effects Resource Element Resource Indicator(s) Measure(s) Basal area, 1. Forest diversity and structure Stand density Stand density index, (mechanical thinning units) Stand size Trees per acre, Quadratic mean diameter Light environment Percent crown canopy cover Basal area 2. Forest diversity and structure Stand density Trees per acre, (precommercial thinning units) Stand size Quadratic mean diameter Light environment Percent crown canopy cover Trees per acre 3. Reforestation Reforestation density Planting density

4. Improving Aspen Growing Aspen stand health Aspen restoration Conditions 5. Wildlife Habitat Improvement Canopy cover Percent crown canopy cover Fuel loading Tons per acre Snags Snags per acre by size class 6. Hazardous Fuels Reduction Fuel loading Tons per acre

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 31 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

The indicator measures are used to assess unit-level effects (within proposed treatment areas) by proposed treatment type. Out of the 119,099 project area acres, approximately 12,708 acres are proposed for treatment as part of this project proposed action. This is just over 10 percent of the vegetation within the project area boundary. The timeframe used for the analysis varies by indicator, but is general evaluated post-treatment and 5-15 years after treatment. For the modeled forest diversity and structure measures (1 and 2), modeling outputs for 5 year and 10 year intervals are used to display effects to stand density. It is anticipated that implementing the project will take about 5 years. This section displays modeling outputs for 5 years after the start of implementation to describe “post-treatment” conditions. Modeling outputs for 10 years after the start of implementation are shown to capture longer-term effects of the proposed action. Longer-term effects (10 to 20-years beyond implementation) are qualitative due to limitations of the modeling approach (see methodology section of the Vegetation and Silviculture Resource Report).

Resource indicators 1 and 2 are used to measure the extent to which the alternatives would meet the purpose and need for restoring forest diversity and structure in both the proposed mechanical thinning and precommercial thinning (plantation) units. Basal area, stand density index, quadratic mean diameter and canopy cover are variables used to measure stand density and size. These variables will be used to show how the alternatives move the stands closer to the desired conditions for existing mature forests and plantations which include higher levels of vertical and horizontal heterogeneity, with lower stand density consistent with recommendations from relevant scientific literature (Oliver 1995, Long and Shaw 2005).

Resource indicator 3 pertains to reforestation and release treatments. Trees per acre and planting density will show how the alternatives move the stands closer to the desired conditions for reforestation and release units, moving toward a conifer dominated forest in the long term.

Resource indicator 4 pertains to aspen restoration treatments. The measure for this resource indicator is a qualitative measure used to show how the alternatives move the stands toward an improvement of aspen growing conditions and reducing conifer encroachment, which would result in expansion of the aspen clone in the long term.

Resource indicator 5 pertains to wildlife habitat improvement treatments. Canopy cover, fuel loading and snags are used to show how the alternatives move the stands toward the desired condition which includes maintenance of canopy cover and a large tree component, as well recruitment of more snags per acre larger than fifteen inch diameter over time.

Resource indicator 6 pertains to hazardous fuels reduction treatments. Fuel loading is used to show how the alternatives move the stands toward the desired condition which is reduced canopy fuel and reduced fuel loading.

Affected Environment The existing condition of vegetation varies across the project area, and the purpose and need for the various actions are strongly linked to the condition of the vegetation and the objectives for forest health, landscape diversity and resilience. The Moonlight Fire of 2007 created significant changes to vegetation communities. Much of the fire burned at high to moderate severity, with large expanses of stand replacement.

Currently, across the 12,708 acres of proposed treatment units, 61 percent (7,760 acres) are currently conifer dominated; approximately 39 percent (4,949 acres) are currently herbaceous, hardwood/conifer, hardwood or non-forested. Prior to the Moonlight fire, 12,253 acres (94 percent) of the same area was conifer dominated, and less than 1 percent (36 acres) was shrub dominated (figure 2). The change to vegetation as a result of the Moonlight Fire is signifigant. Despite the significant change to vegetation,

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 32 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

other environmental factors such as soils have not changed the capablity of the landscape to support forested conditions. See also the Need for the Proposal section, which describes the existing vegetation condition and need for change.

Figure 3. Major vegetation types before and after the Moonlight Fire of 2007

The majority of the project area is conifer dominated. In these areas, the conifer wildlife habitat types are Sierran-mixed conifer (4,415 acres or 57 percent), true fir (1,714 acres or 22 percent), and eastside pine (1,660 acre or 21 percent). These types are intermixed across the different proposed actions. The Sierran- mixed conifer types and pine types are most ecologically stable with lower densities when the primary species in the type is pine, which is a host for various species of pine beetle. The pine beetle can successful attack pine-dominated areas when densities are beyond what is recommended by scientific literature (Oliver 1995, Long and Shaw 2005). True fir can tolerate higher density levels than pine (Reineke 1933).

Table 8 summarizes the existing conditions of the indicators for vegetation in the proposed treatment units, by proposed treatment type. The indicators are discussed in more detail below.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 33 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Table 8. Resource and indicator measures for vegetation - existing condition Range of Existing Condition Values – All Desired Condition (varies Resource Element Resource Indicator Measure (Average per acre)1 Stands based on site quality) (per acre) Basal Area 1. Forest diversity and structure 155 Pine dominated = 40 -120 Stand Density (square feet per 15 – 348 (mechanical thinning units) acre) (148-163) Mixed conifer (pine) = 80 - 140

Stand Density 278 Pine dominated = 150 - 245 27 – 618 Index (261-295) Mixed conifer (pine) = 190 - 300 Decreasing immediately post 317 treatment. Varies depending on Trees per acre 25 – 1,074 (281-353) tree size and adjusts to meet other stand density metrics. Quadratic Mean Increasing immediately post Diameter in 11.9 inches 4.4 – 24.3 Stand Size treatment. Varies depending on diameter at breast inches (10.8-13) stand type and qualities. height (inches) Average 30 to 50 percent, Percent Crown Light Environment 43 percent 4 – 78 percent depending on major forest type Canopy Cover and site quality Basal Area 2. Forest diversity and structure Pine dominated = 40 -120 Stand Density (square feet per 95 13-205 (precommercial thinning units) acre) Mixed conifer (pine) = 80 - 140 Decreasing immediately post treatment. Varies depending on Trees per acre 163 25-362 tree size and adjusts to meet other stand density metrics. Quadratic Mean Increasing immediately post Diameter in 3.4 - 16.1 Stand Size 10.1 inches treatment. Varies depending on diameter at breast inches stand type and qualities. height (inches) Average 25 to 40 percent, Percent Crown Light Environment 37 percent 10-62 percent depending on major forest type Canopy Cover and site quality

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 34 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Range of Existing Condition Values – All Desired Condition (varies Resource Element Resource Indicator Measure (Average per acre)1 Stands based on site quality) (per acre) No data is available Survival rates of 200 to 300 Reforestation Trees per acre and for current trees per 3. Reforestation Not applicable seedlings per acre five years post Density planting density acre, primarily shrub- treatment. dominated. Various states; Early seral conditions that support 4. Improving Aspen Growing depending on forest Aspen Stand Health Aspen restoration Not applicable aspen suckering and clone Conditions succession and fire expansion effects Percent Crown 5. Wildlife Habitat Improvement Canopy Cover 49 percent Not applicable Greater than 40 percent Canopy Cover 10 – 15 tons per acre, distributed Fuel loading Tons per acre 20 tons per acre Not applicable in large downed wood Fewer snags per acre under 18 Per acre by size Snags 30 snags per acre Not applicable inches; more snags per acre over class 18 inches Estimated 20-30 tons 6. Hazardous Fuels Reduction Fuel loading Tons per acre Not applicable 10-15 tons per acre per acre 1 - The modeling approach was used to represent the range of forest types present in the project area. The range of values in the existing condition column first represents the average existing condition for eastside pine areas, the second value is represents the average Sierran Mixed conifer areas.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 35 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Forest Structure and Diversity - Resource Indicators 1 and 2 Approximately 3,767 acres of mechanical thinning stands have been identified within and directly adjacent to the Moonlight Fire area. These are areas where the dominant vegetation type is forest, and the density levels are at or beyond those recommended for the vegetation type. The majority of acres (2,845) proposed for mechanical thinning are classified as ‘small tree’ or in the 11 -24 inches diameter at breast height size range, according to the Eveg GIS layer. Generally speaking these are mature forest stands where the existing stand density puts them at heightened risk of loss from insects, disease, or future wildland fires. However, small portions of this area have very low densities, and these are included to treat fuels.

The proposed action has also identified approximately 768 acres of precommercial thinning in old plantation areas (created by past management activities). In these areas, the existing condition is generally homogeneous pine plantations that vary in both age and size; in some places natural forest succession has resulted in other conifer and hardwood species being present in the stands.

Forest vegetation simulator modeling (FVS) was used to calculate existing conditions of the indicators based on stand exam data collected across the project area. There is a wide range of conditions in these areas that is a result of the Moonlight fire, as well as other past management activities. This range of conditions and average per acre are presented in table 8, above. In general, the average per acre existing condition is denser than desired. In the case of the dense stands, the risk of insect, disease and fire is heightened, and in the fire injured stands, the fuel loading is higher which increases the potential for lethal effects in future wildland fire scenarios.

Reforestation and release – Resource Indicator 3 There are approximately 4,063 acres proposed for reforestation and release treatments. The existing condition in these areas are generally shrub dominated, with small portions having small amounts of tree cover. The existing condition of this area is largely a result of the Moonlight Fire of 2007, during which high severity fire radically altered conifer forest conditions, creating shrub dominated areas. The existing condition of vegetation is currently large expanses of brush dominated areas, with small amounts of planted and natural tree regeneration interspersed within the brush. There are also small inclusions of small and medium sized trees, which survived the fire. However this amount is less than 8 percent of the total area, or less than 325 acres out of the entire 4,063 acres. Despite the recent post-fire vegetation community change, the soils and other environmental conditions have previously been known to support forested habitats.

The Moonlight Fire Rapid Assessment of Vegetation Condition (RVAG) GIS data for the reforestation and release units show that the fire severity effects for the units as having high basal area losses5. This data is further summarized in table 9, below.

5In the context of the Moonlight Fire Rapid Assessment of Vegetation Condition (RVAG) analysis, basal area losses measure the percent change in basal area or tree cover (relative number of live trees on the site) from the pre-fire condition. Basal area loss is reported as four classes of percent change in tree cover and expressed in square feet. Basal area losses does not describe a permanent loss of basal area within a forest but simply describes the amount of change in the live tree cover immediately (approximately 30 days after wildfire containment) after a wildfire that undergoes RVAG analysis.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 36 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Table 9. Post Moonlight fire basal area losses across proposed reforestation and release areas. Basal Area Mortality Class Acres Percentage of Acres No Loss (0 percent) 62 1 percent Up to 10 percent loss 77 2 percent 10 to less than 25 percent mortality 90 2 percent 25 to less than 50 percent mortality 157 4 percent 50 to less than 75 percent mortality 234 6 percent 75 to less than 90 percent mortality 235 6 percent Basal area mortality greater than 90 percent 3,202 79 percent Not classified 6 Less than 1 percent Total 4,063 100 percent

Figure 4. Existing condition on one unit of the proposed reforestation and release area

Figure 4 shows one unit of the proposed reforestation and release area. The condition of these units is similar across the entire 4,063 acres. Burned trees have resulted in heavy downed fuels as well as numerous standing snags. Brush species have colonized the site, and in some areas there is a component of planted or naturally regenerated trees.

Aspen restoration – Resource Indicator 4 Aspen restoration areas account for approximately 1,929 acres or 15 percent of the proposed action treatments for vegetation management activities. These areas are dominated by quaking aspen (Populous tremuloides). Aspen forests are a crucial component of many western landscapes, providing biological diversity, critical wildlife habitat, valuable grazing resources as well as highly desirable scenic and hydrological values (Sheppherd et al. 2006). As described in the Need for the Proposal section, aspen stands within the project area were found to have high fuel loading and conifer encroachment which put the stands at risk for high severity fire and reduce aspen suckering and clone expansion (USDA Forest Service 2013). The aspen have highly variable conditions since they are an early seral clonal species, and growth varies greatly depending on environmental conditions such as light and disturbance regime.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 37 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Wildlife habitat improvement – Resource Indicator 5 Wildlife habitat improvement areas account for approximately 1,950 acres or 15 percent of the proposed action treatments for vegetation management activities. The existing condition of the wildlife habitat improvement areas is highly variable. Some areas have been treated under past projects, while others have not received any type of treatment in recent times. These areas were designed for wildlife habitat as they are forested, and support forest dependent wildlife species, particularly California spotted owl. These areas were generally not affected by the Moonlight fire. The existing condition for all units is a forested condition that have high levels of vertical and horizontal heterogeneity with dense canopy cover. The indicators are summarized in table 8, above. There is an average of 34 snags per acre with most less than 12 inches and only a few greater than 18 inches. The desired condition is to increase the number of larger snags.

Figure 5. Existing snags per acre for wildlife habitat improvement proposed action

The existing condition for canopy cover in the wildlife habitat improvement areas, as modeled, is the cover from above, not within the stand. Wildlife species generally use within stand cover, or canopy closure (North 2012). The values modeled are approximations which are directly influenced by factors such as plot location during inventory (openings have less canopy cover), dead trees (dead trees result in a canopy value of zero (0 percent) in modeling) and other site specific factors directly related to plot inventory and design.

Hazardous fuels reduction – Resource Indicator 6 The proposed action has identified approximately 231 acres of hazardous fuels reduction activities within units that were previously treated under the Herger Feinstein Quincy Library Group Act. These areas are directly adjacent to private land holdings that have seasonal occupancy home sites. These home sites were successfully protected during the Moonlight Fire of 2007. The stands in this area have been mechanically thinned under projects that occurred in the last 20 years. The thinning activities removed both sawlog sized material and biomass, which resulted in a residual stand with an average tree spacing of over 15 inches, with higher live crown and reduced tree density levels.

Within the 231 acres proposed for hazardous fuels reduction, 209 acres (90 percent) is conifer dominated. Most of this area has lower canopy densities, which is desirable in areas where fuel reduction is a primary

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 38 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

management goal because it limits the potential for future wildland fires to burn as running crown fires or other types of fire with rapid rate of spread.

The existing condition also includes an abundant brush understory; particularly whitethorn ceanothus (Ceanothus cordulatus) and lesser amounts of greenleaf manzanita (Arcostaphylus patula); which is linked to the fire effects of the Moonlight Fire of 2007, where heat from the fire caused dormant seed beds to germinate. The new brush sprouted so heavily that the area has a dense carpet of brush in the understory.

The fuel loading of 20-30 tons per acre is an estimate based on visual observation. The fuels consist of live fuels in the shrub layer as well as downed logs, and some live trees. The desired condition is to reduce the shrubs, logs, and live trees to reduce fuel loading.

Alternative A – No action Under the no-action alternative, current management plans would continue to guide management of the project area. Several other/separate projects have been planned or are being planned to conduct Moonlight Fire restoration and this other work would continue as determined in the separate planning processes. This includes maintenance of roads, hazardous fuel treatments, treatment of invasive plants, and other activities. General forest management activities such as fire suppression, minor road and trail maintenance, grazing, recreation and personal use fuelwood cutting would continue as authorized. The currently available developed and dispersed recreation sites and trails would remain open. Changes may occur from wildfire or mortality due to insects, disease, or other natural events. However, none of the proposed fuels reduction, reforestation, aspen restoration, road decommissioning or obliteration, and trail maintenance would be conducted. Current project area trends would continue and the goals and objectives of the 2013 Moonlight Fire Area Strategy would not be achieved.

The trends discussed under the affected environment would continue for all indicators.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 39 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Table 10. Resource and indicator measures for vegetation - existing condition Resource No action No action (10-years) Desired Condition (varies Resource Element Measure Indicator (5-years) based on site quality) Basal Area 164 178 1. Forest diversity and structure Pine dominated = 40 -120 Stand Density (square feet per (in mechanical thinning units) acre) Mixed conifer (pine) = 80 - 140

Stand Density 209 227 Pine dominated = 150 - 245

Index Mixed conifer (pine) = 190 - 300 290 278 Decreasing immediately post treatment. Varies depending on Trees per acre tree size and adjusts to meet other stand density metrics. Quadratic Mean 12.9 13.7 Diameter in Increasing immediately post Stand Size diameter at treatment. Varies depending on breast height stand type and qualities. (inches) 46 48 Average 30 to 50 percent, Percent Crown Light Environment depending on major forest type Canopy Cover and site quality Basal Area 115 136 2. Forest diversity and structure Pine dominated = 40 -120 Stand Density (square feet per (in precommercial thinning units) acre) Mixed conifer (pine) = 80 - 140 182 176 Decreasing immediately post treatment. Varies depending on Trees per acre tree size and adjusts to meet other stand density metrics. Quadratic Mean 11.5 12.7 Diameter in Increasing immediately post Stand Size diameter at treatment. Varies depending on breast height stand type and qualities. (inches) 40 44 Average 25 to 40 percent, Percent Crown Light Environment depending on major forest type Canopy Cover and site quality

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 40 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Resource No action No action (10-years) Desired Condition (varies Resource Element Measure Indicator (5-years) based on site quality) Trees per acre Survival rates of 200 to 300 Reforestation Limited natural Limited natural 3. Reforestation and planting seedlings per acre five years Density regeneration regeneration density post treatment. Decreased Decreased suckering suckering due to Improvement of due to continued Early seral conditions that 4. Improving Aspen Growing Aspen Stand continued conifer aspen growing conifer encroachment support aspen suckering and Conditions Health encroachment and conditions and increased fuel clone expansion increased fuel loading. loading. Percent Crown 53.2 54.6 5. Wildlife Habitat Improvement Canopy Cover Greater than 40 percent Canopy Cover 23.8 26.0 10 – 15 tons per acre, Fuel loading Tons per acre distributed in large downed wood 34 35 Fewer snags per acre under 18 Per acre by size Snags inches; more snags per acre class over 18 inches Continued Continued increases increases beyond 6. Hazardous Fuels Reduction Fuel loading Tons per acre beyond the existing 10-15 tons per acre the existing condition. condition. 1 - The modeling approach was used to represent the range of forest types present in the project area. The range of values in the existing condition column first represents the average existing condition for eastside pine areas, the second value is represents the average Sierran Mixed conifer areas.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 41 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Forest Structure and Diversity - Resource Indicator 1 Without management activities, the density levels of the mechanical thinning treatment units would remain high and the associated risk would increase as density levels continue to increase over time. There would not be an increase in growing space and conditions would remain the same in the short-term time frame, and worsen in the long-term time frame, particularly in areas where the existing density levels are high. The forest types in this project area do not persist at high density for long periods of time as they generally are affected by natural disturbance events, namely insects and wildfire.

Basal area and stand density index: Basal area and stand density index would both increase over time. Basal area is estimated to increase from 164 to 178 over 10 years, adding an average of 14 square feet per acre. Stand density index will increase from 209 to 227 over 10 years. This would be a concern in areas where these values are already beyond what is recommended for forest health. The likelihood of successful bark beetle attacks on trees would increase, and associated drought conditions may worsen the effects of the attacks (Cluck and Woodruff 2017, Cluck and Woodruff 2014). At the point when conditions become unsustainable, self-thinning will occur (Yoda et al. 1963, Long 1985, Long and Shaw 2005, Long and Shaw 2012). If self-thinning occurs, the trees that die will be those with the most challenging site conditions and may include larger trees. In these stands, large trees are likely to have the greatest amounts of biological stresses exerted on them as they require the most site resources, specifically water, to perpetuate and may be most susceptible to bark beetles.

Trees per acre: Trees per acre, as modeled by the forest vegetation simulator, is estimated to decrease over time. Depending on site specific conditions trees per acre may increase or decrease. The model is showing a decrease which indicates active self-thinning of stands. This occurs when stand densities are beyond recommended density levels (see appendix D of the Vegetation and Silviculture report, located in the project record). Without an active disturbance regime stands have started to stagnate, so trees may die where there are crowded conditions and where there is an elevated risk of insect outbreak. Natural regeneration is highly dependent on local conditions. The number of new trees that grow in the stands will vary and likely correlate with local site conditions, as well as precipitation and weather.

Quadratic Mean Diameter: The quadratic mean diameter will be variable and correlate with the stand density (basal area, stand density index, trees per acre) indicator measures. The modeling predicts that there will be an overall increase in quadratic mean diameter after 5 years to 12.9 inches dbh. After 10 years, the quadratic mean diameter is predicted to increase to 13.7 inches dbh. Some of this increase can be directly attributed to active self-thinning. The model projects a decrease to the number of trees per acre, and the quadratic mean diameter increases because those trees projected to die from self-thinning are the smaller ones in the stand. Absent natural disturbance events, such as insects, disease or wildland fire, the quadratic mean diameter is likely to increase slightly over time but much more slowly than if the stands are treated as proposed under the action alternatives.

Light environment: Under the no-action alternative the percent crown canopy cover is likely to increase more in the short term than under the action alternatives. The modeling projects that the canopy cover will be 46 percent after 5 years and 48 percent after 10 years. Since the no-action alternative does not propose removing trees this will allow the canopy cover to increase over time as trees grow and more trees are added to the population through natural regeneration. If there is a natural event such as insects, disease or fire, this would decrease canopy cover.

Forest Structure and Diversity - Resource Indicator 2 There would be no precommercial (plantation) thinning across the 768 acres. The stands that are currently homogenous in structure, composition and size would remain this way for the long- and short-term time frame.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 42 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Basal area: Under the no-action alternative, basal area will increase in the short and long term absent natural disturbance, such as bark beetle outbreaks. Since these stands are homogeneous pine the risk of bark beetles is higher than in a mixed species stand (Oliver 1995, Long and Shaw 2005, Cluck and Woodruff 2017). Under the no-action alternative, while basal areas would continue to increase, the available growing space would not. Critical density levels would be reached more quickly under the no- action alternative than under the action alternatives.

Trees per acre: Trees per acre is likely to remain relatively constant over both the short and long term under the no-action alternative. In the plantations there will likely be more seedlings becoming established than in the mechanical thinning stands because site preparation techniques in the plantations creates a better seed bed for natural regeneration than those in areas that are not plantations. Additionally, there is less overall canopy cover, so more sunlight is reaching the forest floor compared to the areas proposed for mechanical thinning.

Since these areas were clear-cut and then reforested, the accumulated forest debris is restricted to needle cast. Some plantations have a significant amount of brush that is sprouting; in areas where this is occurring, fewer trees will naturally regenerate than in areas where there is exposed mineral soil with only needle cast. The trees per acre will not decrease under the no-action alternative unless there is a natural disturbance.

Reforestation and release – Resource Indicator 3 Under the no-action alternative, areas proposed for reforestation and release would continue to grow unchanged and natural vegetation community succession would continue. This would likely result in large communities of brush intermingled with some trees that are currently growing or that would become established as natural regeneration. Under the no-action alternative in both the short and long term these areas would remain brush-dominated communities.

Research studies in similar environments in this region show that once high severity fires convert areas to brush fields, a brush dominated condition persists. These brush communities would persist for tens to hundreds of years in the future (Nagel and Taylor 2005). The ability of these areas to regenerate naturally is limited by a lack of viable seed source within a reasonable distance of the units; precluding seed drift or other methods by which conifers would colonize a site under low or mixed severity fire conditions.

Soil moisture in these areas is a major limiting factor to the success of newly planted or naturally regenerated trees in Mediterranean climates, particularly during the prolonged summer drought that is typical of Sierran forests (Parker 1994; Stephenson 1998). Planted and naturally regenerated conifers are susceptible to drought as their roots do not extend deeply into the soils until they have several years growth; in the years when they first become established they are in the same soil horizon as the roots of the brush species and so directly compete for moisture.

The competition for site resources, particularly, reduces growth rates of conifers (McDonald and Fidler 2010, McDonald and Fiddler 1995) and may also cause them to die during extreme drought events. Conifer tree root mass compared to the root mass of shrubs is lower based on the sheer mass of shrubs. While individual shrub plants may be affected by drought, conifer tree numbers are so low that the loss of individual trees is more noticeable, and further shifts the site to brush dominance. Under the no-action alternative, as natural events occur, brush is likely to dominate. Research studies support this theory (Welch et al 2016, Nagel and Taylor 2005).

Under the no-action alternative in both the short and long term these areas would remain brush-dominated communities. Fuels would continue to increase as snags continue to decay and fall to the forest floor. The units where reforestation and release is proposed, as well as the larger landscape that burned at high

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 43 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

severity in the Moonlight fire, has been colonized by grasses, forbs, shrubs and small numbers of naturally regenerated conifers. In areas where planting was conducted post-Moonlight fire, there is a component of planted trees. Trees in these areas have abundant competition for site resources from the other plants, particularly the shrubs which are adept at competing for available soil moisture. Absent active management intervention, natural successional processes will continue. With the scale of the Moonlight fire and lack of available seed source in close proximity to most of the reforestation and release areas, natural regeneration success will be very limited and planted trees will have excessive competition from other plants, primarily brush.

In a recent study conducted in the Sierra Nevada Mountains, which included data from the Moonlight fire, Welch et al. (2016) point to a number of factors which limit successful restoration of forests following high severity wildland fires. Factors include establishment of shade intolerant species via natural regeneration, low seedling densities and competition from fire-following brush (Welch et al. 2016). The no-action alternative would follow similar trends in the long-term time frame as seen in the areas now, nearly ten years after the Moonlight fire.

Figure 6. Vegetation condition under the no-action alternative for reforestation and release

In Sierra Nevada forests, establishment of seedlings is strongly influenced by the availability of below- ground resources. Research has found that shrubs generally deplete soil moisture more rapidly and ultimately extract a greater proportion of the available soil water than conifers (Plamboeck et al. 2008; Royce and Barbor 2001). Under the no-action alternative, shrub species would persist on the sites, which is likely to create conditions where there is less soil moisture available to tree seedlings. Lack of available soil moisture, particularly during prolonged summer droughts that are common in the Sierra Nevada, is likely to influence any natural regeneration as there will be direct competition for water.

Aspen restoration – Resource Indicator 4 The aspen areas are in various states depending on successional stage for the forest as well as effects from the Moonlight Fire.

Many of the aspen stands benefited from the effects of the Moonlight fire, as the fire removed encroaching conifers and stimulated regeneration. There are other environmental factors that currently threaten the long-term viability of the aspen stands. These include continued and ongoing conifer encroachment, elevated fuel loads, and excess herbivory from both wildlife and cattle grazing.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 44 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Conifer encroachment threatens aspen as the conifer trees are taller than aspen, which results in overtopping and reduced sunlight for existing aspen and the forest floor; where sunlight helps to warm soils and promote suckering and recruitment of new cohorts of aspen. Elevated fuel loading, particularly downed wood, reduces the amount of available sprouting space for aspen suckers. In non-catastrophic fire situations this would not be as great of a concern as it is post-Moonlight fire. Since Moonlight burned at such high severity in many areas, the amount of downed wood is excessive and beyond the natural range of variability. Low to moderate severity fire would result in less downed wood, creating fuel levels that are closer to the natural range of variability. In addition to excess fuels decreasing sprouting space, the fuels may increase potential reburn severity in any future wildland fire events (Coppoletta et al. 2016). Herbivory can reduce aspen growth as both wildlife and cattle browse the aspen shoots, damaging the apical meristem, which can decrease height growth long term. Herbivory can also reduce suckering potential by decreasing the number of aspen ramets.

Under the no-action alternative, these aspen communities would persist in both the short and long term, but they would likely be reduced in size and extent. The amount of suckering that would occur will likely be reduced under the no-action alternative, specifically in aspen areas with high levels of conifer encroachment, where shading and competition has created conditions that are not beneficial for early seral disturbance dependent species.

In the aspen areas, the effects of the Moonlight fire have benefited aspen directly by reducing the conifer competition. As a result of the Moonlight fire, conifer species in areas that burned at high severity and some in mixed severity were killed. Aspen were affected differently by the Moonlight fire. Because they are clonal species, while aspen trees were killed by the fire, they effectively re-sprouted from the clone. The short-term benefit to aspen from the Moonlight fire is reduced conifer completion. Long term, the benefit to aspen is less obvious, and in many cases the fuel loads that are associated with the Moonlight fire may prove detrimental. The Moonlight fire has dramatically increased fuel loading, specifically in lager sized (10 and 100 hour) fuel. The addition of this fuel to the aspen clone has potential detrimental effects in higher reburn fire severity in future wildland fires, and in increased surface fuels in aspen areas. This increase of surface fuels can prevent re-sprouting of aspen if the fuel loading is continuous and significant, as the surface fuels in the form of large downed wood is blocking the soil and prevents plants (aspen shoots in an existing clone) from becoming established. Under the no-action alternative, grapple piling and other fuel treatments associated with aspen restoration would not occur, and the increase in fuel loading from the Moonlight fire would effectively prevent reestablishment of new cohorts of individual and group aspen sprouts.

Wildlife habitat improvement – Resource Indicator 5 The no-action alternative would not treat 1,950 acres for wildlife habitat improvement.

Percent canopy cover: Under the no-action alternative, any canopy cover changes will be as a result of succession or natural disturbance events. Canopy cover is likely to increase in the short term. In the long term, the percent canopy cover will likely continue to increase, however, the amount it can increase is highly dependent on local stand conditions. If stands are at high densities, the ability to support more growth may be limited. In these scenarios canopy cover may decrease, due to the stand self-thinning, or an insect outbreak.

Fuel loading (tons per acre): Fuel loading is likely to follow the same trend as canopy cover; fuel loading will increase over time. Modeling predicts that approximately 2.2 tons per acre of fuel will accumulate in a five year time frame. Fuel loading will not go down unless there is a wildland fire to consume them. Natural decay will change fuel loading, by distributing it into different fuel pools. However decay rates in the Sierra Nevada’s are very slow because there is very little moisture. Fuel

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 45 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment loading in both the long and short term will increase. Insect and disease outbreaks will increase fuel loading more quickly.

Snags per acre by size class: Snags per acre will increase more quickly if there is an insect or disease occurrence, and will increase significantly if there is a wildland fire. In these units, the number of snags in the size classes below 12 inches is likely to increase more quickly as these are the trees that are subject to self-thinning. These small trees are more likely to die when stands are crowded as they are the smallest in height and therefore under the canopy so receiving the least amount of sunlight.

Hazardous fuels reduction – Resource Indicator 6 Tons per acre is the resource indicator measure for hazardous fuels reduction. Under the no-action alternative 231 acres would receive no treatment, so the tons per acre of fuel would stay higher than under the action alternatives. The amount of fuels would not increase significantly in the short term or long term, as previous treatments under older projects reduced the overstory live tree density. Due to the amount of live trees remaining, the risk of insects and disease have been reduced. Therefore additional fuel loading is likely to be the result of live fuels continuing to accumulate in the shrub layer, as well as needle cast and some downed wood that will accumulate from mortality that may occur; this mortality is anticipated to be in individual or small groups of trees.

Under the no-action alternative there is a predicted increase to fuels as a result of natural processes, which includes needle cast and continued growth of brush. The amounts of fuel in tons per acre is projected to increase, but will be variable based on site specific conditions. Since this is not a modeled value, the increase in tons per acre as a quantified amount is uncertain, but it will be greater than the existing condition of 20 to 30 tons per acre.

Alternative B – Proposed action

Direct and Indirect Effects The proposed action is intended to address the purpose and need to restore the long-term viability of appropriate forest types and reduce the potential for vegetation type conversion; to restore landscape diversity in species, seral stage, and structure; and restore the forest landscape to one that is well-adapted to natural disturbance regimes and can respond to changes in climate and disturbance regimes (specific project objectives are described in chapter 1 purpose and need). Overall, treatments proposed, consistent with the Sierra Nevada Framework, are intended to increase forest diversity in species, structure, and seral stage in priority treatment units across the project area.

Under alternative B, there would be changes to California Wildlife Habitat Relationship system classifications in major lifeforms at the landscape level (see table 11). Anticipated changes to lifeform would be primarily in the ‘shrub’ classification, with the majority of the 4,063 acres in the ‘Reforestation and Release’ proposals changing from shrub dominated habitats to tree dominated habitats. These acres account for approximately 3.4 percent of the project area, and approximately 32 percent of the treatment unit acres.

There are no anticipated changes to lifeform for other areas, as the treatments proposed would not alter the current vegetation community type in the short- or long-term time frame. Alternative B would create more conifer dominated habitats by restoring previously forested areas that are now brush dominated as a result of high severity fires, to tree dominated habitats. These areas currently have forest soils and can support tree life.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 46 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Table 11. Wildlife habitat relationship lifeform for the proposed action and alternatives Wildlife Habitat Relationship Existing Condition Alternative B Change Lifeform Acres Anticipated Acres Conifer 7,722 11,785 +4,063 Hardwood 32 32 0 Herbaceous 295 295 0 Mixed (hardwood/conifer) 38 38 0 Non-forested 33 33 0 Shrub 4,588 525 -4,063 Total 12,708 12,708 4,043

Table 12 summarizes the effects to the indicators for alternative B, the proposed action, over time. For the purposes of this analysis, the Forest Vegetation Simulator model outputs for 5 and 10 years post- implementation. The 5-year interval represents the year when it is anticipated that all vegetation management treatments would be completed. The 10-year interval shows how the modeled indicators change five years post-treatment. More detailed outputs for up to 30 years post-treatment are available in the project record.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 47 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Table 12. Resource and indicator measures for vegetation – alternative B Alternative B 5 Alternative B 10 Resource years Post years Post Desired Condition (varies Resource Element Measure Indicator Treatment (Average Treatment (Average based on site quality) per acre)1 per acre)1

1. Forest diversity and structure Basal Area (square 130 143 Pine dominated = 40 -120 Stand Density (in mechanical thinning units) feet per acre) (51-137) (47-149) Mixed conifer (pine) = 80 - 140

Stand Density 185 199 Pine dominated = 150 - 245

Index (60 – 191) (65 – 205) Mixed conifer (pine) = 190 - 300 68 67 Decreasing immediately post treatment. Varies depending on Trees per acre (21 – 73) (21 – 71) tree size and adjusts to meet other stand density metrics. Quadratic Mean 19.2 20.2 Increasing immediately post Diameter in Stand Size (27.5 – 19.3) (28.6 – 20.3) treatment. Varies depending on diameter at breast stand type and qualities. height (inches) Average 30 to 50 percent, Light Percent Crown 35 percent 38 percent depending on major forest type Environment Canopy Cover (15 – 41 percent) (16-37 percent) and site quality 2. Forest diversity and structure Basal Area (square (in precommercial thinning Stand Density 75 92 Pine dominated = 60 -120 feet per acre) units) Decreasing immediately post treatment. Varies depending on Trees per acre 78 78 tree size and adjusts to meet other stand density metrics. Quadratic Mean Increasing immediately post Diameter in Stand Size 13.3 14.9 treatment. Varies depending on diameter at breast stand type and qualities. height (inches) Average 25 to 40 percent, Light Percent Crown 29 34 depending on major forest type Environment Canopy Cover and site quality

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 48 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Alternative B 5 Alternative B 10 Resource years Post years Post Desired Condition (varies Resource Element Measure Indicator Treatment (Average Treatment (Average based on site quality) per acre)1 per acre)1 Anticipate 70 to 80 Trees would be percent survival three planted at 300-400 Survival rates of 200 to 300 Reforestation Trees per acre and years post treatment 3.Reforestation trees per acre; shrub seedlings per acre five years post Density planting density with a goal of 200 competition would be treatment. trees per acre long reduced. term. Aspen growing Improvement of conditions would be Aspen growing Early seral conditions that 4. Improving Aspen Growing Aspen Stand aspen growing improved, conifer conditions would be support aspen suckering and Conditions Health conditions encroachment and improved clone expansion fuel loading reduced. Percent Crown 5. Wildlife Habitat Improvement Canopy Cover 372 39 Greater than 40 percent Canopy Cover 10 – 15 tons per acre, distributed Fuel loading Tons per acre 11.4 17.4 in large downed wood Fewer snags per acre under 18 Per acre by size Snags 60 29 inches; more snags per acre over class 18 inches 6. Hazardous Fuels Reduction Fuel loading Tons per acre 8-102 10-12 10-15 tons per acre 1- The modeling approach was used to represent the range of forest types present in the project area. The range of values in the existing condition column first represents the average existing condition for eastside pine areas, the second value is represents the average Sierran Mixed conifer areas. 2 – Hand thinning canopy cover is at 40 percent after hand thinning. Further reductions to canopy cover in subsequent years are a result of pile burning and prescribed fire activities. 3 - These values are estimated and not modeled. There was no stand data collected so no FVS modeling occurred.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 49 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Forest Structure and Diversity - Resource Indicator 1 Mechanical thinning is proposed across 3,767 acres which would decrease stand density and increase stand size.

Forest stands would be thinned prescriptively, following principles described in the Pacific Southwest Research Station General Technical Reports 220 GTR 237 (North et al. 2009 and North 2012). Thinning by machine or chainsaw would reduce inter-tree competition. Thinned trees would be removed from the stand if not needed to meet the requirements for down woody material. The direct effects of thinning would be increased stand and landscape level resiliency to fire, insects, and disease. Additionally, decreased stand densities would maintain healthy forest conditions during drought cycles. These effects would be apparent immediately following thinning.

Direct effects to vegetation from mechanical thinning under alternative B are a reduction to the stand density indicator measures (basal area, stand density index and trees per acre). There is an increase to quadratic mean diameter and a slight decrease to canopy cover.

Figure 7. Mechanical thinning stand density indicator measures between 5 and 10 years after implementation begins for alternative B

The reduced stand density indicators are in alignment with current management direction and with recommendations for the management of Sierra Nevada Forests (USDA Forest Service 2014b, North et al. 2009, North 2012). The reduced density levels are supported in both the management direction as well as in recommendations because heightened density levels create ideal conditions for wildland fires, drought, and insects and disease. Drought is a significant stressor to vegetation communities in this area of the United States; the effects of drought are amplified by higher vegetation density levels, as the need for water is increased by greater numbers of plants.

Research has shown that active management through forest thinning maintains healthy trees that are less susceptible to high levels of mortality. Individual or small groups of trees may die, but the forest would be retained. Forests that are managed with appropriate residual density are able to withstand the effects of fire (Agee and Skinner 2005). Numerous research studies have also shown positive effects in stand level resilience to insect outbreaks, stand level forest diseases and fires burning beyond the range of historic norms.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 50 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

For mixed conifer stands, vegetation conditions in forests with frequent, low intensity fires have varying structures. Studies in similar vegetation types indicate that dominant vegetation conditions are: tree groups, gaps and shrub patches (North 2012, Chapter 9). These areas result in habitat microclimate variability. Alternative B would follow thinning regimes under varying prescription types that would implement tree groups, gaps, and shrub patches as well as provide for reforestation that would increase pine seedlings across the treated stands.

Canopy cover would decrease under the mechanical thinning prescription. The decrease in canopy cover is predicted through modeling; actual prescription implementation would follow all applicable management direction. Immediately post-thinning, stands would be more open, and then the growing space made available from the various types of thinning, would again begin to be occupied by other plants, including new trees. The proposed action would reduce canopy cover more than the no-action alternative, but this is a short-term reduction. Over the long term, canopy would regrow into the open spaces and is likely to approach the pre-treatment canopy cover for Sierran-mixed conifer areas, as well as all true fir areas. Pine dominated areas will have a more significant reduction to canopy, and values for canopy cover are likely to take a much longer to return to pre-treatment levels.

Quadratic mean diameter is shown to increase in the short term. This is a reflection of the type of thinning that would occur, which would preferentially remove smaller trees through prescriptive thinning, and leave all trees over 30 inches dbh. This type of thinning raises quadratic mean diameter because the average size of the trees left in the stand (residual) are larger than they were pre-treatment. The trees per acre during this period goes from an average of 315 per acre to 114 per acre.

The post-treatment stand is more open, with fewer trees, a larger quadratic mean diameter, with an overall reduction to stand density. Figure 8 represents the desired condition for post-treatment mechanical thinning stands that are pine dominated mixed conifer.

Figure 8. Post-treatment desired conditions for mechanical thinning stands

Machine piling and pile burning would be used to treat activity generated fuels. Prescribed fire would be used to reduce activity-generated fuels on the units designated for mechanical or hand thinning. Burning would reduce the residual fuel loading. Burning conditions would be selected to minimize scorching of tree crowns. Crown separation and understory tree reduction (thinning up to 30 inches dbh) would allow rapid fireline construction rates and reduced rate of fire spread in future wildland fire scenarios within the treated units. Fuel reduction from the proposed action would create landscapes with residual fuel loadings closer to historic norms that would affect future wildland fires. These stand and landscape level changes in the mechanical thinning stands would result in a discontinuous canopy and decreased canopy bulk

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 51 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

densities. This may change future wildland fire behavior, and may allow for greater suppression efficacy (Moghaddas 2006) as fire retardant would penetrate the canopy more easily and line construction rates may increase due to decreased flame lengths.

Forest Diversity and Structure – Resource Indicator 2 (Precommercial thinning (Plantations)) Plantations would be thinned prescriptively. Thinning by machine or chainsaw would reduce inter-tree competition. Thinned trees would be removed from the stand if not needed to meet needs for down woody material. The primary goals of precommercial thinning are to reduce inter-tree competition, provide for forest health, increase heterogeneity and reduce fuel loading. Forest health is defined as a forest that has endemic levels of insects and disease. The direct effects of thinning would be increased stand and landscape level resiliency to fire, insects, and disease. Additionally, decreased stand densities would maintain healthy forest conditions during drought cycles. These effects would be apparent immediately following thinning.

The direct effect of precommercial thinning and subsequent fuels treatments (machine piling, prescribed burning) to vegetation would be lower stand density indicator measures. Lower stand density and basal area would result in more open stands, with a greatly decreased risk of epidemic insect attacks (Oliver 1995, Long and Shaw 2005).

Figure 9. Precommercial thinning stand density indicator measures from 2017 through 2027

Quadratic mean diameter, or the stand size indicator measure, would increase over time. This is a direct effect of thinning smaller sized trees and reducing the number of trees per acre (stand density indicator). This is a result of modeled prescriptions, which would preferentially remove smaller trees with less overall tree vigor. Trees of larger size and exhibiting greater health would be retained on site.

Canopy cover values are modeled to decrease slightly over the modeled timeframe due to thinning, which would remove trees, reducing overall canopy cover. Because these are planted pine stands, the trees are smaller, and the stand structure is generally homogeneous, with little vertical and horizontal variation. The plantations have less overlapping canopy cover due to their homogeneous structure. Canopy should be reduced, because the stands generally have only one or two layers, and removing any tree would therefore change canopy cover values.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 52 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Figure 10. Precommercial thinning stand size and light environment indicator measures from 2017 through 2027

Figure 11. Post-treatment desired conditions for precommercial thinning stands

Figure 11 represents the desired condition for post-treatment precommercial thinning stands that are pine dominated. There would be a decrease to stand densities, an increase in average tree size, and a decrease of canopy cover.

Additionally, aside from the changes to the indicator measures for vegetation, subsequent grapple piling and prescribed burning treatments post mechanical thinning would result in lesser amounts of surface, ladder and canopy fuels. This would change the fuel content with the stands and across the landscape, which would affect future wildland fires. These stand and landscape level changes would result in a discontinuous canopy and decreased canopy bulk densities. This may change future wildland fire behavior, and allow for greater suppression efficacy (Moghaddas 2006) as fire retardant would penetrate the canopy more easily and line construction rates may increase due to decreased flame lengths.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 53 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Reforestation and release – Resource Indicator 3 Reforestation would prepare sites using grapple piling, pile burning, and broadcast burning. Appropriate conifer species would then be planted at densities of approximately 100 to 400 trees per acre. Survival rates for planting is anticipated to be 80 to 90 percent in the first year, and 70 to 80 percent three years post treatment. The desired condition is approximately 200 successfully growing sapling and pole sized trees in the long term. Herbicide applications are intended to occur over time, post-planting, depending on the amount of competition from shrub species. This would be evaluated on a site-specific basis. The intended uses of herbicide are addressed in the description of the proposed action and in the project- specific herbicide risk assessment.

Under this alternative, the direct effect to vegetation would be a reduced amount of shrub species. Reducing the presence of these species would have the indirect effect of creating growing space for conifer seedlings. The objective of this treatment is to create ideal conditions for conifer establishment and growth. By decreasing plant competition, the planted and naturally regenerated conifer species should have increased growth rates as they would have more available soil moisture, nutrients and sunlight.

Alternative B would prepare the sites using a combination of methods as described under the purpose and need. Site preparation would reduce competing vegetation, remove snags that are safety hazards or in excess of those desired, as well as pile and burn all ground fuels that are beyond the tons per acre desired for downed woody debris. The direct effect of site preparation is a reduction of shrubs and removal of vegetation so that there is bare mineral soil, making a favorable environment for conifer planting and natural regeneration. Natural regeneration would be highly correlated with available seed source. Due to high basal area mortality (see table 9, above) natural regeneration would be very limited. Reduction of both safety hazards and fuel loading is another direct effect of site preparation. After site preparation is complete, these materials would be piled and burned.

Site preparation will make both a short- and long-term change to fuel loading in these areas by piling and burning material that is in excess of amounts desired. An indirect effect is that site preparation is likely to change any future wildland fire behavior by moderating the effects due to a lack of fuels in both brush and previously burned trees from the Moonlight Fire of 2007. The sites will have lowered fuel loading which will create less fire risk and hazard in future wildland fires.

Under alternative B, initial planting densities for the reforestation and release areas would range from 100 to 400 trees per acre, across approximately 4,063 acres. The planting density will be varied to accommodate for varying site quality, aspect, topography and other landform or site features that may influence long-term seedling survival. Plantings would also follow different spatial arrangements of seedlings, with ‘cluster’ planting of site appropriate conifers. Depending on the location of planting, seedlings could be a mix of Jeffery pine, ponderosa pine, incense cedar, white fir and red fir. Other incidental species may be planted, if they are native species and appropriate for the site quality.

As stated previously, site preparation conducted in advance of planting would reduce competition from other species of plants, specifically brush.

Post-planting, herbicide application would provide favorable conditions for conifer growth, decreasing moisture stress on planted conifers by removing competing vegetation. Fewer shrubs species on site would decrease plant moisture competition for planted conifers. McDonald and Fiddler (2010) provide a comparison of average diameter, foliar cover, and height of conifer seedlings 10 years after treatment in three study areas treated with herbicides in northern and central California. These studies compare an herbicide application and a ‘control’ site where no herbicides were applied. Across all sites, in these 10 years of study, all areas with herbicide application show significant increases to diameter, foliar cover,

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 54 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

and height growth (McDonald and Fiddler 2010). Increases to diameter, foliar cover and height growth as seedlings and saplings will allow these trees to grow larger more quickly.

Figure 12 shows anticipated post treatment conditions for reforestation and release areas associated with alternatives B, where tree growth would increase as shrub competition is reduced.

Figure 12. Alternative B desired conditions for reforestation and release areas. From McDonald and Fiddler 1995.

In the Moonlight project area, the areas proposed for reforestation and release are generally mid- to late- seral forests. High-severity wildland fires converted these areas to shrub-dominated habitats and early- seral forests. Mid- to late-seral forest vegetation is also important in terms of landscape diversity and has been identified as a desired condition for the areas proposed for reforestation through this project. A strategy reliant solely on natural regeneration does not ensure achieving the desired condition (density, species and arrangement) of forest cover within the next several decades. Through reforestation, managers can better control density, spacing and species composition versus solely relying on natural regeneration. The cluster planting design proposed in this project is expected to establish stocking of desired species appropriate for the native conifer forest type at a density high enough to meet desired stocking levels, but low enough to create desired open canopied forested stands that compliment any natural regeneration that may occur, in addition to providing for a more resilient structure for future fire management including prescribed fire use within these stands.

Planted areas would be maintained at a lower level of competing vegetation for the short term through a combination of manual release and herbicide release to increase seedling survival and growth. Because planting densities would initially be lower than past Forest Service planting efforts in this area, early stand management activities are critical to meet objectives for survival and growth to ensure there are sufficient seedlings across the landscape to meet the minimum desired condition into the future.

Aspen restoration – Resource Indicator 4 Research indicates that a combination of mechanical treatment and prescribed fire is an effective method to regenerate aspen where conifers are encroaching into aspen stands. A combined treatment can provide a means of emulating natural fire regimes by providing maximum hormonal stimulation and optimal growth environments for aspen suckers as well as eliminating or reducing competing conifers (Shepperd et al. 2001). The proposed action would generally remove all competing conifer trees up to 30 inches dbh. Trees would be removed by site-specific prescription. Removal would focus on conifer trees that are

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 55 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

compromising the existing aspen clone by either shading the clone, or directly competing for soil moisture while also removing conifer seed sources which would reduce future conifer recruitment.

The direct and indirect effects of removing competing vegetation and reducing fuels in aspen areas should greatly increase the amount of suckering. Decreased vegetation competition would increase suckering potential, as would greater amounts of available sunlight. Decreased fuel loading and fencing is likely to allow further expansion of this clonal species as there would be an increase in available, competition free growing space (Sheppard et al. 2006, Jones et al. 2005). In a Sierra Nevada study, removing conifers and fencing the area surrounding a clone resulted in over a hundred established aspen trees after just 5 years (Jones et al. 2005).

Since aspen is a fire-adapted species, prescribed fire would be used to help stimulate regeneration, providing two of the three essential elements necessary for aspen regeneration: 1) killing overstory stems and injuring lateral roots provides the necessary hormonal stimulation to initiate sucker production; and 2) removing competing vegetation and blackening the soil surface (allowing it to be warmed by the sun) creates ideal growing conditions for suckers (Shepperd et al. 2006). Burning also releases nutrients that contribute to the growth of suckers. Although there is some application risk using prescribed fire, the occurrence of fire is probably what maintained many Sierra Nevada aspen/conifer forests in pre- settlement times.

Wildlife habitat improvement – Resource Indicator 5 The proposed action would hand thin trees up to 6 inches diameter at breast height in California spotted owl protected activity centers areas and up to 10 inches in areas that are not designed as protected activity centers. This would result in a very slight reduction of canopy cover. Removing these trees would meet fuels management objectives for these areas. These objectives are established to avoid future consequences to this habitat in future wildland fire scenarios.

Table 13. Snags per acre for the next ten years, as modeled by FVS, for wildlife habitat improvement areas1 Snags Total At most At most At most At most Over 36 Year less than Snags 12 inches 18 inches 24 inches 30 inches inches 12 inches 1 30 15 15 7 3 2 1 2 45 23 22 10 4 3 1 3 92 63 29 11 5 3 1 4 74 45 28 11 5 3 1 5 60 33 27 11 5 3 1 6 50 24 27 11 5 3 1 7 43 17 26 11 5 3 1 8 37 13 25 10 5 3 1 8 29 6 23 10 5 3 1 10 30 15 15 7 3 2 1 1 – As stated previously, the snags per acre are a summation across the acre. The total amount of snags is shown in the second column, the third column is the average of all snags less than or equal to 12 inches in diameter at breast height, the fourth column is the total of all snags greater than or equal to 12 inches in diameter at breast height, the fifth column is the total of all snags greater than or equal to 18 inches in diameter at breast height, the fifth column is the total of all snags greater than or equal to 24 inches in diameter at breast height, the sixth column is the total of all snags greater than or equal to 30 inches in diameter at breast height, and the seventh column is the total of all snags greater than or equal to 36 inches diameter at breast height.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 56 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

There is no modeled change between the existing condition and the hand thinning treatments, both of which model canopy cover at around 40 percent. The reduction to canopy cover would be a result of prescribed fire activities. The existing fuel loading is high enough that fire should burn hot enough to have a mixed severity burn. A mixed severity fire would increase the numbers of snags per acre.

There would be a reduction of fuel loading, similar to that of forests with a continuing frequent fire regime (Stephens and Fulé 2005). Reducing surface and ladder fuels is intended to allow using prescribed fire in the long term as a primary management tool for these areas. The direct effects of reducing percent canopy cover and fuel loading would be stands with a discontinuous surface and ladder fuels layer.

Wildlife habitat improvement actions across all action alternatives should increase the number of snags per acre in the timeframe of the analysis. The bulk of these snags are in the smaller size classes (at most 12 inches dbh) as they are a result of modeled prescribed fire activities. There is a predicted increase of snags from 12 – 18 inches dbh.

Figure 13 is a photo of the conditions that would be anticipated when prescribed fire is applied to the stands. The higher existing fuel loading may result in larger amounts of mortality, which is reflected in the FVS modeled increase in snag levels post treatment. These snags are seen in the fuels loading in tons per acre over time. As the snags decay and fall to the ground, they are added as fuel.

Figure 13. Prescribed fire desired conditions for wildlife habitat improvement areas

Hazardous fuels reduction – Resource Indicator 6 Fuel loading in tons per acre would decrease in the 231 acres proposed for hazardous fuels reduction. As stated, this area has been thinned and the residual fuel loading is primarily in live fuels. Proposed treatment methods include grapple piling of shrubs and downed woody debris that exceed desired levels. Prescribed fire would also be used.

Treatments would prescriptively reduce fuel loading to approximately 8 to 10 tons per acre post treatment. Within five years the fuel loading would increase to 10 to 12 tons per acre. The desired condition for fuels would be met approximately five years post-treatment. Since this is a wildland urban intermix, immediately post treatment fuels may be lower than the desired condition because the burning would consume much of the brush layer, where the bulk of the fuel loading is located. Most of the brush species are fire intolerant so any amount of heat would be lethal. They would quickly re-grow as they are early seral species.

The bulk of fuel loading left would be in larger sized (100, 1000 hour) fuels to meet downed woody debris requirements. Reduced fuel loading would result in stand conditions that do not support crown

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 57 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

fires, unless under extreme weather conditions (drought, wind, etc.). If wildland fires do occur, the reduced fuel loading is anticipated to support only ground fire, which would be generally low severity.

Cumulative effects For the vegetation and silviculture resource, the area for consideration is the unit because effects to vegetation are site specific and do not extend outside of the treatment units. Past activities are considered as the current condition of the vegetation and silviculture resource.

Mechanical Treatments and Prescribed Fire Treatments At a treatment unit level, harvesting and prescribed fire activities would not overlap in time and space with past, ongoing, or foreseeable projects except where past disturbance has occurred. Existing vegetation conditions are discussed above. There are no other thinning activities proposed within the current proposed units; therefore no cumulative effects from thinning or prescribed fire would occur.

The Wildcat project is adjacent to this proposed project. The Wildcat Project Environmental Analysis summarizes the potential effect on forest vegetation resources from vegetation management activities. The units that are included in the Wildcat project area not overlapping any of the units that are proposed for treatment, under any alternative for this project. The Wildcat and Moonlight project areas have approximately 4,689 acres of overlap, in the northern and eastern portion of the Moonlight project boundary, directly north of Antelope Lake.

The Wildcat project units adjoin the proposed Moonlight project area units, near Diamond Mountain, in Township 28 North, Range 12 East, the western half of section 27, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian. The units in Wildcat have no overlap with the Moonlight units, only adjacency.

Vegetation management activities that have been authorized as part of the Wildcat project have the same overarching objectives as those activities proposed for this Moonlight project. The objective of both projects is to restore vegetation and fuels conditions to a more historic norm where low-intensity fires burned with greater frequency, consistent with Forest Plan desired conditions.

Reforestation and Herbicide Application As discussed previously, some of the proposed reforestation units were planted in the years immediately after the Moonlight Fire, however, those plantings had limited success and few trees remain to meet reforestation objectives.

Some reasonably foreseeable herbicide applications are expected within the proposed reforestation treatments during the same timeframe as project implementation. The Moonlight Invasives Plant Treatment project proposes treating invasive plant species with herbicides within the Moonlight Fire Restoration Project area and potentially within the treatment units proposed under this project. Approximately 68 acres of existing invasive plant areas are mapped within the proposed reforestation and herbicide treatment units. There is potential that some of these acres could be treated with herbicides on multiple occasions under the proposed Moonlight Fire Area Invasive Plant Treatment Project. Most of the herbicide that would infiltrate the soil should decompose through natural processes within several days to several months. The treatments occur on single plants and are dispersed. If herbicides are applied according to guidelines and standards, cumulative effects to vegetation are expected to minimal.

Large blocks of private commercial forest land within the Moonlight Fire Area were reforested in the years immediately following the fire. Reforestation of these private lands included aerial application of herbicide and planting of conifers. As a result, these areas lack diversity in understory and overstory species. The Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project would result in larger areas of reforestation adjacent

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 58 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

to these private lands and would be expected to enhance forest diversity in areas unaffected by the Moonlight Fire.

Wildfire and Fire Suppression The affected environment section describes the impacts of the Moonlight Fire on the project area vegetation in detail. The impacts of the Moonlight Fire remain on the landscape. The proposed project is intended to restore the landscape to a condition that would emulate historical vegetation composition and fire regime. The proposed thinning would reduce future potential fire behavior. The benefits of fire with lower intensity and severity would include more intact vegetation communities which have benefits to other resources, including soils and wildlife.

Grazing There are six grazing allotments within the Moonlight Fire Restoration Project area: Antelope, Antelope Lake, Hungry Creek, Lights Creek, Lone Rock and Taylor Lake. The Hungry Creek and Taylor Lake allotments are vacant. The remaining four allotments are active. The proposed treatment units are subject to cumulative grazing impacts within the four active allotment boundaries. The majority of grazing within these allotments occurs in transitional range areas where recent harvesting occurred or within open meadow areas. Impacts of grazing are generally limited to areas where the animals bed, lounge, trail, or access water. These areas are mostly small in aerial extent. Impacts to vegetation include herbivory which can change plant communities long term. Cumulative impacts from grazing would most likely occur where skid trails are used to trail cattle, and would likely delay recovery of those skid trails from compaction. Cumulative impacts would also likely occur in reforestation and release harvest areas and aspen restoration areas for several years following treatments as cattle would likely graze the open grassy areas until tree regeneration occurs and the canopy begins to close again. In addition, cattle may graze on regenerating aspen.

Climate Change Anticipated effects of climate change on project area resources are described in more detail in appendix E. In general, temperatures in the area have been increasing, and are projected to continue to increase. Precipitation has also been steadily increasing in portions of the project area, while decreasing in others and varies seasonally, with substantial decreases projected during the summer months. Couple these with the observed and projected changes to evapotranspiration rates, snow and freezing rain amounts, and soil frost days, among other parameters, and one can safely assume climate change is affecting and would continue to affect soils resources in the Sierra Nevada. Potential changes in species composition could affect litter and duff layers, nutrient cycling and soil productivity. An increase in soil temperature could lead to an increased decomposition rate as well. All those factors could affect the properties of the soil in any given area and could lead to a change in soil type as we progress into the future.

Other Ongoing and Reasonably Foreseeable Activities The other known ongoing and foreseeable activities in the area that overlap in space with the current proposed activities include minor fuelwood gathering. This is not anticipated to have a cumulative impact to the vegetation resource as it is a minor use.

Conclusion This project is intended to restore vegetation and other resources at a landscape level. The objective of the project is to restore vegetation and fuels conditions to a more historic norm where frequent, low intensity fires burned with greater frequency. Landscape level heterogeneity would support a high variability of conditions at a fine and large scale. Within-stand treatments would change densities for both vegetation and fuels to those described as part of the desired conditions for this area. Stands that have been affected

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 59 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

by high-severity, stand-replacing fires would be restored to an early seral forest under the proposed action. Aspen areas that have been encroached on by conifers and affected by fire would have conifer competition and fuels reduced. Existing fuel breaks would be maintained.

Alternative C – California spotted owl interim recommendations Alternative C was designed to be consistent with the California Spotted Owl Interim Recommendations. Treatment methods that would be applied are the same as alternative B. The only change between alternative B and C is to the acres by method proposed for treatments. Alternative C has the following differences from alternative B:

1. Approximately 503 acres of the mechanical thinning treatments that would be mechanically thinned, grapple piled, or hand thinned in alternative B, would not have mechanical activities and would be limited to hand thinning up to six inches in diameter under alternative C. 2. Approximately 231 acres of aspen restoration treatments that would be mechanically thinned, grapple piled, or hand thinned in alternative B, would not have mechanical activities and would be limited to hand thinning up to six inches in diameter under alternative C. 3. Approximately 625 acres in the wildlife habitat improvement treatments that are hand thin up to 10 inches diameter or that include grapple piling under alternative B, would not have mechanical activities and would be limited to hand thinning up to six inches in alternative C. The precommercial thinning treatments, hazardous fuels reduction treatments, and reforestation treatments would be the same. Therefore, the direct and indirect effects for indicators 2, 3 and 6 would be the same as alternative B.

In addition, the direct and indirect effects of the mechanical thinning, aspen restoration, and wildlife habitat improvement (indicators 1, 4 and 5) would be the same as described for alternative B. This is because the indicator measures are described on a per acre basis.

The difference for alternative C would be in the number of acres to which each treatment type is applied. Overall, there would be fewer acres meeting the purpose and need for restoring forest diversity and stand structure and for restoring aspen. However, there would be more acres that would meet the need for wildlife habitat improvement.

Alternative D – No herbicide use This alternative would be the same as alternative B, except that herbicides would not be utilized for the reforestation. Direct and indirect effects for indicators 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 would be the same as described for alternative B.

Resource indicator 3 is anticipated to have different results under alternative D than under alternative B and C. Reforestation conducted under alternative D would not use herbicides. All other methods would remain the same as proposed under the other action alternatives. Release treatments under this alternative would include machine pulling and piling, mastication, or hand grubbing only. Planting densities after site preparation are planned to be approximately 100 to 400 trees per acre. Survival rates for planting is anticipated to be approximately 15 to 25 percent. The desired condition is at least 200 successfully growing sapling and pole sized trees in the long term.

The direct effects of this alternative should be an increased amount of competition from shrub species, as compared to alternatives B and C. This is an anticipated effect as not using herbicides would not allow for as successful of control of competing vegetation. McDonald and Fiddler (1995) conducted various studies

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 60 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

within similar vegetation communities in norther California with similar results; sites without herbicide use had greater dominance of brush species and reduced occurrence of planted conifer species. In these studies, “chemicals provided a noteworthy contrast in effectiveness” in controlling shrub species.

As shown in figure 14, under this alternative, when herbicides are not used and manual release is used, there is an increase in shrub competition. This results in more competition for site resources, and the conifer seedling and brush species would have more direct competition from shrub species. This would likely result in fewer trees per acre over time, and decreased conifer diameter and height growth, when compared to alternative B.

Figure 14. Alternative D expected conditions for reforestation and release areas. From McDonald and Fiddler 1995.

This was demonstrated within the project area where past planting and reforestation efforts have resulted in fewer trees per acre than desired, in part due to competition from brush. This project proposes to reforest to add more seedlings to the existing number of trees per acre. Experiments conducted in similar vegetation types show that the greatest reforestation success can be made by using chemicals (McDonald and Fiddler 1995).

Summary and Conclusion Since alternative B treats the most acres, this alternative has the most acres that meet the purpose and need. Alternative B (the proposed action) would have the greatest effect on the vegetation resource as it would treat more acres with mechanical thinning. Alternative C would treat fewer acres and focus more on the wildlife habitat improvement need, but still meet the purpose and need.

Both alternative B and C propose herbicide application on the same amounts of acres, so the effect on vegetation in the reforestation areas under these two alternatives is not anticipated to be measurably different. Both alternatives B and C are anticipated to have the greatest numbers of residual trees per acre. Herbicide use is proposed as research shows removing competing vegetation improves conifer seedling survival and adds both diameter and height growth. Alternative D may result in fewer trees per acre as research shows that reforestation is less successful with competing vegetation not removed by herbicides. This is because the remaining non-conifer plants are often competing for site resources such as water and sunlight. Brush species are an early seral species that are adept at competing for site resources.

There is no anticipated detrimental effect to the vegetation resource under any of the action alternatives. The Moonlight Fire Restoration Project would comply with the applicable management direction for the

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 61 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Plumas National Forest. The proposed silvicultural, fuel treatments and herbicide treatments within the action alternatives are not expected to adversely affect vegetation resources because of design features that would be implemented as part of the management alternative. The design features would help to ensure that resource safeguards would be in place that would prevent adverse effects on the vegetation resource from occurring. Fire and Fuels The analysis will describe the extent to which the project proposals and alternatives satisfy the purpose and need for the project for fire and fuels. Fire and fuels is closely linked with Purpose 1 – Forest Health, Landscape Diversity and Resilience. Resource indicators and measures relevant to fire and fuels are based on desired future conditions in the Forest Plan and Forest Service policy. The indicators will be used to address achievement of the purpose and need and evaluated by treatment type. The measures will be used to evaluate changes within each proposed treatment activity. The indicator measures are used to assess unit-level effects (within proposed treatment areas) by proposed treatment type. Forest vegetation simulator modeling was used to evaluate the indicators where data was available. Where data was unavailable (hazardous fuels treatment units, reforestation units, and aspen restoration units), qualitative analysis was used.

Table 14. Resource indicators and measures for assessing effects Resource Element Resource Indicator Measure Fire and Fuels Fuel Loading and Ladder Fuels Tons per Acre Canopy Base Height

(Feet) Potential Wildfire Behavior Rate of Spread (Chains per Hour) Flame lengths

(Feet) Potential Torching

(Percent of Crowns) Fireline Production Rate Resistance to Control (Chains per Hour)

Fuel load (tons per acre) and ladder fuels (canopy base height) are used to assess fuel loading within the treatment units. Ladder fuels allow fire to carry from surface fuels into the crowns of trees or shrubs with relative ease. They help initiate and assure the continuation of torching and crowning. Crown base height is used to measure ladder fuels proximity to surface fuels.

Potential fire behavior and resistance to control are measured by rate of spread, flame lengths, fireline production rate, and potential torching. Several key terms are defined below:

• Rate of spread is a measurement of the speed at which the flaming front advances measured in chains per hour (1 chain=66 feet) and is an indicator of the relative ease at which the fire can be successfully contained. • Flame length is a measurement of the average distance from the base of the flame to its highest point and is an indicator of the relative ease to which a fire can be successfully suppressed by firefighting resources (figure 15).

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 62 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

• Fireline production rate is the rate at which fire suppression resources (handcrews, fire engines, dozers, etc.) construct fireline, usually expressed in chains per hour (ch/hr). Firefighting resources have enhanced fireline production rates as fuel loading and fuelbed depth decrease. Increased fireline production rates and changes to lower fireline intensities allow both ground based handcrews, mechanized (fire engines and dozers) and aerial suppression (fixed wind air tankers, water/retardant dropping helicopters) resources to be more effective. • Torching is the burning of the foliage of a single tree or a small group of trees, from the bottom up. • Crown scorch is the browning of needles or leaves in the crown of a tree or shrub caused by heating to lethal temperature during a fire. Crown scorch may not be apparent for several weeks after the fire. • Crown fire is a fire that advances from top to top of trees or shrubs more or less independent of a surface fire. Crown fires are sometimes classed as running or dependent to distinguish the degree of independence from the surface fire.

Figure 15. Depiction of flame length as measured from the midpoint of the active flaming zone to the average tip of the flames

The hauling chart (table 15) is a tool for measuring the safety and potential effectiveness of various fireline resources given a visual assessment of active flame length. It was so named because it infers the relative intensity of the fire behavior to trigger points where hauling various resources to or away from a fire should be considered. When making fire suppression tactical decisions near values at risk (homes), or on fuel breaks where containment action is feasible, firefighters mostly base their decisions on anticipated fire intensity or flame lengths. Firefighters can take suppression action on the ground when flame lengths are up to four feet (fireline intensity of 100 Btu per foot per second). Flame lengths from four to eight feet cannot be suppressed by handcrews, and mechanized equipment such as dozers, engines, and retardant aircraft can be effective. Flame lengths that are eight feet or above present serious control problems and suppression actions taken at the head of the fire will probably be unsafe and ineffective. (National Wildfire Coordinating Group 2013; Rothermel 1983; Andrews and Rothermel 1982).

The spatial boundaries for analyzing the direct effects to fire and fuels are within the project units. Indirect effects may be analyzed beyond treatment units where fuel reduction may reduce potential fire effects outside of the treatment units. Effects were evaluated at one year and decade intervals in order to show the effects of treatments to fuel loading, ladder fuels and potential future fire behavior and show how long they would remain effective in meeting desired conditions. This would show both the short- term and long-term effects.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 63 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Table 15. Hauling chart interpretation Flame Fireline Length Intensity Interpretation (Feet) (Btu/ft/sec) Persons using handtools can generally attack fires at the head or flanks. Handline 0-4 0-100 should hold the fire. Fires are too intense for direct attack on the head by persons using handtools. 4-8 100-500 Handline cannot be relied on to hold fire. Equipment such as dozers, engines, and retardant aircraft can be effective. Fires may present serious control problems such as torching, crowning, and 8-11 500-1,000 spotting. Control efforts at the head of the fire will probably be ineffective. Crowning, spotting, and major runs are common, control efforts at the head of the 11+ 1,000+ fire are ineffective.

Affected Environment Vegetation and fire and fuels are inherently linked because vegetation type, structure, and development have a profound effect on fuel accumulations and fire behavior, and conversely, fuel accumulations and fire behavior can have a profound effect on vegetation establishment, development, and structure (USDA Forest Service 2013). The vegetative conditions of the proposed treatment units are described in detail in the vegetation section above. Forest stand and fuels inventories were completed in precommercial thinning, mechanical thinning and wildlife habitat improvement units. Inventories were not completed in reforestation and release, aspen restoration and hazardous fuel reduction units.

Table 16 displays the existing condition of the indicators and measures for fuels and potential fire behavior as well as the desired condition. Because conditions are highly variable across the treatment units, the indicators are displayed by proposed treatment type. Aspen and reforestation units did not have quantitative fuels and potential fire behavior data available, however the aspen units are similar to the mechanical thinning units.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 64 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Table 16. Resource indicators and measures for the existing fuels condition, by proposed treatment type Proposed Treatment Type Resource Indicator Measure Existing Condition Desired Condition Reforestation and release Surface fuels range from 1-30 units Fuel Loads Tons per Acre 5-15 tons per acre (1) tons per acre (4,603 acres) Reforestation and release units Potential Wildfire Behavior Flame Lengths Flame lengths 2-4 feet Less than 4 feet (4,603 acres)

Reforestation and release Rate of spread at the head of Rate of spread 7-23 chains per the fire is reduced to at least units Potential Wildfire Behavior Rate of Spread hour 50 percent of pre-treatment (4,603 acres) levels Mechanical thinning units Surface fuels average 29 tons Fuel Loads Tons per Acre 4-16 tons per acre (3,760 acres) per acre Mechanical thinning units Ladder Fuels Crown Base Height 2017 – 19 feet Double Existing (3,760 acres) Mechanical thinning units Potential Wildfire Behavior Flame lengths Flame lengths 5 feet Less than 4 feet (3,760 acres) Rate of spread at the head of Rapid rate of spread would be Mechanical thinning units the fire is reduced to at least Potential Wildfire Behavior Rate of Spread driven by heavy surface fuels (3,760 acres) 50 percent of pre-treatment and shrubs levels Mechanical thinning units Potential torching of 30 percent Potential Wildfire Behavior Potential Torching Range from 11-47 percent. (3,760 acres) of live tree crowns Precommercial thinning Surface fuels average 9 tons per Fuel Loads Tons per Acre 4-16 tons per acre units (768 acres) acre Precommercial thinning Ladder Fuels Crown Base Height 2017 – 13 feet Double Existing units (768 acres) Precommercial thinning Potential Wildfire Behavior Flame lengths Flame lengths 7 feet Less than 4 feet units (768 acres) Rate of spread at the head of Rapid rate of spread would be Precommercial thinning the fire is reduced to at least Potential Wildfire Behavior Rate of Spread driven by surface fuels and units (768 acres) 50 percent of pre-treatment shrubs levels Precommercial thinning Potential torching of 61 percent Potential Wildfire Behavior Potential Torching Range from 11-47 percent units (768 acres) of live tree crowns

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 65 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Proposed Treatment Type Resource Indicator Measure Existing Condition Desired Condition Estimated 20-30 tons per acre. The fuel loading is estimated Hazardous fuel reduction based on visual observation. The Fuel Loads Tons per Acre 4-16 tons per acre units (231 acres) fuels are mostly shrubs as well as downed logs, and some live trees. Hazardous fuel reduction Similar to mechanical thinning Ladder Fuels Crown Base Height Double Existing units (231 acres) units or approximately 19 feet Existing condition is thinned overstory with an abundant Hazardous fuel reduction Potential Wildfire Behavior Flame lengths brush understory which would Less than 4 feet units (231 acres) result in high flame lengths under wildfire burning conditions. The rate of spread at the head Rapid rate of spread would be Hazardous fuel reduction of the fire is reduced to at least Potential Wildfire Behavior Rate of Spread driven by heavy surface fuels units (231 acres) 50 percent of pre-treatment and shrubs levels Existing condition is thinned overstory with an abundant Hazardous fuel reduction brush understory that would Potential Wildfire Behavior Potential Torching Range from 11-47 percent units (231 acres) result in a high percentage of torching under wildfire conditions. Approximately 0.7 chains per Production rates for fire line Hazardous fuel reduction Resistance to Control Fireline Production Rate firefighter per hour construction are doubled from units (231 acres) (Fuel Model 5) pre-treatment levels Wildlife habitat improvement Surface fuels average 16 tons Fuel Loads Tons per Acre 4-16 tons per acre units (1,950 acres) per acre Wildlife habitat improvement Ladder Fuels Crown Base Height 2017 – 16 feet Double Existing units (1,950 acres) Wildlife habitat improvement Potential Wildfire Behavior Flame lengths Flame lengths 5 feet Less than 4 feet units (1,950 acres) Rate of spread at the head of Rapid rate of spread would be Wildlife habitat improvement the fire is reduced to at least Potential Wildfire Behavior Rate of Spread driven by heavy surface fuels units (1,950 acres) 50 percent of pre-treatment and shrubs levels Wildlife habitat improvement Potential torching of 32 percent Potential Wildfire Behavior Potential Torching Range from 11-47 percent units (1,950 acres) of live tree crowns

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 66 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Fuel Loads and Ladder Fuels Across all treatment types surface fuel loads range from 9-29 tons per acre. This is generally greater than the desired surface fuel loading, which is 10-15 tons per acre. In forested units, ladder fuels, or crown base heights, are lower than desired and will readily initiate tree torching and crowning under wildfire conditions.

In the mechanical thinning units surface fuels average 29 tons per acre; at the top end of the range. Crown base height in 2017 averages 19 feet. These units have the highest fuel loading. The precommercial thinning units currently average 9 tons per acre with crown base height in 2017 averaging 13 feet.

Within the 231 acres proposed for hazardous fuels treatments, there is a previously thinned overstory with an abundant brush understory. The brush component is linked to the fire effects of the Moonlight Fire of 2007, where heat from the fire caused dormant seed beds to germinate. The brush is now so numerous that the area has a dense carpet of brush in the understory. As no survey data is available for this area, surface fuels in these areas were visually estimated to average 20-30 tons per acre. The fuels are mostly shrubs as well as downed logs, and some live trees. Crown base height in 2017 is approximately 19 feet.

For the wildlife habitat improvement units, the current surface fuels average 16 tons per acre. Crown base height in 2017 averages 16 feet.

In aspen stands, due to conifer encroachment, hazardous fuels accumulations, and browsing, there is a risk that aspen within the project area could be converted to conifer-dominated forests. The impacts of the Moonlight Fire on aspen communities in the project area vary based on the site-specific fire severity and the degree of conifer encroachment pre-fire. Areas of high severity fire provided some disturbance which may enhance conditions for aspen regeneration. However, the fires also created large expanses of snags that now remain and increase hazardous fuels within regenerating aspen stands.

In the proposed reforestation units, the existing condition of vegetation is large expanses of brush dominated areas, with small amounts of planted and natural regeneration interspersed within the brush. There are also small inclusions of small and medium sized trees, which survived the fire. However this amount is less than 8 percent of the total area, or less than 325 acres. Surface fuels are currently dominated by shrubs, herbaceous plants, and standing snags and down logs. Under wildfire burning conditions (90th percentile) flame lengths would be high, and rapid rate of spread would be driven by shrubs and herbaceous plants.

Potential Fire Behavior All of the vegetation types and fuel models in the project units would produce flame lengths above four feet under wildfire conditions and rapid rates of spread. Flame lengths longer than four feet and rapid rates of spread would increase fire suppression complexity, or resistance to control. Ground based firefighting resource generally are unable to work safely near and contain flames greater than four feet in length and wildfires fires would burn with high intensity and quickly grow in size and become large fires that are difficult to control. Currently, wildfire behavior in the inventoried units, under 90th percentile wildfire burning conditions, would produce flames lengths from 5-7 feet on average across the treatment units. This would produce rapid rates of fire spread and potential tree torching would occur in 30-61 percent of the stands. In brush/herbaceous or shrub/herbaceous dominated units, under wildfire burning conditions, flame lengths would be high with rapid rates of spread.

Within the proposed mechanical thinning units, under wildfire burning conditions (90th percentile) fame lengths average 5 feet, rapid rate of spread would be driven by surface fuels and shrubs, and there would

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 67 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

be potential torching of 30 percent of live tree crowns. For the precommercial thinning units (plantations) flame lengths average 7 feet, rapid rate of spread would be driven by heavy surface fuels and shrubs, and there would be potential torching of 61 percent of live tree crowns.

In the hazardous fuels reduction units, under wildfire burning conditions (90th percentile) fame lengths would be high, rapid rate of spread would be driven by heavy surface fuels and shrubs, and there would be a high percentage of torching of live tree crowns. Fireline production rates would be approximately 0.7 chains per firefighter per hour (Fuel Model 5).

Within wildlife habitat improvement units, under wildfire burning conditions (90th percentile) fame lengths average 5 feet, rapid rate of spread would be driven by heavy surface fuels and shrubs, and there would be potential torching of 33 percent of live tree crowns.

For aspen areas, due to snags and conifer encroachment, re-burns occurring in the stands could burn at high intensity and cause significant damage to aspen.

In the proposed reforestation units, under wildfire burning conditions (90th percentile), flame lengths would be high, and rapid rate of spread would be driven by shrubs and herbaceous plants.

Alternative A – No action The existing fuels and fire potential would continue to persist in the project area.

In precommercial thinning and mechanical thinning units, tree density would remain high and fuels would continue to accumulate above the desired condition.

Because hazardous fuels units would be untreated, the tons per acre of fuel would stay higher than desired conditions. The amount of fuels would not increase significantly in the short term or long term, as previous treatments under older projects reduced the overstory tree density. This past treatment reduced the density of live trees, which has reduced the risk of insects and disease. Therefore, increased fuel loading is likely to be the result of live fuels continuing to accumulate in the shrub layer, as well as needle cast and some downed wood that will accumulate from mortality that may occur; this mortality is anticipated to be in individual or small groups of trees.

The no-action alternative would not treat 1,950 acres for wildlife habitat improvement. Fuel loading will increase over time above desired condition. Fuel loading will only decrease if there is a wildland fire, which would consume the fuels. Natural decay will change fuel loading, by distributing it into different fuel pools. However decay rates in the Sierra Nevada’s are very slow as the amount of moisture limits decay rates. Fuel loading in both the long and short term will increase. Insect and disease outbreaks will increase fuel loading more quickly.

Areas of high-severity fire provided some disturbance which may enhance conditions for aspen regeneration. However, the fires also created large expanses of snags that have increased hazardous fuels within regenerating aspen stands. Re-burns in these stands could burn at high intensity and cause significant damage to aspen.

Under the no-action alterative areas proposed for reforestation and release would continue to grow unchanged and natural vegetation community succession would continue. This would likely result large communities of brush intermingled with some trees that are currently growing or that would become established as natural regeneration. Under the no-action alternative in both the short and long term these areas would remain brush dominated communities. Standing snags that were killed by the fires have been falling over time, and down log accumulation will continue to increase. In areas where there are or will be

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 68 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

heavy down log fuel loads, the combination of dense brush and logs can contribute to high temperature and prolonged soil heating if the areas are burned under wildfire conditions (North et al. 2009).

Alternative B – Proposed action

Direct and Indirect Effects Road and trail management activities are not considered in the analysis as these activities would not change fuel conditions.

Fuel treatments that reduce live and dead fuel accumulations increase resistance of stands to high severity disturbances such as fire (Agee and Skinner 2005). In the Moonlight Fire area, treating fuels in forested stands either within the fire footprint or outside the fire area within the affected watersheds would increase landscape resistance to the effects of future high severity fire (USDA Forest Service 2013).

Fuel Loading After mechanical treatments and prescribed underburning are completed, surface fuels would range from 4-15 tons per acre, achieving the desired condition of 10-15 tons per acre. Ladder fuels would be reduced by increasing crown base heights. Grapple piling and prescribed burning treatments following mechanical thinning would reduce surface, ladder and canopy fuels. This would change the fuel content with the stands and across the landscape, which would affect the extent and behavior of future wildland fires. These stand and landscape level changes in the mechanical thinning stands would result in a discontinuous canopy and decreased canopy bulk densities. This may change future wildland fire behavior, and may allow for more effective suppression (Moghaddas 2006) as fire retardant would penetrate the canopy more easily and line construction rates may increase due to decreased flame lengths.

Hazardous fuels reduction treatments would prescriptively reduce fuel loading to approximately 8 to 10 tons per acre post-treatment. Within five years the fuel loading would increase to 10 to 12 tons per acre, achieving the desired condition.

Wildlife habitat improvement treatments would reduce fuels to levels that are consistent with a continuing frequent fire regime (Stephens and Fulé 2005). Reduced fuel loading in both surface and ladder fuels is intended to allow for long-term prescribed fire as a primary management tool for these areas. The direct effects of the reduced fuel loading to the indicator measures percent canopy cover and fuel loading, would be stands with a discontinuous surface and ladder fuels layer.

In the reforestation units, surface fuels would be light and dominated by herbaceous plants (fuel model 1). Under wildfire burning conditions (90th percentile) flame lengths would be low, and low rate of spread would be driven by herbaceous plants.

Potential Fire Behavior Wildfire behavior in the inventoried units, under 90th percentile wildfire burning conditions, would produce approximately 4 foot flames lengths, rates of spread would be reduced by approximately 50 percent, and potential tree torching would occur in 11-47 percent of the stands (11 percent in mechanical thinning units, 19 percent in wildlife habitat units and 47 percent in precommercial thinning units). Wildfire suppression efficiency and firefighter safety would increase as fire behavior decreases in the treatment units. Fireline production rates would double. The treated units would also serve as temporary fuel breaks, or reduced fuels zones, for several years until fuels re-accumulate to pre-treatment levels which typically is in about ten years in Sierra Nevada forests. The treated units would slow down the spread of wildfires and reduce fire intensity, allowing for more efficient and safer fire suppression actions. Grapple piling of brush and logs (logs in excess of desired condition for large woody debris)

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 69 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

would be the main vegetation and fuels treatment in the reforestation and release units and the piles would be reduced by prescribed burning. In areas where vegetation is masticated, the layer of wood chips or shredding lying on the forest floor should burn with flame lengths from two to six feet and average around four feet.

Within the hazardous fuels reduction units, the bulk of fuel loading left would be in larger sized (100, 1000 hour) fuels to meet downed woody debris requirements. Reduced fuel loading would result in stand conditions that would not support crown fires except under extreme weather conditions (drought, wind, etc.). If wildland fires do occur, the reduced fuel loading is anticipated to support only ground fire, which would be generally low severity.

Post-treatment wildfires in aspen stands would burn with low intensity and the risk of damaging re-burns would be reduced.

Burning conditions would be selected to minimize scorching of tree crowns. Crown separation and understory tree reduction (thinning up to 30 inches dbh) would increase fireline construction rates and reduce rate of fire spread in future wildfires within the treated units. Fuels should be reduced enough to allow for prescriptive use of wildfire for resource benefit purposes. Proposed fuel reduction work would create landscapes with residual fuel loadings closer to historic norms. Prescribed underburning would occur throughout the units. Implementing personnel would control flame length, and scorch height by adjusting firing patterns. The prescribed burning prescription used by forest managers would produce flame lengths of 1-5 feet and scorch heights of 0-23 feet, scorching or burning many small trees and shrubs, which would reduce ladder fuels in addition to reducing surface fuels and wildfire behavior.

Cumulative effects Past activities and past fire effects are considered as the current condition of fire and fuels. Existing fire and fuels conditions are discussed above.

Fuel management and prescribed fire activities would not overlap in time and space with past, ongoing, or foreseeable projects except where past disturbance has occurred. None of the other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions considered (see appendix E) should impact fuels and fire behavior. There are no other fuel management and prescribed fire activities proposed within the current proposed units; therefore no cumulative effects from prescribed fire would occur.

The proposed thinning and prescribed fire treatments would reduce future potential fire behavior. The benefits of fires with lower intensity and severity would include a more intact vegetation communities which has benefits to other resources, including soils and wildlife.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 70 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Table 17. Resource indicators and measures for alternative B, by proposed treatment type for fire and fuels Proposed Treatment Resource Measure Existing Condition Alternative B Desired Condition Type Indicator Reforestation and Surface fuels range from 1- Surface fuels range from 1-10 release units Fuel Loads Tons per Acre 5-15 tons per acre (1) 30 tons per acre tons per acre (4,603 acres)

Reforestation and Potential release units Wildfire Flame Lengths Flame lengths 2-4 feet Flame lengths 2-3 feet Less than 4 feet (4,603 acres) Behavior Rate of spread 13-23 chains per hour. Overall increases compared to existing condition Rate of spread at the head of Reforestation and Potential Rate of spread 7-23 chains due to brush is replaced by the fire is reduced to at least release units Wildfire Rate of Spread per hour grass/herbaceous plants that 50 percent of pre-treatment Behavior (4,603 acres) burn with higher rate of spread levels and lower intensity (flame lengths). Mechanical thinning Surface fuels average 29 Fuel Loads Tons per Acre Average 15 tons per acre 5-15 tons per acre units (3,760 acres) tons per acre

Mechanical thinning Crown Base 2017 – 19 feet Ladder Fuels 2017 – 19 feet Double Existing (2017) units (3,760 acres) Height 2027 – 34 feet Potential Mechanical thinning Wildfire Flame lengths Flame lengths 5 feet 4 feet Less than 4 feet units (3,760 acres) Behavior Rate of spread at the head of Potential Rapid rate of spread would Post treatment fuels conditions Mechanical thinning the fire is reduced to at least Wildfire Rate of Spread be driven by heavy surface would decrease rate of spread by units (3,760 acres) 50 percent of pre-treatment Behavior fuels and shrubs approximately 50 percent levels Potential Mechanical thinning Potential Potential torching of 30 Wildfire 11 percent Range from 11-47 percent units (3,760 acres) Torching percent of live tree crowns Behavior Precommercial thinning Surface fuels average 9 Fuel Loads Tons per Acre Average 4 tons per acre 5-15 tons per acre units (768 acres) tons per acre Precommercial thinning Crown Base Ten Years post-treatment – 21 Ladder Fuels 2017 – 13 feet Double Existing units (768 acres) Height feet Potential Precommercial thinning Wildfire Flame lengths Flame lengths 7 feet 4 feet Less than 4 feet units (768 acres) Behavior

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 71 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment Proposed Treatment Resource Measure Existing Condition Alternative B Desired Condition Type Indicator Rate of spread at the head of Potential Rapid rate of spread would Post treatment fuels conditions Precommercial thinning the fire is reduced to at least Wildfire Rate of Spread be driven by surface fuels would decrease rate of spread by units (768 acres) 50 percent of pre-treatment Behavior and shrubs approximately 50 percent levels Potential Precommercial thinning Potential Potential torching of 61 Wildfire 47 percent Range from 11-47 percent units (768 acres) Torching percent of live tree crowns Behavior Estimated 20-30 tons per acre. The fuel loading is Hazardous fuel estimated based on visual 8-10 tons per acre post treatment reduction units (231 Fuel Loads Tons per Acre observation. The fuels are 10-12 tons per acre 10-years 5-15 tons per acre acres) mostly shrubs as well as post treatment downed logs, and some live trees. Post treatment would be similar to the mechanical thinning units Hazardous fuel Similar to mechanical Crown Base or approximately Post-treatment reduction units (231 Ladder Fuels thinning units or Double Existing (2017) Height – 19 feet acres) approximately 19 feet Ten years post-treatment – 34 feet Existing condition is thinned overstory with an abundant brush understory. The brush component is linked to the fire effects of the Moonlight Fire of 2007, Hazardous fuel Potential where heat from the fire Post treatment would be similar reduction units (231 Wildfire Flame Lengths caused dormant seed beds to the mechanical thinning units Less than 4 feet acres) Behavior to germinate. The brush is or approximately 4 feet now so numerous that the area has a dense carpet of brush in the understory, which would result in high flame lengths under wildfire burning conditions. The rate of spread at the Hazardous fuel Potential Rapid rate of spread would Post treatment fuels conditions head of the fire is reduced to reduction units (231 Wildfire Rate of Spread be driven by heavy surface would decrease rate of spread by at least 50 percent of pre- acres) Behavior fuels and shrubs approximately 50 percent treatment levels

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 72 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment Proposed Treatment Resource Measure Existing Condition Alternative B Desired Condition Type Indicator Existing condition is thinned overstory with an abundant brush understory. The brush component is linked to the fire effects of the Moonlight Fire of 2007, Hazardous fuel Potential where heat from the fire Post treatment would be similar Potential reduction units (231 Wildfire caused dormant seed beds to the mechanical thinning units Range from 11-47 percent Torching acres) Behavior to germinate. The brush is or approximately 11 percent now so numerous that the area has a dense carpet of brush in the understory that would result in a high percentage of torching under wildfire conditions. Production rates for fire line construction are doubled from pre-treatment levels. Hazardous fuel Approximately 0.7 chains Resistance to Fireline 0.7 chains per firefighter per hour 2.0 chains per hour in reduction units (231 per firefighter per hour Control Production Rate (Fuel Model 5) conifers acres) (Fuel Model 5) 10.0 chains per hour in hardwoods (Fuel Model 8) Wildlife habitat Surface fuels average 16 improvement units Fuel Loads Tons per Acre Average 5 tons per acre 4-16 tons per acre tons per acre (1,950 acres) Wildlife habitat Crown Base Post-treatment – 16 feet improvement units Ladder Fuels 2017 – 16 feet Double Existing (2017) Height (1,950 acres) 10 years post-treatment – 31 feet Wildlife habitat Potential improvement units Wildfire Flame lengths Flame lengths 5 feet 4 feet Less than 4 feet (1,950 acres) Behavior Rate of spread at the head of Wildlife habitat Potential Rapid rate of spread would Post treatment fuels conditions the fire is reduced to at least improvement units Wildfire Rate of Spread be driven by heavy surface would decrease rate of spread by 50 percent of pre-treatment (1,950 acres) Behavior fuels and shrubs approximately 50 percent levels Wildlife habitat Potential Potential Potential torching of 32 improvement units Wildfire 19 percent Range from 11-47 percent torching percent of live tree crowns (1,950 acres) Behavior

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 73 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Alternative C – California spotted owl interim recommendations The only change between alternative B and C is to the acres by method proposed for treatments. Alternative C includes fewer acres of mechanical thinning and aspen restoration and increased acres of wildlife habitat improvement treatments.

The direct and indirect effects for fire and fuels indicators would be the same as alternative B because effects were measured on average by treatment type. The difference for alternative C would be in the number of acres to which each treatment type is applied. Overall, there would be fewer acres meeting the purpose and need for restoring forest diversity and stand structure and for restoring aspen. However, there would be more acres that would meet the need for wildlife habitat improvement.

Alternative D – No herbicide use This alternative would be the same as alternative B, except that herbicides would not be utilized for the reforestation. The direct effects this alternative would be an increased amount of competition from shrub species, as compared to alternatives B and C. The increase in shrubs should increase live fuel loading a small amount and would slightly increase potential wildfire behavior.

Summary and Conclusion The Moonlight Fire Restoration Project would comply with the applicable management direction for the Plumas National Forest. The proposed fuel treatments within the action alternatives are not expected to adversely affect vegetation resources and fire and fuels conditions because of design features that would be implemented as part of the management alternative.

Fire and fuels management is a driving resource for the purpose and need for this project. Alternative A would result in continued accumulation of undesired fuels and potentially damaging wildfire behavior to desired conditions. The action alternatives treatment methods do not differ greatly from each other concerning post-treatment changes to the vegetation resources and fire and fuels conditions.

Alternative B would have the greatest effect on the vegetation resource and fire and fuels conditions as it is proposes to treat more acres with mechanical thinning and prescribed fire. Both alternative B and C propose herbicide application on the same amounts of acres, so the effect on vegetation, and fuels and fuels conditions in the reforestation areas under the two alternatives should not be measurably different. Alternative D does not propose herbicide application but still meets the purpose and need for action.

All action alternatives would reduce surface fuels, increase canopy base heights, decrease wildfire flame lengths and rates of spread, and tree torching. Fireline line production rates would increase and overall vegetation and fuels conditions would increase fire suppression efficiency. Air Quality, Greenhouse Gases, and Carbon The analysis related to air quality is focused on assessing the degree to which the alternatives comply with law, regulation, and policy. Resource indicators and measures are based on the legal requirements of the Clean Air Act and other Forest Service policy (table 18). These measures are described briefly below. More detail regarding the specific legal requirements is available in the air quality specialist report.

The spatial boundaries for analyzing the direct and indirect effects to air quality and air pollution emissions estimates are based at the county, air district and airshed levels. Project emissions will be shown at the acre/unit size and overall project emissions for comparisons with county, air district and airshed emissions to show the scale of the emissions that would be produced during project

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 74 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

implementation. Carbon sequestration would be analyzed at the acre/unit and overall project size levels. The temporal boundaries for analyzing the direct and indirect effects of project implementation emissions are shown at the yearly and ten year cumulative time ranges in order to compare project emissions to annual and ten year cumulative air pollution emissions estimates that are based at the county, air district and airshed levels. Carbon sequestration estimates are shown at the annual and decade time scales in order to shown reductions and increases over time.

Table 18. Resource indicators and measures for assessing effects related to air quality, greenhouse gases, and carbon Resource Element Resource Indicator Measure Criteria Pollutant – National Ambient air Quality Tons per acre, annually and PM-2.5 Standards project total PM-10 Regional Haze Visibility Decrease/Increase in deciview Critical Loads (Atmospheric Deposition Units of Measure vary among Wilderness Air Quality Related of Nitrogen and Sulfur, and Mercury) at sensitive receptors and critical Values Sensitive Receptors (Water, fauna, loads flora, lichens, soils, scenic vistas) Carbon Dioxide (C02), Methane (CH4) Tons CO2 equivalent, annually Greenhouse gas and Nitrous Oxide (N2O) and project total Above and Below Ground Terrestrial Carbon Sequestration Tons per Acre Carbon Sequestration

National Ambient Air Quality Standards The Clean Air Act, requires the Environmental Protection Agency to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (40 CFR part 50) for pollutants considered harmful to public health and the environment. The Clean Air Act identifies two types of national ambient air quality standards. Primary standards provide public health protection, including protecting the health of "sensitive" populations such as asthmatics, children, and the elderly. Secondary standards provide public welfare protection, including protection against decreased visibility and damage to animals, crops, vegetation, and buildings (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2017a). The primary pollutant relevant to project activities (prescribed burning) is particulate matter less than 10 microns (PM-10) and particulate matter less than 2.5 microns (PM-2.5).

Regional Haze Rule The Clean Air Act Regional Haze Rule calls for state and federal agencies to work together to improve visibility in impaired mandatory class I areas - mandatory class I areas include national parks and wilderness areas (40 CFR PART 81). In general, class I wilderness areas are greater than 5,000 acres in size and were established prior to 1977. Wilderness areas not designated as class I are class II.

Section 169B was added to an amendment to the Clean Air Act in 1990 to address regional haze. Regional haze is a term used to describe the white or brown haze that obstructs vistas. It is caused by fine particles in the air including sulfates, carbon, soils and nitrates. Sources of these particles include emissions from power plants, industrial activities, motor vehicles, fires, and windblown dust and dirt. Air pollutants contributing to regional haze can be both locally derived and carried into an area by the wind hundreds and even thousands of miles from a pollutant source.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 75 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

To address different ambient conditions, a uniform standard of measure, called a “deciview”, has been developed to describe changes in visibility. Specifically, it is a measure of light extinction. A change of 1.0 deciview is equivalent to a ten percent change in extinction and represents a “just noticeable” change in visibility. The higher the deciview, the less a person can see into the distance.

Wilderness Air Quality Values / Air Quality Related Values and Sensitive Receptors Under the Clean Air Act federal land managers have an affirmative responsibility to protect class I air quality related values from degradation. The Wilderness Act requires that congressionally designated wilderness areas be managed for their protection and preservation from human caused degradation. The prevention of significant deterioration program is a Clean Air Act requirement that sets emission limitations for major new or modified sources of air pollution such as coal fired electrical power generation plants, and sets limits to an increase of pollutants in class I and class II areas.

There is a distinction between wilderness air quality values, air quality related values, and sensitive receptors. Both air quality related values and wilderness air quality related values are resources that are identified as becoming potentially impacted by air pollution such as water, fauna, flora and visibility. Air quality related values are identified in all class I wildernesses in response to the Clean Air Act. Wilderness air quality related values are identified for all class II wildernesses and were related to preexisting air quality related values. More than one sensitive receptor may exist for each wilderness air quality value. Sensitive receptors are identified features or properties of an ecosystem that a change can be quantified and are highly susceptible to slight deterioration in air quality and are used as an indicator for overall conditions.

Sensitive receptors are specific types of features or properties within a wilderness that can be negatively impacted by air pollutants, e.g., high-altitude lakes, lichens, and scenic vistas. In other words, sensitive receptors are the specific components of an ecosystem through which change in an air quality related value or wilderness air quality value is quantified. Sensitive receptors are selected for 1) known or suspected sensitivity to pollutants, 2) availability for manageable, cost-effective monitoring, sampling, and analysis methods, and 3) relevance for modeling capabilities. Examples of indicators for sensitive receptors might be a population survey for a particular amphibian, a plankton count and water quality analysis in a sensitive lake, or an assessment of the vista from a particular viewpoint. Sensitive receptors include, water, fauna, flora, lichens, soils and scenic vistas.

Critical loads are measured for two primary resources. First, the acid-neutralizing capacity values of high- altitude lakes and the effects of acidification to macroinvertebrates and other organisms. Second, the effects of ozone to flora such as conifers and other ozone sensitive species including quaking aspen and lichen. Critical loads include atmospheric deposition of nitrogen and sulfur, and mercury.

Greenhouse Gasses and Carbon Sequestration Currently there are no national or state level legal requirements concerning the regulation of greenhouse gas emissions or sequestration regulations for projects. On 16 January 2009, the Washington Office of the USDA Forest Service released guidance to Forest Service units regarding the incorporation of climate change science into project level EPA documents. Climate change effects include the effects of the agency action on global climate change and the effects of climate change on a proposed project. In this section, we consider the effects of the proposed action on climate change through greenhouse gas emissions and carbon sequestration.

Three of the most important greenhouse gases (GHG) resulting from human activity are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O). They are produced by both natural processes and human activity. Greenhouse gases play a role in the natural environment by absorbing the sun’s heat. As the suns

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 76 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment energy radiates back from the Earth’s surface toward space, these gases trap the heat in the atmosphere keeping the planet’s surface warmer than it would otherwise be. Increases of atmospheric greenhouse gases result in additional warming of the Earth’s atmosphere. Carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2e) is a metric used to compare the emissions from various greenhouse gases based upon their global warming potential.

Affected Environment Table 19 displays the existing condition related to the indicators.

Table 19. Resource indicators and measures for the existing condition for air quality Resource Indicator Measure Existing Condition Element National Criteria Pollutant – Tons per acre, Plumas County is in federal and state attainment Ambient air PM-2.5 annually and project for all criteria pollutants except state non- Quality total attainment for PM10, and PM2.5 in Portola Valley Standards PM-10 According to the 2014 California regional haze plan progress report, the three monitoring sites with the Decrease/Increase least progress, using 2007-2011 five-year Regional Haze Visibility in deciviews averages, are the Desolation, Mokelumne (BLIS), Caribou and Thousand Lakes (LAVO) Wilderness Areas IMPROVE monitors Total nitrogen emissions in the Plumas County area are low and range from less than 1 to 5 tons per square mile per year. Total nitrogen deposition is low to moderate and ranges from about under 2 to 10 kilograms per hectare per year Total sulfur emissions in the Plumas County area are low and are about 1 ton per square mile per year. Total sulfur deposition is low ranges from about under 2 to 5 kilograms per hectare per year From 2010-2014 there was generally high amounts Critical Loads of mercury wet deposition (14-18 micrograms per (Atmospheric Deposition Units of Measure cubic meter) and mercury concentrations (14-18 Wilderness Air of Nitrogen and Sulfur, vary among nanograms per liter) throughout the northern Sierra Quality Related and Mercury) at sensitive sensitive receptors Nevada and southern Cascades Values receptors(Water, fauna, and critical loads flora, lichens, soils, There are also elevated concentrations of scenic vistas) combustion by-products, current-use pesticides, and historic-use pesticides found in Lassen National Park air and vegetation samples Forest vistas are sometimes obscured by haze caused by fine particles in the air. Many of the same pollutants that ultimately fall out as nitrogen and sulfur deposition contribute to this haze and visibility impairment. Additionally, organic compounds, soot, and dust reduce visibility. Smoke from nearby forest fires also contributes to particulate matter in the region Carbon Dioxide (C02), Tons CO2 Plumas county estimated 2005 greenhouse gas Greenhouse Methane (CH4) and equivalent, annually emissions from all in county sources produced gas Nitrous Oxide (N2O) and project total 403,280 metric tons of CO2 equivalent emissions Above and Below Ground Trees, snags, soils and litter in California mixed Carbon Terrestrial Carbon Tons per Acre conifer forests store about 107 total tons of carbon Sequestration Sequestration per acre

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 77 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

National Ambient Air Quality Standards PM2.5 is the main pollutant of concern in Plumas and Sierra counties and is mostly associated with residential wood combustion. The Portola area in Plumas County has recently been designated federal non-attainment for PM2.5. The air district maintains a proactive smoke management program for open burning and has administered several wood stove change-out programs, for which funding is an ongoing challenge. On a typical elevated PM2.5 day in Plumas County, temperatures are cold, residents are using their wood stoves and an atmospheric inversion is in place. The highest concentrations generally occur late at night (when wood stoves are damped down) and in the morning (when stoves are started up). November and December are historically the highest PM2.5 months (California’s Progress Toward Clean Air 2015). Currently, Plumas County is in federal and state attainment for all criteria pollutants except state non-attainment for PM10, and PM2.5 in Portola Valley.

Regional Haze There are no class I airsheds within the project area. The nearest class I air sheds are the Desolation, Mokelumne, to the south; Lassen Volcanic N.P., Caribou, and Thousand Lakes Wilderness Areas to the north. According to the 2014 California regional haze plan progress report, the three monitoring sites with the least progress, using 2007-2011 five-year averages, are the Desolation, Mokelumne (BLIS), Caribou and Thousand Lakes (LAVO) Wilderness Areas monitoring sites. Further analysis of trends in haze- causing pollutant concentrations and their contributions to light extinction at these three monitors reveals the cause of the limited progress. In the western U.S., wildfire smoke can elevate worst days values at particular monitors in a single year, as well as skew subsequent five-year averages. In 2008 and 2009, wildfire smoke caused unusually high deciview worst day values with the first and third highest worst day value in 23 years of monitoring at the LAVO monitoring site. Wildfire smoke also impacted the BLIS monitoring site in 2007 and 2008 and caused the highest and second highest worst days annual averages in 16 years of deciview calculations at that location. Wildfire smoke can significantly impact visibility and mask improvements from emission controls.

Wilderness Air Quality Related Values There are no class I airsheds within the project area. The nearest class I air sheds are the Desolation, Mokelumne, to the south; Lassen Volcanic N.P., Caribou, and Thousand Lakes Wilderness Areas to the north. All other federal lands in the project area are class II including Bucks Lake Wilderness Area nearby to the south. In two reports completed for the National Park Service the authors found that Lassen National Park has low amounts of nitrogen and sulfur deposition but has very highly sensitive ecosystems comprised of high elevation lakes and forest types. Lichen nitrogen concentrations were within background ranges, indicating that nitrogen deposition is not elevated (Western Airborne Contaminants Assessment Project 2008).

Total nitrogen emissions in the Plumas County area are low and range from less than 1 to 5 tons per square mile per year. Total nitrogen deposition is low to moderate and ranges from about under 2 to 10 kilograms per hectare per year (Sullivan et al. 2011a).

Total sulfur emissions in the Plumas County area are low and are about 1 ton per square mile per year. Total sulfur deposition is low ranges from about under 2 to 5 kilograms per hectare per year (Sullivan et al. 2011b).

From 2010-2014 the National Atmospheric Deposition Program shows generally high amounts of mercury wet deposition (14-18 micrograms per cubic meter) and mercury concentrations (14-18 nanograms per liter) throughout the northern Sierra Nevada and southern Cascades (National Atmospheric Deposition Program 2017). There are also elevated concentrations of combustion by-products, current-use

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 78 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

pesticides, and historic-use pesticides found in Lassen National Park air and vegetation samples (Western Airborne Contaminants Assessment Project 2008).

Forest vistas are sometimes obscured by haze caused by fine particles in the air. Many of the same pollutants that ultimately fall out as nitrogen and sulfur deposition contribute to this haze and visibility impairment. Additionally, organic compounds, soot, and dust reduce visibility. Smoke from nearby forest fires also contributes to particulate matter in the region.

Visibility effects include:

• Reduced visibility at times, due to human-caused haze and fine particles of air pollution, including dust; • Reduced average natural visual range from about 160 miles (without pollution) to about 100 miles because of pollution at the park; • Reduced visual range to below 55 miles on high pollution days.

Greenhouse gases and carbon California’s greenhouse gas emissions have followed a declining trend since 2007. In 2015, emissions from routine emitting activities statewide were 1.5 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent lower than 2014 levels, representing an overall decrease of 10 percent since peak levels in 2004. Overall trends in the inventory also demonstrate that the carbon intensity of California’s economy (the amount of carbon pollution per million dollars of gross domestic product) is declining, representing a 33 percent decline since the 2001 peak, while the state’s gross domestic product has grown 37 percent during this period (California Air Resources Board 2014). Plumas county estimated 2005 greenhouse gas emissions from all in-county sources produced 403,280 metric tons of CO2 equivalent emissions including all transportation sources which is greatest source of emissions (Sierra Business Council 2005). Emissions from prescribed burning were not a part of the study.

Carbon is stored in forest soils, forest floor and coarse woody debris, and biomass (growing plants) – in this way forests play a role in carbon storage. Forest can also serve as carbon “sinks” (absorbing carbon from the atmosphere) or carbon ‘sources’ (releasing carbon to the atmosphere). Sierra Nevada forests are currently storing about 839 million tons of biomass. This is probably an increase from historic levels due in part to fire suppression and reduced harvesting on public lands. Increasing carbon storage in this way is a benefit to moderating the causes of climate change in the short term. However, in the longer term, it elevates the risk because dense forests are more likely to experience stand-replacing fires that kill many trees, releasing large amounts of carbon when fire-killed trees decay (Kocher 2012). Another recent analysis by the Forest Service predicts that standing biomass and associated carbon storage is at risk in the long term. The analysis predicts California national forests will become net emitters of carbon by the end of the century because by mid-century forests will accumulate carbon at a slower rate than they lose it through wildfire, pest mortality and inter-tree competition. Carbon storage will be determined by how the forest is managed for those risks over the next 100 years (Kocher 2012).

Alternative A – No action Generally, the air quality existing conditions discussed for the affected environment would not change. There would be no increase in air pollution sources, changes to regional haze conditions, changes to wilderness air quality related values, or changes in greenhouse gas emissions and carbon sequestration as a result of the project.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 79 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

The risk of future high intensity, damaging wildfires in the project area would increase over time and the potential for adverse smoke events would continue to increase. Wildfires generally produce about 200 percent more smoke compared to the amounts of smoke produced by prescribed burning (Liu et al. 2017). The potential for adverse smoke effects to regional haze and wilderness air quality related values would continue to increase. The potential for the production of greenhouse gases and reductions of stored carbon as a result of high severity fire would continue to increase. Wildfires, generally, will emit more carbon into the atmosphere compared to prescribed burning. Under the no-action alternative areas proposed for reforestation and release would continue to grow unchanged and natural vegetation community succession would continue. This would likely result in large communities of brush intermingled with some trees that are currently growing or that would become established as natural regeneration. In both the short- and long-term time frame these areas would persist as brush dominated communities and would sequester less carbon compared to conifer forest stands that would be established in the proposed action alternatives.

Alternative B – Proposed action

Direct and Indirect Effects Effects to air quality, visibility, wilderness air quality related values, greenhouse gases and carbon sequestration could result from prescribed burning; and a very small increase in air pollutants could result from equipment use under alternative B. A summary of the indicators are shown in table 20.

National Ambient Air Quality Standards Project prescribed burning would produce a total of approximately 3,800 tons of PM10 and approximately 380 tons per year over ten years. Total project annual PM10 emissions would be 11 percent of total annual PM10 emissions in Plumas County. Prescribed burning is regulated by the Northern Sierra Air Quality Management District in compliance with the state smoke management plan, Title 17. Fire managers are required to meet all air district standards and therefore the prescribed burning operations are presumed to conform to the Clean Air Act.

Potential adverse effects from fugitive dust caused by project implementation operations are regulated by Forest Service policy in order to minimize impacts. Fugitive dust generally quickly settles back down to the ground and typically does not spread far downwind.

Potential adverse effects from equipment used in project implementation would be very small as the equipment would mostly operate in remote areas that are not occupied. Only tens of individual equipment would be used over a broad area and equipment emissions would disperse quickly. However, equipment operating in the immediate vicinity of occupied recreational facilities and buildings could cause nuisance emissions especially if older diesel powered equipment are used.

Regional Haze and Wilderness Air Quality Related Values Effects to visibility and wilderness air quality related values from project prescribed burning would be temporary and minimized by burning only during designated burn days when adequate weather conditions would disperse smoke quickly. Most prescribed burning would occur on a single day or over several days. Fire managers are required by the air district to plan for controlling smoke emissions through contingency planning as part of prescribed burn unit plans and smoke management plans.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 80 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Table 20. Resource indicators and measures for alternative B direct and indirect effects to air quality Resource Indicator Measure Alternative B Desired Condition Element Total project annual PM10 emissions would Project total of be 11 percent of total National approximately 3,800 tons of annual PM10 emissions Criteria Pollutant – Tons per acre, Ambient air PM10 produced by in Plumas county PM-2.5 annually and project Quality prescribed burning total Prescribed burning Standards PM-10 380 tons per year over ten regulated by the air years district are presumed to conform to the Clean Air Act Visibility effects from project prescribed burning would be Decrease/Increase in No prolonged adverse Regional Haze Visibility temporary and minimized by deciviews effects to Regional Haze burning only during designated burn days Critical Loads (Atmospheric Effects to sensitive receptors Deposition of Units of Measure vary and critical loads from Wilderness Air Nitrogen and Sulfur, No prolonged adverse among sensitive project prescribed burning Quality Related and Mercury) at effects to Wilderness Air receptors and critical would be temporary and Values sensitive Quality Related Values loads minimized by burning only receptors(Water, during designated burn days fauna, flora, lichens, soils, scenic vistas) Project total of Carbon Dioxide approximately 2,312,000 Tons CO2 equivalent, Greenhouse (C02), Methane tons of C02 equivalent would There are no greenhouse annually and project gas (CH4) and Nitrous be produced gas regulatory standards total Oxide (N2O) 231,200 tons per year over ten years Post treatments approximately 1,074,042 tons of carbon remains Above and Below sequestered There are no carbon Carbon Ground Terrestrial Tons per Acre Approximately 22,000 tons sequestration regulatory Sequestration Carbon removed by harvest standards Sequestration Approximately 95,350 tons released by prescribed burning

Green House Gases Prescribed burning would produce a project total of approximately 2,312,000 tons of CO2 equivalent or about 231,200 tons per year over ten years. This amount would be 0.007 percent of greenhouse gases produced within the state in 2015. Prescribed burning in the project area would reduce the potential of high-intensity wildfires for several years and correspondingly reduce potential adverse smoke events.

Carbon Sequestration After all proposed treatments are completed approximately 1,074,042 tons of carbon would remain sequestered below and above ground in the project area. Approximately 22,000 tons would have been

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 81 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

removed by harvest and approximately 95,350 tons released by prescribed burning. In addition, the thinning and prescribed fire treatments and reforestation of 4,603 acres would accelerate the establishment of conifer stands dominated by large trees that are resilient to wildfire and sustainable over the long term, and would result in more carbon sequestration compared to no action.

Cumulative effects Cumulative effects include a discussion of the combined, incremental effects of human activities. For the air resource, the area for consideration is the airshed and at the county level. Past and present emission producing activities and forest carbon sequestration are considered as the current condition of the air and carbon resource. Existing air quality and carbon sequestration conditions are discussed above. Project emissions would temporarily increase air pollutants in the airshed and Plumas County. However, their direct, indirect and cumulative effects would be regulated by the Northern Sierra Air Quality Management District in order to prevent adverse impacts and exceedances of health standards. The proposed thinning and prescribed fire treatments would reduce future potential wildfire smoke and greenhouse gas emissions, and reduce potential loss of sequestered forest carbon.

Alternative C – California spotted owl interim recommendations Alternative C proposes fewer acres of mechanical thinning and more acres of hand thinning. The same acres of prescribed burning would be proposed under this alternative. The effects of alternative C are very similar to alternative B overall, but there are some differences in the measures, as shown in table 21. Alternative C would produce more emissions because fewer trees would be removed from the forest and more trees would be burned on site.

Table 21. Resource indicators and measures for alternative C effects to air quality Resource Indicator Measure Alternative C Desired Condition Element Total project annual PM10 Project total of emissions would be 13 National approximately 4,532 tons of percent of total annual PM10 Criteria Pollutant – Tons per acre, Ambient air PM10 produced by emissions in Plumas county PM-2.5 annually and project Quality prescribed burning total Prescribed burning regulated Standards PM-10 453 tons per year over ten by the air district are years presumed to conform to the Clean Air Act Visibility affects from project prescribed burning would be Regional Decrease/Increase in No prolonged adverse effects Visibility temporary and minimized by Haze deciviews to Regional Haze burning only during designated burn days Critical Loads (Atmospheric Deposition of Effects to sensitive Nitrogen and receptors and critical loads Wilderness Units of Measure Sulfur, and from project prescribed No prolonged adverse effects Air Quality vary among sensitive Mercury) at burning would be temporary to Wilderness Air Quality Related receptors and critical sensitive and minimized by burning Related Values Values loads receptors(Water, only during designated burn fauna, flora, days lichens, soils, scenic vistas)

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 82 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Resource Indicator Measure Alternative C Desired Condition Element Project total of Carbon Dioxide approximately 2,757,600 Tons CO2 Greenhouse (C02), Methane tons of CO2 equivalent There are no greenhouse gas equivalent, annually gas (CH4) and Nitrous produced regulatory standards and project total Oxide (N2O) 275,760 tons per year over ten years Post treatments approximately 1,056,489 tons of carbon remains Above and Below sequestered There are no carbon Carbon Ground Terrestrial Tons per Acre Approximately 19,400 tons sequestration regulatory Sequestration Carbon removed by harvest standards Sequestration Approximately 74,327 tons released by prescribed burning

Alternative D – No herbicide use The effects of alternative D are the same as those of the alternative B except that the increase in shrubs in the reforestation units is expected to increase live fuel loading a small amount and would slightly increase potential wildfire behavior. Over the long term, there would be fewer forest stands established that are dominated by large trees, resulting in less carbon sequestration compared to alternative B.

Summary and Conclusion The Moonlight Fire Restoration Project would comply with the applicable management direction for the Plumas National Forest, and the Clean Air Act. The proposed treatments within the action alternatives are not expected to adversely affect air quality standards, regional haze, wilderness air quality related values, greenhouse gases and carbon sequestration because of laws, rules, regulations and design features that would be implemented as part of the management alternative.

Alternatives B and D have similar air quality effects. Compared to alternative C, alternatives B and D would produce less smoke and greenhouse emissions and sequester slightly more forest carbon. Alternative C would produce more emissions because fewer trees would be removed from the forest by mechanical cutting and removal and more hand thinned trees would be burned on site. Prescribed burning is regulated by the Northern Sierra Air Quality Management District in compliance with the state smoke management plan, Title 17. Fire managers are required to meet all air district standards and therefore the prescribed burning operations are presumed to conform to the Clean Air Act. Soil Analysis for effects to soils will focus on forest plan compliance, compliance with Forest Service policy, and on the issue of herbicide use and the potential effect on soil quality and soil micro-organisms. The resource indicators and measures listed in table 22 were used for analysis. Potential for direct, indirect and cumulative effects to the soil resource would occur only within the individual treatment units where activity is occurring. Effects within the units would not lead to a loss in soil productivity in an adjacent stand or other areas across a watershed. Short-term impacts could occur within about 10 years following proposed treatments, whereas the potential long-term effects could occur 10 to 20 years after management.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 83 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Table 22. Resource indicators and measures for assessing effects to soil resources Resource Element Resource Indicator Measure Soil compaction (soil structure and Acres of detrimental soil Soil hydrologic function macro porosity) disturbance Acres of proposed treatment Support for plant growth function Soil stability and soil erosion with severe/very severe soil and soil hydrologic function erosion potential Percentage unit ground cover Support for plant growth function Ground cover (organic matter) (particularly soil organic matter) Acres treated with herbicide Filtering and buffering function Soil contamination where soils have a higher potential for leaching

Affected Environment The soils within the Moonlight Fire Restoration project area on the Plumas National Forest are dominated by four different parent material groups: alluvium (~15 percent) residuum weathered from granodiorite (~35 percent), residuum weathered from greenstone (~35 percent), and residuum weathered from andesite (~10 percent). There are also pockets of basalt, residuum weathered from rhyolite and basic volcanic breccia (~5 percent). The dominant soil texture is a sandy loam with pockets of loam, loamy sand and fine sandy loam with variable amounts of coarse fragments within the soil profile ranging from 5 to 40 percent coarse fragments.

The Moonlight Fire of 2007 affected the soils within the Moonlight Fire Restoration Project Area. Overall 75 percent of the fire area had moderate to high soil burn severity (USDA Forest Service 2013) with reduced ground cover and high potentials for erosion. In 2009, monitoring showed that little upland erosion had occurred, but that ground cover levels were still reduced and by 2013 overall sediment delivery to streams was found to be within normal ranges (USDA Forest Service 2013). Mass movement and erosion associated with roads was more commonly found throughout the fire area.

Soil Compaction and Productivity Past harvesting, mining and grazing activities are evident in most of the project area (descriptions of these past activities can be found in the EA appendix E). Some compaction was evident during surveys but was mostly concentrated on old roads and landings. Most of the past compaction within the harvest units has alleviated over time. Some compaction and rutting is still evident in some of the more sensitive soils on the greenstone parent material, especially where slopes are steeper. Detrimental soil disturbance levels ranged from zero to 13 percent within the proposed soil types that were surveyed. Currently there are approximately 478 acres of detrimental soil disturbance within the proposed treatment units. Generally if a unit is between 5 and 15 percent detrimental soil disturbance, the unit is considered in fair condition. One hundred and twenty seven (about 30 percent) of the proposed treatment units were rated in fair condition due to reduced hydrologic function. All others were rated as good condition.

All the soils within the proposed treatment units are rated with a low resistance to compaction, likely due to the low coarse fragments and finer textured soils present. Approximately 38 percent of the area is rated with a moderate rutting hazard and 61 percent low rutting hazard. These areas rated with a moderate rutting hazard likely have higher soil moisture contents for most of the year and sensitive soils. Harvesting under dry soil conditions would reduce the compaction and rutting hazards on these soil types.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 84 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Soil Stability and Soil Erosion Inherent potential for erosion may exist in some areas, given some form of severe disturbance. However, the sites proposed for treatment are fairly stable at this time. The Moonlight Fire of 2007 removed a significant amount of litter and duff, but surveys from 2016 show that the litter layer is recovering and soil cover overall is increased since 2007. The slopes range from 5 to 35 percent and up to 50 percent in small areas. Field surveys performed in 2016 found that ground cover of rock, litter, duff and vegetation was nearly continuous in many places, averaging 96 percent over the units. There was an average of four percent bare ground in the project area, with up to 20 percent bare ground in some of the areas with greenstone parent material.

The litter layer was generally intact throughout the project area, but was thicker and more effective in the closed canopy forests versus the open shrubby areas. The litter layer was generally loose, but the shallow duff layer was generally tighter and held together by fungal hyphae. The duff layer is missing in some of the areas that burned more severely. Where the duff layer is present, it provides excellent soil protection. Annual grasses, herbaceous vegetation, and even rock fragments can also be a form of protection and may reduce rain drop impact on soils.

In assessing inherent erosion hazard ratings an assumption is made about the ability of a soil, with little or no vegetation cover, to withstand a precipitation event equivalent to the long-term average occurrence of a 2-year, 6 hour storm. The severity of a soil’s erosion hazard can depend on a number of factors including the soil’s texture, water movement within the soil as well as runoff potential, slope length, and (importantly) soil surface cover. Risk ratings can vary from low to very severe with low ratings meaning low probability of adverse effects on soil and water quality if accelerated surface erosion occurs. Moderate erosion hazard ratings mean that accelerated erosion is likely to occur in most years and water quality impacts may occur. Severe to very severe erosion hazard ratings mean that effects to soil productivity and water quality are likely to occur when accelerated erosion happens.

Approximately 57 percent of the soils in the project area have a moderate erosion hazard when bared. Approximately 40 percent of the soil types within the proposed treatment stands are mapped with severe erosion hazard (5,087 acres) when soils are bared and around two percent (282 acres) of soils are mapped with very severe erosion hazard ratings. Soil types with severe erosion hazard ratings are located on steep slopes generally greater than 30 percent. Soil types with very severe erosion hazard ratings are located steeper slopes generally greater than 50 percent with sandy soil textures. Some erosion was noted on some steeper skid trails within sandy soils located on granitic parent materials.

Soil Organic Matter Coarse woody debris and organic matter are good indicators of site resiliency and overall forest health. Organic matter including the forest floor and large woody material is essential for maintaining ecosystem function by supporting moderate soil temperatures, improved water availability, and bio diversity (Page- Dumroese et al. 2010). Coarse woody debris amounts vary widely within the areas surveyed ranging from 0-32 tons/acre. Recommended levels of coarse woody debris within Region 5 are 5 logs per acre (USDA Forest Service 2012) which on the Plumas National Forest generally equates to 10 to 15 tons per acre. Organic matter (litter and duff layers) averaged 3 centimeters within the proposed harvest units. The average optimum level of fine organic matter is 21 to 30 percent of the litter and duff layer (Graham et al. 1994), which equates to 2 to 6 centimeters of surface litter and humus, depending on forest type. Optimum levels of fine organic matter relate to ectomycorrhizae fungus, which is a good indicator of healthy forest soil (Graham et al. 1994).

Ground cover class can also have an effect on resiliency and productivity. Ground cover is dependent on soil type, stand density and species composition. Field surveys performed in 2016 found the majority of

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 85 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

the ground cover in forested areas is vegetation or litter. Region 5 soil quality standards recommend at least 50 percent ground cover in units with slopes less than 35 percent and greater than 50 percent cover where slopes are greater than 35 percent. Forest Plan soil quality standards state that soils with moderate erosion hazard ratings should have at least 50 percent ground cover, soils with high erosion hazard rating should have at least 60 percent ground cover and soils with very high erosion hazard should have at least 70 percent ground cover. Currently bare soil exposed ranges from 0 to 20 percent, but well within the range of acceptable levels of ground cover to meet Forest Plan and Regional standards. Ground cover and organic matter soil functions were rated good in all units.

Soil Contamination Movement of soil contaminants is dependent on several factors including soil texture, parent material, depth to the water table, type of contaminant, soil temperature, soil pH, slope and topographic position and also the amount of organic matter present in the soil. Increased soil organic matter increases the soils ability to absorb contaminants. Soils with coarser textures, like those found within the project area on granitic soils, tend to have greater movement of water through the soil and more potential for contaminant leaching.

Each soil map unit within the Moonlight Fire Restoration project area has a rating on the soils potential to leach contaminants. Within the proposed treatment units, approximately 8,490 acres (66 percent of the area) has a low leaching potential, 81 acres (0.5 percent of the area) has a moderate leaching potential and approximately 4,291 acres (33 percent of area) has a high leaching potential for contaminants.

Table 23. Resource indicators and measures for the existing condition Resource Element Resource Indicator Measure Existing Condition Soil compaction (soil Acres of detrimental soil Soil hydrologic structure and macro disturbance within the 478 function porosity) and proposed treatment units. productivity Support for plant 5,087 acres of area with high Acres of proposed treatment growth function and Soil stability and soil erosion hazard rating and 281 with severe/very severe soil soil hydrologic erosion acres of area with very high erosion potential when bared function erosion hazard rating The average bare soil within all Percentage unit Ground Support for plant Ground cover (organic of the soil map units is 4 Cover (particularly soil growth function matter) percent. Ranged from 0 to 20 organic matter) percent. Acres treated with herbicide 4,291 acres of the project area Filtering and Soil contamination with high potential for are mapped with high leaching buffering function leaching potential

Alternative A – No action No adverse impacts to soils related to this project would occur because no additional ground-disturbing activities would be implemented. Recovery of existing impacted soils would continue through natural means (such as freeze/thaw cycles and root penetration into compacted soils). Litter and duff accumulations would continue to increase, unless removed by wildfire. Overall, trends towards increased soil productivity on those units with existing levels of detrimental soil disturbance would occur gradually over time. No cumulative effects are anticipated because no ground disturbance would be implemented.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 86 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Alternative B – Proposed action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Table 24. Resource indicators and measures for alternative B direct and indirect effects Resource Alternative B Resource Indicator Measure Element Direct and indirect Effects Soil compaction (soil Soil hydrologic structure and macro Acres of detrimental soil 1,602 function porosity) and disturbance productivity Acres of proposed Support for plant treatment with growth function Soil stability and soil severe/very severe soil 4,728 and soil hydrologic erosion erosion potential when function bared 50 percent ground cover; 60 percent Percentage unit ground ground cover on areas with severe Support for plant Ground cover (organic cover (particularly soil erosion hazard rating and 70 percent growth function matter) organic matter) cover on areas with very severe erosion hazard rating. Acres treated with Filtering and Soil contamination herbicide with high 835 buffering function potential for leaching

Soil Compaction and Soil Productivity

Thinning Operations Ground based (mechanical) thinning and grapple piling would create localized areas with detrimental levels of soil compaction, displacement, and other physical disturbances and would reduce the ability of soils to exchange oxygen and carbon dioxide thus affecting the ability of soil organisms to survive. Outside of landings and skid trails; for large areas (greater than 100 square feet); detrimental levels of soil disturbance are not expected because of project design features (for example, the ground would be dry or frozen and designated skid trails would be used or existing skid trails would be reused), standard soil operating procedures, and timber sale contract provisions. In addition, favorable habitat for soil organisms would be maintained outside of designated skid trails as limited soil disturbance is expected off these skid trails. Any reduction of productivity attributable to soil organisms would be short term (less than 5 years).

Nearly all forest plants have a strong dependence on mycorrhizal fungi for extracting nutrients and moisture from the soil. In all alternatives, microorganisms would continue to populate the soil, contributing towards site productivity through nutrient cycling and reforming soil aggregates. Any project effects would not be adverse to soil productivity because nutrient replenishment, forest floor, and humus stores would remain on the site (Busse et al. 2009).

Compaction on skid trails, landings and temporary roads can indirectly lead to decreased water infiltration rates, leading to increased overland flow and associated erosion and sediment delivery to streams. Increased overland flow also increases intensity of spring flooding, degrading stream morphological integrity and low summer flows. Compaction indirectly leads to decreased gas exchange, which in turn degrades subsurface biological activity and above-ground forest vitality. Waterbars and other best

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 87 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

management practices for drainage of skid trails, landings, and temporary roads would disperse runoff and prevent detrimental erosion.

Soils and overall site productivity can be adversely affected by weeds. Noxious weeds impact soils by shifting plant species composition with below ground implications to soil biota. Noxious weeds such as cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) and spotted knapweed (Centaurea maiculosa) influence below-ground soil function by changing soil nutrient status and water dynamics, creating legacy effects that favor opportunistic species (Gundale et al. 2008). Weed populations affect soil productivity through retarding native plants, shifting above and below ground biomass, reducing amounts of organic matter being added because of a lack fine feeder roots, and losing plant leaf material. These biological changes provide cascading effects on soil erosion (reduced soil cover) and higher soil temperatures. High soil temperatures in turn lead to increased oxidation of organic matter and a downward cycle that favors weeds since they are adapted to and competitive in harsh sites. For an in-depth discussion on weeds, refer to the Invasive Species section.

Prescribed Fire The impacts of burning depend on levels of fire severity. Slash piles will result in the highest severity from higher temperatures in a concentrated area. Litter and duff consumption is likely to occur at high rates in pile burns. Small piles that are spread out over a unit will minimize litter loss. Prescribed under burning typically results in a positive benefit with a mosaic pattern of burned and unburned ground and predominately low severity burn. Effects are significantly reduced when soil moisture levels are above 25 percent (Niehoff 2002).

Prescribed fire can increase available nitrogen for one to two years (Choromanska and DeLuca 2002). Burning slash piles could create extremely high temperatures in concentrated areas and would lead to volatilization of nitrogen, and loss of phosphorus and potassium (DeBano 1981). If litter layers and organic matter is kept intact throughout the rest of the stand, nutrient losses would be minimal from burning slash and would be localized. Nitrogen-fixing plants can colonize sites following fire and help restore nitrogen in the ecosystem (Newland and DeLuca 2000; Jurgensen et al. 1997). Following fire, soil erosion can increase, which could also reduce the nutrient pool (Megahan 1990). Generally, if plants colonize sites following fire, nutrient levels can reach pre-fire levels quickly (Certini 2005). Charcoal deposited following fire also adds carbon to the soil (DeLuca and Aplet 2008).

Indirect effects of soil nutrient loss include reduced growth and yield and increased susceptibility to pathogens, such as root disease (Garrison and Moore 1998, Garrison-Johnston 2003) and insect infestation (Garrison-Johnston 2003 and Garrison-Johnston et al. 2004). Precipitation (Stark 1979) and weathering of rocks will continue to make additional nutrients available on site. Annual needle, leaf, and twig fall, forbs, and shrub mortality will continue to recycle nutrients as well.

Disturbance from harvesting and prescribed burning activities has been shown to range from 4 to over 40 percent, depending on equipment used, method and season of operation, and silvicultural prescription (Archer 2008; Clayton et al. 1987; Clayton 1990; Tepp 2002; Sullivan 1998; Reeves et al. 2011). An average of 10 percent additional detrimental soil disturbance is used to predict effects of ground-based harvesting. In many areas this additional disturbance overlaps existing disturbance. The expected detrimental soil disturbance levels following implementation of the proposed action are generally less than 15 percent of a stand when all design features and best management practices are applied, including reuse of existing disturbance wherever possible. The potential for a soil function indicator to be adversely affected by the proposed action is moderate on approximately 10,077 acres of area proposed for ground based treatment (see appendix A of the soils report for unit by unit indicator changes and detrimental soil disturbance estimates). This equates to approximately 1,581 acres of detrimental soil disturbance

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 88 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment following the proposed treatments. Reusing existing skid trails, ensuring adequate organic matter following treatments and approving skid trail layout prior to implementation would ensure that the soil functions would remain intact in good or fair condition.

Temporary Roads and Landings Temporary road construction causes soil compaction, displacement and reduced soil hydrologic and biologic function. Approximately 7 miles of new temporary road is proposed for this project. Temporary road templates (including cut and fill slopes as well as temporary road surface) are assumed to be about 25 feet wide creating approximately 3 acres of detrimental soil disturbance per mile of temporary road. Under alternative B, this is an additional 21 acres of detrimental soil disturbance. Newly constructed temporary road rehabilitation would be used to recover this area as soon as thinning operations finish. Recovery would likely be slower than other thinning-related disturbance given the high traffic expected during harvest. Current temporary road construction practices address the potential negative impacts with stringent rehabilitation efforts where temporary road templates are restored to contour. Topsoil is conserved and replaced where possible to further recovery. Road fill is covered in slash for biological and site amelioration. Waterbars and subsoiling would disperse runoff to prevent detrimental erosion. Hydrological recovery is expected within the first 10 years with soil infiltration rates lower than natural forest rates (Luce 1997; Foltz and Maillard 2003). For the long term, infiltration rates improve over time as freeze/thaw and plant roots improve soil porosity though rates would remain lower than adjacent natural forest soil (Switalski et al. 2004). Soil biological function restores as forest floor and native plant communities returns.

Detrimental effects from landing construction could include soil compaction, litter loss, loss of coarse woody debris, increased potential for erosion, nutrient losses, loss of soil hydrologic and biologic function and possible weed incursions. Log landings are expected to be 0.25 to 0.5 acres is size. Approximately 174 landings have been identified for use which would be about 44 to 87 acres of detrimental soil disturbance from landing use and construction. Existing landings sometimes receive minor blading or small tree removal in order to prepare them for use. Erosion control measures would be used if needed to avoid soil movement from landing sites during maintenance and construction. The resulting sedimentation is expected to be minimal. All landings would be rehabilitated and returned to pre- implementation conditions. Rehabilitation measures include recontouring surfaces, ripping the surface to reduce compaction, seeding the surface where bare mineral soil is present and placing slash and other large woody debris along the surface to reduce soil erosion. Landing subsoiling has been shown to be effective at reducing soil bulk density as long as soil moisture levels are not high (Carr 1989).

Watershed and Road Restoration Road maintenance includes culvert installation, blading, and brushing, which typically improves drainage and decreases erosion from water channeling down the road surface in the long run. Road reconstruction is proposed on 36 miles of road under alternative B. Road reconstruction could include extending the road width, grading and shaping the road surface, constructing ditches, installing culverts, repairing cut and fill slope failures, clearing and surfacing. Road reconstruction would lead to increased compaction and potentially detrimental soil disturbance outside of the current road prism.

Decommissioning 40 miles of system roads and 15 miles of non-system roads under all action alternatives is proposed using closure, culvert removal, subsoiling, outsloping, recontouring, revegetating and removing fill from stream crossings. Decommissioning would improve previously impacted road beds through decompaction, addition of organic material, revegetation of bare areas, and weed control (Lloyd et al. 2013). Short-term erosion would increase on decommissioned roads due to exposed bare soil, but long-term soil erosion would be reduced with revegetation (Switalski et al. 2004; Wemple et al. 2001). Although rehabilitation through decompaction and re-contouring cannot assume complete reversal to

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 89 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

natural conditions, efforts initiate a long-term recovery process. Anticipated results would also provide for improvements in hydrologic function that otherwise may be prolonged as soil compaction persists.

Soil Stability and Soil Erosion Soil erosion and mass wasting are natural processes across the Plumas National Forest. These natural processes have occurred over long time periods and are fundamental factors in creating the current landscape. No areas of instability or mass wasting were identified during the field review in 2016. However, the Geomorphic Road Analysis and Inventory Package (GRAIP) located 76 landslides within the project area mostly related to roads, and generally associated with deep seated landslides. Five landslides found are not road related, but none of the non-road related landslides are located within proposed treatment units. Two cutslope failures are located within units 170 and 409 and one fillslope failure is located within unit 309. The majority of the landslides located within the project area are caused by roads located within areas that are prone to landslides (USDA Forest Service 2015) and not within the proposed treatment areas. Approximately 42 percent of the area proposed for treatment is rated with a severe to very severe erosion hazard rating when soils are bared. The proposed actions would not bare soil completely and design features would ensure that where soils have higher erosion hazards, soil cover would be 60 percent or greater of the given treatment unit (70 percent or greater on areas with very severe erosion hazard ratings) ensuring that soil erosion hazards are reduced.

Following fire, soil erosion can increase, which could also reduce the nutrient pool (Megahan 1990). Ground cover and coarse woody debris would be important components within these areas following treatment in order to reduce erosional processes. Generally, if plants colonize sites following fire, nutrient levels can reach pre-fire levels quickly (Certini 2005). Charcoal deposited following fire also adds carbon to the soil (DeLuca and Aplet 2008).

Indirect effects of soil nutrient loss include reduced growth and yield and increased susceptibility to pathogens, such as root disease (Garrison and Moore 1998, Garrison-Johnston 2003) and insect infestation (Garrison-Johnston 2003, Garrison-Johnston et al. 2004). Precipitation and weathering of rocks would continue to make additional nutrients available on site (Morford et al. 2011). Annual needle, leaf, and twig fall, forbs, and shrub mortality would continue to recycle nutrients as well.

In accordance with Regional and Forest Plan standards, ground cover following treatments would be at least 50 percent. Ground cover should be 60 or 70 percent on units with higher erosion hazards and where slopes are greater than 35 percent. This ground cover is essential in reducing the erosion potential on these sites along with harvesting and the use of ground based equipment on slopes less than 35 percent.

Temporary road, landing and other road work impacts to soil stability and soil erosion are discussed above. Overall roads are the major source of sediment input into aquatic systems in forested landscapes (Gresswell et al. 1979; Jones and Grant 1996; Cacek 1998) with some sediment coming from chronic surface erosion sites such as roads. Forest roads alter hillslope hydrology through often deep soil excavations, surface flow rerouting and concentration, and natural flowpath interruption or constriction through undersized or unmaintained culverts. Modern road and culvert upgrades, maintenance and decommissioning have reduced the overall risk or road-related landslides and erosional processes on the Forest.

Ground Cover (Organic Matter) Harvest operations remove biomass and site organic matter and thus affect nutrient cycling. Generally, nutrient losses are proportional to the volume of biomass removed from a site. Nutrients are lost during harvesting by removing the stored nutrients in trees, and additional nutrients are lost if the litter layer and woody debris are removed. Whole-tree harvesting, which extracts larger amounts of biomass, especially

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 90 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

nutrient-rich foliage, compared to conventional sawlog or thinning operations, removes a larger amount of the nutrients from the site. The exact amount of nutrients lost from a particular site would vary with forest types and particular site conditions (Grier et al. 1989). The amount of nutrients present in the trees would also vary with stand age and development of the humus layer (Grier et al. 1989). Moreover, the greater the proportion of nutrients stored in trees, the greater the potential for site degradation and reduced productivity after harvesting operations. The data suggests that nutrient losses from whole-tree harvesting are considerably greater when compared to conventional sawlog harvesting for all nutrients. Calcium losses were particularly large for whole-tree harvesting due to the high concentrations of calcium present in the wood fiber of twigs, branches, and boles (Adams 1999, Mann et al. 1988).

Potential indirect long-term effects of soil nutrient loss include reduced growth and yield and increased susceptibility to pathogens, such as root disease (Garrison and Moore 1998, Garrison-Johnston 2003) and insect infestation (Garrison-Johnston 2003, Garrison-Johnston et al. 2004). Precipitation and weathering of rocks would continue to make additional nutrients available on site. Annual needle, leaf, and twig fall, forbs, and shrub mortality would continue to recycle nutrients as well.

In accordance with Regional and Forest Plan standards, ground cover following treatments would be at least 50 percent. Ground cover should be 60 percent on units with higher erosion hazards and steeper slopes and 70 percent where erosion hazards are very severe. Past monitoring on the Plumas National Forest has shown that harvesting decreases soil cover by approximately 8 percent (USDA Forest Service 2013). Current levels are between 80 and 100 percent cover. With a decrease in 8 percent, levels should stay above standards in all the potential treatment areas. Levels of coarse woody debris should be at 5 logs per acre or approximately 10-15 tons per acre following treatments which would decrease the potential for soil erosion and increase the organic matter on the sites overall.

Loss of organic matter and cover related to roads and landings is discussed above.

Soil Contamination Herbicide application would occur on up to 4,100 acres and would have minimal short-term effects to the soil resource. Herbicide application would not occur on all 4,100 acres as the assumption is that approximately 40 percent of those acres would actually receive treatment (~1,640 acres). In addition, the treatments (site preparation, planting and release) would be staggered over time, with approximately 1,000 to 1,500 acres of each treatment a year. This is approximately 600 acres of herbicide treatment that could be applied per year. Herbicides that could be utilized are glyphosate and Triclopyr. Soil microbial populations play a very important role in soil development, and soil microbial populations and nutrient cycling are most likely to be affected by herbicide applications. However, glyphosate has been shown to minimally affect soil microbial populations (von Merey et al. 2016). Glyphosate is rapidly degraded by the soil microbial community no matter what soil type is present on the site (Haney et al. 2002). On sites with greater amounts of organic matter, microbial activity is greater and breakdown occurs even more rapidly. It generally takes less than 14 days to degrade the glyphosate within the soil (Syracuse Environmental Research Associates 2011a).

Triclopyr is degraded within the soil by soil microbial populations, but photolysis and hydrolysis also occur. The average half-life of triclopyr is 30 days and can persist within the soil for several months up to six months. Triclopyr does not readily bind to soil particles and can leach through the soil into ground water. The substance is relatively non-toxic to soil microbial populations. High soil moisture, organic matter and temperature increases soil microbial activity and leads to higher rates of herbicide metabolism in general (Syracuse Environmental Research Associates 2011b). Overall at low application rates (like those proposed), soil microbial populations are not affected (Syracuse Environmental Research Associates 2011b). Approximately 2,087 acres proposed for herbicide treatment are more vulnerable to leaching, but

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 91 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

with the assumption that herbicide treatment would only occur on approximately 40 percent of the total acres, it is more likely that 835 acres (~20 percent of the total treated acres) of soils with higher potential for leaching would actually be treated with herbicides. Although both herbicides proposed for use are metabolized by soil microorganisms, they both do have the potential to leach from the soil. Because triclopyr is less readily absorbed by soil particles, it is more likely to leach than Glyphosate in these soils.

Cumulative effects For activities to be considered cumulative their effects need to overlap in both time and space with those of the proposed actions. For the soil resource, the area for consideration is the unit because effects on soils are site specific. Past activities are considered as the current condition of the soil resource (refer to the Affected Environment section above).

Harvesting and prescribed fire activities would not overlap in time and space with past, ongoing, or foreseeable projects except where past disturbance has occurred. Existing soil conditions are discussed above. There are no other thinning activities proposed within the current proposed units; therefore no cumulative effects from thinning or prescribed fire would occur.

The proposed thinning would reduce future potential fire behavior. The benefits of fires with lower intensity and severity would include a reduced potential of excessive soil heating and sterilization as well as the development of hydrophobic conditions that tend to increase sediment movement, flooding, and possible slope instability (de Dios Benavides-Soloria and McDonald 2005; Neary et al. 2005).

All developed roads built in the past have a long-term effect on soil productivity due to compaction and displacement. Their maintenance for residence access, recreation, and forest management calls for ongoing use, which results in compaction and displacement through the project area. Road maintenance includes culvert installation, blading, and brushing, and typically improves drainage and decreases erosion from water channeling down the road surface in the long term.

Disturbance from general motorized use and recreational access has been occurring and would continue throughout the units indefinitely. We anticipate no changes in the existing recreation profile. Other recreational activities that occur off the developed roads, such as the gathering of miscellaneous forest products and hunting, are occurring in the project area. Closing skid trails in this area following treatment should prevent this occurrence and should not have additional effects on soils in the project area. Cumulative effects to soils from recreational vehicle use are not expected. See the recreation specialist report for further discussion on recreational vehicle use.

There are six grazing allotments within the Moonlight Fire Restoration Project area: Antelope, Antelope Lake, Hungry Creek, Lights Creek, Lone Rock and Taylor Lake. The Hungry Creek and Taylor Lake allotments are vacant. The remaining four allotments are active. The proposed treatment units are subject to cumulative grazing impacts within the four active allotment boundaries. The majority of grazing within these allotments occurs in transitional range areas where recent harvesting occurred or within open meadow areas. Impacts of grazing are generally limited to areas where the animals bed, lounge, trail, or access water. These areas are mostly small in aerial extent. Impacts include compaction, removal of groundcover, and displacement. Cumulative impacts from grazing would most likely occur on skid trails and would likely delay recovery of skid trails from compaction where cattle trailing on skid trails occurs. Cumulative impacts would also likely occur in reforestation and release harvest areas and aspen restoration areas for several years following treatments as cattle would likely graze the open grassy areas and regenerating aspen until the canopy begins to close again. This could lead to increased compaction in openings and on landings within the project area.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 92 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Areas of disturbed soil provide an optimal location for weed establishment and subsequent invasion (DiTomaso 2000). Weeds establish quickly and can increase erosion, deplete soil moisture, and alter nutrient levels (DiTomaso 2000). Because the roots of noxious weeds are often deeper than native grasses, they also contribute less organic matter near the soil surface (Sperber et al. 2003). Weeds will be sprayed along skid trails and at landings. Refer to the Invasive Plant Risk Assessment for additional details.

The Moonlight Invasives project also proposes the treatment of invasives with herbicides within the Moonlight Fire Restoration Project area and potentially within the proposed treatment units under this project. Approximately 68 acres of current invasive plant areas are mapped within the proposed reforestation/herbicide treatment units. There is potential that some of these acres could be treated with herbicides on multiple occasions under the proposed Moonlight Fire Area Invasive Plant Treatment Project. Most of the herbicide that infiltrates through the soil is expected to decompose by natural processes within several days to several months. The treatments occur on single plants and are dispersed. If herbicides are applied according to guidelines and standards, cumulative effects are expected to be minimal.

In general, temperatures in the area have been increasing, and are projected to continue to increase with climate change. Precipitation has also been steadily increasing in portions of the project area, while decreasing in others and varies seasonally, with projected substantial decreases during the summer months. Couple these with the observed and projected changes to evapotranspiration rates, snow and freezing rain amounts, and soil frost days, among other parameters, and one can safely assume climate change is affecting and will continue to affect soils resources in the Sierra Nevada. Potential changes in species composition could affect litter and duff layers, nutrient cycling and soil productivity. An increase in soil temperature could lead to an increased decomposition rate as well. All those factors could affect the properties of the soil in any given area and could lead to a change in soil type as we progress into the future.

Alternative C – California spotted owl interim recommendations

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

Table 25. Resource indicators and measures for alternative C direct and indirect effects Alternative C Resource Element Resource Indicator Measure Direct and indirect Effects Soil compaction (soil Soil hydrologic structure and macro Acres of detrimental soil 1,589 function porosity) and disturbance productivity Support for plant Acres of proposed growth function and Soil stability and soil treatment with 4,728 soil hydrologic erosion severe/very severe soil function erosion potential 50 percent ground cover; 60 percent Percentage unit ground ground cover on areas with severe erosion Support for plant Ground cover (organic cover (particularly soil hazard rating and 70 percent cover on growth function matter) organic matter) areas with very severe erosion hazard rating. Acres treated with Filtering and Soil contamination herbicide with high 835 buffering function potential for leaching

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 93 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

The effects of alternative C would be the same as those described under alterative B, with a few exceptions. Under alternative C, there would be fewer acres that would utilize ground based equipment for thinning; therefore, there would be reduced detrimental soil disturbance overall. Acres of detrimental soil disturbance from temporary roads is an additional 18 acres of detrimental soil disturbance under alternative C (versus 21 acres in alternative B and D).

Under alternative C, there would be less ground based activities on soils with severe or very severe erosion hazard ratings, so effects of skid trails and landings on erosion and sedimentation would be reduced, but a similar number of acres are proposed for prescribed burning.

Alternative D – No herbicide alternative

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

Table 26. Resource indicators and measures for alternative D direct and indirect effects Resource Alternative D Resource Indicator Measure Element Direct and indirect Effects Soil compaction (soil Soil hydrologic structure and macro Acres of detrimental 1,602 function porosity) and soil disturbance productivity Support for plant Acres of proposed growth function Soil stability and soil treatment with 4,728 and soil hydrologic erosion severe/very severe function soil erosion potential 50 percent ground cover; 60 percent Percentage unit ground cover on areas with severe Support for plant Ground cover (organic ground cover erosion hazard rating and 70 percent growth function matter) (particularly soil cover on areas with very severe organic matter) erosion hazard rating. Acres treated with Filtering and Soil contamination herbicide with high 0 buffering function potential for leaching

The effects of alternative D would largely be the same as alternative B, expect that no herbicide would be applied. Therefore, the preceding effects discussion regarding soil contamination would not apply to alternative D.

Summary and Conclusion Proposed activities would have the potential for both short- and long-term direct negative effects on forest soils. However, by implementing the soil design features prescribed here, the project would meet the Region 5 Soil Quality Standards as well as the forest plan standards, and would therefore not have a significant impact to soils.

The Moonlight Fire Restoration Project would comply with the Plumas Forest Plan for long-term soil productivity for all the proposed treatment units. The proposed silvicultural, fuel treatments and herbicide treatments within the action alternatives are not expected to adversely affect soil resources because of design features that would be implemented as part of the management alternative. The design features would help to ensure that resource safeguards will be in place that would prevent adverse effects on the

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 94 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

soil resource from occurring. None of the treatment units would exceed R5 soil quality standards following implementation and would all be rated good or fair with no poor ratings.

Alternative B (the proposed action) would have the largest effect on soil resources as measured by acres of detrimental soil disturbance (1,602 acres) and by acres of soils with a high leaching potential where herbicides may be applied (835 acres). The detrimental soil disturbance estimates include detrimental soil disturbance from proposed harvesting and prescribed burning and 7 miles of new temporary road. Alternative D would have similar detrimental soil disturbance following treatment; however, no acres are proposed for herbicide treatment so the effects to potential leaching and soil microbial activity would not occur under alternative D.

Under alternative A, approximately 478 acres of detrimental soil disturbance already exist. Soil productivity changes would be expected to be greater under all the action alternatives compared to alternative A because of equipment disturbance to the forest floor. This disturbance is expected to be limited to skid trails, landings, and temporary roads. The activity areas would be expected to maintain forest floor across greater than 50 percent of the area (60 to 70 percent where erosion hazard ratings are higher) and large wood, a combination of standing and down, would remain on site at levels specified in the R5 Soil Quality Standards.

Under alternatives B and D, herbicide application could potentially occur on 835 acres where the soil leaching potential is high. Although most of the herbicides would likely be metabolized within the soil by soil microbial activity, there is a greater chance for leaching of herbicides on these 835 acres. There are no acres proposed for herbicide treatment under alternative D.

Under alternatives B, C and D watershed restoration activities are proposed that would not occur under the no-action (alternative A) alternative. Approximately 40 miles of system roads and 15 miles of non- system roads are proposed for decommissioning. Although rehabilitation through decompaction and/or recontouring cannot assume complete reversal to natural conditions, efforts initiate a long-term recovery process. Anticipated results would also provide for improvements in hydrologic function that otherwise may be prolonged as soil compaction persists. Hydrology and Watersheds Effects analysis will focus on disclosing the extent to which the alternatives meet the purpose and need to protect and improve water quality, addressing public concerns (issues) related to using herbicides and contamination of aquatic systems and sources of potable water for human use, and addressing legal compliance with the Clean Water Act and associated Forest Service policy. The effects analysis focuses on the hydrologic connectivity and the treatment intensity of these activities, and any subsequent effects on water quality. Proposed hand-based activities such as hand-thinning, hand-piling and hand-grubbing have a negligible footprint and therefore are not included in this analysis.

Effects to watershed resources may include: water contamination from herbicides, and sedimentation and channel instability from mechanical disturbance. The effects of the proposed activities are evaluated using the following watershed indicators (table 27). A brief explanation on each one of these indicators is provided.

• Herbicide runoff potential - Herbicides can migrate and may reach streams and water bodies if they are carried away to surface waters by runoff from a rain storm. This migration or movement of herbicides is measured by the herbicide runoff potential. • Sedimentation – Stream crossings provide a direct hydrologic connection between roads and streams, mobilizing significant amounts of fine sediment, and affecting water quality in streams.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 95 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

The number of stream crossings therefore serves as an indicator of effects on water quality from sediment. • Roads in riparian areas - Cabrera et al. (2015) found that within the Moonlight study area, the probability of sediment delivery to streams increased sharply when road drain points were within 150 meters of a stream. The roads resource indicator identifies road segments in riparian areas that have the greatest impacts on water quality from road derived sediment.

Table 27. Resource indicators and measures for assessing effects to hydrology and watershed condition Resource Element Resource Indicator Measure Water Quality Polluted Runoff Herbicide runoff potential Water Quality Sedimentation Number of stream crossings Water Quality Roads Roads in riparian conservation areas (miles)

Detectable changes from the proposed action are analyzed at the streams or waterbodies within the project area. These would be considered direct or indirect effects from a single activity. Temporal scales for hydrology effects different for each resource indicator. Effects to water quality from polluted runoff is considered to be short term and limited to when the herbicide treatment is taking place, including the duration of degradation of the herbicide until it decomposes which ranges in average between 14 and 30 days (Syracuse Environmental Research Associates (SERA) 2011a, 2011b). Effects to water quality from sedimentation in forested lands are typically short in duration and maybe noticeable within the first year post treatment and/or after the first annual peak storm event. Effects to riparian function and channel stability from road management are related to sedimentation and/or bank instability and as mentioned above are typically short in duration and maybe noticeable within the first year post treatment.

Affected Environment

General Watershed Condition Forest Service Manual 2521.1 directs forests to establish watershed condition and assign a designated watershed condition class rating. The watershed condition classes are determined through a process where a series of attributes are rated and averaged for each indicator of watershed health.

Table 28. Watershed condition class definitions Watershed Condition Watershed Condition Class Definition Class (WCC) Watersheds exhibit high geomorphic, hydrologic and biotic integrity relative to their natural potential condition. The drainage network is generally stable. WCC I (Functioning Physical, chemical, and biologic conditions suggest that soil, aquatic, and properly - good) riparian systems are predominantly functional in terms of supporting beneficial uses. Watersheds exhibit moderate geomorphic, hydrologic, and biotic integrity relative WCC II (Functioning at to their natural potential condition. Portions of the drainage network may be risk - fair) unstable. Physical, chemical, and biologic conditions suggest that soil, aquatic, and riparian systems are at risk in being able to support beneficial uses. Watersheds exhibit low geomorphic, hydrologic, and biotic integrity relative to WCC III (Impaired their natural potential condition. A majority of the drainage network may be function - poor) unstable physical, chemical, and biologic conditions suggest that soil, aquatic, and riparian systems do not support beneficial uses.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 96 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Out of eleven watersheds, three watersheds within the project area are functioning properly and eight are functioning at risk. There are no impaired watersheds. Common to all functioning at risk watersheds is a poor to fair rating related to roads and trails condition. This indicator addresses changes to the hydrologic and sediment regimes due to the density, location, distribution, and maintenance of the road and trail network (USDA Forest Service 2011b).

No municipal watersheds occur within the project area. Presently, there are no domestic or municipal uses of surface water within the project area; however, such use does occur downstream so this is still considered as a beneficial use. The water quality control plan defines the following beneficial uses for the project area (table 29).

Table 29. Designated beneficial uses for project area streams (North Fork, Feather River) based on the water quality control plan Beneficial Uses MUN – Municipal and Domestic Supply POW – Hydropower Generation REC1 – Water Contact Recreation, Canoe and Rafting REC2 – Non-Contact Water Recreation COLD – Cold Freshwater Habitat SPWN –Habitats suitable for reproduction and early development of salmon and steelhead WILD – Support terrestrial or wetland ecosystems

Water Quality - Herbicides According to the 2012 Clean Water Act, Section 303(d) list for California, water quality in the project area is meeting water quality standards. There are no reports of water quality impairments related to sediment, herbicides or any other pollutant within the project area boundary (California State Water Resources Control Board 2016). There has not been any water quality sampling for herbicides within the project area. Approximately 20 miles south in the Rock Creek Cresta and Bucks projects, Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) and their contractors have conducted water quality sampling as a requirement of their invasive plant treatments (Garcia and Associates 2009 and 2010; Pacific Gas and Electric 2012). During three years of sampling in the areas where herbicide treatments have occurred, there have been no detections of herbicides in the water.

Water Quality – Sedimentation The Forest Service conducted a watershed-wide post-Moonlight fire inventory and assessment of roads in Lights Creek and Indian Creek using the Geomorphic Road Analysis and Inventory Package (GRAIP) model. The GRAIP model was used to predict road to stream hydrologic connectivity, sediment delivery to streams, and risks to road-stream crossings among others. On average, chronic sedimentation risks such as road surface-derived fine sediment delivery in the Lights Creek and Indian Creek watersheds are similar to, or lower than results from studies in regionally and geologically similar study areas (Cabrera et al. 2015). Shallow landslides along roads were documented, occurring when roads traversed deep seated earthflow terrains. Even though the existing condition related to sedimentation is within the natural range of variability at the watershed scale, Cabrera et al. (2015) also found that 90 percent of delivered road surface fine sediment is concentrated at less than 5 percent of drain points, meaning certain key roads or

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 97 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

areas are causing the vast majority of the sediment delivery. Stream crossings produced and delivered greater volume of fill erosion than all other drain point types (Cabrera et al. 2015). There are a total of 151 stream crossings throughout the project area. This project has been designed to focus restoration efforts on the set of drain points causing profound impacts to streams.

Other publications (Sugden and Woods 2007; Trombulak and Frissell 2000) have shown that unpaved forest roads represent a major source of sediment. Sediment contributed from roads and delivered to streams can affect water quality, aquatic habitat, sediment transport regimes, and channel morphology. Roads located within 300 feet of streams, in general, have the highest potential to deliver sediment to streams (Ketcheson and Megahan 1996, Burroughs and King 1989). Their research indicates that there is a 4-17 percent chance that sediment is being transported farther than 100 meters (330 feet) from cross drains. As a result, the number of miles of road within riparian conservation areas was chosen as a water quality indicator measure. There are currently 256 miles of roads located within riparian conservation areas in the project area.

Table 30. Resource indicators and measures for the existing condition Resource Element Resource Indicator Measure Existing Condition Water quality Polluted runoff Herbicide runoff potential None Sedimentation Number of stream crossings 1645 Roads in riparian Roads 256 miles conservation areas (miles)

Alternative A – No action

Water Quality - Herbicides Under the no-action alternative, water quality would not be affected by herbicides.

Water Quality -Sedimentation Existing conditions and trends in the watersheds associated with this project would continue including present conditions for water quality. Watershed condition classes would likely remain the same or slowly improve over time as native vegetation reestablishes and matures. Streams would continue meeting water quality standards and beneficial uses. Water quality would not be affected by prescribed burning, or vegetation treatments.

Under the no-action alternative, existing conditions and trends in the watersheds associated with this project would continue including present conditions for water quality. Watershed condition classes would likely remain the same or slowly improve over time as native vegetation reestablishes and matures. Streams would continue meeting water quality standards and beneficial uses. Water quality would not be affected by prescribed burning, or vegetation treatments. Road decommissioning, maintenance, and culvert removal would not affect water quality. Specific road segments identified as unneeded would continue to deliver sediment into project area streams. These road segments would likely deteriorate over time with normal road traffic. Long-term improvements associated with road maintenance and decommissioning of unneeded infrastructure would not occur.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 98 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Table 31. Resource indicators and measures for alternative 1 Resource Element Resource Indicator Measure No Action Water quality Polluted runoff Herbicide runoff potential None Sedimentation Number of stream crossings 1645 Roads in riparian Roads 256 miles conservation areas (miles)

Alternative B – Proposed action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Water Quality - Herbicides Under this alternative, water quality may be affected if herbicides reach water bodies.

This alternative has been designed to avoid conditions that may trigger high runoff events by requiring implementation during the dry season. Herbicide applications would cease when weather conditions exceed those on the label and/or when the National Weather Service forecasts a greater than 70 percent probability of precipitation. Additional project design features and standard management requirement for watershed protection have been established that requires leaving an untreated strip of land and vegetation alongside surface waters, wetlands, riparian areas (national best management practice Chem-3). Strip widths established by the interdisciplinary team are presented as project-specific project design features. These untreated buffers would act as a sink and filters, if sediments and/or herbicides accidentally get carried via runoff.

The results of fifteen separate water monitoring reports written by hydrologists and geologists on the Forest Service Region 5 forests were summarized in a paper entitled “A Review and Assessment of the Results of Water Monitoring for Herbicide Residues For The Years 1991 to 1999” (Bakke 2001). These reports documented the results of over 800 surface- and ground-water samples taken for reforestation and invasive plant treatment projects that used three herbicides (glyphosate, hexazinone, and triclopyr). Most projects were for control of non-conifers in conifer plantations. The Angeles National Forest monitored an area that included an invasive plant project within riparian areas (Bakke 2001). Glyphosate was used in four Forests on eight projects. With buffers as small as 10 feet, Glyphosate was found to be non- detectable in collected samples. One project had several Glyphosate detections, but it was used directly in a stream channel to control aquatic invasives. Glyphosate would persist in water for some time until it degrades through microbial activity, but it is considered to have very little to no toxic effect on aquatic life forms (Schuette 1998). Triclopyr was used on five projects on three Forests. Where Triclopyr was used with buffers of 10 to 15 feet, there were three projects where detections occurred. The levels of detection ranged between 0.1 to 1 parts per billion where specified. One detection of 82 ppb was determined to be from not establishing a buffer on an ephemeral channel. The other detection was on a project with buffers of 10 feet; it had detection during winter storms of 0.63 parts per million and 0.6-0.7 parts per million. Another project with buffers of 15 feet had a single detection of 1 parts per billion (Bakke 2001).

Because the project area is entirely within suitable habitat for the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog, there are special project-specific design features to ensure there are no effects to that species from glyphosate and triclopyr. As such, the smallest proposed buffer for herbicide treatment for this project would be 107 feet, which is the combined 82 feet of suitable Sierra-Nevada yellow-legged frog habitat plus 25 feet of additional buffer (see appendix D and the specialist’s report on aquatics for details). This buffer would be

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 99 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

applied on both sides of perennial and intermittent streams. This buffer is significantly larger than the standard buffer of 10 feet for glyphosate, and 10 to 15 for triclopyr (Bakke 2001). Ephemeral streams would also be buffered at distances greater than the reference monitoring, as described in appendix D.

Herbicide runoff ratings are variable as reflected by the ratings in table 32. These ratings only characterize herbicide properties related to runoff potential. Other factors influencing herbicide persistence include soil moisture content, soil and water acidity, amount of organic matter in the soil, organisms present, and molecular binding of chemicals to organic and soil particles. To complement the herbicide runoff analysis, the interaction of herbicides with project area soils is considered. The soil survey provides ratings for Pesticide Loss Potential-Soil Surface Runoff. This rating characterizes the potential of the soil to transmit pesticides through surface runoff and the likelihood of the contamination of surface waters. Cagwin-Toem family soils show a somewhat limited run off potential. A somewhat limited soil rating means that the soil has features that are moderately rated for runoff potential and some runoff can occur. This alternative has been designed to account for the uncertainty related to the different soil and herbicide properties by avoiding high runoff conditions and establishing significantly larger buffers. Herbicides would be used up to three times over a period of approximately a decade. These would be spot treatments using a backpack sprayer – broadcast application is not proposed. Additional best management practices and project design features would effectively diminish the possibility of off-site transport via runoff and limit herbicides from entering surface waters through overland flow. Project design features related to ground cover requirements and organic matter would support the persistence of microbial activity, which expedites the breakdown of herbicides (see the specialist’s report on soils for details). Therefore, the proposed treatments with chemicals and its metabolites are not expected to accumulate or negatively affect water quality in the project area or downstream.

Table 32. Herbicide characteristics Runoff Chemical Fate in the Environment Potential Adsorbs tightly to soils. Subject to rapid microbial Glyphosate Low degradation. Low drift potential. Weakly bound to soils. Potential for off-site movement Triclopyr Moderate through drift, runoff, and wind erosion.

Water Quality - Sedimentation Under this alternative, impacts from mechanical site preparation and thinning are expected to be limited and confined to ground disturbance areas, and sediment would be expected to be trapped in adjacent vegetated areas before reaching project area streams. Project design features including equipment exclusion zones, slope restrictions and adequate ground cover requirements, would further protect streams from any sedimentation effects. Recent results of best management practice monitoring on the Plumas National Forest demonstrate that these water quality protection measures are effective at preventing erosion and sedimentation (USDA Forest Service 2012). The 2012 report summarized results from 222 best management practice evaluations (skid trails, landings, streamside zone protection, and prescribed burning) completed between 2007 and 2012. Best management practices were rated as effective for 96 percent of these evaluations. For the best management practices rated as ineffective, none of the sites evaluated exhibited significant and long-term impacts to water quality and beneficial uses.

No ignitions would occur within riparian conservation areas, but fire would be allowed to creep into the buffer area. Project design features establish minimum distances for pile burning. No discernible direct and indirect effects to water quality would be expected as live vegetation within the buffer would be left

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 100 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

to function as a sediment filter strip. Additionally, project design features require mulching and revegetation to minimize erosion and reestablish native vegetation if treatment reduces groundcover to less than 75 percent for a contiguous area of greater than 0.25 acre within 50 feet of perennial or seasonal streams.

The proposed thinning and site preparation would remove competing vegetation, enhancing planted and natural seedling survival, and shrub/tree growth. The gradual transition to a forested landscape would result in beneficial indirect effects to multiple watershed processes including flow regulation, enhanced infiltration and a balanced sediment delivery.

Due to increased road activity, short-term effects can be expected from roads within 300 feet of streams. These may include increased turbidity and suspended sediment. Sedimentation may impact the immediate footprint of the road/stream crossing location and a short distance of channel downstream of the site, with effects diminishing further downstream. Most project-related sediment would likely mobilize during the initial high flow event the following rainy season. The magnitude and extent of the effects would be lessened by the implementation of best management practices and project design features including limiting activity during wet weather, riparian conservation area equipment constraints, and drainage requirements. In addition not all of the transportation actions would be done in one year as project implementation is expected to occur over a period of 10 years. As a result, detrimental effects to water quality would not be expected.

Table 33 provides information of proposed transportation management actions within riparian conservation areas. Some roads proposed for decommissioning or obliteration would first be used as haul routes, and then decommissioned after hauling activities were completed. Short term effects can be expected due to the ground disturbing nature of road maintenance, building temporary roads and landings, fire control lines, as well as road decommissioning and landing closure. These action would have limited short term impacts to water quality given the best management practice and project design feature requirements to subsoil all landings, all temporary roads, and main skids. Fire line construction would be in accordance with all equipment restrictions and ground cover requirements. Landing location would follow standard management practices and design features requiring them to be outside of riparian conservation areas, unless approved by earth scientist and sale administrator. As a result, long term effects are not expected. Decommissioning and closure measures would in turn provide beneficial improvements. Decommissioning of roads, including new temporary roads, and obliteration of non-system roads would eliminate these areas as sediment sources, restore soil infiltration and productivity. Both decommissioning and obliteration would eliminate road traffic which would reduce runoff and sediment delivery.

Table 33. Proposed road improvements and decommissioning within riparian conservation areas Miles of proposed activity within Total miles of Transportation Management Activities riparian conservation area proposed activity Non-system road obliteration 9.2 14 Proposed temporary roads 2.1 7 System road decommissioning 22.5 40 System road improvements for water quality 24.3 55 System trail decommissioning 0.1 0.1 System trail improvements for water quality 10.1 29 Haul route maintenance 67.2 124 Haul route reconstruction 11.8 36

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 101 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Some roads would receive both system road or trail improvements for water quality and improvements for use as a haul road. Roads would be maintained or improved for water quality purposes prior to use for timber hauling. After timber hauling they would be returned to their improved condition. Road improvements may include out-sloping road segments, constructing low-water crossings (rocked stream fords for vehicles), and replacing culverts. These improvements will, in turn, provide long-term beneficial outcomes including reducing road-generated sediment impacts to streams, and lowering the potential for drainage structure failure. Temporary roads will be needed for access but will be decommissioned after project implementation. All best management practices and design criteria apply to temporary road building.

Table 34 provides information on all stream crossings with proposed culvert removal, maintenance or improvements. Table 35 shows the number of stream crossings removed only as a result of system road decommissioning, but additional benefits to water quality would come from non-system road culvert removal and improvements.

Table 34. Proposed stream crossing management actions Transportation Management Activities Number Stream Crossing Non-System Road Obliteration 57 System Road Decommissioning 143 System Road Improvements For Water Quality 162 System Trail Improvements For Water Quality 79 Haul Route Maintenance 588 Temporary Roads 27

Table 35. Resource indicators and measures for alternative B direct and indirect effects Resource Resource Measure No Action Alternative B Element Indicator Low/Moderate; buffers are Herbicide runoff Water quality Polluted runoff None anticipated to potential sufficiently protect water quality Number of Sedimentation 1645 1502 stream crossings Roads in riparian Roads conservation 256 miles 234 miles areas (miles)

Cumulative effects Cumulative effects for water resources are assessed using the Forest Service, Region 5 model for cumulative off-site watershed effects analysis (USDA Forest Service 1988). Under this approach, the effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable land management activities are evaluated on the basis of equivalent roaded area. The equivalent roaded area is a watershed disturbance index model developed by the Forest Service to assess cumulative watershed effects. In the equivalent roaded area model, the percent equivalent roaded area in a sub-drainage is used as an index of watershed disturbance and the risk

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 102 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

of impacts to watershed function. Each acre of activity is multiplied by a coefficient to express its level of disturbance to watershed function.

The equivalent roaded area analysis is conducted at the sub-watershed scale (see project file). This scale provides consideration for possible downstream accumulation of effects from multiple sources. Given the temporal limitations related to the half-life of herbicides, examining treatment on an annual basis is an adequate temporal bound for cumulative effects. For sedimentation, the established timeframe for evaluating cumulative watershed effects on the Plumas National Forest is 30 years. The scope continues to approximately five years after project implementation and the amount of time estimated for sediment related effects from this project to be no longer perceptible.

Disturbance activities represented in the equivalent roaded area analysis included roads and OHV trails; past, present, and foreseeable vegetation management and logging activity, grazing; and land development. All known disturbances that occurred within the past 30 years and all reasonably foreseeable disturbances are included in the equivalent roaded area analysis. These activities are summarized in appendix E of the EA.

Thirty sub-watersheds (HUC14) were delineated for the equivalent roaded area analysis. 22 of these 30 sub-watersheds contain proposed treatments. The model results (presented in full in the hydrology report) show a slight increase in the percent threshold of concern for some sub-drainages in the project area, reflecting the implementation of the proposed treatments. Even with these increases none of the sub- watersheds would exceed the threshold of concern range, therefore the risk of any effects to beneficial uses is low and overall watershed condition would not be affected by the implementation of this alternative.

Water Quality – Herbicides Weed control efforts on national forest system lands within the analysis area have been conducted on an annual basis since 2002. Past treatments included manual treatments as well as approximately 2,100 acres treated with herbicide between 2000 and 2005. The total acreage treated each year was less than five percent of the total present due to a lack of funding and completed environmental analysis for herbicide treatment. On some of the industrial private timber lands in the center of the Moonlight Fire area, post- fire salvage and reforestation occurred immediately following the fire. In 2007 and 2008 industrial land was clear cut using cable and ground based logging. Private operators then aerially applied pre-emergent herbicide across the area. Finally, the area was planted. Reasonably foreseeable actions include starting in 2017 the proposed Wildcat Fuels Reduction and Vegetation Management project which includes the use of herbicides on invasive plants. Also starting in 2017, the proposed Moonlight Invasive Plant Treatment project includes integrated pest management of invasive plants, with up to 250 acres per year of herbicide application.

This project requires best management practices and design features that limit herbicide runoff and therefore herbicides are not expected to accumulate or negatively affect water quality in the project area watersheds.

Water Quality - Sedimentation Direct and indirect effects from proposed vegetation treatments are minimal and short in duration, and therefore long term cumulative effects are not expected. Additionally the equivalent roaded area analysis showed that the proposed management intensity, when accumulated with past, ongoing and future activities, would not result in cumulative watershed disturbance or impacts to watershed function. Implementing best management practices and project design features such as streamside equipment

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 103 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

exclusion zones would effectively protect streams from excessive project generated sediment, assuring that direct and indirect effects of the project do not adversely affect beneficial uses of water.

Water Quality - Transportation Cumulative effects from transportation management activities would not be expected. Sediment delivery from roads is currently within the range of natural variability. A short-term increase in sediment is expected as restoration efforts take place on chronic drain points causing impacts to streams. The stabilization and recovery of these areas would result in long-term improvement to water quality. Similarly, reconstruction and maintenance should improve water management and drainage on existing roads over the long term, providing a beneficial effect from the proposed actions. The equivalent roaded area analysis showed that the proposed transportation actions, when accumulated with past, ongoing and future activities, would not result in cumulative watershed disturbance or impacts to beneficial uses of water designated by the State of California.

Alternative C – California spotted owl interim recommendations

Direct and Indirect Effects

Water Quality - Herbicides The proposed herbicide treatment would be the same as alternative B. Please refer to alternative B for an evaluation of herbicide effects to water quality.

Water Quality - Sedimentation Alternative C would hand thin 734 acres that are proposed for mechanical thinning under alternative B. Hand thinning methods are inherently less disturbing when compared to mechanical methods, therefore, alternative C may result in reduced sediment delivery. However, while sediment delivery may be reduced at the site level under this alternative, the overall treatment footprint would be the same as alternative B.

The proposed transportation management actions would be nearly the same as alternative B. There would be some minor reductions related to haul route maintenance and reconstruction and temporary road construction – at this time we estimate 14 fewer miles of haul road and one mile fewer miles of temporary road. These reductions would result in less disturbance but also less improvement and maintenance to the haul routes. Short-term effects would be reduced but over the long term not all roads in need of maintenance would be treated. Refer to alternative B for an evaluation of transportation activities effects to water quality and changes to miles of roads in riparian conservation areas.

Table 36. Resource indicators and measures for alternative C direct and indirect effects Resource Element Resource Indicator Measure Alternative C Low to moderate; buffers are Water quality Polluted runoff Herbicide runoff potential expected to sufficiently protect water quality Sedimentation Number of stream crossings 1502 Roads in riparian Roads 234 miles conservation areas (miles)

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 104 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Cumulative effects The cumulative effects are similar to alternative B, as the footprint on the land would be same for both alternatives.

Alternative D – No herbicide use

Direct and Indirect Effects

Water Quality - Herbicides Herbicide treatment would not occur, thus eliminating the possibility of any water quality contamination from herbicide runoff.

Water Quality - Sedimentation The proposed vegetation and transportation management would be the same as alternative B. Please refer to alternative B for an evaluation of thinning, site preparation, prescribed burning, and transportation management activities effects to water quality.

Table 37. Resource indicators and measures for alternative D direct and indirect effects Resource Element Resource Indicator Measure Alternative D Water quality Polluted runoff Herbicide runoff potential None Sedimentation Number of stream crossings 1502 Roads Roads in riparian conservation areas (miles) 234 miles

Cumulative Effects The cumulative effects are similar to alternative B, as the footprint on the land would be same for both action alternatives. The difference is that there would be no risk of herbicide accumulation in water bodies.

Summary and Conclusion A need was identified for this project to decommission unneeded National Forest System roads, to obliterate non-system roads, and to maintain system roads to reduce road-related soil erosion and associated sedimentation rates and improve transportation infrastructure and decommission unneeded infrastructure. Each of the action alternatives meets the purpose and need of this project by reducing miles of road within the riparian conservation areas from 256 miles to 234 miles. In addition, multiple transportation actions would occur outside riparian conservation areas and would help stabilize overall sediment production at the watershed scale. Results show that all action alternatives would equally satisfy the purpose and need to restore watershed health.

The design of this project is such that minimal effects to hydrology resources would be expected from alternatives B, C and D as discussed above. From a watershed and hydrology perspective, the no herbicide treatment element is the main difference between the action alternatives. The no herbicide alternative D would have the same level of effects as the footprint is the same and the differences in planting arrangements would not result in discernable differences in hydrologic impacts.

Possible effects to water quality and riparian areas depend upon the extent and intensity of the treatments particularly those involving ground disturbances. Potential effects on water quality and cumulative

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 105 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

watershed effects may include increases in sediment delivered to streams and herbicide contamination to water bodies. Some of the riparian areas may be lightly burned, but the effect should not be significant. Although a short-term degradation could occur, reintroduction of fire into this landscape and movement toward a more natural fire regime would have a long-term benefit. Design features and best management practices all contribute to the prevention of sediment and herbicide delivery to streams and impacts to riparian areas. The amount of actual sediment delivery is expected to be negligible. Herbicide runoff to streams or water bodies is not expected due to prevention measures from best management practices and project design features which would minimize accidental contamination. Therefore streams, water bodies and riparian area are expected to experience minimal, short-term and negligible effects.

The project is compliant with the Clean Water Act, the Forest Plan, and Forest Service policy for use of Best Management Practices. Non-Native Invasive Plants A Noxious Weed Risk Assessment (risk assessment) has been prepared to evaluate the effects of the Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project on noxious weeds listed by the California Department of Food and Agriculture and other invasive non-native plant species. This risk assessment documents potential effects from this project on invasive plant infestations.

Because invasive plants are easily transported by vectors including animals and vehicle traffic, the area of analysis for this noxious weed risk assessment includes the project area and surrounding land up to 1 mile outside the project boundary. Access routes to the project area were also considered in analyzing the risk of invasive plant infestation.

Affected Environment Over the last several years, field surveys have been conducted on approximately 69,251 acres within the botany analysis area. As standard protocol, Forest Service staff survey for and document rare plants and invasive plant infestations when they are found. The most recent and extensive surveys were completed in 2015 and 2016, for the Moonlight area restoration and range projects. Of the 11 invasive plants present in the botany analysis area, 8 are located near (within 100 feet) proposed treatment or transportation system activities.

The currently known infestations within 100 feet of proposed treatment or activities include the following:

• barbed goatgrass (Aegilops triuncialis) – 2 infestations • yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis) – 35 infestations • spotted knapweed (Centaurea stoebe) – 11 infestations • Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense) – 587 infestations • Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius) – 5 infestations • common St. Johnswort (Hypericum perforatum) – 1 infestation • dyer’s woad (Isatis tinctoria) – 2 infestations • medusahead (Taeniatherum caput-medusae) – 20 infestations Due to the numerous invasive plant infestations present, the risk for this factor for spread of noxious weeds is moderate to high.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 106 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Alternative A – No action Invasive plant infestations are currently increasing in size in the project area. Currently project area uses such as existing roads and vehicle use, firewood gathering, and recreational activities including, camping, hiking, and hunting; and ongoing land management activities such as watershed restoration, timber harvest, and road maintenance may further spread invasive plants. Roads provide favorable conditions and make invasion more likely by stressing or removing native species and allowing easier movement by animal or mechanical vectors.

Alternatives B, C and D

Direct and Indirect Effects Increased vehicle and equipment movements associated with the proposed actions may spread or introduce invasive plants. Weed seeds may be transported into the area on any vehicle or equipment that has not been cleaned. The proposed activities involve considerable vehicle and equipment movement, and present a high risk of spreading invasive plants.

The proposed activities would increase the amount of disturbance to soils and vegetation, creating favorable conditions for the introduction and spread of noxious weeds. Due to the considerable changes to vegetation and soils, the proposed activities present a high risk of promoting noxious weeds.

The potential to spread invasive plants would be reduced through implementation of standard management requirements and site-specific design features. These measures would require equipment cleaning and use of weed free materials. It also includes design features for pre-treatment of known infestations, where feasible. An integrated weed management strategy would be employed, using a combination of mechanical, cultural, and chemical control methods in accordance with current invasive species management programs of the District (approved under separate decisions).

Cumulative effects Several other management activities with risks of spreading or affecting noxious weeds are expected to occur in the future, including:

• Antelope Lake Fuels Reduction Project may disturb numerous Canada thistle infestations, but no other invasive plant species are known in that project area. • Moonlight Invasive Plant Treatment Project proposes control treatments at known infestations and establishes a prioritization and treatment protocol that would allow for adaptive management of known infestations and evaluation of expanding and newly arising invasive plant occurrences for treatment. It would also allow treatment of currently unidentified invasive plant infestations as they are discovered. No more than 250 acres would be chemically treated each year. Invasive plants proposed for treatment include jointed goatgrass, spotted knapweed, yellow starthistle, Canada thistle, Scotch broom, dyer’s woad, and medusahead. The results of these treatments should reduce infestation sizes, with eventual eradication possible for some. Canada thistle is unlikely to be eradicated, but infestations could be reduced. • Moonlight Range Project (Antelope, Antelope Lake, Lights Creek, and Lone Rock Allotments and meadow restoration actions) may disturb numerous Canada thistle infestation and a roadside yellow star-thistle site. Due to the allotment-wide ground disturbances associated with livestock grazing, this activity carries a high risk of further infestations by invasive plants. • Wildcat Fuels Reduction and Vegetation Management project was analyzed for noxious weeds, and is now being implemented. There are 125 known locations of three invasive plants (Canada thistle,

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 107 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

jointed goatgrass, and medusahead). Proposed invasive plant treatments, including herbicide and follow-up manual removal, are expected to eliminate or greatly reduce infestations of Canada thistle, jointed goatgrass, and medusahead within the Wildcat Project area. Although the proposed herbicide treatments reduce the risk of spread of invasive plants, the overall risk is expected to remain high due to the abundance of vectors and propagule sources outside the project area. • Moonlight Aquatic Organism Passage – The botany analysis for the Moonlight Aquatic Organism Passage Project found that Canada thistle is present, and prevention measures are included as design features to minimize its further spread. • Moonlight Off-Channel Water Sources – The botany analysis for the Moonlight Off-Channel Water Sources Project found that Canada thistle and yellow starthistle are present nearby, and prevention measures are included as design features to minimize further spread of these infestations. Road maintenance and repair activities in the botany analysis area are also likely to contribute to increased risks of spreading noxious weeds, with Canada thistle, yellow starthistle, spotted knapweed, common St. Johnswort, medusahead, and dyer’s woad reported along the established road system.

Though many projects are anticipated to spread invasive plants, the proposed Moonlight Invasive Plant Treatment Project proposes control treatments at known infestations and establishes a prioritization and treatment protocol that would allow for adaptive management of known infestations and evaluation of expanding and newly arising invasive plant occurrences for treatment. If implemented this is expected to reduce infestation sizes, with eventual eradication possible for some. Canada thistle is not likely to be eradicated, but infestations could be reduced.

Still, because of the continued vehicle traffic and other activities going on in this area, there is a high risk of invasive plant spread from non-project dependent factors. Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Plants Analysis for affects to sensitive plant species will focus on compliance with relevant law and policy and on the issue of herbicide use and the potential effect on non-target plant species. The analysis will focus on presence of threatened, endangered and sensitive plants the effect of the proposed activities on these species. Analysis is based on field surveys which were conducted over the last several years.

This biological evaluation reviews the proposed action and alternatives in sufficient detail to determine the level of effect that would occur to Region 5 sensitive plant species. One of three possible determinations is chosen based on the available literature, a thorough analysis of the potential effects of the project, and the professional judgment of the botanist who completed the evaluation. The three possible determinations (from FSM 2672.42) are:

• No impact • May affect individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability in the planning area • May affect individuals, and is likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability for the species in the planning area Determination categories are not required for watch list species, but effects are described and similar conclusions are made without using the specific determination language reserved for threatened, endangered and sensitive plants.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 108 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

The botany analysis area, the geographic boundary for analyzing effects to botanical resources, is the area within 1 mile of proposed activities. This area was chosen to include all rare plants and noxious weeds that are known to occur within project treatment units, occur along access routes, as well as have habitat and a “source” (potential for seed dispersal) population within close proximity to proposed activities. Those species located within this geographic area were considered to have the highest potential to be affected by the proposed project. Conversely, species outside of the analysis area (that is, those species that only are considered to have “potential” to occur) were not considered to have a high likelihood of being affected by the proposed project either directly, indirectly, or cumulatively and therefore were not analyzed. Other actions occurring outside this boundary would not contribute to cumulative effects.

Short-term effects to plants would occur within 1 year after project implementation, because it is within one year (the next growing season) that impacts to plants could first take effect, measurable by a change in numbers of individuals, coverage by the species, plant vigor, pollination, or other community interactions.

Long-term effects were considered for 25-30 years, because climate change, unforeseeable future projects, demographic changes, etc. make assumptions beyond this timeframe too speculative.

Affected Environment Plant communities in the project area consist primarily of Sierra mixed conifer forests, eastside pine and montane chaparral, with smaller components of white fir, Douglas-fir, and montane hardwoods. Within these broader vegetation types there are a number of other, less geographically defined, plant communities that provide important habitat for rare plant species. These include riparian corridors, meadows, springs and rocky areas or rock outcrops. These communities support a wide range of potential habitat for sensitive plant species. Recent botanical surveys have been completed in nearly all areas of proposed activities.

The only federally threatened plant species known to occur on the Plumas National Forest is Packera layneae (Layne’s butterweed). This species grows in open rocky areas on gabbro and serpentine-derived soils that are between 650 and 3,300 feet in elevation. The Plumas National Forest has four occurrences, totaling approximately 12 acres. There is no suitable habitat for this species within or near the Moonlight Fire Restoration project area. Two additional species of federal concern that may have the potential to occur on the Plumas National Forest are the federally threatened Orcuttia tenuis (slender Orcutt grass) and Ivesia webberi (Webber's ivesia). Orcuttia tenuis is limited to relatively deep vernal pools with clay soil. Ivesia webberi is found in open areas of sandy volcanic ash to gravelly soils in sagebrush and eastside pine. Based on field surveys, no suitable habitat for these two species occurs within the project area.

There are four sensitive plant species with occurrences documented within 1 mile of proposed project activities: Pulsifer’s milkvetch (Astragalus pulsiferae var. pulsiferae), adobe parsley (Lomatium roseanum), Follett’s monardella (Monardella follettii), and Susanville beardtongue (Penstemon sudans). All other sensitive plant species are not likely to be affected because all or most potential habitats have been surveyed and the species have not been found in the botany analysis area.

Alternative A – No Action If the proposed actions are not taken, no threatened, endangered or sensitive plants would be affected, including the four species present in the botany analysis area. With no direct or indirect effects expected, there would be no cumulative effects to consider.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 109 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Alternative A would have no impact on any threatened, endangered or sensitive plant species because no actions would occur.

Alternative B – Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Effects Direct effects occur when plants are physically impacted by management activities. Proposed activities may affect rare plants by physical damage from equipment, tree felling, or trampling by project personnel. Indirect effects are those that are separated from an action in either time or space. Habitat components including soils, shading, and species composition of the plant and pollinator community may directly and indirectly be altered by the proposed actions. These effects can be beneficial or detrimental to rare plants, and may include increased soil erosion, increased light reaching the ground, introduction or promotion of conditions favorable for non-native invasive plants, effects to pollinator species, or other changes to rare plant habitats. The project carries a risk of spreading or introducing noxious weeds; however, the risk is significantly reduced by implementing the project design features for the preventing and controlling these invasive species. Noxious weeds are not expected to increase in areas more than 100 feet from disturbed treatment areas or roads and trails due to this project.

Most sensitive plant occurrences are well distanced from proposed activities and would not be directly or indirectly affected. However, one occurrence each of Pulsifer’s milkvetch, adobe parsley, and Susanville beardtongue could be damaged by the proposed activities. Site-specific design features for their protection have been developed to protect these occurrences. Table 38 lists the species level determinations for these species.

Table 38. Threatened, endangered and sensitive plant indicators and measures for alternative B Acres within 100 Number of sites Species feet of proposed within 100 feet of Determination activities proposed activities With the identified avoidance measure Astragalus pulsiferae ssp. implemented, the proposed action may pulsiferae 0.02 1 affect individuals but is not likely to Pulsifer’s milkvetch lead to a loss of viability or trend toward federal listing. With the identified avoidance measure implemented, the proposed action may Lomatium roseanum 0.4 1 affect individuals but is not likely to adobe parsley lead to a loss of viability or trend toward federal listing. Although one occurrence exists in the botany analysis area, it is over 1,000 feet from proposed activities and would not be directly affected by the proposed actions. Monardella follettii With noxious weed prevention, 0 0 Follett’s monardella monitoring, and control measures required, the proposed activities would be highly unlikely to affect the occurrence. The proposed activities are expected to have no impact to Follett’s monardella. With the identified avoidance measure implemented, the proposed action may Penstemon sudans 0.3 1 affect individuals but is not likely to Susanville beardtongue lead to a loss of viability or trend toward federal listing.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 110 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Pulsifer’s milkvetch There are three occurrences of Pulsifer’s milkvetch within the botany analysis area, totaling under one tenth acre, one of which is beside a (non-system) road that is proposed for obliteration. Although this perennial plant species recruits new individuals after disturbance, it is unknown to what extent these activities cause adverse effects to established plants or habitats. While these plants have been located in old road beds, they are more often found scattered across lightly vegetated side slopes. Road obliteration activities could damage or kill plants from the ground disturbance of re-contouring actions. A design feature would protect this occurrence from such direct effects, but indirect effects are still possible, mainly the increased recruitment of new Pulsifer’s milkvetch plants and increased risk of non-native invasive plants in disturbed areas. Although the known on-road individuals would be protected, the U3030 road obliteration could provide suitable disturbance for new individuals to become established. Weed prevention measures described in the Noxious Weed Risk Assessment are expected to reduce the risk of weed spread due to project activities. No other known Pulsifer’s milkvetch occurrences would be affected by any other proposed actions, but some areas of suitable habitat could be affected by this and other road and trail activities.

Adobe parsley In this project area, adobe parsley is documented for 2 miles along the ridge separating the Lassen and Plumas National Forests. For this project, the only area of concern is along the northernmost section of trail #12M29, where approximately 100 feet of the end of the route falls within the occurrence. The last 0.15 miles of the trail is proposed for decommissioning due to wetland impacts, but the closure would also benefit the adobe parsley occurrence which is located at the very end of the trail and extends along the ridge in both directions. Decommissioning trail #12M29 would reduce the risk of off-highway vehicle (OHV) impacts to the occurrence. However, adobe parsley individuals could be damaged if ground disturbing activities are implemented in the occurrence area (approximately the last 30 feet of the trail, as mapped). Ground disturbing activities are not expected to be required along the last 30 feet of the trail to implement the trail decommissioning, but if they are required, a design feature would protect adobe parsley. This site constitutes only a small portion of the extensive adobe parsley occurrence. Loss of a few individuals that might be trying to become established in the OHV trail would not cause a downward trend. No other known adobe parsley occurrences would be affected by any other proposed actions. Indirect effects from noxious weed spread are also possible, but would be minimized by prevention/control measures.

Follett’s monardella One occurrence is in the botany analysis area, over 1,000 feet from the nearest proposed activity which would be system trail improvements along trail #10M37. Additional habitat areas were not encountered during surveys. Due to the distance from proposed activities, no direct effects would occur to these sites, and indirect effects are unlikely from noxious weed spread.

Susanville beardtongue Only one occurrence is within 100 feet of the proposed mechanical thinning activities. No protection measures are needed for this situation. A nearby sub-occurrence is mapped across road 28N08, which is proposed for improvements for water quality. Some road improvement activities, specifically those with ground disturbance outside the existing road prism, could damage or kill Susanville beardtongue individuals and reduce the sustainability of the sub-occurrence. The occurrence would be protected from direct damage by implementing design features. If individual plants have colonized portions of the existing road bed, they could be damaged by vehicle use and maintenance activities, but loss of these individuals would not cause a downward trend for the sub-occurrence, or species. Indirect effects from noxious weed spread are also possible, but would be minimized by prevention and control measures.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 111 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Cumulative effects The additive effects of past actions (such as off-highway vehicle use, wildfires, wildfire suppression, timber harvest, mining, nonnative plant introductions and livestock grazing) have shaped the present landscape and corresponding populations of rare plants. However, data describing the past distribution and abundance of rare plant species is extremely limited, making it impossible to quantify the effects of historic activities on the resources and conditions that are present today. Undoubtedly, some plant species have always been rare due to particular ecological requirements or geographic isolation. It is also likely that past actions have caused some species to become rarer and encouraged others to become more common. Rare plant surveys did not begin until the early 1980s on the Plumas National Forest. In many cases, even when project-level surveys were conducted, there is very little documentation that describes whether past projects avoided or protected rare plant species during project implementation. In addition to these unknowns, changes have been made to the Regional Forester’s Sensitive species list. Therefore, in order to incorporate the contribution of past activities into the cumulative effects, this analysis uses the current abundance and distribution of rare plant species as a baseline for the existing condition shaped by the impacts of past actions.

Past, present and future activities have and will continue to alter rare plant populations and their habitats to various degrees. These management activities include grazing, timber harvest, wildfire, fire suppression, prescribed fire, mining, recreational use, road construction and maintenance. However, the approach taken in this analysis is that, if direct and indirect adverse effects on rare plant species in the analysis area are minimal or would not occur, then they would not contribute substantially to cumulative effects on the species. In addition, the effects of future projects would likely be minimal or similar to those described in this analysis if existing management guidelines (such as field surveys, protection of known rare species locations and noxious weed mitigations) remain in place. Past, present and future foreseeable actions considered for this project are listed in appendix D of the Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment and are discussed specifically below in relation to rare plants and the proposed action.

The list of reasonably foreseeable future actions (appendix E) was reviewed for possible interaction of effects to the rare plants present in the current botany analysis area. For sensitive plant species, when the effects of these past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions are combined with the effects predicted for the current proposed action, the total would still be minor and insignificant, with the possibility of some individuals being impacted, but no downward trends expected for any occurrences.

Alternative C – Spotted Owl Interim Recommendations Alternative

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects The areas of potential conflict with sensitive plants would be the same as those described for alternative B. Treatment types at these locations would also be the same as alternative B, as would the effects, indicators, and design features.

Alternative D – No herbicide Alternative

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects The areas of potential conflict with sensitive plants would be the same as those described for alternative B. Compared with alternative B, ground disturbance would be greater with alternative D in those areas where herbicide use is replaced with machine based release treatments. However, after project surveys no sensitive plant occurrences are known to exist in or near these treatment areas, so they would not be

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 112 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

affected in either alternative. The effects, indicators, and design features would be the same as alternative B.

Summary and Conclusion The activities and locations of concern for sensitive plants are the same for all action alternatives.

Pulsifer’s milkvetch, adobe parsley, and Susanville beardtongue may be affected by the proposed activities. They are documented at one location each where transportation system activities are proposed. The action alternatives include specific “flag and avoid” design features to prevent or minimize adverse impacts to the occurrences. It is possible that some individuals have colonized areas that would be affected by road maintenance, and these individuals may be damaged or killed. In addition, minor amounts of soil and habitat disturbance from transportation system activities could alter rare plant habitats. The project also carries a risk of spreading or introducing noxious weeds; however, the risk would be significantly reduced by implementing the project design features for the prevention and control of these invasive species. Increases in noxious weeds due to this project are not expected to occur in areas more than 100 feet from disturbed treatment areas or roads and trails.

Follett’s monardella is documented at one location in the project area, and it is over 1,000 feet from the nearest activity (trail system improvements along trail #10M37). Due to this distance, no effects to Follett’s monardella plants or habitats are expected.

Because they are not known or suspected to occur in the botany analysis area, no other threatened, endangered, or sensitive plant species would be affected by the proposed actions.

Because the needs of threatened, endangered, sensitive and other rare plants have been evaluated and protection measures established, the Moonlight Range Project complies with the forest plan as amended, the Endangered Species Act, and all applicable Executive Orders and Forest Service Manual direction. The project is also compliant with the Federal Noxious Weed Act, Executive Order 13112, Forest Service Manual 2900, and forest plan guidance concerning noxious weeds. Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Terrestrial Wildlife The Biological Assessment/Biological Evaluation for Terrestrial Wildlife and the Management Indicator Species Report are summarized in this section. The purpose of the biological assessment and biological evaluation is to assess the effects of the project on five categories of sensitive species. This includes federally threatened, endangered, proposed, and candidate species, as well as Forest Service sensitive species. Species federally listed as endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are species currently in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of their range. Species listed as threatened are likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of their range. A proposed species is any species that is proposed in the Federal Register to be listed as a threatened or endangered species under the Endangered Species Act (50 CFR 402.03). A candidate species is a species for which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has on file enough information to warrant or propose listing as endangered or threatened. Forest Service sensitive species are designated by the Regional Forester and are species that have known or suspected viability problems due to (1) significant current or predicted downward trends in population numbers or density, and/or (2) significant current or predicted downward trends in habitat quantity or quality for these species. The Forest Service considers the long-term conservation needs of sensitive species in order to avoid future population declines and the need for federal listing. The analysis also evaluates potential project effects on Region 5 Forest Service management indicator species.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 113 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Affected Environment The biological assessment considered all of the threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate or sensitive species that could potentially occur within the Moonlight Fire Restoration Project Area. Those species whose habitat would be either directly or indirectly affected by the project were considered for detailed analysis. All others were excluded from detailed analysis. The species listed in table 39 were identified as potentially affected and were evaluated in detail.

Table 39. Terrestrial threatened, endangered, and sensitive species that potentially occur within the Moonlight Fire Restoration project area Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Species Species Status Habitat or Ecosystem Component (Scientific Name) Access to Flowering Plants and Western bumble bee Forest Service Sensitive Species (Bombus occidentalis) Abandoned Rodent Burrows Forest Service Sensitive Species; State Bald eagle Large trees adjacent to riverine and Endangered; U.S. Fish and Wildlife lacustrine (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) Service Bird of Conservation Concern Forest Service Sensitive Species, Management Indicator Species; State California spotted owl Late Seral Closed Canopy species of special concern; U.S. Fish and Coniferous Forest (Strix occidentalis occidentalis) Wildlife Service Bird of Conservation Concern Late Seral Closed Canopy Great gray owl Forest Service Sensitive Species; State Coniferous Forest adjacent to wet (Strix nebulosa) Endangered meadows Northern goshawk Forest Service Sensitive Species; State Late Seral Closed Canopy (Accipiter gentilis) species of special concern Coniferous Forest Late Seral Closed Canopy American marten Forest Service Sensitive Species (Martes americana) Coniferous Forest Federally candidate species; Forest Fisher Late Seral Closed Canopy Service Sensitive Species; State species Coniferous Forest (Pekania pennanti) of special concern Pallid bat Forest Service Sensitive Species; State Open, Dry Habitats with Rocky Area (Antrozous pallidus) species of special concern Townsend’s big-eared bat Forest Service Sensitive Species; State Mesic Habitats (Corynorhinus townsendii) species of special concern Hardwood-conifer Open Canopy Fringed myotis Forest Service Sensitive Species (Myotis thysanodes) Forest

Western bumble bee Historically, Bombus occidentalis (Western bumble bee) was one of the most broadly distributed bumble bee species in North America, distributed along the Pacific Coast and westward from Alaska to the Colorado Rocky Mountains (Thorp and Shepard 2005, Cameron et al. 2011, Koch et al. 2012). B. occidentalis currently occurs in California and all adjacent states, but is experiencing severe declines in distribution and abundance due to a variety of factors including diseases and loss of genetic diversity (Tommasi et al. 2004, Cameron et al. 2011, Koch et al. 2012). Populations and their habitats are threatened by diverse factors, including but not limited to habitat loss and fragmentation, contaminants, parasites, and habitat alteration resulting from fire suppression. Habitat alteration (e.g., agricultural and urban development) may fragment or reduce the availability of flowers that produce nectar and pollen bumble bees require, and habitat alteration also may decrease the number of abandoned rodent burrows that provide nest and hibernation sites for queens. Invasive species also are impacting B. occidentalis, as

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 114 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

bumble bees introduced from Europe for commercial pollination apparently carried a microsporidian parasite, Nosema bombi, which has been introduced into and impacted native bumble bee populations (Cameron et al. 2011). Exposure to organophosphate, carbamate, pyrethroid and particularly neonicotinoid insecticides has recently been identified as a major contributor to the decline of many pollinating bees, including honey bees and bumble bees (Henry et al. 2012, Hopwood et al. 2012). Further, fire suppression in many systems has permitted native conifers to encroach upon meadows, which decreases foraging and nesting habitat.

Based on past survey information B. occidentalis is documented within the project area.

Bald Eagle The bald eagle was federally listed as a threatened species but has subsequently been removed from the list (August 8, 2007; Federal Register Vol.72, No. 130/Monday, July 9, 2007/Rules & Regulations), and is currently managed as a USDA Forest Service sensitive species. Bald eagles are considered a permanent resident in Plumas County. There are generally two bald eagle habitat management zones (primary and secondary) associated with each eagle nesting territory on the Plumas National Forest (Forest Plan Prescription 11). Primary zones are delineated to protect known eagle nesting habitat, whereas secondary zones are established to protect possible future nest locations, as well as roosting and perching habitat (detailed descriptions of bald eagle management zones on Mt. Hough Ranger District are provided in the 2006 Antelope Lake Bald Eagle Management Plan).

There are five nest sites located around Antelope Lake within the analysis area. None of these sites were within the Moonlight fire perimeter and therefore, they were not affected by the fire. Eagles have been seen annually around the lake.

California spotted owl The California spotted owl is currently managed as a USDA Forest Service sensitive species. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has received two petitions (on December 22, 2014 and August 19, 2015) to list the California spotted owl as endangered or threatened. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is currently reviewing the status of this species to determine if protection under the Endangered Species Act is warranted.

Old-growth, coniferous and mixed pine-oak forests utilized by California spotted owls have been severely affected by direct loss and fragmentation of habitat from intensive logging, and altered fire regimes. Fire suppression during the first part of the 20th century probably has had both positive and negative effects on California spotted owls, but historical timber-harvesting practices, especially clear-cutting, have had well-documented negative impacts on this species.

The following California wildlife habitat relationship (habitat or habitat relationship) types in the analysis area provide high quality nesting habitat: Sierran mixed conifer, white fir, and ponderosa pine (5D, 5M). These habitat types have the highest probability of providing stand structure associated with preferred nesting, roosting and foraging. High canopy cover (greater than 70 percent) and large trees are the most important factors for spotted owl nesting and roosting habitat (Bias and Gutierrez 1992, Moen and Gutierrez 1997, Blakesley et al. 2005, Tempel et al. 2014). Data analyzed from 124 nest sites within the Sierra indicated that nest trees averaged 45 inches dbh, and more than 70 percent of all nest trees surveyed were larger than 30 inches dbh (Verner et al. 1992). Suitable foraging habitat is found in the same forest types listed above for nesting habitat. Stands considered to be suitable for foraging have at least two canopy layers, dominant and co-dominant trees in the canopy averaging at least 12 inches in dbh, at least 40 percent canopy closure, and higher than average levels of snags and downed woody material.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 115 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

California spotted owls are managed through the establishment of protected activity centers and home range core areas. Protected activity centers are 300 acres of the best available habitat surrounding each territorial activity center on National Forest System lands. The total acres designated in a protected activity center and home range core area on the Plumas National Forest are 1,000 acres in size, comprised of the 300-acre protected activity center and 700 acres of the best available habitat around or adjacent to the protected activity center (USDA Forest Service 2001b; USDA Forest Service 2004).

The project area encompasses 15 California spotted owl protected activity centers and their associated home range core areas. Project specific protocol level spotted owl surveys (3 visits to each station for each of two years) were completed within the analysis area (2015-2016). In 2015, 20 spotted owl detection points were recorded for at least 5 individuals (3 female, 2 male) in 4 areas: Upper Lights Creek/Fleming Sheep Camp, Moonlight Valley, Red Rock, and Wheeler Sheep Camp. No reproduction was confirmed for any of the owls in 2015. In 2016, 10 spotted owl detection points were recorded for at least 5 individuals (3 female and 2 male) in 3 areas: Upper Lights Creek/Fleming Sheep Camp, Moonlight Valley, and Wheeler Sheep Camp. Reproduction was confirmed in the Upper Lights Creek/Fleming Sheep Camp territory in 2016 with 1 juvenile detected.

Great gray owl The great gray owl is a rare breeding bird in the United States south of Canada, and only isolated populations are known to occur in the lower 48 states, mainly west of the Rocky Mountains. Virtually all great gray owl records in California are of birds found in or near montane meadows. Meadows appear to be their preferred foraging habitat in California because their preferred prey inhabit grass-forb habitats, which do not grow under the dense canopies of the Sierran forests (Winter 1986). There are no known great gray owl territories within the Moonlight Fire Restoration project area. Two observations have been recorded within the project area in the last ten years.

Northern goshawk Northern goshawks require mature conifer and deciduous forest with large trees, snags, downed logs and dense canopy cover for nesting, and appears to prefer more open habitats for foraging (forests with moderately open overstory, open understory interspersed with meadows, brush patches, other natural or artificial openings and riparian areas). Recent studies indicate that goshawks typically select for canopy cover levels greater than 60 percent for nesting (Hall 1984, Richter and Calls 1996, Keane 1997).

The Forest began delineating goshawk territories prior to implementation of the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment, and currently designates 200-acre protected activity centers for all newly discovered goshawk breeding sites (USDA Forest Service 2004). The current number of goshawk protected activity centers (176) on the Forest exceeds the minimum objectives in the Forest Plan by more than double, and the predicted capacity of nesting territories (100) by 76. Thus, current density of goshawk territories on the Forest is appears adequate to maintain goshawk population viability.

Approximately 58,467 acres (49 percent) of the analysis area may be considered suitable goshawk habitat. There are seven northern goshawk protected activity centers within the analysis area. Surveys were conducted in 2015 and 2016 in the project area. These surveys showed a total of 38 detections. Goshawks detected were all in or immediately adjacent to existing goshawk protected activity centers.

The Moonlight Fire eliminated 6 goshawk protected activity centers, this fire in combination with other smaller fires such as Boulder and Stream wildfires have impacted the habitat and altered the capability of the Moonlight Fire Restoration project area and surrounding landscapes to support northern goshawks.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 116 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Mesocarnivores (American marten and fisher) Approximately 65 percent of the Plumas National Forest has been systematically surveyed for mesocarnivores using track plates and camera stations (American Marten, Fisher, Lynx and Wolverine: Survey Methods for Their Detection; Zielinski and Kucera 1995).

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has designated the fisher as a candidate species (Federal Register April 8, 2004 Volume 69, #68), but found that listing under the Endangered Species Act is currently precluded by other, higher priority listing actions. Since 1990 there have been no detections or confirmed sightings of fisher within a 240 mile gap of the Sierra Nevada. The Moonlight Fire Restoration Project is located within this "gap". We have failed to detect fisher in the analysis area despite extensive efforts to locate them. Currently, the analysis area does not appear to provide habitat needed to sustain resident fisher populations. To date, there have been no verified fisher observations on the Plumas National Forest, but reintroduction efforts on adjacent private lands have used radio transmitters to track individuals making forays onto the forest.

All confirmed sightings (photograph, tracks, hair sample, sighting by reputable biologist) of American marten on Plumas National Forest occur within three areas; the Lakes Basin-Haskell Peak area, Eureka Ridge area, or around Little Grass Valley Reservoir. All three of these areas are over 25 miles away from project area on the southern boundary of the forest. Remote camera surveys for Forest carnivores were conducted in 2015-2017 within the Moonlight Fire Area, but no Forest sensitive species were detected. No marten were detected in the 2015-2016 surveys within the project area

These species prefer forests with a higher than average canopy cover and large trees. Snags and down logs also are important habitat elements for forest carnivores and their prey. Large (over 15 inches dbh) snags and logs provide more habitats per piece and are retained in the environment for longer periods of time (Ruggiero et al. 1998). Open roads and improperly closed roads adversely affect mesocarnivores. There may be a threshold value for road density (miles of open road per square mile) above which the habitat cannot sustain certain wildlife species but studies specifically addressing these effects on marten or fisher have not yet been conducted (USDA Forest Service 2001). Early habitat models (Freel 1991) indicated that to provide high habitat capability for marten, open road densities should be less than 1mile per square mile, while 1-2 miles per square mile provided moderate habitat capability; more than 2 miles was providing low to no habitat capability. Models indicate that open road densities should be less for fisher. The current road density within the analysis area is approximately 2.1 miles of open road per square mile.

Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii), pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), fringed myotis (Myotis thysanodes) Throughout California, Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) populations have declined over the last 40 to 60 years (USDA Forest Service 2001). C. townsendii forages in a variety of habitats (riparian areas, old forests, mixed hardwood-conifer forest) feeding primarily on the wing for flying insects (specializing in moths) or by gleaning from foliage. C. townsendii appears to prefer mesic habitats, and often forage along habitat edges (Philpott 1997, Pierson and Rainey 1998, Pierson et al. 1999).

There is no indication that there has been a change in the distribution of the pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus, USDA Forest Service 2001). There is concern for the pallid bat because it is very sensitive to disturbance. A. pallidus occur in a wide variety of habitats, including grasslands, shrublands, and woodlands to mixed conifer forests (USDA Forest Service 2001).

Within California, it appears there have been declines in numbers and colonies of M. thysanodes (Keinath 2004; USDA Forest Service 2005). No major threats have been identified throughout the species' range.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 117 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

This species prefers habitat with a greater number of snags that are larger than 12 inches in diameter and lower canopy cover.

No project specific surveys for bats have occurred within the analysis area. However, based on other surveys and observations on the Forest, the availability of suitable habitat in the project area, and the species’ apparently wide distribution on Plumas National Forest, it is assumed that the three sensitive bat species are well distributed in the analysis area.

Management Indicator Species Management indicator species are animal species identified in the Sierra Nevada Forests Management Indicator Species Amendment Record of Decision (ROD) signed December 14, 2007, which was developed under the 1982 National Forest System Land and Resource Management Planning Rule (1982 Planning Rule) (36 CFR 219). Guidance regarding management indicator species set forth in the Plumas National Forest’s Land and Resource Management Plan (forest plan as amended) as amended by the 2007 Sierra Nevada Forests Management Indicator Species Amendment ROD directs Forest Service resource managers to (1) at project scale, analyze the effects of proposed projects on the habitat of each management indicator species affected by such projects, and (2) at the bioregional scale, monitor populations and/or habitat trends of management indicator species, as identified in the Plumas forest plan as amended.

Table 40. Selection of management indicator species for the Moonlight Fire Restoration project Sierra Nevada Forests Habitat or Ecosystem California Wildlife Habitat Relationships Type(s) Management Indicator Component defining the habitat or ecosystem component2, 3 Species Scientific Name Shrubland (west-slope montane chaparral (MCP), mixed chaparral (MCH), fox sparrow chaparral types) chamise-redshank chaparral (CRC) Passerella iliaca Oak-associated Hardwood & montane hardwood (MHW), montane hardwood- mule deer Hardwood/conifer conifer (MHC) Odocoileus hemionus ponderosa pine (PPN), Sierran mixed conifer (SMC), Mountain quail Early Seral Coniferous Forest white fir (WFR), red fir (RFR), eastside pine (EPN), Oreortyx pictus tree sizes 1, 2, and 3, all canopy closures ponderosa pine (PPN), Sierran mixed conifer (SMC), Mountain quail Mid Seral Coniferous Forest white fir (WFR), red fir (RFR), eastside pine (EPN), Oreortyx pictus tree size 4, all canopy closures ponderosa pine (PPN), Sierran mixed conifer (SMC), Late Seral Open Canopy Sooty (blue) grouse white fir (WFR), red fir (RFR), eastside pine (EPN), Dendragapus obscurus Coniferous Forest tree size 5, canopy closures S and P California spotted owl Strix occidentalis occidentalis

ponderosa pine (PPN), Sierran mixed conifer (SMC), 1 Late Seral Closed Canopy Pacific marten white fir (WFR), red fir (RFR), tree size 5 (canopy Martes caurina Coniferous Forest closures M and D), and tree size 6. northern flying squirrel Glaucomys sabrinus hairy woodpecker Snags in Green Forest Medium and large snags in green forest Picoides villosus Medium and large snags in burned forest (stand- black-backed woodpecker Snags in Burned Forest replacing fire) Picoides arcticus 1 - Pacific marten (Martes caurina) was formerly known as American marten (Martes americana) 2 – Tree size classes: 1 (seedling)(under 1 inch dbh); 2 (sapling)(1 to 5.9 inches dbh); 3 (pole)(6 to 10.9 inches dbh); 4 (small tree)(11 to 23.9 inches dbh); 5 (medium to large tree)(over 24 inches dbh); and 6 (multi-layered tree) 3 - Canopy closure classifications: S=Sparse Cover (10-24 percent canopy closure); P= Open cover (25 to 39 percent canopy closure); M= Moderate cover (40 to 59 percent canopy closure); D= Dense cover (60 to 100 percent canopy closure);

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 118 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Table 40 lists the habitats and ecosystem components and associated terrestrial wildlife species selected for project-level management indicator species analysis. Species not listed in the table are those for which the project would not change their habitat.

Alternative A – No action There would be no direct effects under this alternative on any wildlife species because none of the proposed activities would occur. The indirect effects of no action would include an increased risk for future wildfire and related impacts on habitat development and recovery. The fuel loads would incrementally increase over time and potential wildfires in the area would continue to become more difficult to suppress. The model projections did not account for future snag recruitment thereby didn’t account for future down log recruitment. Due to natural processes future down log recruitment would increase as snags begin to fall within the project area.

Western bumble bee There would be no direct effects on B. occidentalis or its habitat, as no activities would occur that would cause disturbance to nesting or foraging bees, nor any impacts to the existing habitat conditions. However, no action would result in further encroachment of conifers on the meadow and further densification of the forest, resulting in loss of suitable foraging habitat through shading out of flowering plant species. See cumulative effects common to wildlife species section above. No additional cumulative effects would occur. Alternative A, would have no impact on western bumblebee and is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability.

Bald Eagle There would be no direct effects on bald eagle or its habitat, as no activities would occur that would cause disturbance to nesting or foraging eagles, nor any impacts to the existing habitat conditions. Therefore, there would be no cumulative effects. Alternative A, would have no impact on bald eagle and is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability.

California spotted owl There would be no direct effects of the no-action alternative on the spotted owl because none of the proposed activities would occur. The indirect effects of no action would include an increased risk for future wildfire and related impacts on habitat development and recovery. The fuel loads that would be left by this alternative would incrementally increase over time and potential wildfires in the area would continue to become more difficult to suppress.

Stand-replacing wildfires in the future would likely eliminate spotted owl habitat from the analysis area in the long term. Rates of spread would increase incrementally as fuel conditions worsen over time. There is some evidence that spotted owls benefit from fire and choose to forage in burned areas. However, spotted owls do not select moderate- or high-intensity burn areas for nesting or roosting (Bond et al. 2009), and recent studies with GPS-marked owls have shown spotted owls avoiding high-severity burn areas (Jones et al. 2016), indicating that while low- and moderate-severity burns can be beneficial, high-severity fire may negatively impact spotted owls. As demonstrated by the loss of 17 out of 18 spotted owl protected activity centers within the 2007 Moonlight Fire footprint (NRIS database query, performed 2016), the effects of high-severity fire are likely only beneficial when in proximity to larger areas of unburned or low- to moderate-severity burned areas. Thus, under this alternative, suitable habitat for productive owl sites as a result of fire could become more fragmented or completely eliminated over time, and the abundance of owls in the wildlife analysis area could decline.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 119 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Remaining conifer forest stands adjacent to the fire area are vulnerable to future high-severity fire events. Dailey et al. (2008) found that 56 percent of protected activity center acres in adjacent unburned watersheds would likely burn at high severity. High density stands of small- and intermediate-sized trees combined with a heavy buildup of surface fuel are highly vulnerable to high-severity, stand-replacing fire events within the protected activity centers.

The no-action alternative would not affect the California spotted owl. This is based on the fact that there would be no direct or indirect effects to spotted owls or owl habitat. However, the no-action alternative is not without risk as there would be: 1) Long-term incremental increase in fuel loading and associated wildfire hazard would occur in the landscape; 2) existing habitat, protected activity centers and home range core areas remain vulnerable to large scale loss and fragmentation as a result of wildfire.

Great gray owl There would be no effects on great gray owl or its habitat. No activities would occur that would impact existing habitat conditions. See cumulative effects common to wildlife species section above. Alternative A would have no impact on great gray owl and is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability because there would be no disturbance to species or suitable habitat.

Northern goshawk There would be no direct effects of the no-action alternative on the goshawk because none of the proposed activities would occur. The indirect effects of no action would include an incremental increase in the risk for future wildfire and related impacts on habitat development and recovery. The fuel loads that would be left by this alternative would incrementally increase over time and potential wildfires in the area would continue to become more difficult to suppress. Stand replacing wildfires in the future would likely eliminate nearly 50 percent of the existing habitat from the analysis area in the long-term. Increased rates of spread would result incrementally as fuel conditions worsen over time. Thus, under alternative A, suitable habitat for productive goshawk sites as a result of fire could become more fragmented over time, and the abundance of goshawks in the wildlife analysis area could decline. Alternative A would have no impact on northern goshawk and is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability because there would be no disturbance to species or suitable habitat.

Mesocarnivores (American martin and fisher) There would be no direct effects to marten, fisher or other mesocarnivore species of concern in the project area. The species are not known to occur. No activities would occur that would cause disturbance to suitable habitat, nor any impacts to the existing habitat conditions. Alternative A, would have no impact on marten or fisher and is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability.

Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii), pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), fringed myotis (Myotis thysanodes) There would be no direct effects on Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii), pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), fringed myotis (Myotis thysanodes) or their habitat, as no activities would occur that would cause disturbance to roosting or foraging bats, nor any impacts to the existing habitat conditions. Alternative A, would have no impact on these species and is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability.

Management Indicator Species No change to current stats and trends for management indicator species because no activities would occur.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 120 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Alternative B – Proposed action

Direct and Indirect Effects Common to All Species All proposed treatments could result in disturbance from human presence and noise. The duration of disturbance, caused by the presence of people and machinery, may cause disturbance to wildlife accustomed to lower levels of activity. Mechanized equipment may generate noise sufficient to disturb nesting wildlife and could cause nest site abandonment if conducted without restrictions. Therefore, standard management requirements include limited operating periods when disturbance to wildlife is identified as a concern. Direct disturbance, including mortality to individual animals addressed in this report is unlikely, due to survey efforts for selected species, incorporation of limited operating periods where appropriate, and implementation of Forest standards and guidelines. If presently unknown wildlife are discovered prior to or during implementation, and species identified warrants a limited operating period, protections would be implemented.

Approximately 1,624 acres would have herbicide treatment applied. Only herbicide formulations (products) that have been registered with the EPA for rangeland, forest land, or aquatic use would be applied, such as the two herbicides that would be used for this project (Triclopyr and Glyphosate). The herbicide label is a legally binding document that provides specific direction on how and where to use an herbicide. All herbicides would be used only as directed on the herbicide label. The Forest Service has completed human health and ecological risk assessments (http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/pesticide/risk.shtml) that evaluate the risk of specific herbicides to humans and other species in the environment. The primary herbicides proposed for use within this project area are Triclopyr and Glyphosate.

• Triclopyr: Triclopyr is a selective herb that mimics the effects of plant hormones and based on current data is slightly to practically non-toxic to birds, low in toxicity when digested by mammals, and practically non-toxic to bees (National Pesticide Information Center 2002). • Glyphosate: The current risk assessment for glyphosate generally supports the conclusions reached by U.S. EPA. Based on the current data, it has been determined that effects to birds, mammals, and invertebrates are minimal. At the typical application rate of 2 pounds per acre, none of the hazard quotients for acute or chronic scenarios reach a level of concern even at the upper ranges of exposure for terrestrial organisms. • Borax: (Sporax or similar product) would be applied to all cut stumps greater than 14 inches in diameter to minimize the susceptibility to Heterobasidion root disease. In the most recent risk assessment for Borax (Syracuse Environmental Research Associates 2006) Boron, the agent of toxicological concern in Borax, was further evaluated. The focus of the evaluation was wildlife’s direct consumption from the stump and ingestion of contaminated water. The assessment concluded that the use of Borax on stumps does not present a significant risk to wildlife species under most conditions of normal use, even under the highest application rates. No adverse effects to terrestrial wildlife species are anticipated due to the use of Borax. Direct effects from herbicide treatments occur when animals are physically impacted or disturbed. Examples include crushing by vehicles or equipment, trampling, or disturbance to nesting or denning wildlife. These actions can result in death or reduced nesting success. Standard management practices and project design features, for example, following herbicide application label directions and avoidance of periods of time when pollinators might be active, would protect wildlife species from potential negative impacts from associated impacts during herbicide treatments. Project design features would reduce risk of adverse effects to terrestrial wildlife because they minimize or eliminate disturbance and herbicide exposure scenarios of concern.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 121 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Cumulative Effects Common to All Species The existing condition reflects the changes of all activities that have occurred in the past. The analysis of cumulative effects evaluates the impact on sensitive species from the existing condition within the analysis area. The list of past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions in appendix C were considered for each species in the species-specific discussions below. Overall, for all species, cumulative effects could occur with the incremental loss of the quantity and/or quality of habitat. Overall, increases in recreational use of national forest system lands, and the utilization of natural resources on state, private and federal lands may contribute to habitat loss.

Past harvest activities reduced large dominant and codominant overstory trees; allowed for retention and ingrowth of smaller diameter trees; and shifted species composition from shade-intolerant pine dominated stands to shade-tolerant, white fir dominated stands. In addition, a near absence of landscape level, low- intensity surface fires contributed to increased stand densities in smaller diameter classes making these areas more susceptible to density-dependent mortality, driven by drought and insect and disease infestations. The Moonlight landscape was affected by widespread drought which resulted in extensive tree mortality. Much of this material has become dead and down fuel, further contributing to surface fuel loads and stand replacing fire risk in remaining mid- to late-seral forests. These habitat shifts could affect species as snags and down logs would continue to be removed, resulting in the cumulative loss of these habitat components across the landscape. Loss of these habitat features may indirectly impact wildlife species. Uncontrolled public use, especially during the breeding season, also may cause disturbance to species nesting and denning nearby. However, snags are recruited annually from live trees through natural processes at a rate that is expected to sustain this loss within the analysis area. The past and future effect of these actions would be to maintain similar forest structure, with some loss of snags and natural recruitment.

The Moonlight Fire area is popular for small scale miners. Small scale mining operations would cause noise disturbance and habitat degradation on a small scale.

Invasive plant species are increasing throughout the landscape, with primary sites located along Forest roads or trails. Weed control efforts have included manual treatments as well as herbicide treatments. Although treatments have been limited in scope, they have been successful in eradicating a few small populations and reducing the size or preventing the spread of several others. Eradicating invasive plant species benefits all wildlife species habitats as invasive plant species can degrade suitable habitat by competing directly with native species for moisture, sunlight, nutrients, and space and decreasing overall plant diversity. The use of herbicides for proposed Moonlight Invasive Plant Treatment Project, which overlaps the project area, and the ongoing Wildcat Project, which lies adjacent to this project area, helps to keep the spread of invasive plants under control.

Recreation has been and continues to be very common in the Moonlight area; activities include camping, driving, hiking, horseback riding, mountain biking, off-highway vehicle riding, boating, swimming, fishing, snowmobiling, cross country skiing, hunting, firewood cutting, Christmas tree harvest, and rock hounding. The duration of disturbance caused by the presence of people and machinery, may cause disturbance to wildlife accustomed to lower levels of activity.

Species-specific Discussions and Determinations

Western bumble bee Flowering plant species (nectar sources) known to be used by western bumble bee occur throughout the analysis area. Ground disturbing activities associated with the Moonlight Fire Restoration project likely would reduce foraging opportunities for western bumble bee in the project footprint (treatment units).

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 122 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Ground disturbing activities also may destroy suitable nesting and overwintering sites for western bumble bee within treatment units. However, these effects would be short term as flowering plants would sprout and regenerate post-project. The opening up of the forest canopy, combined with the effects of prescribed fire, is expected to enhance flowering plant density, and therefore increase the ability of the landscape to support western bumblebee. Throughout the project, both spatially and temporally, there would be habitat refugia for western bumble bee via untreated areas and equipment exclusion zones, we expect suitable nesting and overwintering sites to persist throughout the length of the project.

Mechanical equipment used during project activities could potentially destroy nesting habitat in the short term if rodent burrows and the like exist near or on roads to be obliterated or adjacent to roads undergoing maintenance activities. A limited amount of habitat would be destroyed if temporary roads are constructed through suitable habitat.

Under reforestation activities, a standard management requirement for bumblebee protection would avoid spraying any plant while it is in bloom or during the middle of the day when pollinators are the most active.

Herbicide methods, restrictions and limited operating periods would be incorporated into treatments to avoid any adverse effects of this species. Alternative B may impact individual western bumblebee, but are not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability.

Bald Eagle The only treatment potentially affecting bald eagles is mechanical thinning. Potential direct effects on the bald eagle may result from the modification or loss of habitat or habitat components, and rarely from direct mortality if nest trees are felled. The proposed action would not cut or remove nest trees. Three nest sites are within mechanical thinning treatment areas. A limited operating period would be implemented within ¼ mile of known active nest sites from November 1 – August 31. No treatments in the Moonlight Fire Restoration project would affect prey availability for bald eagles.

High severity wildfire have potentially harmful effects to bald eagle habitat due to reduction in existing large tree component and loss of future replacement trees that would serve as nesting and perching structures. Treatments would help reduce fuel load around the Antelope Lake area.

Alternative B may impact individual bald eagle, but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability.

California spotted owl Spotted owl activity could be affected by disturbance associated with the proposed treatment operations. Limited operating period buffers would be required when treatments occur within ¼ mile of active nest sites as human presence and disturbance can cause nest abandonment early in the nesting season. The limited operating period would apply between March 1 and August 15.

Reforestation, release, and precommercial thinning – Limited direct impacts of grapple piling, herbicide use and precommercial thinning would be expected due to the general lack of suitable habitat provided by small diameter trees. Some noise disturbance associated with human presence and chainsaw use would occur, but this would be limited to 1,469 acres of hand thinning occurring in suitable spotted owl habitat. Treatments would occur on approximately 88 suitable acres. No suitable habitat would be reduced to unsuitable. Hand thinning would contribute to lowered fire risk in both the short and long term.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 123 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

There is some minimal potential for prey species of owls to come into contact with herbicides. It is unlikely for any individual owls to consume sufficient quantities of contaminated prey. However, there is a low likelihood that herbicide treatment could reduce prey abundance by reducing foraging habitat. Herbicide treatment may affect up to 4,063 acres (32 percent) of acreage in the analysis area. The long- term benefits to the vegetation community are expected to increase prey availability which would benefit owls. The herbicide Triclopyr shows low toxicity when ingested by mammals and is slightly to practically non-toxic to birds. For small mammals studies shows that it doesn’t cause skin irritation in rabbits however it does cause skin sensitization in guinea pigs. The herbicide glyphosate is low in toxicity to wildlife.

There would be no direct effects to owls or habitat through direct or select application of herbicide spray because no habitat elements would be removed or modified. There could be indirect impacts to owl through herbicide treatments through disturbance associated with human presence during spray operations. Spraying with backpacks does not have as great a potential to disturb owls as other activities such as timber harvest due to the lack of loud noise and lack of tree felling. However, limited operating period buffers would be required when spraying within 0.25 mile of active nest sites because human presence can still cause nest abandonment early in the nesting season. Due to the limited disturbance potential of spraying with backpack sprayers, the limited operating period would apply from March 1 to August 15. No suitable habitat would be reduced to unsuitable.

Mechanical thinning, precommercial thinning, and wildlife habitat improvement – Potential direct effects on spotted owl may result from the modification or loss of habitat or habitat components, and rarely from direct mortality if nest trees are felled. There should be limited direct impacts from hand thinning due to the general lack of suitable habitat provided by small diameter trees. Disturbance associated with logging, temporary road construction, or other associated activities within or adjacent to occupied habitat may disrupt nesting, fledging, and foraging activities. The proposed action would not cut or remove nest trees. Limited operating periods would be implemented within 0.25 mile of an active nest from March 1 to August 15. No heavy equipment operations or tree felling would be allowed during the limited operating period. The limited operating periods are expected to mitigate effects from increased human activity and equipment noise.

Research has shown that activities that reduced canopy cover to a lower canopy classification can have negative effects on spotted owl reproduction, and recommend that fuel treatments focus on ladder fuels and reduction in tree density while maintaining relatively high canopy cover (Tempel et al. 2014). There is no proposed mechanical treatment within the spotted owl protected activity centers and consequently there would be no change to suitable habitat within protected activity centers; the only treatments proposed in spotted owl protected activity centers are hand thinning treatments designed to reduce fuel accumulations without reducing canopy cover.

Proposed treatments would occur within 7 spotted owl protected activity centers over approximately 3,892 acres. Treatments within protected activity centers would be limited to hand thinning. Following 2004 Sierra Nevada Framework Record of Decision standards and guidelines, no suitable acres would be reduced to unsuitable by any treatments. Disturbance associated with logging, temporary road construction, or other associated activities within or adjacent to occupied habitat may disrupt nesting, fledging, and foraging activities. However, implementation of appropriate limited operating periods around spotted owl activity centers would partially ameliorate any potentially disturbing effects associated with project activities. The long-term effects would be beneficial to individuals and their habitat by preventing stand-replacing wildfire and helping maintain habitat conditions on the landscape.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 124 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Table 41 lists spotted owl habitat types across the project area based on the California wildlife relationship tree size and canopy cover as follows:

4 = Small Tree 11 - 24 inches dbh, 5 = Medium/Large Tree over 24 inches dbh, 6 = Multi-layered Tree.

D = Dense Canopy Cover (over 60 percent), M = Moderate Canopy Cover (40 - 59 percent).

Table 41. Suitable spotted owl habitat types within the project area California Wildlife Habitat Total treated acres Habitat Type Project area acres Relationship Type under alternative B 5M, 5D Nesting 6,668 983 (15 percent) 4M, 4D Foraging 22,113 3,034 (14 percent) Total 28,781 4,017 (14 percent)

Under this alternative, 923 acres of mechanical thinning would be allowed in spotted owl home range core areas. In home range core areas, prescriptions would be written to meet the desired conditions outlined in the 2004 Sierra Nevada Framework Record of Decision (page 40), where these conditions exist. This includes: (1) at least two tree canopy layers; (2) at least 24 inches dbh in dominant and codominant trees; (3) a number of very large (greater than 45 inches dbh) old trees; (4) at least 50 to 70 percent canopy cover; and (5) higher than average levels of snags and down woody material.

Where these conditions do not exist currently, home range core area prescriptions would maintain a minimum of 40 percent canopy cover (as a stand average) as well as maintain critical overstory trees, snags and large downed logs. Mechanical thinning could result in short-term adverse effects to spotted owls and suitable habitat, as it would result in a loss of understory complexity and a minimal and short- term reduction in canopy closure in the 11 to 23.9 inches dbh range, but increases in the over 24 inches dbh range. Past research conducted on the Mt. Hough Ranger District has shown spotted owls avoid mechanically treated areas and such treatments resulted in increased home range size and decreased population size within four years of treatment (Stephens et al. 2014). However, this study did not include variable density thinning which would provide more landscape complexity. Mechanical treatments that produce complex forest structure and composition closer to patterns generated under a more active fire regime, may have less of a negative impact on spotted owl habitat than traditional thinning practices (North et al. 2009, Stephens et al. 2014).

Table 42 shows the current condition of canopy cover and snags within the project area per treatment method. Table 42 reflects the percentages for all alternatives because there is no change on canopy cover between the alternatives. Table 43 shows down wood in tons per acre within treatment areas.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 125 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Table 42. Forest Vegetation Simulator model run for canopy cover and snags per acre under all alternatives for mechanical thinning, precommercial thinning, and wildlife habitat thinning prescriptions within the project area Years Post- Mechanical thinning Precommercial thinning Wildlife habitat Improvement treatment Percent Canopy Cover Percent Canopy Cover Percent Canopy Cover Snags (dbh) Snags (dbh) Snags (dbh) (dbh) (dbh) (dbh) 11-23.9 over 24 over 24 over 30 11-23.9 over 24 over 24 over 30 11-23.9 over 24 over 24 over 30

inches inches inches inches inches inches inches inches inches inches inches inches 0 24 14 2 1 20 1 0 0 24 16 2 1 1 24 15 2 1 23 1 0 0 24 16 2 1 2 22 15 2 1 21 1 0 0 24 16 3 1 3 23 15 2 1 22 1 0 0 23 15 3 1 4 20 15 2 1 21 1 0 0 20 15 3 1 5 20 15 2 1 24 1 0 0 21 15 3 1 6 21 16 2 1 26 1 0 0 21 16 3 1 7 21 16 2 1 27 1 0 0 21 16 3 1 8 21 17 2 1 28 1 0 0 22 17 3 1 9 22 17 2 1 31 1 0 0 24 17 3 1

Table 43. Down wood in tons per acre within treatment areas Mechanical thinning Precommercial thinning Wildlife habitat Improvement Years modeled Tons per acre of down Tons per acre of down Tons per acre of down Tons per acre of down Tons per acre of down Tons per acre of down post-treatment logs 6-12 inches dbh logs 12 inches dbh logs 6-12 inches dbh logs over 12 inches dbh logs 6-12 inches dbh logs over 12 inches dbh 0 5 0 2 1 3 2 1 5 0 2 1 3 2 2 5 0 2 1 1 1 3 3 0 1 1 1 1 4 3 0 1 1 2 1 5 4 1 1 1 2 1 6 4 1 2 1 2 1 7 4 1 2 1 3 2 8 4 1 2 1 3 2 9 4 1 2 1 3 2

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 126 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

The long-term effects of the proposed action would be beneficial to individuals and their habitat because preventing stand-replacing wildfire would help to maintain suitable spotted owl habitat on the landscape. Thus, effects to spotted owls and their habitat in the short term would be outweighed by the long-term benefits of reduced potential for stand-replacing high severity fire.

Table 44 shows treatment acreages in spotted owl habitat for alternatives B and D.

Table 44. Treatments in California spotted owl suitable habitat per alternatives B and D Alternatives B and D Treatments – Suitable acres Fence 6 Grapple pile, pile burn, underburn, reforestation, herbicide 7* Hand thin up to 6 inches, pile burn, underburn 1,410 Hand thin, grapple pile, pile burn, underburn 153 Hand thin, pile burn, underburn 448 Mechanical thin, grapple pile, pile burn, underburn 1,739 Mechanical thin, grapple pile, pile burn, underburn, fence 1 Mechanical thin, hand thin, grapple pile, pile burn, underburn, 103 Precommercial mechanical thin, grapple pile, pile burn, underburn 25 Total 3,892 *Alternative D would not have herbicide use on 7 acres

Hazardous fuel reduction and aspen restoration – Limited direct impacts of hand thinning would be expected due to the general lack of suitable habitat provided by small diameter trees. Some noise disturbance associated with human presence and chainsaw use would occur, and may disrupt nesting, fledging, and foraging activities, but this would be limited to 1,995 acres of hand thinning occurring in suitable spotted owl habitat. No suitable habitat would be reduced to unsuitable. Under this alternative, mechanical thinning for aspen restoration would occur outside of protected activity centers and home range core areas. Some short-term noise and habitat disturbance would be expected due to human presence and mechanical equipment. Implementation of limited operating periods within 0.25 mile of spotted owl activity centers and active nests would partially ameliorate any potentially disturbing effects associated with project activities. Because treatments overlap with a moderate percent (29 percent) of spotted owl protected activity centers in the analysis area, all area within spotted owl protected activity centers would be subject to the limited operating period. Limited operating periods can be lifted by the district wildlife biologist if birds are absent or not nesting.

Canopy cover would not be reduced below 40 percent. These acres would remain suitable foraging habitat but may not support important characteristics for nesting and roosting, specifically canopy cover. Large diameter trees used for roosting and nesting would not be removed. Canopy cover was the most important predictor of owl occupancy among 275 territories routinely used (occupied during at least 3 out of 19 years) at four study sites in the Sierra Nevada (Tempel et al. 2016).

Disturbance due to smoke, and noise related to activities such as line construction adjacent to occupied habitat may disrupt nesting, fledging, and foraging activities. Implementing seasonal limited operating

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 127 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

periods around spotted owl activity centers would partially ameliorate any potentially disturbing effects associated with underburning activities. Prescribed burns would consume logs and snags on 1,031 acres within the analysis area that provide potentially suitable habitat. However, these same acres would likely recruit both snags and downed logs through the prescribed burning process so both the short- and long- term effects would be negligible.

Recent research suggests that spotted owls are not adversely affected by low- to moderate-severity fire (Roberts et al. 2011, Lee et al. 2005), and would select burned areas of all severities over unburned areas for foraging, and would select low-intensity burned areas for roosting (Bond et al. 2009). Prescribed burning would contribute to lower fire risk in both the short- and long-term, and may be beneficial in creating desirable habitat conditions for spotted owl prey species.

Temporary roads – There is a total of 1.92 miles of temporary roads that would intersect suitable habitat in three home range core areas. The most extensive being 1.62 miles in one home range core area. These road mileage estimates are based on GIS data and would be field verified. These roads would cause disturbance to any owls that are in the area at the time of operations as well as disturbance to any prey species and temporary disruption and fragmentation of foraging habitat. Temporary roads would only be on the landscape as long as the project is active. After the project is done the roads would be obliterated and returned to native condition. Road reconstruction and maintenance would also occur under this project but not within home range core area suitable habitat.

Cumulative effects The Moonlight Fire which burned the habitat connection to the west and eliminated 17 spotted owl protected activity centers and the Wheeler Fire, which burned the habitat connection to the southwest and eliminated 6 spotted owl protected activity centers has drastically altered the capability of the Moonlight Fire Restoration project area to support a population of spotted owls. If a wildfire were to burn the spotted owl protected activity centers in the Moonlight Fire Restoration project area, this area may not support spotted owls for 100-150 years, if ever.

Most of the recreation use within the wildlife analysis area consists of dispersed camping, hiking, horseback riding, hunting, mining, mountain biking, OHV use, pleasure driving, and wildlife watching. Such use is expected to continue at the current rate. These activities would have no effect on late seral habitat in the analysis area.

Thinning treatments would have an overall indirect negative impact to the suitability of spotted owl habitat. However, the short- and long-term benefits of fuel reduction are anticipated to outweigh the short- term negative impacts of forest thinning.

There is some minimal potential for prey species of owl to come into contact with herbicides. In addition to the proposed action, herbicides are also in use or proposed for use in and adjacent to the project area for invasive plant treatment (Moonlight Invasive Plant Treatment Project and Wildcat Project). It is unlikely for any individual owls to consume sufficient quantities of contaminated prey. However, there is a low likelihood that herbicide treatment could reduce prey abundance by reducing foraging habitat. Herbicide treatment may affect up to 4,063 acres (32 percent) of acreage in the analysis area. The long-

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 128 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

term benefits to the vegetation community are expected to increase prey availability which would benefit owls. The toxicity for birds is classified as slightly to practically non-toxic.

Determination It is our determination that the proposed action may affect individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability for the California spotted owl. This determination is based on: 1) long-term beneficial effects of fuel reductions in the landscape; 2) implementation of a limited operating period around known nests, 4) no treatment occurring on 86 percent of available spotted owl habitat in the analysis area; 5) less than 11 percent of home range core areas treated with fuel reduction activities; and 6) only 7 protected activity centers being treated.

Great gray owl The only treatment proposed in great gray owl suitable habitat is aspen restoration. Suitable high density fir stands adjacent to meadows, approximately 92 acres (8 percent), would be impacted by aspen restoration treatments. Although there have been two observations recorded, there are no “occupied” habitat sites that occur within the analysis area. Suitable habitat would be modified by the release of aspen within the fir stands next to meadows within the project area but would be spread across the project area and therefore would not have an adverse impact in one area. Alternative B may impact individual great gray owl, but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability.

Northern goshawk

Reforestation and release – Limited direct impacts of hand thinning would be expected due to the general lack of suitable habitat provided by small diameter trees. Some noise disturbance associated with human presence would occur, but this would be limited in duration.

There would be no direct effects to goshawks or habitat through direct or select application of herbicide spray because no habitat elements would be removed or modified. There could be indirect impacts to northern goshawk from herbicide treatments through disturbance associated with human presence during spray operations. Spraying with backpacks does not have as great a potential to disturb goshawks as other activities such as timber harvest due to the lack of loud noise and lack of tree felling. However, limited operating period buffers would be required when spraying within 0.25 mile of active nest sites because human presence can still cause nest abandonment early in the nesting season. Due to the limited disturbance potential of spraying with backpack sprayers, the limited operating period would apply from the beginning of the nest site courtship (February 15) through the end of the nestling period (July 15 fledge date). Invasive plant treatment during the fledgling period (July 15 to September 15) is not expected to cause adverse effects to northern goshawk. If goshawks are within sight or sound of herbicide application sites, application would be delayed until September 15. No suitable habitat would be reduced to unsuitable.

There is some minimal potential for prey species of goshawk to come into contact with herbicides. It is unlikely for any individual goshawk to consume sufficient quantities of contaminated prey. However, there is a low likelihood that herbicide treatment could reduce prey abundance by reducing foraging habitat. Herbicide treatment may affect up to 4,063 acres (32 percent) of acreage in the analysis area. The long-term benefits to the vegetation community are expected to increase prey availability which would benefit goshawk. The toxicity for birds is classified as slightly to practically non-toxic.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 129 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Hazardous fuel reduction – Disturbance due to smoke, and noise related to activities such as line construction adjacent to occupied habitat may disrupt nesting, fledging, and foraging activities.

Prescribed burns would consume logs and snags within the analysis area that provides suitable habitat. However, these same acres would likely recruit both snags and downed logs through the prescribed burning process so both the short- and long-term effects would be negligible. Prescribed burning would not remove any suitable habitat or cause it to become unsuitable for goshawks.

To minimize effects from project activities presence during the breeding season, limited operating periods would be applied within protected activity center boundaries, as well as within 0.25 mile of any nests. Limited operating periods can be lifted by the district wildlife biologist if the site is determined to be unoccupied. Limited operating periods for early spring burning may be lifted with only one visit if no detections are made.

Mechanical thinning – No mechanical thinning would occur within any goshawk protected activity centers. Potential direct effects on northern goshawk may result from the modification or loss of habitat or habitat components, and rarely from direct mortality if nest trees are felled. The proposed action would not cut or remove nest trees.

To mitigate any potential effects to goshawks present in the project area, limited operating periods would be applied within protected activity center boundaries, as well as within 0.25 mile of any nests. Limited operating periods can be lifted by the district wildlife biologist if the site is determined to be unoccupied. Limited operating periods would be implemented to prevent disturbance within ¼ mile of active nest sites from February 15 to September 15. No heavy equipment operations or tree felling would be allowed during the limited operating period as disturbance can cause nest abandonment early in the nesting season. The limited operating periods are expected to eliminate effects from increased human activity and equipment noise. The project area encompasses 7 northern goshawk protected activity centers. Northern goshawk activity could be affected by disturbance associated with the proposed treatment operations.

The Moonlight Fire Restoration project proposes to treat 7,786 acres (13 percent) of suitable goshawk habitat outside of protected activity centers. Mechanical thinning treatments would have a negative impact to the suitability of goshawk nesting habitat. However, the short- and long-term benefits of fuel reductions are anticipated to outweigh the short-term negative impacts of forest thinning. Because goshawks forage in more open areas, thinning activities are not expected to reduce suitability of foraging habitat within the analysis area.

Aspen restoration – Aspen stands are known to be important for northern goshawks, both for foraging and nesting habitat. However, the short-term effect of thinning dense forest conditions would be a decrease in habitat quality until the aspen stands recolonized the restored acreage.

Wildlife habitat improvement – Limited direct impacts of hand thinning would be expected due to the general lack of suitable habitat provided by small diameter trees. Some noise disturbance associated with human presence and chainsaw use would occur, but this would be limited to 409 acres of hand thinning occurring in suitable goshawk habitat. No suitable habitat would be reduced to unsuitable. Hand thinning would contribute to lowered fire risk in both the short and long term.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 130 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Northern goshawks prefer high canopy cover with open understory. Hand thinning would provide considerable benefit to goshawks through removal of small diameter trees that create dense understory conditions, while leaving the overstory unchanged.

Proposed activities could cause short-term displacement as well as disruption of nesting, fledging, and foraging activities due to noise disturbance and increased human presence. To minimize effects from noise disturbance associated with human presence and chainsaw use during the breeding season, limited operating periods would be applied within protected activity center boundaries, as well as within 0.25 mile of any nests. Limited operating periods can be lifted by the district wildlife biologist if the site is determined to be unoccupied.

Table 45. Treatments in goshawk suitable habitat per alternatives B and D Alternatives B and D – Treatments Suitable acres Fence 6 Grapple pile, pile burn, underburn 15 Grapple pile, pile burn, underburn, reforestation, herbicide 199 Hand fall large trees, fence 1 Hand thin up to 6 inches, pile burn, underburn 1,596 Hand thin, grapple pile, pile burn, underburn 377 Hand thin, pile burn, underburn 550 Mechanical thin, grapple pile, pile burn, underburn 3,998 Mechanical thin, grapple pile, pile burn, underburn, fence 4 Mechanical thin, grapple pile, pile burn, underburn, manage and monitor livestock, 12 fence if necessary Mechanical thin, hand thin, grapple pile, pile burn, underburn 332 Mechanical thin, hand thin, grapple pile, pile burn, underburn, manage and monitor 7 livestock, fence Precommercial mechanical thin, grapple pile, pile burn, underburn 689 Total 7,786

Cumulative effects The Moonlight Fire burned to the west of the analysis area and eliminated 6 goshawk protected activity centers. The Wheeler Fire burned habitat to the southwest of the analysis area. These two fires, in combination with other fires such as Boulder, Antelope and Stream wildfires have altered the capability of the Moonlight Fire Restoration project area and surrounding landscapes to support northern goshawks. Good occupied habitat to the north on the Lassen National Forest exists that has not been affected by wildfires.

Uncontrolled public use within the areas used by northern goshawks, especially during the nesting season, could cause disturbance that could disrupt and preclude successful nesting as well as the continued removal of current and future snags.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 131 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Thinning treatments would have an overall indirect negative impact to the suitability of goshawk habitat. However, the short- and long-term benefits of fuel reduction are anticipated to outweigh the short-term negative impacts of forest thinning.

There is some minimal potential for prey species of goshawk to come into contact with herbicides. In addition to the proposed action, herbicides are also in use or proposed for use in and adjacent to the project area for invasive plant treatment (Moonlight Invasive Plant Treatment Project and Wildcat Project). It is unlikely for any individual goshawk to consume sufficient quantities of contaminated prey. However, there is a low likelihood that herbicide treatment could reduce prey abundance by reducing foraging habitat. Herbicide treatment may affect up to 4,063 acres (32 percent) of acreage in the analysis area. The long-term benefits to the vegetation community are expected to increase prey availability which would benefit goshawk. The toxicity for birds is classified as slightly to practically non-toxic.

Determination Alternative B may impact individual northern goshawk, but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability.

Mesocarnivores (American marten and fisher) There is approximately 28,781 acres of suitable habitat within the project area, approximately 2,929 acres (10 percent) would be treated under the action alternatives. See table 46, for a breakdown of treatments and acres. The treatments are widely spread across the landscape and would be spread out temporally over several years. This would minimize the impact on prey and the disturbance impact for any species using this habitat.

Potential direct effects on these carnivores from vegetation management activities consist of modification or loss of habitat or habitat components, especially in regards to denning / resting habitat and foraging / travel habitat.

Although the analysis area provides the components for suitable habitat, it does not appear to provide habitat needed to sustain resident fisher or marten or other mesocarnivore populations and therefore does not currently contribute to these mesocarnivore populations in the Sierra Nevada mountain range. As stated earlier, individual fishers from a reintroduced population have made forays onto the west side of the Plumas, but these individuals have not traveled to the area around the Moonlight Fire Restoration project area. Although a small population of marten exists on the Plumas, located within the Lakes Basin area on the Plumas and Tahoe National Forest border (over 25 miles outside of the project area in the southern part of the forest), no martens have been detected in the analysis area.

Wildfires could result in long-term harmful effects to mesocarnivore habitat due to the reduction in existing large tree component and dense forested stand structure. The project has the potential to reduce the short-term capability of mesocarnivore habitat through forest thinning, snag and large wood impacts. These two activities could theoretically impact the mesocarnivores. However, due to the lack of species presence, the potential effects are so small as to be considered negligible.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 132 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Table 46. Acres of suitable mesocarnivore habitat and proposed treatment units for alternatives Alternative C- Alternatives B and D – Treatment within suitable habitat Suitable Suitable Habitat acres Habitat acres Grapple pile, pile burn, underburn 38.0 38.0 Grapple pile, pile burn, underburn, reforestation 0.1 0.1 Grapple pile, pile burn, underburn, reforestation, herbicide 1,173.9 1,173.9 Hand fall large trees, fence 0.4 0.4 Hand thin up to 6 inches, pile burn, underburn 510.2 689.2 Hand thin, grapple pile, pile burn, underburn 33.8 28.4 Hand thin, pile burn, underburn 181.3 58.0 Mechanical thin, grapple pile, pile burn, underburn 903.3 853.0 Mechanical thin, hand thin, grapple pile, pile burn, underburn, 5.1 5.1 manage and monitor livestock, fence Mechanical thin, grapple pile, pile burn, underburn, manage and 13.0 13.0 monitor livestock, fence if necessary Mechanical thin, hand thin, grapple pile, pile burn, underburn 63.0 63.0 Precommercial mechanical thin, grapple pile, pile burn, underburn 6.6 6.6 Total acres of treatment 2,929.0 2,929.0

Although the Moonlight Fire Restoration project potentially would remove some mesocarnivore habitat components from the landscape (snags and downed logs), loss of these components is temporary, and would predominately occur in areas not suited for mesocarnivores (19 percent of existing suitable habitat occurs in treatment units). Thus, the amount of potential habitat in the analysis area that would not be negatively impacted by Moonlight Fire Restoration activities (81 percent) allows opportunities for future dispersal, foraging and denning within the terrestrial wildlife analysis area if the species were to recolonize. Further, as a result of their linear nature, riparian conservation area equipment exclusion zones also would mediate spatial fragmentation in habitat availability throughout the project area.

Open roads and improperly closed roads adversely affect mesocarnivores by fragmenting suitable habitat and increasing the opportunity for human intrusion and habitat manipulation (e.g., woodcutting). The current road density estimate (2.1 miles of road per square mile) in the analysis area barely exceeds the range (1-2 miles/square mile) of road density estimates that would still provide moderate habitat capability for American Marten (Freel 1991). Models indicate that open road densities should be less for fisher.

The existing condition reflects the changes of all activities that have occurred in the past. The analysis of cumulative effects of the action alternative evaluates the impact on mesocarnivores from the existing condition within the analysis area. See appendix C for a list of past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions considered and cumulative effects. Cumulative effects on mesocarnivores could occur with the incremental loss of the quantity or quality of habitat for these species. Overall, increases in recreational use of Forest Service system lands, and the utilization of natural resources on state, private and federal lands may contribute to habitat loss for these species.

Alternative B may impact individual marten or fisher but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 133 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii), pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), fringed myotis (Myotis thysanodes) Direct effects from the action alternatives are possible if any of these species occur in the project area, and we assume presence for all three bat species (M. thysanodes, C. townsendii, A. pallidus). Destruction of active roosts through felling or removal of trees with hollows could displace or harm individual bats (Hayes and Loeb 2007). Chain saw activity or the use of heavy equipment causing ground vibrations may cause noise and tremor disturbance significant enough to cause temporary or permanent roost abandonment. These effects may be especially detrimental to the population during the breeding season (May 20 to August 15) when the potential exists for disturbance to lactating females and maternity colonies. If any of these sensitive bat species breed in the area, project activities during the breeding season could affect individual bats, including direct mortality. The proposed action may reduce the long- term threat of high severity wildfire, which may prevent the destruction of roosting habitat. However, Buchalski et al. (2013) found no evidence of negative effect of fire on foraging site selection and suggested that bats are resilient to landscape-scale fire and may even benefit from increased post-fire availability of prey and roosts.

Although the Moonlight Fire Restoration project would not physically alter roosting habitat for Townsend’s big-eared bat (caves, mines, abandoned buildings), project activities could disturb or cause abandonment of colonies if present. Its colonial nature places Townsend’s big-eared bat at high risk for a single disturbance event to impact the entire population (e.g., tractor operations). The single most important non-structural requirement for roost sites for this species is absence of human disturbance (USDA Forest Service 2001). The pallid bat also is very sensitive to disturbance; even hiking past a roosting site can cause the bat to abandon the area completely, but unlike Townsend’s big-eared bat, the pallid bat does use live and dead trees for roosting. Thus pallid bat roost sites could potentially be destroyed during the Moonlight Fire Restoration Project, and any roost sites in the areas that are not physically altered could be abandoned as a result of disturbance. The fringed myotis like many bat species, also is very sensitive to disturbance at or modification of roost and the surrounding environment.

Thinning would remove trees and damage shrubs and other vegetation that provides habitat for prey species consumed by bats. The project may cause limited short term negative effects to associated prey species and foraging quality for bat species. The effect is expected to be minor, but unquantifiable. The long term effects of forest thinning would be expected to increase quantity and diversity of understory forb and shrub species and would allow for a concomitant increase in prey species that would improve bat foraging in the project area.

Limited direct impacts of hand thinning would be expected due to the general lack of suitable habitat provided by small diameter trees. Some noise disturbance associated with human presence and chainsaw use would occur, but this would be limited to 7,976 acres (63 percent) of hand thinning in habitat capable of supporting roosting bats. Prey base and related bat foraging effects would be similar to thinning effects.

Prescribed burns would consume logs and snags within the analysis area that provide potential roost sites. However, these same acres would likely recruit both snags and downed logs through the prescribed burning process so both the short- and long-term effects would be negligible. Prescribed fire effects to prey base and related bat foraging effects would be similar to thinning effects.

There would be no direct impacts to bats through reforestation activities. There is some minimal potential for prey species of bats to come into contact with herbicides. It is unlikely for any individual bats to consume sufficient quantities of contaminated prey. However, there is a low likelihood that herbicide treatment could reduce prey abundance by reducing host plant abundance (Hayes and Loeb 2007). Herbicide treatment may affect up to 4,063 acres (32 percent) of acreage in the analysis area. The long

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 134 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

term benefits to the riparian vegetation community are expected to increase prey availability which would benefit bats. No snag or roosting habitats would be impacted by direct spray.

The implementation of management area direction and habitat prescriptions and allocations for various species, including the retention of large trees, retention of hardwoods, snags and large logs and maintaining aquatic/riparian ecosystem processes, would provide many of the habitat attributes necessary to support these sensitive bat species. Potentially suitable habitat likely exists in the project area for all three of these bat species (Townsend’s big-eared bat, pallid bat and fringed myotis).

We assume presence for all three sensitive bat species (Townsend’s big-eared bat, pallid bat and fringed myotis). Cumulative effects on bats could occur with the incremental loss of the quantity and/or quality of habitat for these species. Overall, increases in recreational use of National Forest System lands, and the utilization of natural resources on state, private and federal lands may contribute to habitat loss for these species.

The woodcutting and Christmas tree cutting programs on the Plumas National Forest are ongoing programs that have been in existence for years and are expected to continue. The past and future effect of the woodcutting program has and would be to reduce snags, in all forest types, along roadsides throughout much of the analysis area. If any of these sensitive bat species breed or roost in the project area, snag removal activities could affect individual bats, including direct mortality. However, snag and log removal through the woodcutting program has a limited spatial impact across the Plumas National Forest as woodcutting is only permitted along open roads (within 100 feet). If any of these sensitive bat species breed or roost in the project area, project activities could affect individual bats through disturbance and direct mortality.

With the current Plumas National Forest woodcutting program, the terrestrial wildlife analysis area would be open to public woodcutting 12 months a year, limited only by available access. Uncontrolled public use within the areas used by bats, especially during the breeding season (maternity roosts), could cause disturbance that could disrupt and preclude successful recruitment of young as well as remove roost trees.

Alternative B may impact individual Townsend’s big-eared bat, pallid bat or fringed myotis, but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability.

Alternative C – California spotted owl interim recommendations

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects All direct, indirect and cumulative effects under alternative C would be the same as alternative B – Proposed Action, except there would be limits on mechanical treatments within specific “designated habitat” acres or ‘territories’; such as 1,359 acres would be hand thinned up to 6 inches instead of mechanically thinned.

Effects would be the same as alternative B for the following species: western bumble bee, bald eagle, great gray owl, mesocarnivores, Townsend’s big-eared bat, pallid bat, and fringed myotis.

California Spotted Owl Effects under alternative C would be the same as alternative B, except there would be limits on mechanical treatments within specific “designated habitat” acres. Treatments prohibited within the designated habitat include: mechanical thinning, mastication, and grapple piling over 1,950 acres. Under this alternative, within this designated habitat, treatments would be limited to the removal of small-

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 135 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

diameter woody material up to 6 inches dbh through hand-thinning, pile burning, and/or prescribed burning (USDA Forest Service 2015, page 17, #6a).

Table 47 shows treatment acreages in spotted owl habitat for alternative C. Analysis was completed on portion of home range core areas within the analysis area.

Table 47. Treatments in California spotted owl suitable habitat alternative C Treatments Alternative C – Suitable acres Fence 6 Grapple pile, pile burn, underburn, reforestation, herbicide 7 Hand thin up to 6 inches, pile burn, underburn 2,046 Hand thin, grapple pile, pile burn, underburn 71 Hand thin, pile burn, underburn 168 Mechanical thin, grapple pile, pile burn, underburn 1,506 Mechanical thin, grapple pile, pile burn, underburn, fence 1 Mechanical thin, hand thin, grapple pile, pile burn, underburn, 62 Precommercial mechanical thin, grapple pile, pile burn, underburn 25 Total 3,892

All proposed treatments could result in disturbance from human presence and noise. The duration of disturbance, caused by the presence of people and smoke, may cause some disturbance to owls accustomed to lower levels of activity. If noise levels are sufficient to disturb nesting wildlife, that could cause nest site abandonment if conducted without restrictions. Therefore, standard management requirements include limited operating periods when disturbance to wildlife is identified as a concern. Limited operating periods would be implemented within ¼ mile of known active nest sites. If presently unknown wildlife are discovered prior to or during implementation, and species identified warrants a limited operating period, protections would be implemented.

Findings by Tempel et al. (2016) suggest that fuels treatments could be located in spotted owl territories without adversely impacting occupancy as long as treatments do not reduce canopy cover below 50 percent. The Moonlight Fire Restoration project limits treatment within protected activity centers to hand thinning with an upper diameter limit of six inches, thereby preserving current canopy cover levels. Some of the natural complexity of stands in spotted owl territories may be lost due to hand thinning. The six inch upper diameter limit in protected activity centers would result in minimal loss of understory complexity while contributing to lowered fire risk in both the short and long term.

There is no single approach that can eliminate risk to the spotted owl population given the complex nature of the current situation: declining population trends, severe drought, fire suppressed forests, and high risks of high intensity wildfire. These recommendations are intended to provide a balance of conserving existing high quality habitat, enhancing habitat conditions through management, and reducing the risk of habitat loss through high intensity fire.

Northern Goshawk Effects under alternative C would be the same as alternative B, except there would be limits on mechanical treatments within specific “designated habitat” acres. Treatments prohibited within the designated habitat include: mechanical thinning, mastication, and grapple piling over 1,950 acres. Under

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 136 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

this alternative, within this designated habitat, treatments would be limited to the removal of small- diameter woody material up to 6 inches dbh through hand-thinning, pile burning, and/or prescribed burning (USDA Forest Service 2015, page 17, #6a). Hand thinning would provide considerable benefit to goshawks through removal of small diameter trees that create dense understory conditions, while leaving the overstory unchanged. Alternative C may impact individual northern goshawk, but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability.

Table 48. Treatments in goshawk suitable habitat per alternative C Alternative C – Suitable Treatments acres Fence 6 Grapple pile, pile burn, underburn 15 Grapple pile, pile burn, underburn, reforestation, herbicide 199 Hand fall large trees, fence 1 Hand thin up to 6 inches, pile burn, underburn 2,546 Hand thin, grapple pile, pile burn, underburn 290 Hand thin, pile burn, underburn 183 Mechanical thin, grapple pile, pile burn, underburn 3,572 Mechanical thin, grapple pile, pile burn, underburn, fence 4 Mechanical thin, grapple pile, pile burn, underburn, manage and monitor livestock, 12 fence if necessary Mechanical thin, hand thin, grapple pile, pile burn, underburn 262 Mechanical thin, hand thin, grapple pile, pile burn, underburn, manage and monitor 7 livestock, fence Precommercial mechanical thin, grapple pile, pile burn, underburn 689 Total 7,786

Alternative D – No herbicide use

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects All Direct, indirect and cumulative effects under alternative D would be the same as alternative B, except there would be no direct or indirect effects from the use of herbicides on 1,624 acres.

Effects would be the same as alternative B for the following species: bald eagle, California spotted owl, great gray owl, and mesocarnivores.

Western bumble bee There would be no use of herbicides for the release treatments. Release treatments would include machine pulling and piling, mastication, or hand grubbing only. This alternative would have fewer negative effects to bumblebees because no herbicides would be used. Alternative D may impact individual western bumblebee, but are not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 137 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Northern Goshawk Release treatments would include machine pulling and piling, mastication, or hand grubbing only. Herbicide treatment would not occur over 199 acres of suitable goshawk habitat. Since no herbicides would be used under this alternative there would be no direct effects to goshawks or habitat because no habitat elements would be removed or modified. Alternative D may impact individual northern goshawk, but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability.

Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii), pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), fringed myotis (Myotis thysanodes) Effects under alternative D would be the same as alternative B, except there would be no use of herbicides for the release treatments, therefore there would be no potential for prey species to come into contact with herbicides and no potential for consumption of contaminated prey. Release treatments would include machine pulling and piling, mastication, or hand grubbing only. Alternative D may impact individual Townsend’s big-eared bat, pallid bat and fringed myotis, but is not likely to cause a trend to federal listing or loss of viability.

Summary and Conclusion The proposed action would protect and maintain key sensitive species habitat areas through project design, specifically goshawk and spotted owl protected activity centers would be protected, disturbance in protected activity centers would be limited through implementation of the necessary limited operating periods, and riparian areas and meadows would be managed by designating riparian conservation areas, and meeting best management practices during implementation. Nevertheless, impacts resulting from the Moonlight Fire Restoration project are expected to contribute to cumulative impacts on certain sensitive wildlife species. Determinations for sensitive species are summarized in table 49.

Table 49. Determinations of effects on terrestrial Regional Forester sensitive species that potentially occur within the Moonlight Fire Restoration project area

Species Alt A Alternative B, C and D (Scientific Name) May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a Western bumble bee No impact (Bombus occidentalis) trend to federal listing or loss of viability May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a Bald eagle No impact (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) trend to federal listing or loss of viability May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a California spotted owl No impact (Strix occidentalis occidentalis) trend to federal listing or loss of viability May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a Great gray owl No impact (Strix nebulosa) trend to federal listing or loss of viability May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a Northern goshawk No impact (Accipiter gentilis) trend to federal listing or loss of viability May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a American marten No impact (Martes americana) trend to federal listing or loss of viability May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a Fisher No impact (Pekania pennanti) trend to federal listing or loss of viability May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a Pallid bat No impact (Antrozous pallidus) trend to federal listing or loss of viability May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a Townsend’s big-eared bat No impact (Corynorhinus townsendii) trend to federal listing or loss of viability May impact individuals but is not likely to cause a Fringed myotis No impact (Myotis thysanodes) trend to federal listing or loss of viability

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 138 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

As a result of the proposed action, as well as alternative C and D, there would be minimal expected changes in populations, trends, or habitat associated with the management indicator species. Given the ubiquity of this ecosystem component across the bioregion, the small effects at the project level would not alter the bioregional trend in the ecosystem component, nor would it lead to a change in the distribution or population for any of these species across the project area or the Sierra Nevada bioregion. Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive Aquatic Wildlife The focus of this analysis is to disclose affects to threatened, endangered, or sensitive aquatic wildlife. Effects to species are addressed in detail in the Aquatic Wildlife Report and Biological Evaluation. In addition, biological assessments were prepared in compliance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act addressing the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog, the only federally listed aquatic species known to occur in the project area, and its critical habitat. The project file also contains a management indicator species report.

The spatial boundary for the effects analysis is the project area. This area is expected to capture all proximate and downstream effects from project actions, as well as effects contributed from other actions that may cumulatively add to project effects. Affects are evaluated in two zones. The inner zone (under 82 feet) is where most effects are likely to originate. Activity within the outer zone (300-foot riparian conservation area) can contribute effects, but of a much reduced magnitude. The temporal bounds for effects are separated into short term and long term. Short term is considered to be approximately 2 years post-implementation, while long term is considered 3 to 10 years post-implementation.

Affected Environment Water bodies within the project area are known to currently support only one special status (USDA Forest Service sensitive or federally listed) analysis species, the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog. In addition, the project area has suitable habitat for the Forest Service sensitive species foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii) and the western pond turtle (Emys marmorata), though they are not known to currently occur there. No other sensitive aquatic species were found to have occurrences or habitat within the project area. Most perennial waters in the project area contain one or more species of introduced fishes, the most common being rainbow trout.

Sierra Nevada Yellow-Legged Frog Affected Environment The Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog is an endangered species endemic to California. Most populations occur on public lands including the El Dorado, Inyo, Lassen, Plumas, Sierra, Stanislaus, Tahoe and Lake Tahoe Basin National forests. Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog were once extremely abundant throughout their range. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service classified the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog as endangered under the Endangered Species Act in 2014 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2014a; Federal Register, Vol. 79, No. 82. April 29, 2014) and the species’ critical habitat was designated in 2016 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2016; Federal Register, 81 FR 59045 59119). A portion of the Moonlight Restoration project proposed actions would occur within Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog designated critical habitat subunit 2A (Boulder/Lone Rock Creeks; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2016, 81FR59045).

The frog is known to occur in multiple stream reaches within the project area, and is therefore assumed to be present within suitable waters contained within designated critical habitat polygons. The Boulder/Lone Rock Creeks subunit is an essential component of the designated critical habitat for the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog due to the unique genetic and geographic distribution. The frog populations within Clade 2 of the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog distribution are at very low to intermediate abundance and face significant threats from habitat fragmentation resulting from the introduction of fish. The critical

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 139 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

habitat within the unit is necessary to sustain viable populations within Clade 2 of the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog, which are at very low to intermediate abundances. Outside of critical habitat, aquatic habitat is considered suitable, but species is likely absent based on survey data. Though unlikely, migration to currently unoccupied suitable habitat is assumed possible over the temporal frame of the project, which is approximately 10 years.

Suitable habitat includes both aquatic habitat for breeding and rearing, which includes permanent water that is of sufficient depth not to freeze solid to the bottom during the winter and aquatic nonbreeding habitat that may not hold water long enough for the species to complete its aquatic life cycle. This habitat provides for shelter, foraging, predator avoidance, and aquatic dispersal of juvenile and adult frogs. Suitable habitat includes upland areas extending 82 feet (25 meters) from the stream bank or shoreline. In areas between high mountain lake habitats, the upland area extends up to 984 feet (300 meters) from the shoreline. The entire area of meadow systems is considered suitable for dispersal and foraging.

Terrestrial habitat types in the Moonlight Restoration project action area consist of a heterogeneous mosaic of different canopy covers dominated by Sierra mixed conifer, pine, pine and fir, and these habitats are interspersed with meadows, brush fields, open rock areas, rock outcrops, and riparian zones. The Moonlight Restoration project action area also contains of a variety of aquatic habitats including one reservoir (Antelope Lake) a few small ponds (area less than 2 acres), springs, and perennial and intermittent streams that likely possess either seasonal or permanent pool channel types. As a result, all waters and adjacent terrestrial habitat in the project action area are considered to be suitable habitat (presence of primary constituent elements and elevation above 3,500 feet) for one or more life-stages of the frog.

Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog Affected Environment Foothill yellow-legged frogs are a Regional Forester Sensitive Species for Region 5. They are found in partially shaded rocky streams in a variety of habitats including: valley-foothill hardwood, valley-foothill hardwood-conifer, valley-foothill riparian, ponderosa pine, mixed conifer, coastal scrub, mixed chaparral and wet meadows and appear to be highly dependent on free water for all life stages. The species suffered significant population declines across the majority of the known range (Yasuda 2012).

There are no records for this species within the project analysis area. Physically suitable habitat is present, though most of it is exists at an elevation (over 4,500 feet) that is rarely used by this species. Because potentially suitable habitat exists in the 4,500 to 6,000 foot (likely upper limit) elevational range of this species, it was included in the analysis (Yasuda 2012).

Western Pond Turtle Affected Environment Western pond turtles are a Forest Service Region 5 Sensitive Species. In addition, the species is currently classified as a State Species of Special Concern by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Jennings and Hayes 1994) and being considered for federal listing by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2015, 80 FR 19259; Table 10). Historically, western pond turtles have been detected in Indian Creek (which is a tributary to the East Branch North Fork Feather River) located within the project boundary. Visual observation surveys were conducted in 2015 to determine the extent of western pond turtle occupancy within the project area, but no western pond turtles were detected (MGW Biological 2015). However, it is possible that individuals do occur in the project area and were simply not detected.

Western pond turtles, one of only two species of freshwater turtle native to the west coast of the United States, are long-lived (up to 40 years) habitat generalists that occur in a wide variety of permanent and intermittent aquatic habitats (Bury and Germano 2008). Aquatic habitats utilized by the western pond

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 140 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

turtle include lakes, natural ponds, rivers, oxbows, permanent streams, intermittent streams, marshes, freshwater and brackish estuaries and vernal pools (Buskirk 2002; Bury and Germano 2008; Germano and Rathbun 2008). Western pond turtles have been observed to occur in terrestrial habitats as far as 1,640 feet (500 meters) from aquatic habitats (Reese and Welsh 1997). Adults can use terrestrial habitat frequently for prolonged periods of time (more than 7 months per year) while nesting and overwintering (Reese and Welsh 1997). The known elevation range of the species in California extends from sea level to 4,690 feet (1,430 meters; Jennings and Hayes 1994).

Alternative A – No action With no action, roads would continue to contribute sediment at a rate commensurate with ongoing maintenance and annual precipitation conditions. Vegetation would continue to recover at variable post- fire rates (depending on site conditions), as influenced by such factors as climatic conditions and invasive plant growth and spread. Stream conditions are expected to continue to stabilize, with decreasing natural rates of sedimentation as fire recovery continues. Near-stream vegetation and cover should increase over time.

Alternative B – Proposed action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Sierra Nevada yellow-legged and foothill yellow-legged frogs6 Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frogs are assumed to be present throughout the habitat occurring within the designated critical habitat boundary. The likelihood of current occupancy outside of critical habitat is assumed to be very low based on the lack of detections by multiple surveys. Though unlikely, the species could migrate to currently unoccupied habitat during the project implementation timeframe. Foothill yellow-legged frogs are likely absent; there are no records of the species in the project area and much of it is above elevations where the species is found. However, suitable stream habitat is present within area streams.

Under the proposed action roadwork would and vegetation changes would occur within the riparian conservation areas which could affects sensitive aquatic species and their upland habitat. Table 50 shows the miles and acres of aquatic habitat disturbance.

Within 82 feet of aquatic habitat, there are approximately 801 acres of Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog terrestrial habitat, the majority of which is located along intermittent streams. Except for aspen stands, no heavy equipment would be permitted within the 82-foot zone, limiting treatment to hand methods and some prescribed fire. Approximately 4,590 acres of total treatment is proposed in riparian conservation areas, the majority of which is along intermittent and ephemeral streams; ground-disturbing activities (e.g., tractor thinning and grapple piling) could occur in the majority of this zone, except for special restrictions along occupied habitat.

Mechanical equipment would be allowed to operate in unoccupied suitable terrestrial habitat in aspen restoration units during the summer season when frogs are restricted to aquatic habitat. However, no mechanical entry would occur within 33 feet of aquatic habitat. These aspen units represent approximately 30 percent of the project area near (within 300 feet) suitable aquatic habitat. Mechanical

6 Effects to foothill yellow-legged frogs are assumed to be identical to those of the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog, therefore the two species are analyzed concurrently with the recognition that the majority of the analysis area is likely above the elevational range utilized by foothill yellow-legged frog.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 141 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

equipment would also be used in aquatic habitat in areas proposed for road decommissioning, stream crossing improvements, and potentially for water drafting sites.

Table 50. Resource indicators and measures for alternative B direct and indirect effects to aquatic wildlife habitat Resource Alternative 2 Resource Indicator Measure Element Direct and Indirect Effects (1) Road work miles within 82 feet Water quality - 6.96 miles within 82 feet, Aquatic species of aquatic habitat, Sediment delivery 141.71 miles within riparian disturbance and streamside cover (2) Road work within riparian conservation areas conservation areas (1) Acres disturbed within 82 feet 801 acres within 82 feet, 4,590 Aquatic species Terrestrial habitat of water, acres feet within riparian disturbance vegetation change (2) Acres disturbed within riparian conservation areas conservation areas 6.96 miles within 82 feet, (1) Miles of road and acres 141.71 miles within riparian Area of aquatic disturbed within 82 feet of water, Aquatic species conservation areas habitat subject to (2) Miles roads and acres disturbance disturbance disturbed within riparian 801 acres within 82 feet, 4,590 conservation areas acres feet within riparian conservation areas

Total road maintenance activities (within 82 feet of water) may also affect approximately 6.96 miles of stream, and less than one mile of lake shore (Antelope Lake). The long-term goal of road-related actions are intended to improve conditions, mainly through a net decrease in sediment mobilization and reduced general use for decommissioned roads and trails.

Most measurable effects are expected to occur from road work, as vegetation units are generally not expected to generate measurable effects to water quality (see hydrology and soils sections). Substantial reductions in potential effects are expected due to numerous project protective measures. For example, no heavy equipment or pile-burning is permitted within 100 feet of suitable habitat (except in aspen restoration units and road work). Therefore, ground disturbance would be minimal or absent in non-aspen units. In addition, pre-implementation surveys are required in all locations; if the species is found, additional measures would be required to minimize impacts.

Heavy Equipment Use Excepting aspen treatments and some road work, heavy equipment (e.g. thinning, grapple piling, landing use) would generally not be allowed within 100 feet of suitable aquatic habitat. The Sierra Nevada (and foothill) yellow-legged frog is highly aquatic, therefore the risk of direct injury from heavy equipment is minimal to absent. Though quantifiable data regarding sub-lethal effects is not well known for this species, it is logical to assume that some level of behavioral modification (e.g., basking, feeding) could be influenced by mechanized equipment some distance from occupied habitat. In addition to the general equipment exclusion, additional avoidance measures would be implemented for any areas determined to be occupied by pre-implementation surveys. Furthermore, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service personnel would be contacted to determine the best course of action to minimize effects within newly occupied sites. There are two mechanical aspen restoration units (totally, about 94 acres) located in areas that have a higher probability of being occupied by frogs, since they are located within critical habitat. These sites are located along the north bank of Indian Creek, northwest of Antelope Lake, and are adjacent to approximately 1/3 mile of perennial stream (Indian Creek) and ½ mile of intermittent stream (unnamed

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 142 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

tributary to Indian Creek). These areas would be surveyed prior to aspen restoration actions; if the species is found, additional protective measures would be implemented after notification and consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. All other habitat within or near aspen units are highly unlikely to be occupied by the frog.

Indirect effects such as sediment mobilization and shade or temperature changes can occur with near- stream heavy equipment use. These effects are expected to be absent to minimal in nearly all areas due to project design features. The project hydrology report models indicate that no measurable sediment increase is expected to occur from project vegetation units, likely due to high existing ground cover (project soils report). Short-term sediment mobilization could occur due to road work, with a long-term decrease expected due to improved drainage. Though measurable sediment increase is unlikely to occur in aspen units, measurable vegetation change (removal of most conifers) would occur, increasing the amount of sunlight reaching the aquatic environment. Similarly, ground structure (e.g., logs and debris) could increase or decrease. Though the negative or positive effect of these habitat changes are not known for the frog, it is highly unlikely to occur in any occupied habitat due to the presumed effectiveness of pre- implementation surveys and associated protective measures.

Prescribed Fire As for heavy equipment use, prescribed fire is highly unlikely to occur in occupied habitat due to survey requirements. In suitable unoccupied habitat, project protective measures would limit the scale and intensity of fire effects. For example, no piles would be burned within 82 feet of water, and fire would only be allowed to back into near-aquatic areas; therefore, there would be a very low risk of harming individual frogs. Since some areas would burn in near-water areas, a short-term reduction in ground cover can be expected along unoccupied stream reaches. As stated above, the hydrology and soils reports do not anticipate measurable sediment from project vegetation treatment, including prescribed fire.

Hand Work Treatment within 82 feet of aquatic habitat would be limited to hand methods (e.g., chainsaws, dragging and piling) in most areas. Frogs could be injured or disturbed due to trampling, and behavioral modification could occur due to noise. As with other action types, if frogs are found to be present during pre-implementation surveys additional project modification and notification and consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would occur.

Herbicide Use Applying USDA Forest Service Region 5 herbicide use guidance (USDA Forest Service 2014) and project design features eliminates potential impacts to Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frogs and other aquatic resources. The project would use two herbicides (glyphosate and triclopyr) with an application buffer of 107 feet from aquatic habitats. The following direction from the “Pesticide-Use Projects Guidance for No Effect Determinations” was incorporated to support the conclusion of no effect (USDA Forest Service 2014):

• Back-pack type sprayers used in these applications are operated at low pressures and using spray nozzles that in combination result in relatively uniform and large droplets. • Drift away from the application area is managed through the use of best management practices such as instituting unsprayed buffer zones, wind restrictions, pressure restrictions, and specifying nozzle type, and height of nozzle above target vegetation. • Assuming best management practices are in place and followed, including a buffer of at least 25 feet, the application of these herbicides to the foliage of target plants using back-pack sprayers should not result in mortality of non-target plants off-site.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 143 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

• Employing a buffer of 25 feet should prevent any indirect effects to plants and amphibians through movement in surface or subsurface water. • At minimum, suitable habitat includes the area within 82 feet of water; buffering this area by an additional 25 feet establishes an aquatic habitat buffer that exceeds 100 feet. Based on water monitoring done in the Sierra Nevada and elsewhere, and based on available research, a vegetated buffer of 100 feet is a cautious approach to preventing water contamination at levels of biological significance for the herbicides currently in use.

Road Work Road construction or maintenance activities can cause ground disturbance (Lugo and Gucinski 2000). As a result, short-term increases in sediment deposition and turbidity are expected in aquatic habitats immediately downstream of the Project’s construction activities (e.g., construction associated with the maintenance or obliteration of roads, creation of temporary access roads, removal or replacement of culverts, etc.) that are occurring within riparian conservation areas and upland habitats. Excess sediment can reduce the amount of deep aquatic habitats (e.g., stream pools) and decrease habitat complexity, which can negatively influence frog refugia, breeding, and foraging habitats. In addition, increased sedimentation and turbidity can negatively influence invertebrate prey densities and thereby decrease a frog’s food supply (Andrews et al. 2008). In general, the amount of sediment deposition that may occur because of the project proposed road activities is currently unknown. Although the amount of sedimentation can vary based on, in part, the occurrence of storms during construction periods, the implementation of relevant conservation measures would minimize the short-term sediment-related effects on Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog critical and suitable habitats.

Western pond turtle Based on the natural history of the western pond turtle, there is a risk for disturbance to individuals and their terrestrial habitat essentially year round with nesting occurring from April through July and overwintering October through April (Buskirk 2002; Bury and Germano 2008). We estimated that the project area contains approximately 87 stream miles (Lights Creek and Indian Creek drainages) and 22,714 acres of potentially suitable western pond turtle habitat. Because the western pond turtle is not known to occur naturally above elevations greater than 4,690 feet (1,430 meters), we limited the spatial extent of our analysis to the action units occurring below 4,690 feet (1,430 meters) in elevation.

The (short term) direct effects from the project’s proposed activities within suitable western pond turtle habitat can result in the harassment, injury, or death of individuals. The implementation of the proposed activities would involve the use of heavy equipment, application of herbicides, and prescribed fire within upland turtle habitats. Construction workers and heavy equipment have the potential to directly harass, injure, or kill turtles by crushing individuals unable to successfully flee the area being disturbed by man or equipment (e.g., from tilling or masticating, and road construction or decommissioning; Andrews et al. 2008). Similarly, prescribed fire can injure or kill turtles that do not or are unable to flee the site. In general, western pond turtles move slowly especially while nesting in upland habitat, which would co- occur with the proposed activities during the spring and summer months. Therefore, the species may not easily avoid vehicles, pedestrians, or fire within the terrestrial environment. Further, the use of heavy equipment and other vehicles can introduce a variety of pollutants to both aquatic and upland habitats. These pollutants may include noise, dust, and spills of toxic substances (Spellerberg 1998; Lugo and Gucinski 2000). Spills of toxic substances including, but not limited to, oil and gasoline during construction activities can compromise water quality and thereby negatively affect the condition of individuals or their access to adequate food within the aquatic environment (Andrews et al. 2008). Construction activities also can create considerable noise and dust (Lugo and Gucinski 2000). Construction noise and dust may stress individuals, alter migratory behaviors, and result in site avoidance

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 144 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

(Andrews et al. 2008). A single instance of these disturbances may have negligible or no effect on an individual, but repeated sub-lethal disturbance has the potential to affect the physiological fitness or reproductive success of individuals.

As stated previously, the likelihood of western pond turtles occurring in the project’s effect zone is low based on a lack of detection during recent surveys. Therefore, direct effects to individual turtles is considered unlikely. However, the lack of presence may be the result of incomplete detection during recent surveys. Further, the western pond turtle can migrate extensive distances and become present during the implementation of project activities. If the species is present at the time of construction, a Forest Service biologist would be consulted prior to project implementation to avoid adverse effects.

Road construction or maintenance activities and increased traffic can cause ground disturbance (Spellerberg 1998; Lugo and Gucinski 2000). In addition, the removal of ground cover during the reforestation and release vegetation treatment using prescribed fire or herbicide can expose soils and hinder their stability. As a result, short-term increases in sediment deposition and turbidity may occur in aquatic habitats immediately downstream of project activity locations with effects diminishing further downstream. Excess sediment can reduce the amount of deep aquatic habitats (e.g., stream pools), which can negatively influence turtle refugia and foraging habitats. In addition, increased sedimentation and turbidity can negatively influence invertebrate prey densities and thereby decrease a turtle’s food supply (Andrews et al. 2008). However, the amount of sediment deposition that may occur because of the project’s proposed travel management and vegetation treatment activities is predicted to be negligible (see hydrology and soils sections).

The proposed vegetation treatments are expected to facilitate a gradual transition to a healthy forested landscape, which would result in beneficial indirect effects to multiple watershed processes including flow regulation, enhanced infiltration and balanced sediment delivery (see soils section). After the construction phase of the project travel management activities is completed, aquatic habitat conditions are expected to improve. Improved road conditions should improve the drainage function and decrease sedimentation in the long term throughout the project area. The obliteration of the non-system roads would restore overland flow and allow the successional process to occur (Lugo and Gucinski 2000), which should improve hydrologic function and reduce fine sediment in adjacent aquatic habitats (McCaffery et al. 2007).

Herbicide Use The two herbicides that may be used to implement the reforestation and release vegetation treatment include glyphosate and triclopyr. The implementation of untreated buffers (107 feet) along streams and waterbodies would act as a sink (or filter) if sediments and/or herbicides accidentally get carried via runoff. Therefore, there is low risk of measurable effects using herbicides as part of the reforestation and release vegetation treatment activity. Based on the runoff potential, persistence of the proposed herbicides, and proposed treatment scenarios, no detectable accumulation of herbicide is expected in water bodies (see hydrology section for more detail).

It is possible for these herbicides to affect the herbaceous habitats used for nesting and food resources directly or indirectly utilized by western pond turtles since this species can utilize terrestrial habitat outside the restricted application zone (107 feet from water). Portions of the terrestrial zone (up to 500 meters from streams or lakes) would experience a reduction in vegetation in the short term. The area affected is very small, approximately 53 acres, thus the vast majority (over 95 percent) of available upland habitat within the project area would not be affected. Due to both the small area affected, and high likelihood of species absence, it is correspondingly unlikely that individual turtles would be exposed to any herbicides.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 145 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Table 51. Western pond turtle resource indicators Alternative 2 Resource Element Resource Indicator Measure Direct and Indirect Effects Sediment delivery and Stream miles potentially Water quality 45 miles streamside cover affected by project acitivities. Terrestrial habitat / Acres potentially disturbed Vegetation change 5,659 acres species disturbance within 500-meter effects zone

Cumulative effects The past, present, and reasonably forseeable actions listed in appendix E were considered for cumulative effects analysis. The combined effects from a multitude of actions (e.g., logging, road maintenance, grazing, off-highway vehicle use) have contributed negatively to aquatic conditions within the project area. There is an expectation that the Moonlight Fire Restoration Project would yield some positive impacts in the long term, such as reduced sedimentation from roads due to maintenance and decommissioning, and very low-magnitude short-term negative effects due to extensive resource protecting requirements (e.g., for Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog). A cumulative watershed effects analysis was conducted, and the results can be found in the hydrology report. The results of the hydrology analysis at the sub-watershed scale support the conclusions of the aquatic biological resources analysis; total effects, from the project and other actions combined, are not expected to reach levels capable of meaningfully impacting aquatic organisms or their habitat.

The proposed action represents the minority of total effects from all other actions in combination (see cumulative watershed effects in hydrology report). Small-magnitude short-term contributions from the project contribute to potential long-term benefits. It is assumed that present and future actions on all lands can, at times, produce negative effects to aquatic biological resources. There is no expectation that any known thresholds for analysis species would be exceeded by the cumulative effects from all actions.

Alternative C – California spotted owl interim recommendations

Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frogs and foothill yellow-legged frogs Alternative C would change approximately 1,359 acres of mechanical treatment to hand thin with a maximum tree diameter of 6 inches. In addition, approximately 15 fewer miles of road work would occur. Due to a project-wide design feature for Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog that excludes heavy equipment operation within 100 feet of water bodies, the differences with this alternative would be very minimal for aquatic species as compared to alternative B. There could be a slight reduction in short-term effects (e.g., sediment) from the lesser amount (approximately 10 percent fewer miles) of road work needed due to less mechanical treatment, which could occur close to streams in select areas.

Western pond turtle Similar to the frogs, very little difference in effects is anticipated under alternative C as compared to B. The vast majority (over 80 percent) of the changes in mechanical treatment acreage would occur outside the elevational range of this species. In the select areas where suitable turtle habitat exists, there would be a reduced chance of injury/harm to turtles due the lack of heavy equipment use. As stated previously, this difference is likely inconsequential due to the very low likelihood of species presence.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 146 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

In summary, the effects for alternative C are expected to be functionally identical (no/negligible difference to species) to those from alternative B, and the effects analysis (direct, indirect, and cumulative) and determinations for alternative B apply equally to alternative C.

Alternative D – No herbicide use

Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frogs and foothill yellow-legged frogs Alternative D would change herbicide treatment areas to mechanical treatment types. Project design criteria would be the same, including a heavy equipment exclusion of 100 feet for most treatment types (aspen stands and some road work excluded). The determination from herbicides on frogs was assumed to be “No Effect” due to Region 5 guidance (USDA Forest Service 2014). A change to mechanical methods would disturb more soil, though the project hydrology and soils reports did not indicate that measurable sediment is expected to reach waterways from vegetation treatments. Mechanical treatment would create more noise disturbance than backpack application of herbicides, though other project design features (e.g., survey and avoid) are expected to minimize this risk in stream reaches occupied by frogs.

Western pond turtle Similar to the frogs, very little difference in effects is anticipated under alternative D as compared to B. The vast majority (over 80 percent) of the project area is above the elevational range of this species. In the select areas where suitable turtle habitat exists, there would be a slightly increased chance of injury or harm to turtles due to increased heavy equipment use. As stated previously, this difference is likely inconsequential due to the very low likelihood of species presence.

In summary, the effects for alternative D are expected to be functionally identical (no or negligible difference to species) to those from alternative B, and the effects analysis (direct, indirect, and cumulative) and determinations for alternative B apply equally to alternative D.

Summary and Conclusion The following summary and determinations for aquatic analysis species apply for all three (B, C, D) action alternatives.

The Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project may affect approximately 43 stream miles and 2,366 acres (within 300 feet of water) of suitable Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog habitat. Frogs are known to be present in a small portion of aquatic habitat within the project area (streams within critical habitat polygons). As a result, the project could directly affect individual Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frogs in those select locations, even with numerous protective measures in place. However, the protective measures and survey requirements are expected to prevent or minimize direct injury or death of individual frogs; therefore, all or most effects are expected to be sub-lethal, such as behavioral modification of a few individuals within occupied aquatic habitat.

Short-term increases in sedimentation and turbidity may occur in breeding or non-breeding aquatic habitats due to road work; a measurable increase in sediment is unlikely to result from vegetation units as indicated by the project hydrology and soils reports. However, the implementation of protective measures is expected to substantially minimize these habitat impacts and result in long-term benefits to aquatic habitat through improved drainage and road closures.

Project actions are intended to speed the vegetative recovery of fire-impacted areas, including within and near riparian habitat. Therefore, a long-term benefit to aquatic habitat is anticipated as the area trends toward pre-fire conditions. In conclusion, the potential for (1) short-term negative effects to Sierra

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 147 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Nevada yellow-legged frog suitable habitat and (2) a possibility of adversely affecting individuals assumed to occur in a small portion of the project area, leads to the following determination:

• May affect, and is likely to adversely affect the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog • May affect, and is likely to adversely affect Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog designated critical habitat (sub-unit 2A) Though less habitat is present in the project area for the USDA Forest Service sensitive species foothill yellow-legged frog and western pond turtle, effects to suitable aquatic habitat for these species would be nearly identical to those described for Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog. Most of the project area is above the elevational range of the turtle, so very little (under 60 acres) suitable terrestrial habitat would be affected. Neither species is believed to be present in the project area currently, making the risk of direct harm to individuals negligible. Therefore, the following determinations apply:

• May affect individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability for the foothill yellow-legged frog • May affect individuals, but is not likely to result in a trend toward federal listing or loss of viability for the western pond turtle Two separate biological assessments were completed, one for the species and one for its designated critical habitat. Consistent with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, these documents were submitted for consultation with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in April 2017. On June 15, 2017, in an appendix to the Programmatic Biological Opinion, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service found that the projects reviewed (including this project) were not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the Sierra Nevada yellow- legged frog. In addition, they determined that the actions reviewed were not likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. Human Health Risk Assessment Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2150 and Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 2109.14 provide direction to provide for pesticide use safety for public and employees from unsafe work conditions when pesticides are involved. Development of a pesticide risk assessment is a part of this planning process. This section summarizes and incorporates by reference the findings of the human health risk assessment to address the issue raised in public scoping regarding potential risks of pesticide use to human health.

It should be noted that the risk assessment is conducted with worst case scenarios in mind and does not include considerations such as the standard management practices, buffers, and other design criteria which would substantially reduce effects and the risk of exposure. Herbicide runoff to streams or water bodies is not expected due to prevention measures from best management practices and project design features which would minimize accidental contamination (see hydrology and soils sections).

Alternative A – No action There would be no effects from pesticide use as no pesticide treatment would be proposed as part of this project. Some pesticide use may continue within the project area related to other projects and decisions, and on adjacent lands.

Alternative B – Proposed action The proposed action includes the use of two herbicides (glyphosate and triclopyr). In addition, we propose the use of borate salt for stump treatments in the design features. The proposed applications would also include the use of additives such as surfactants and marker dye. Table 52 lists the chemicals,

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 148 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

the application rate, and additives that were analyzed. The proposed applications would comply with all applicable state and federal regulations for the safe use of pesticides (including label requirements).

Direct and Indirect Effects Pesticide risk analysis is based on hazard analysis, exposure analysis, and dose-response assessment to develop an overall risk characterization for each of the pesticides proposed.

Much of the information used in this risk assessment was gathered from pesticide specific risk assessments completed by Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. (SERA), under contract to the Forest Service. The analysis of the potential human health effects of the use of pesticides was accomplished using the risk assessment methodology generally accepted by the scientific community (National Research Council 1983; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1986). In essence, this pesticide risk assessment consists of comparing doses that people may get from applying the pesticide (worker doses) or from being near and application site (public doses) with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established reference doses, a level of exposure that results in no adverse effect over a lifetime of chronic exposures. The site-specific risk assessment also examines the potential for these treatments to cause synergistic effects, cumulative effects, and effects on sensitive individuals, including women and children. For each type of dose assumed for workers and the public, a hazard quotient was computed by dividing the dose by the reference dose. In general, if the hazard quotient is less than or equal to 1, the risk of effects is considered negligible. Because hazard quotient values are based on reference doses, which are thresholds for cumulative exposure, they consider acute exposures. The computation of the hazard quotient is independent of the amount of acres proposed for treatment in this project.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 149 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Table 52. Description of chemical formulation, application rate and type, and additives proposed for use in the Moonlight Restoration Project Maximum Proposed Proposed Worksheet Mix Pesticide/Adjuvant Trade Names Target Species Timing Application Adjuvant ounces Application percent Gallons per per acre Rate Methods acre Ceanothus species Spring when 1.2 to 6 lbs. Backpack Rodeo® or target plants Non-ionic Glyphosate Manzanita 38-192 acid equivalent directed foliar 2-6.00 20 (15-25) equivalent are actively surfactant per acre spray Chinquapin growing Bitter Cherry Ceanothus Spring when species 1.0 lb. acid Backpack Triclopyr triethylamine Garlon 3A™ or target plants Non-ionic Manzanita 38 - 64 equivalent per directed foliar 2.00 20 (15-25) salt equivalent are actively surfactant acre spray Chinquapin growing Bitter Cherry Borate salt (disodium Recently Heterobasidion 0.5 lbs. per Stump octaborate Cellu-treat® harvested 8-16 5.00 1 None spp. acre application tetrahydrate) trees Hasten, Competitor Spreader-Penetrator 1.00 (aquatic formulation) Spreader-Penetrator Syl-Tac 1.00 Colorfast Marker Dye 0.04 Purple Marker Dye Hi-Light Blue 0.25

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 150 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Hazard Analysis The hazards associated with using the proposed pesticides were determined through comprehensive review of available toxicological studies; these reviews, which are compiled in a group of risk assessments completed by Syracuse Environmental Research Associates, Inc. (SERA), under contract to the Forest Service.

Metabolites Glyphosate is not extensively metabolized. The primary metabolite of glyphosate in mammals and other organisms is aminomethyl phosphonate. Aminomethyl phosphonate is formed in environmental media such as soil and water as a breakdown product of glyphosate. Differences in metabolic pathways can be an important consideration regarding differences in species sensitivity to some chemical agents. There is no indication, however, that this is an important consideration for glyphosate. Because glyphosate is not extensively metabolized, differences in metabolic pathways are not likely to be an important consideration in extrapolations from animal toxicity data to potential risks in humans (Syracuse Environmental Research Associates Inc. 2011). Thus, in terms of assessing direct exposures to technical grade glyphosate, the inherent exposures to aminomethyl phosphonate as a metabolite are encompassed by the existing toxicity data on glyphosate.

This approach does not, however, encompass concern for exposures to aminomethyl phosphonate as an environmental metabolite. As noted above, about 20 percent of applied dose of glyphosate may be found in water as aminomethyl phosphonate after about 6 months. The toxicity and environmental fate of aminomethyl phosphonate was reviewed recently by the World Health Organization (1997), Cox (2002), and Williams et al. (2000) as referenced in Syracuse Environmental Research Associates Inc. 2011. In addition, the U.S. EPA, Office of Pesticide Programs (2002) reviewed this information and assessed the potential consequences of exposures to aminomethyl phosphonate as an environmental degradate. Based on this review, the U.S. EPA, Office of Pesticide Programs (2002) as referenced in Syracuse Environmental Research Associates Inc. 2011 concludes:

The nature of the residue in plants and animals is adequately understood and consists of the parent, glyphosate. The Agency has decided that only glyphosate parent is to be regulated in plant and animal commodities and that the major metabolite, AMPA (aminomethylphosphonic acid) is not of toxicological concern regardless of its levels in food.

Based on the available information on glyphosate the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs (1993) has classified the chemical as Group E (evidence of non-carcinogenicity for humans); therefore no quantitative risk assessment for cancer is conducted as part of the current Forest Service risk assessment (Syracuse Environmental Research Associates Inc. 2011). The carcinogenicity of glyphosate is further discussed in the cumulative effects section of this risk assessment.

N-nitrosoglyphosate contains the nitrosoamine group which are nitroso compounds in which the nitroso group is attached to a nitrogen atom, N-N=O. Certain groups of nitrosoamines have served as model compounds in some of the classical studies on chemical carcinogenicity. While there is a general concern for the carcinogenic potential of nitroso compounds, the contribution of specific nitroso compounds to carcinogenic risk is difficult to quantify (Mirvish 1995 as referenced in Syracuse Environmental Research Associates Inc. 2011). The EPA has concluded based on research that the N-nitrosoglyphosate content of technical grade glyphosate was not toxicologically significant (EPA re-registration document (RED)). As with aminomethyl phosphonate, a detailed dose-response and exposure assessment for N- nitrosoglyphosate does not appear to be warranted and will not be further analyzed or discussed further in this assessment.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 151 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

As with impurities, the potential effects of metabolites is encompassed by the available in vivo toxicity studies, under the assumption that toxicological consequences of metabolism in the species tested would be similar to those of humans. Uncertainties in this assumption are countered by using an uncertainty factor in deriving the reference doses and relying upon conservative studies in determining the appropriate reference doses.

The major metabolite of triclopyr in both mammals and the environment is 3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridinol, commonly abbreviated as TCP. Although 3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridinol does not have the phytotoxic potency of triclopyr, this compound is toxic to mammals as well as other species. Based on current studies 3,5,6- trichloro-2-pyridinol has been found to be more toxic than triclopyr triethylamine salt (TEA) by a factor of about 40, based on acute toxicity, and by a factor of 180, based on chronic toxicity (Syracuse Environmental Research Associates Inc. 2016a). Consequently, the acute and chronic reference doses for 3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridinol derived by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs are below the corresponding reference doses derived by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs. The potential health effects of 3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridinol exposure are therefore analyzed separately in this risk assessment.

Additives Additives involve surfactants, drift reduction agents, and dyes or colorants. Many of the formulated pesticides require the use of added surfactants; such information is on the pesticide label. Surfactants increase the ability of the pesticide to be absorbed into plant tissue. Dyes and colorants are used to indicate that a plant or area has been treated to avoid the waste re-treatment, allow people to avoid treated areas in the short term, and assure good coverage of target vegetation.

Additives, or adjuvants, to the formulations when pesticides are applied include a surfactant Syl-Tac® or Hasten® (also available as Competitor®)

Syl-Tac®, which has a “Caution” signal word. It may cause slight skin and eye irritation. Syl-Tac®is of low acute oral and dermal toxicity. Syl-Tac® is a blend of two other products; Hasten®, a vegetable oil based surfactant, and Sylgard 309, and organosilicone surfactant.

Hasten® (and Competitor®) has a “Caution” signal word. Hasten® may be mildly irritating to the skin and to the eyes. The product is of low acute oral and dermal toxicity. The main ingredient in Hasten® is identified in Wilbur-Ellis product information as ethylated corn, canola, and soybean oil (a regulated food additive under 21 CFR 172.515. l). This is combined with sorbitan alkylethoxylate ester as a nonionic surfactant. The polyoxyethylene dialkylester is not sufficiently identified to say anything definite about its composition or toxicity. Hasten® contains ethoxylated ingredients. Ethoxylates are formed by reactions of ethylene oxide. In the manufacturing process, some unreacted ethylene oxide as well as the contaminant 1,4-dioxane can become part of the final formulation. Both of these chemicals are considered likely human carcinogens, and are discussed above under impurities and metabolites.

Sylgard® 309 has a Warning signal word. It is considered slightly irritating to the skin and is considered severely irritating to the eyes. It is not a skin sensitizer. The main ingredients of Sylgard® 309 are a mixture of three siloxanes and silicones (3-(3-hydroxypropyl) heptamethyltrisiloxane, ethoxylated acetate (CAS 125997-17-3) EPA List 4B, polyethylene glycol monallyl acetate (CAS 27252-87-5) EPA List 3, and polyethylene glycol diacetate (CAS 27252-83-1) EPA List 3. The material safety data sheet describes a 28-day oral dosing study in rats, in which rats were fed doses of 0, 33, 300, or 1,000 mg/kg/day. No significant findings of biological relevance were seen in females, while males showed some effects at highest dose (body weight gain, and changes in food consumption). This would indicate a sub-chronic no effect level (NOEL) of 300 mg/kg/day.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 152 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

An analysis of the ingredients in Syl-Tac® (USDA Forest Service 2007) did not identify any of specific toxic concern with the exception of the ingredients discussed in this risk assessment. None were on the U.S. EPA Lists 1 or 2. The primary summary statement that can be made for the use of Syl-Tac® is that the more common risk factors are through skin or eye exposure. Syl-Tac® carries a “Caution” label. This indicates the need for good industrial hygiene practices while utilizing this product, especially when handling the concentrate, such as during mixing. The use of chemical resistant gloves and goggles, especially while mixing, would reduce the potential for exposure. Nothing in the ingredients in Syl-Tac® indicates a unique hazard or specific toxic concern.

The colorant (Colorfast® Purple) contains a dye, Basic Violet 3 or Gentian Violet, which is considered a potential carcinogen. A risk assessment for the carcinogenic properties of this dye was conducted (SERA 1997a), which concluded that the cancer risk to workers and the public is within the range of acceptable risk. Use of the dye would be expected to reduce public exposure to the pesticide and adjuvant used because the public would be alerted to the presence of treated vegetation. As Syracuse Environmental Research Associates Inc. (1997a) adequately analyze the health risks of using this dye, it is not discussed further in this document.

The colorant (Hi-Light® Blue dye) is not required to be registered as a pesticide; therefore it has no signal word associated with it. It is mildly irritating to the skin and eyes. It would likely be considered a Category III or IV material and have a Caution signal word if it carried one. Hi-Light® Blue is a water- soluble dye that contains no listed hazardous substances. It is considered to be virtually non-toxic to humans. Its effect on non-target terrestrial and aquatic species is unknown; however its use has not resulted in any known problems. The dye used in Hi-Light® Blue is commonly used in toilet bowl cleaners and as a colorant for lakes and ponds (Syracuse Environmental Research Associates Inc. 1997a).

Some formulations of triclopyr triethylamine salt contain the triethylamine salt of triclopyr as well as emulsifiers, surfactants, and ethanol. Triethylamine salt dissociates extremely rapidly to triclopyr acid and trimethylamine; however, relatively little information is available on the toxicity of trimethylamine in triethylamine salt (Syracuse Environmental Research Associates Inc. 2016a). The oral LD501 of triclopyr triethylamine salt (as Garlon 3A™) is 828 mg acid equivalent /kg body weight in male rats and 594 mg acid equivalent/kg body weight in female rats (Mizell and Lomax 1988, as referenced in Syracuse Environmental Research Associates Inc. 2016a). These LD50 values are very similar to oral LD50 of triclopyr acid – i.e., 729 mg/kg in male rats and 630 mg/kg in female rats. Consequently, the toxicity of this triclopyr formulation is consistent with the assumption that the agent of concern in the triclopyr triethylamine salt formulation is triclopyr rather than the triethylamine salt moiety (Syracuse Environmental Research Associates Inc. 2016a).

The triclopyr formulation proposed for use in the Moonlight project Garlon 3A™ contains ethanol an inert ingredient which is classified as toxic. Ethanol is extremely well characterized in humans, and the hazards of exposure include intoxication from acute exposure as well as liver cirrhosis and fetal alcohol syndrome (World Health Organization 1988, as referenced in Syracuse Environmental Research Associates Inc. 2016a). For chronic exposure, the alcohol contained in Garlon 3A™ will not be of toxicological significance because of the rapid breakdown of alcohol in the environment and the relatively high levels of alcohol associated with chronic alcohol poisoning (Syracuse Environmental Research Associates Inc. 2016a).

Exposure Analysis This risk assessment examines the potential health effects on all groups of people who might be exposed to any of the pesticides that are proposed in this project, including workers or members of the general public.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 153 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Pesticide applicators are the individuals most likely to be exposed to a pesticide during the application process. For this risk assessment a range of exposure levels (central, lower, and upper) was used. The extreme value approach used in this risk assessment provides a central estimate of exposure as well as a lower bound on exposure. Central levels are based on proposed application rates and recent experience on adjacent national forests. The upper level is a worst-case level, based on the highest application rates, the least dilution and the largest acreage treated per day. The lower level is used as a lower limit, based on lower applications rates, most dilution, and lowest acres per day treated. Lower bounds of exposures are used as best case estimates and are generally intended to represent the feasibility of risk mitigation. Exposure scenarios for workers include exposure during normal operations, as well as four accidental scenarios: a worker’s hands are immersed in the spray mixture for a minute and then washed; a worker wears contaminated gloves for one hour; a worker spills the spray mixture on their hands, which are washed after an hour; and a worker spills the spray mixture on their legs, which are washed after an hour.

Under normal conditions, members of the general public would not be exposed to substantial levels of these pesticides due to project design features which are aimed at reducing the risk of exposure. Such features include buffers which would limit members of the public from entering these areas during pesticide application. In addition, posting signs around treatment areas would provide warning to the public that an area is being or has recently been treated. The proposed units are within or near parts of the Plumas National Forest used for dispersed recreation, which might include activities such as: woodcutting, hunting, camping, trail use, or gathering of plant materials. The public may pass through or near some of these areas while participating in these and other activities. The two types of exposure scenarios developed for the general public include acute exposure, and longer-term or chronic exposure. Specific scenarios are developed for direct spray, dermal contact with contaminated vegetation, as well as the consumption of contaminated fruit, water, and fish. Most of these scenarios should be regarded as extreme, some to the point of limited plausibility. They are used for analysis purposes only and represent types of exposure that are not expected to result from the proposed action. The longer- term or chronic exposure scenarios parallel the acute exposure scenarios for the consumption of contaminated fruit, water, and fish, but are based on estimated levels of exposure for longer periods of application.

• Direct spray – for analysis purposes, the direct spray scenario assumes that during ground application, a naked child is sprayed and completely covered with pesticide - this extremely conservative exposure scenario is virtually implausible. Another scenario involves accidental spraying of the feet and legs of a young woman. • Dermal exposure - for the scenario for dermal exposure from contaminated vegetation, it is assumed that the pesticide is sprayed at a given application rate and that an individual comes in contact with sprayed vegetation, or other contaminated surfaces at some period after the pesticide application. • Water contamination - For this risk assessment, two types of scenarios are considered: 1) acute exposure from an accidental spill, and 2) chronic exposure to pesticide in ambient water derived from application to a nearby 100-acre treatment area. There are three acute exposure scenarios. The first scenario assumes that a young child (approximately 2 years old) consumes contaminated water shortly after an accidental spill of a field solution into a small pond. The second assumes that a small child consumes contaminated water shortly after overland flow or atmospheric drift into a stream. The third involves an adult female swimming in a contaminated pond for 1 hour. Because these scenarios involve exposure shortly after the water is contaminated, no dissipation or degradation of pesticide is assumed. The scenario for chronic exposure from contaminated water assumes that an adult consumes contaminated, ambient water for a lifetime. Monitoring studies are

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 154 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

available for many pesticides that allow estimation of expected concentrations in ambient water resulting from ground application over a wide area. • Eating contaminated fruits or other vegetation – Under normal circumstances and in most types of applications, it is extremely unlikely that humans will consume, or otherwise place in their mouths, vegetation contaminated with these pesticides. None of the proposed applications involve crop treatment, or treatment in proximity to agricultural crops. Nonetheless, any number of scenarios could be considered, such as accidental spraying of crops, spray of edible wild vegetation such as berries, or the spraying of plants collected by Native Americans for basket weaving or medicinal use. In most instances, particularly for the chronic scenarios, treated vegetation would show signs of damage from pesticide exposure, thereby reducing the likelihood of consumption by humans. One of the more plausible scenarios involves the consumption of contaminated berries after treatment along a road or some other area in which wild berries grow. The two accidental exposure scenarios developed for this assessment include one scenario for acute exposure and one scenario for longer-term exposure (90-days).

Dose-Response Assessment In evaluating the doses received under each scenario, the doses are evaluated against the reference doses as previously discussed. If all the exposures are below the reference dose (a hazard quotient less than or equal to 1) the assumption is that a toxic response from pesticide exposure is considered negligible for the group exposed. Repeated exposure to levels below the toxic threshold does not appear to be associated with cumulative toxic effects. If any exposure exceeds the reference dose, a closer examination of various studies and exposure scenarios must be made to determine whether a toxic response is expected from the exposure. The risk assessment describes the reference doses and their bases. For those pesticides scenarios that involve doses exceeding the reference doses, it provides an analysis of various studies and further refines the risk thresholds.

Table 53 Reference doses of proposed pesticides Pesticide Reference Dose (mg/kg/day) Acute Chronic Glyphosate 2.0 2.0 Triclopyr triethylamine salt 1.0 0.05 Triclopyr triethylamine salt * 0.05 0.05 3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridinol 0.025 0.012 borate salt (disodium octaborate 3.5 0.088 tetrahydrate) * Reference dose is for exposure scenarios involving adult women of reproductive age

Risk Characterization A quantitative summary and narrative description of risks to workers and the public from pesticide exposure is presented in this section. The quantitative risk is expressed as the hazard quotient, which is the ratio of the estimated exposure doses to reference doses. It is important to take into consideration that with any risk assessment absolute safety cannot be proven, and the absence of risk can never be demonstrated. No chemical has been studied for all possible effects, and the use of data from laboratory animals to estimate hazard to humans involves uncertainty.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 155 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Glyphosate Pesticide applicators are the individuals most likely to be exposed to a pesticide during the application process. All worker occupational exposure scenarios result in a hazard quotient of less than 1. Given the low hazard quotients for both general occupational exposure as well as accidental exposures scenarios, the results imply that long-term application of this herbicide can be accomplished without toxic effects. However there is some suggested information that occupational exposures to glyphosate may be associated with overt signs of toxicity (Syracuse Environmental Research Associates 2011), indicating the continued importance for use of safe handling procedures and use of personal protective equipment.

For general public, none of the chronic scenarios were above the level of concern for any exposure scenario. None of the acute central exposure scenarios approached the level of concern for the typical application rates for glyphosate. Upper exposure scenarios that exceeded the level of concern included consumption of contaminated water by a child (hazard quotient = 6) and consumption of contaminated vegetation by an adult female (hazard quotient = 4).

These scenarios are very conservative (as described in more detail in the Pesticide Risk Assessment). However, they do indicate that measures to ensure that members of the general public do not consume contaminated water or vegetation are needed.

Such measures are included as part of the proposed action. A contingency plan, the Herbicide Transportation, Handling, and Emergency Spill Response Plan, and a spill kit would also be on-site when pesticide treatments occur. The likelihood of vegetation being consumed after spraying in this project is highly unlikely due to design criteria and proposed treatment location. Project design features such as the addition of colorant to spray mixtures and signing of treatment areas should further minimize the risk of persons unknowingly eating contaminated vegetation. Additionally, to ensure members of the public do not enter treated areas during reentry intervals, applicators would remain in or near treated areas until the application solution is fully dry for all pesticides and adjuvants proposed for use in this project.

Tricopyr Triethylamine Salt Pesticide applicators are the individuals most likely to be exposed to a pesticide during the application process. All worker occupational exposure scenarios result in a hazard quotient of less than 1, except for at the upper exposure estimate for general occupational exposure (hazard quotient = 1.6). Under typical conditions of application and at the typical application rate, there is no indication that workers would be subject to hazardous levels of triclopyr at the central estimates of exposure. However, the upper exposure level exceeds the level of concern based on the chronic reference dose of 0.05 milligrams per kilogram per day. While systemic toxicity is a focus of the quantitative risk characterization for triclopyr, formulations of 44.1 percent triclopyr triethylamine salt, such as Garlon 3A™, are severe eye irritants. All formulations of triclopyr triethylamine salt require the use of protective eyewear. As with all pesticide applications, potential ocular and dermal effects can and should be minimized or avoided by prudent industrial hygiene practices during and after the application of triclopyr formulations. This includes the use of safe handling procedures, and proper personal protective equipment.

For the general public, for the accidental acute scenarios, none of the exposure estimates approached the level of concern for the typical application rate of triclopyr. For the non-accidental acute exposure scenarios, the central exposure estimate exceeds the level of concern for the consumption of contaminated vegetation by an adult female (hazard quotient = 3). The upper exposure levels for the consumption of contaminated vegetation and fruit also exceed the level of concern (hazard quotients equal to 4 and 27, respectively). There are two chronic exposure scenarios that exceed the level of concern for the upper exposure levels including the consumption of contaminated fruit and vegetation by an adult female. For

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 156 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

the consumption of contaminated fruit the hazard quotient is 3. For the consumption of contaminated vegetation by an adult female the hazard quotient equals 6.

However, the likelihood of fruit or vegetation being consumed after spraying in this project is unlikely in these scenarios due to design criteria and proposed treatment location. The upper bound hazard quotients are based on very conservative exposure assumptions including the upper bound estimates of food consumption and upper bound estimates of residue rates. The use of several worst-case or at least very conservative assumptions in multiplicative models leads to assessments in which risks may be unrealistically magnified.

As discussed in detail in the Syracuse Environmental Research Associates (2016a) risk assessment, triclopyr would be metabolized to 3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridinol. 3,5,6-trichloro-2pyridnol is an impurity in triclopyr that was analyzed separately in the herbicide risk assessment. Toxic 3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridinol exposure occurs from longer term exposure to triclopyr since it is an environmental metabolite. For the non-accidental acute scenarios all of the central estimates are below the level of concern except for the consumption of contaminated vegetation by an adult female which marginally exceeds the level of concern (hazard quotient = 1.8). Similar to the non-accidental acute exposure scenarios the chronic scenarios of concern involve the consumption of vegetation and fruit by an adult female. At the central exposure estimate the concern is marginal for an adult female eating contaminated vegetation (hazard quotient = 1). The corresponding upper exposure levels for both the consumption of contaminated vegetation and fruit by an adult female also exceed the level of concern (hazard quotients equal to 19 and 4, respectively). Relative to the risks associated with the consumption of contaminated fruit or vegetation, risks associated with other exposure scenarios are marginal. As noted in the above risk characterizations, the likelihood of fruit or vegetation being consumed unknowingly after spraying in this project is unlikely in these scenarios due to application of project design features.

Borate Salt (disodium octaborate tetrahydrate) Borate salts are rapidly converted to boric acid under conditions typically found in the environment. At physiological pH and in most surface waters, most organisms are exposed primarily to boric acid. Therefore, information on boric acid is reviewed as appropriate and used as surrogate data in this risk assessment for borate salt (disodium octaborate tetrahydrate) (Syracuse Environmental Research Associates 2016b).

All worker occupational exposures for the central, lower and upper exposure levels result in a hazard quotient of less than 1. None of the accidental acute and chronic exposure scenarios approached the level of concern. Scenarios associated with the consumption of contaminated vegetation are not included for the borate risk characterization because these compounds are applied directly to tree stumps and the likelihood of contaminating edible vegetation is minimal.

Synergistic effects Synergistic effects (multiplicative) are those effects resulting from exposure to a combination of two or more chemicals that are greater than the sum of the effects of each chemical alone (additive). Surfactants by nature are intended to increase the effect of pesticide by increasing the amount of pesticide that is in contact with the target. Current data indicates a lack of synergistic effects between surfactants and pesticides. Increased absorption would require physical effect to the skin which is not likely to result from the addition of non-ionic surfactants (USDA Forest Service 2002/2007; and USDA Forest Service 2003).

Based on the very low exposure rates estimated for this project with the pesticides individually any synergistic or additive effects are expected to be insignificant.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 157 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Conclusion While some of the scenarios indicate a hazard quotient of greater than 1, this simply indicates that some care and safety features are necessary to prevent such scenarios or exposures. In most cases, the scenarios are very unlikely and, in all cases these scenarios would be prevented through the use of best management practices and our project design features. All appropriate laws, policies, and regulations governing the use of herbicide, as required by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CA DPR), and the Forest Service Policy pertaining to herbicide use, will be followed, and all Forest Service personnel in charge of projects involving herbicide application will be qualified applicator certified by the California Department of Pesticide Regulation. All contract applicators will be appropriately licensed by the state, coordination with the appropriate county agricultural commissioner will occur, and all required licenses and permits will be obtained prior to any herbicide application. The public will be notified prior to implementation of herbicide treatments through posting of signs at treatment areas and access points, as specified in the project design features. Alternatives B and C adhere to all laws and regulations regarding herbicide use and includes stringent project design features which will minimize potential hazards to workers and to public health and safety. There will be no adverse effect to water quality because project design features include treatment buffers on all wells, ponds, and springs used for domestic water supplies. Furthermore, within 100 feet of recreation sites (campgrounds, trails, trailheads, and dispersed camping areas), cautionary notice signs will be posted at the recreation site prior to herbicide treatments.

Cumulative effects Cumulative effects may involve either repeated exposures to an individual agent or simultaneous exposures to the agent of concern and other agents that may cause the same effect or effects by the same or a similar mode of action. It is possible and even likely that some individuals would be exposed to multiple sources of pesticides as a result of Forest Service programs, or that individuals could be exposed to additional pesticides from use on adjacent private timberlands, or home use by a worker or member of the general public.

Because of the size of the Moonlight fire and the impacts to neighboring private industrial timber land, it is expected that reforestation efforts on private lands will include the use of pesticides, including Velpar and other formulations not proposed for use on National Forest System lands. Additional sources of exposure are also expected to occur from pesticide use on National Forest System lands for example with noxious weed abatement programs and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) hydropower facility and infrastructure maintenance. Pesticide use on both the national forest and on private lands is regulated by the California Department of Pesticide Regulation and the local county agricultural commissioners in the county where pesticide is applied.

The main potential for exposure from projects on the Plumas National Forest involving the pesticides proposed for use on this project is continuing treatment of noxious weeds on the Plumas National Forest, primarily using glyphosate. Hasten, R-11, and Syl-Tac are the surfactants most commonly used in glyphosate applications. Additional pesticides currently being used on the Plumas National Forest also include aminopyralid and imazapyr for noxious weed abatement and FERC hydropower facility/infrastructure maintenance.

This risk assessment and those used to develop this risk assessment specifically consider the effect of repeated exposure in that the chronic (derived) reference dose is used as an index of acceptable exposure. Repeated exposure to levels below the toxic threshold does not appear to be associated with cumulative toxic effects when glyphosate is applied at the proposed application rates. Since glyphosate persists in the environment for a relatively short time (generally less than 1 year), does not bioaccumulate, and is rapidly

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 158 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

eliminated from the body, doses from re-treatments in subsequent years are not expected to have additive effects.

In 1991, the EPA concluded that glyphosate should be classified as a Group E (evidence of non- carcinogenicity for humans) based on a lack of convincing carcinogenicity evidence and considering the criteria in EPA guidelines for classifying a carcinogen. Recently, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) Monograph Working Group determined that glyphosate should be classified as “probably carcinogenic to humans” (Guyton et al. 2015). This recent decision was based on a review of existing studies and not on new research which found limited evidence in humans for the carcinogenicity of glyphosate. The Forest Service human health and ecological risk assessment for glyphosate (Syracuse Environmental Research Associates 2011), includes a lengthy discussion of the mutagenic and carcinogenic potential of glyphosate including non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. The risk assessment concludes (page 70):

The nature of the available epidemiology data on glyphosate is addressed in the U.S. EPA/OPP (2002a) assessment:

This type of epidemiologic evaluation does not establish a definitive link to cancer. Furthermore, this information has limitations because it is based solely on unverified recollection of exposure to glyphosate-based herbicides.

Based on an evaluation of the available animal studies as well as epidemiology studies, U.S. EPA/OPP (2002a, p. 60943) classifies the carcinogenic potential of glyphosate as Group E, No Evidence of Carcinogenicity. Given the marginal mutagenic activity of glyphosate (Section 3.1.10.1), the failure of several chronic feeding studies to demonstrate a dose-response relationship for carcinogenicity, and the limitations in the available epidemiology studies on glyphosate, the Group E classification in U.S. EPA/OPP (1993, 2002a) appears to be reasonable.

It has been Forest Service practice to defer to the EPA unless there is a compelling reason to do otherwise. At this point, there is not yet a compelling reason to adopt the International Agency for Research on Cancer’s classification since all the technical details are not yet available from the International Agency for Research on Cancer and since the EPA’s and our analyses would indicate a different conclusion. As stated, a new risk assessment from the EPA is expected in the near future and this will undoubtedly consider the International Agency for Research on Cancer’s classification. If the EPA accepts the International Agency for Research on Cancer recommendation, then the Forest Service would consider an update to the glyphosate risk assessment and for purposes of existing NEPA documents, such a reclassification would be considered ‘new information’.

Triclopyr is proposed for use as a follow-up spot treatment for the Moonlight Restoration project, and is not anticipated to have additive effects. A detailed summary of the mutagenicity studies on triclopyr most of which indicate no mutagenic activity is provided in Syracuse Environmental Research Associates (2016a). The EPA has determined that the evidence for carcinogenity for triclopyr is marginal based on current research and has classified the chemical as a Group D chemical (not classifiable to human carcinogenity). The primary metabolite of triclopyr is 3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridinol. Because 3,5,6-trichloro- 2-pyridinol is more toxic than triclopyr, the hazards associated with the consumption of fruit or vegetation contaminated with 3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridinol cannot be disregarded (Syracuse Environmental Research Associates 2016a). The high hazard quotients for the chronic exposure scenarios for the consumption of vegetation and fruit contaminated with triclopyr acid and 3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridinol by an adult women are clearly a concern; however, it is important to take into consideration that applications of triclopyr associated with Forest Service programs will not involve crop treatment. Under normal circumstances and in most types of applications, it is highly unlikely that humans will unknowingly consume substantial amounts of vegetation or fruit contaminated with triclopyr due to project design features such as the

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 159 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

addition of colorant to the spray mixture and signing of treatment areas. Nonetheless, any number of accidental or incidental scenarios could be developed involving either spraying of crops, gardens, or edible wild vegetation. Again, in most instances and particularly for longer-term scenarios, treated vegetation would probably show signs of damage from exposure to triclopyr, thereby reducing the likelihood of consumption which might lead to significant levels of human exposure (Syracuse Environmental Research Associates 2016a).

Cumulative effects associated with the contribution of the Forest Service uses of borates to normal background levels of borates are a consideration since boron is a naturally occurring element (Syracuse Environmental Research Associates 2016b). However, based on the recent Syracuse Environmental Research Associates risk assessment (2016b), the uses of borates in Forest Service programs will not contribute substantially to normal background levels of exposure, as reflected in the extraordinarily lower hazard quotients for most exposure scenarios when borates are applied at the typical application rate. The most recent human health risk assessment from the EPA has indicated that boric acid and associated borates are classified as “Not Likely to be Carcinogenic to Humans” (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Fate and Effects Division 2015a, p. 5, as referenced in Syracuse Environmental Research Associates 2016b).

For all pesticides proposed for use in this project pesticide application would be consistent with the Forest Service Pesticide Use Policy, and would be in compliance with state and federal regulations. Additionally, it would follow Region 5 Best Management Practices for Water Quality and Vegetation Manipulation and the Region 5 supplement No. 2100-95-1 to 2150 on Pesticide-Use Management and Coordination. Appropriate monitoring protocols will also be used to ensure the proposed pesticides are applied according to requirements and label specifications. Additional project design criteria is listed in appendix D.

Alternative C – California spotted owl interim recommendations

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects All human health risks associated with herbicide use would be the same as described above for alternative B.

Alternative D – No herbicide use

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects Glyphosate and tricolpyr and associated additives would not be used under alternative D, so the risks associated with these herbicides would not occur. Borate would be used for this alternative, but none of the exposure levels analyzed resulted in a hazard quotient above the level of concern. Transportation

Affected Environment There are more than 370 miles of National Forest System roads within the project area.

In addition there are 24 miles of roads under county jurisdiction and 8 miles of private roads. The Forest Service, County and private landowners manage the road network within the project area.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 160 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Table 54. National Forest System road miles in the project area, by operational maintenance level Type of Road Miles Not Maintained for Passenger Car, High Clearance Vehicles 234 Dirt Road, Suitable for Passenger Car 19 Gravel Road, Suitable for Passenger Car 59 Paved Road 22 Total 370 miles

There are additional roads under Forest Service jurisdiction that exist on the landscape, that are not managed as part of the Forest transportation system. These include roads associated with authorized use, such as an agreement, permit, or right-of-way. Fourteen miles of existing non-system roads in the project area have been mapped on GIS.

Road condition surveys were completed on roads within the project area in 2016. Existing conditions for each surveyed road are included in the Transportation Specialist Report. It should be noted that heavy rainfall in the spring of 2017 is known to have caused additional damage to roads in the project area, including new washouts of roads. We do not have updated 2017 survey information for the entire project area at this time of preparation of this environmental assessment.

Alternative A – No action Under the no-action alternative, there would be no timber harvest, no vegetation treatment, no road improvements and no project related road maintenance. Roads would be maintained under the annual road maintenance schedule as limited funds are available. Roads not needed for future management would not be decommissioned to reduce maintenance costs and benefit soil productivity, water quality and other resources. Under the no-action alternative, limited road maintenance and no road improvements would lead to adverse resource impacts including improperly functioning road drainage structures. Without the use of timber sale revenue, the Forest transportation system within the project area would not receive haul route maintenance and improvements in the near future, and would not likely retain desirable conditions for which the roads were designed.

All Action Alternatives (Alternative B, C, and D)

Direct and Indirect Effects To support vegetation treatment operations, existing roads would be used for access and product removal. Roads used for vegetation treatment access and product removal would be improved where needed to provide safe use while mitigating resource effects. In a few locations existing motorized trail would also be used for harvest access and hauling. These motorized trails are old roads used for past harvest operations that were converted to motorized trails. Proposed maintenance and reconstruction activity is summarized in the Proposed Action description and in appendix B. Specific maintenance and reconstruction needs were identified for each road (based on GIS analysis and 2016 survey information) and are included in the transportation specialist report.

Improvements including surfacing, culvert replacement, cross drain and ditch construction and reconstruction, and other maintenance actions would also be done to improve water quality. Proposed watershed improvements are summarized in the Proposed Action description and in appendix B.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 161 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Under alternatives B and D, 7 miles of temporary roads would be constructed used for harvest operations and obliterated after harvest operations are complete. Six miles of temporary roads would be constructed under alternative C. Temporary roads would be obliterated or decommissioned and disturbed areas restored by, scarifying to reduce soil compaction where needed, drainage features restored, recontoured where needed, disturbed areas planted to reestablish vegetation cover and woody debris placed on the road bed clearing to discourage off road vehicle use after operations are complete. Temporary roads would not become part of the long-term road system.

System road decommissioning would be done to restore unneeded road beds to a more natural state. Decommissioned roads are not planned to be used again in the future and are removed from the transportation inventory. Decommissioning would include pulling all culverts accompanied with drainage restoration, water-barring where needed, ripping and mulching, and blocking the entrance. Drainage restoration would recreate and stabilize the natural, pre-road terrain features. Forty miles of system roads would be decommissioned under alternatives B, C and D. In 2015, the Plumas National Forest conducted a roads analysis that considered potential benefits of each road for vegetation and fire management, and social values, and the potential risks of each road to watershed, wildlife, and other resource values (USDA Forest Service 2016). The result of the analysis was a determination that the road was either “likely needed” or “likely not needed”. The roads proposed for closure and obliteration in the Moonlight restoration project were identified as “not needed” during the 2015 roads analysis or subsequent site- specific interdisciplinary team review.

In addition, 14 miles of existing non-system roads would be obliterated or decommissioned and disturbed areas restored by; scarifying to reduce soil compaction where needed, restoring drainage features, recontouring where needed, planting disturbed areas to reestablish vegetation cover, and placing woody debris on the road bed to discourage off-road vehicle use.

Under alternatives B, C and D, short-term traffic from harvest operations and forest product removal would require adequate traffic control, some temporary public road closures, and proper communications to maintain safe and efficient traffic flow. A short-term reduction in public access would occur on some roads in order to minimize user conflicts during project implementation. Main collector and arterial forest roads would receive the majority of traffic and would have surface wear proportionate to the traffic volume. Road maintenance activities would ensure drainage feature function and improved road surface conditions.

Cumulative effects This analysis considers the past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions listed in appendix E. The Moonlight Fire created hazard trees that pose a risk to travelers on motorized routes. Fire effects and suppression activities resulted in heavier road use and washouts, effectively closing some roads. The post- fire Burned Area Emergency Response team recommended to stabilize roads and trails. Road improvements including cross drains and culvert leaning and installation, were completed on 46 miles of system roads. Hazard trees were felled along roads and trails to ensure user safety. Several reforestation, hazard tree removal, and timber salvage projects were conducted on National Forest lands after the fire. Maintenance of recreation sites, roads, and trails is ongoing throughout the area.

Past, present and future project area decisions on the Mt. Hough Ranger District, Plumas National Forest relevant to cumulative effects related to transportation facilities in the Moonlight analysis area were reviewed. Past vegetation treatment and road improvement projects in the cumulative effects area include:

• Mud Lake Baker Cypress, 2015, 285 acres of fuels treatments including grapple piling small snags and downed logs and pile burning.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 162 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

• Off-Channel Water Sources, 2017, Construction of off-channel water sources (ponds or storage tanks) for road work water source and fire suppression, at East Branch Lights Creek, Peter’s Creek and Hungry Creek (three sites). • Road Maintenance and road improvement work at Hungry Creek, Indian Creek, and Smith Creek watersheds are anticipated to be done in 2017 and 2018, including drainage features, culvert work, cross drain dips and decommissioning non-system roads. Past management activities in the project area left some non-system roads that were not intended to be long-term roads. Corridors that were established as temporary roads were not always sufficiently closed or decommissioned. As a result, some of these corridors have been perpetuated without Forest Service authorization. Effective closures and obliteration are planned for temporary roads and unclassified (non- system) roads.

National Forest local roads maintenance and improvements are usually accomplished during timber harvest. Between harvest operations maintenance level 1 and 2 roads receive little or no maintenance unless work is needed to correct or prevent resource damage, or to meet recreation needs. Local roads on state or private lands are maintained by the landowners or by local government to a standard commensurate with use. Roads developed or maintained on private land for timber harvest are low standard and usually closed to public travel.

There are currently road management activities in the implementation stages on the Mt. Hough Ranger District, Plumas National Forest. The Hungry Creek Watershed Road Maintenance and Stony Quarry Development projects activities would include decommissioning unneeded roads, and realignment, maintenance and reconditioning roads including stream crossings and drainage improvements. Road improvements would decrease sediment delivery to streams by maintenance and repair, including repairing drainage features, adding new drainage features, out-sloping the road bed, cleaning ditches, or adding road surface material. Site specific work would include installing larger culverts, cleaning existing culverts and catch basins, reshaping cross drains, armoring cut and fill slopes, and reshaping road beds to eliminate ruts and washouts.

There is little information available for future road activities on private land. No large blocks of state land are within the cumulative effects boundary. Management, including timber harvest would continue on private land. Private land development would likely continue. Roads would be constructed and reconstructed in adjacent areas, the exact number of miles is unknown.

Public recreation road use would likely stay the same or increase. The Forest Service would continue to work toward a road system that meets user needs within Forest Plan guidelines and other controlling regulations and laws. The Plumas National Forest’s motor vehicle use map is republished annually. The map identifies authorized road use in the Plumas National Forest. Road signs on Forest Service system roads would continue to improve, which would help users identify system routes, help deter unauthorized road use and provide for effective administration.

Summary and Conclusion All action alternatives would address the purpose and need to repair and improve roads that were damaged by the Moonlight fire and subsequent suppression activities and to decommission unneeded roads. They would also provide improved access for vegetation management activities.

Alternatives B, C and D are expected to improve water quality and system road user comfort. There would be an overall net positive effect on water quality when compared to existing conditions under alternative A.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 163 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Under the proposed road related actions, road maintenance, including hazard tree removal and improvements would be done on 155 haul road miles, 33 miles of haul roads would be reconstructed, 5 system road miles would be closed (stored, maintenance level 1), and 40 miles of system roads would be decommissioned. Fourteen miles of non-system roads would be obliterated and 28 miles of system trails would be improved. These actions would meet best management practices and improve conditions for other resources (USDA Forest Service 2012). System road miles would be reduced from 213 to 173 miles. This would reduce future maintenance cost needs.

Traffic would increase on some roads during implementation from transporting equipment, worker travel and hauling products. Traffic management under contract provisions would mitigate risks to workers and provide for safe public travel. Short-term temporary route closures to public travel would provide for worker and public safety during project implementation.

The transportation system would be safe, efficient, produce minimal adverse effects on ecological processes and provide long-term public travel needs. Recreation Analysis for recreation focuses on the extent the alternatives would meet the purpose and need to provide for trail safety and on the two issues – effects of herbicide use on recreationists and effects to dispersed motorized recreational opportunities. The resource indicators and measures listed in table 55 were used for analysis. Effects to recreation could occurring anywhere within the project area boundary where the vegetation, trail, and road treatments would be conducted. Short-term effects to recreation would be during and immediately following project implementation (within 5-10 years) and long-term effects would be until fire restoration goals are met (20 or more years).

Table 55. Resource indicators and measures for assessing effects to public recreation Resource Element Resource Indicator Measure Recreation Loss of recreation opportunities or displacement Duration and timing of project Opportunities of visitors due to project activities activities Change in trail conditions due to brush and Trails Miles of trail hazard tree removal Access for Dispersed Change in access for dispersed recreation due to Miles of road decommissioning or Recreation road decommissioning and obliteration obliteration Change in road conditions due to maintenance Miles of road Roads and/or reconstruction maintained/reconstructed

Affected Environment Major recreation areas within the project vicinity include Antelope Lake. There are three campgrounds in the Antelope Lake Recreation Area, including, Boulder Creek campground, Lone Rock campground, and Long Point campground. These campgrounds generally open by Memorial Day and close in mid-October, depending on the snow levels in the area. There is an 11-mile paved road around the lake that also serves as a biking trail. Activities include swimming, boating, fishing, hiking, and biking.

The Antelope-Taylor Lake, Middle Creek, and Cold Stream trails pass through the project area, south of the Antelope Lake Recreation area. The Antelope-Taylor Lake trailhead is located just before the dam at Antelope Lake. The hiking and horseback trail is 10 miles long and connects to both the Cold Stream and

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 164 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Middle Creek trails. The Cold Stream trailhead is located two miles south of Antelope Lake, and the Middle Creek trailhead is located 7.5 miles south of Antelope Lake, both on Genessee road.

The primary recreation activities within the analysis area include, camping, fishing, boating, swimming, hiking, biking, horseback riding, off-highway vehicle riding, and driving for pleasure. There are four recreation special use permits including one concessionaire, two outfitter/guides, and one recreation event – bike ride within the analysis area. There are also four non-recreation special uses including two pasture and livestock areas, one waterline, and one resource monitoring site. Numerous mining claims are also located within the project area.

The Forest Service uses the recreation opportunity spectrum to inventory and describe the range of recreation opportunities available based on the following characteristics of an area: physical (characteristics of the land and facilities), social (interactions and contact with others), and managerial (services and controls provided). The recreational settings are described on a continuum ranging from primitive to urban. A majority of the Moonlight Restoration project area is within the roaded modified recreation opportunity spectrum class. The Antelope Lake Recreation area and the Antelope and Beckworth Genessee Road corridors are within the roaded natural recreation opportunity spectrum class. A small area in the southwest portion of the project area is within the rural recreation opportunity spectrum class.

The 2007 Moonlight Fire impacts to recreation include changes in the setting due to changing forest vegetation type, trails that are being overgrown by shrubs and becoming impassable, hazard trees that pose a safety risk for trail users, and roads that have been damaged.

Table 56 shows the existing condition relative to the indicators and measures for recreation.

Table 56. Resource indicators and measures for the existing condition for recreation

Resource Resource Indicator Measure Existing Condition Element Developed recreation opportunities in Antelope Lake Loss of recreation Recreation Area (camping and boating facilities, store) and opportunities or Duration and timing dispersed recreation opportunities throughout remainder of Recreation displacement of Opportunities of project activities the project area (hunting, fishing, hiking, horseback riding, visitors due to project OHV riding, driving for pleasure). Primary recreation activities season is between Memorial Day and Labor Day. Seventeen miles of hiking trails (Antelope-Taylor, Middle Creek, and Cold Creek trails). Change in trail Two hundred and eighty miles of road and trail open to off- conditions due to Trails Miles of trail highway vehicles (OHVs). brush and hazard Impacts from the Moonlight fire have made many of the tree removal trails unsafe and impassable due to hazard trees and snags and the overgrowth of shrubs along the trails. Three hundred and seventy miles of existing national forest system roads. Change in access for Some of the roads were identified as “not needed” during Access for dispersed recreation Miles of road the 2015 travel analysis process, are located within the Dispersed due to road decommissioning project area, and are causing sediment delivery into project Recreation decommissioning or obliteration area streams. There is a need to decommission unneeded and obliteration national forest system roads, and to obliterate non-system roads Change in road Three hundred and seventy miles of national forest system Miles of road conditions due to roads. There is a need to maintain system roads to reduce maintained/ Roads maintenance and/or road-related soil erosion and associated sedimentation reconstructed reconstruction rates and improve transportation infrastructure.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 165 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Alternative A – No action There would be no direct effects from proposed activities to recreation opportunities. Several other restoration projects within the Moonlight fire area are being planned separately and may continue, including maintaining roads, treating hazardous fuel, treating invasive plants, and other activities. The present and reasonably foreseeable future actions within the project area are included in appendix E of the environmental assessment. This alternative would not fully meet the purpose and need.

In the long term, not implementing the proposed restoration treatments within the Moonlight project area may result in indirect effects to recreation resources, potentially resulting in changes to the recreation setting or scenic quality of the project area, and displacement of visitors. The burned areas would continue to convert to shrublands dominated by montane chaparral species, making travel by foot and horseback difficult both on trails and cross-country. These areas would likely become less desirable for dispersed recreation activities. The remaining areas with dense forest conditions and high fuel loads would remain at risk for high intensity wildfire that would also put recreation resources and infrastructure at risk. Road conditions would continue to deteriorate, making access for dispersed recreation throughout the project area more difficult.

Table 57. Resource indicators and measures for alternative A Resource Resource Indicator Measure Alternative A – No Action Element No project activities would be conducted, no Loss of recreation potential loss of recreation opportunities or opportunities or displacement of visitors due to project activities. Recreation Duration and timing of displacement of Potential long-term indirect effects as Opportunities project activities visitors due to project vegetation conditions change the recreation activities settings, making the area less desirable for recreation. Brush and hazard trees would not be removed Change in trail (other than what could be accomplished during conditions due to routine trail maintenance across the Forest). Trails Miles of trail brush and hazard tree Trail conditions would continue to be degraded removal and some trails would become impassable due to thick brush growth. No road decommissioning or obliteration would be implemented. Existing non-system roads Change in access for and unneeded national forest system roads Access for dispersed recreation Miles of road would continue to be used, access for Dispersed due to road decommissioning or dispersed recreation would remain unchanged. Recreation decommissioning and obliteration Sediment delivery to project area streams as a obliteration result of deteriorating road conditions would likely increase over time. Project area roads would not be maintained or reconstructed (other than what could be accomplished during routine road maintenance Change in road Miles of road across the Forest). Road-related soil erosion conditions due to Roads maintained/reconstru and associated sedimentation rates would likely maintenance and/or cted continue to increase. Transportation reconstruction infrastructure would not be improved, and maintenance costs and needs would continue to increase over time.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 166 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Alternative B – Proposed action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Recreation Opportunities The proposed fuels reduction, reforestation, aspen restoration, road decommissioning or obliteration, and trail maintenance activities would be implemented and would directly affect recreation activities and experiences in the project area. The vegetation treatments may require temporary road or trail closures or limited access to the immediate area to protect public safety. The recreation experience in the immediate vicinity of project implementation activities would be impacted by the sights and sounds of equipment including ground based logging equipment, chainsaws, and truck traffic within the treatment units, and log truck traffic on the haul routes. Visitors may choose to avoid areas during project implementation activities. These effects would be both temporary and short term.

Standard management requirements would be followed for the protection of recreation resources and visitor safety, including coordination of project implementation timing to reduce impacts to recreation, public notification of project activities and temporary area or trail closures, protection of trail infrastructure, and for the prevention of unauthorized motorized use following project implementation.

Project specific design features would be followed, including timing limitations to minimize impacts from project implementation during primary recreation seasons and in popular recreation areas, public notification of project activities, and implementation requirements to minimize project impacts to developed recreation sites and trail infrastructure.

The proposed vegetation treatments may indirectly affect the recreation setting within the project area by changing the scenic qualities within the treatment areas. The fuels reduction, thinning, and aspen restoration activities would reduce stand density, and the cut tree stumps would remain visible to visitors passing through the project area. The prescribed burning activities would create blackened areas on the landscape. These effects would be short term.

The proposed reforestation treatments would begin to re-establish healthy forest conditions in areas that were impacted by high intensity fires, providing long-term benefits to the recreation setting. The use of herbicides, glyphosate and triclopyr, as a release treatment in some areas is a concern expressed by the public regarding health concerns for themselves and their animals. There are no reforestation units within the Antelope Lake Recreation area. There are four reforestation units along the Antelope/Taylor Lake trail. There are design features in place regarding public notification of project activities, and herbicide application would follow applicable state regulations, label directions, and Forest Service policy (see appendix D). Additional analysis of the potential health concerns related to herbicide use is included in the herbicide risk assessment.

Other long-term benefits of the proposed action, including a more diverse, resilient and sustainable forest ecosystem, and reduction in the risk of negative impacts from severe wildfire, have the potential to indirectly benefit recreation by helping to maintain the settings and opportunities currently valued by the public for recreation within the project area. Studies suggest that less intense fires may have beneficial economic effects on outdoor recreation, whereas intense fires may have detrimental effects (Vaux, Gardner and Mills 1984).

There are 18 treatment units proposed that are within the Antelope Lake Recreation Area, including 17 mechanical thinning units which are intended to promote development of mature forest, which has been reduced by the fires, and restore landscape diversity, and one unit of aspen restoration which is intended

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 167 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment to reduce conifer encroachment, reduce hazardous fuels (created by snags), and limit the effects of grazing and browsing on aspen regeneration. There are project specific design features in place that require consultation with the recreation planner or landscape architect to identify trees to either leave or remove within developed recreation sites, and timing considerations to limit impacts of project implementation on developed recreation and concession operations during the summer season.

Trails The proposed trail maintenance would improve trail conditions by reducing the dense shrub growth that is currently obstructing the trails, and by removing hazard trees. There are nine treatment units adjacent to the Antelope/Taylor Lake trail, including aspen restoration, reforestation, and fuels reduction activities. Implementing the proposed vegetation treatments adjacent to the trails would reduce the risk of future sever wildfire impacting the trails in the future. There are design features in place to ensure that trails are reconstructed, or maintained if project operations damage the trail.

Access for Dispersed Recreation/Roads In 2015, the Plumas National Forest conducted a roads analysis that considered potential benefits of each road for vegetation and fire management, and social values, and the potential risks of each road to watershed, wildlife, and other resource values (USDA Forest Service 2016). The result of the analysis was a determination that the road was either “likely needed” or “likely not needed”. The roads proposed for closure and obliteration in the Moonlight restoration project were identified as “not needed” during the 2015 roads analysis or subsequent site-specific interdisciplinary team review.

The proposed action includes decommissioning 22 miles of system road that are currently designated as open for public motor vehicle use, decommissioning 18 miles of system road that are currently designated as closed to public motor vehicle use, and obliterating 14 miles of non-system route. Although this would result in a total reduction of 54 miles of road, only 22 of those miles are currently open to the public. The road decommissioning and obliteration would reduce opportunities for visitors who use the 22 miles of system roads that are currently designated for public use. However, many of the roads proposed for decommissioning, although currently on the motor vehicle use map, are not currently in a useable condition. Overall, the road and trail conditions across the project area would improve due to the proposed improvements for water quality on 55 miles of system road and 29 miles of system trail; and reconstruction on 36 miles, and maintenance on 124 miles of haul route. Proper construction and maintenance of roads and trails within the project area would provide long-term benefits by providing access to dispersed recreation, and reducing maintenance costs over time.

Skid trails left by ground-based harvest and removal methods may open access for off-highway vehicles to areas where vegetation had kept them out. Design features are in place to minimize the appearance of skid trails where they intersect with existing roads and trails to reduce the likelihood of unauthorized motorized use. In addition, seven miles of temporary roads are proposed for construction to provide access for management activities. Temporary roads also increase the potential for illegal off-highway vehicle use. The temporary roads would be obliterated or decommissioned following project implementation.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 168 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Table 58. Resource indicators and measures for alternative B direct and indirect effects Resource Alternative B Resource Indicator Measure Element Direct and indirect Effects

Loss of recreation Short-term, temporary loss of recreation opportunities or Recreation Duration and timing of opportunities and potential displacement of displacement of Opportunities project activities visitors during project implementation. visitors due to project activities Design features are in place to minimize impacts. Change in trail conditions due to Seventeen miles of non-motorized trail Trails Miles of trail brush and hazard maintained, improved trail conditions. tree removal Twenty two miles of system road decommissioning (currently designated for public motor vehicle use). Eighteen miles of system road decommissioning (not currently designated for public motor vehicle Change in access use). for dispersed Access for Miles of road Fourteen miles of non-system route obliteration. recreation due to Dispersed decommissioning or road 0.15 miles system trail decommissioning. Recreation obliteration decommissioning Potential impacts to visitors who enjoy using and obliteration specific roads proposed for decommissioning or obliteration. No overall loss of access for recreation due to the adequate network of national forest system roads designated for use and analyzed during the 2015 travel analysis process. Fifty five miles of system road improvements for water quality. Twenty nine miles system trail improvements for Change in road Miles of road water quality. conditions due to Roads maintained/ Thirty six miles of haul route reconstruction. maintenance and/or reconstructed reconstruction One hundred and twenty four miles haul route maintenance. Improved conditions and reduced maintenance costs over time.

Cumulative effects Cumulative effects to recreation within the Moonlight Restoration project area boundary would relate to other administrative or forest management activities occurring within the project area. Cumulative impacts would result if other activities take place during implementation of the Moonlight Restoration project or until vegetation growth obscures the visible stumps from the vegetation treatment activities and prescribed fire, approximately 3-5 years after implementation.

The effects of past actions such as wildfire, a variety of vegetation treatments, road and trail construction and maintenance, and recreation site development have contributed to the existing conditions of the landscape and recreation settings across the project area. The Moonlight and Antelope fires reduced recreation use at Antelope Lake, primarily due to the change of visual qualities and the predominantly burned landscapes around the lake. The fires also contributed to hazard trees along trails, and an increase in shrub growth that has overgrown trails and made travel along the trails difficult and undesirable. The following projects were planned and implemented following the fires:

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 169 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

• the Antelope Roadside Safety, Reforestation, and Hazard Tree Removal project, which planned for removal of hazard trees and planted trees along 28 miles of road; • the Antelope Lake Recreation Area salvage/hazard tree removal and reforestation treatments project; and The present and reasonably foreseeable future actions (appendix D) within the project area have been reviewed for potential cumulative effects when the direct or indirect effects of the alternatives are added to them. The following projects have been proposed that include road maintenance and road decommissioning:

• The Indian Creek Watershed Road Maintenance and Smith Creek Stream Restoration project is proposed to include general maintenance and road improvement activities on approximately 75 miles of National Forest System Roads. • The Hungry Creek project is proposed to include general maintenance and road improvement activities on approximately 40 miles of National Forest System Roads, and also proposes to decommission two short non-system road spurs off of Forest route 27N09, located along Hungry Creek. Recreational activities such as camping, driving, hiking, horseback riding, mountain biking, off-highway vehicle riding, boating, swimming, fishing, snowmobiling, cross country skiing, hunting, firewood cutting, Christmas tree harvesting, and rock hounding would continue within the project area. Other ongoing and reasonably foreseeable activities that would be occurring within the analysis area include noxious weed treatments, commercial guided recreational activities, continued use of grazing allotments, fuels reduction projects, and road and trail maintenance. All of these activities, when added to the activities proposed in the Moonlight Restoration project have the potential to cumulatively affect the recreation experience within the project area. The primary impacts would be due to the increased presence of people, vehicles, equipment, and associated noise that would directly affect the ability of recreational visitors to enjoy their desired experience, and may lead to the short-term displacement of visitors who choose to avoid the area during implementation of the various activities.

Alternative C – California spotted owl interim recommendations

Direct and Indirect Effects

Recreation Opportunities The precommercial thinning treatments, hazardous fuels reduction treatments, and reforestation treatments, and associated impacts would be the same as described under the proposed action. There would be a reduction in the amount of mechanized equipment that would be used to implement thinning, aspen restoration, and wildlife habitat improvement treatments. A reduction of mechanized equipment would reduce the impacts to the recreation experience in the vicinity of the treatment units due to the sights and sounds of ground-based equipment.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 170 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Table 59. Resource indicators and measures for alternative C direct and indirect effects Resource Alternative C Resource Indicator Measure Element Direct and indirect Effects Short-term, temporary loss of recreation opportunities and potential displacement of visitors Loss of recreation during project implementation. opportunities or Duration and Recreation Slightly less use of mechanized equipment for displacement of timing of project Opportunities project implementation would reduce potential visitors due to activities impacts to the recreation experience within the project activities project area during implementation. Design features are in place to minimize impacts. Change in trail conditions due to Seventeen miles of trail maintained, improved trail Trails Miles of trail brush and hazard conditions. tree removal Twenty two miles of system road decommissioning (currently designated for public motor vehicle use). Eighteen miles of system road decommissioning (not Change in access currently designated for public motor vehicle use). for dispersed Fourteen miles of non-system route obliteration. Access for Miles of road recreation due to Dispersed decommissioning 0.15 miles system trail decommissioning. road Recreation or obliteration decommissioning Potential impacts to visitors who enjoy using specific and obliteration roads proposed for decommissioning or obliteration. No overall loss of access for recreation due to the adequate network of national forest system roads designated for use and analyzed during the 2015 travel analysis process. Fifty five miles of system road improvements for water quality. Twenty nine miles system trail improvements for Change in road Miles of road water quality. conditions due to Roads maintained/recons Thirty four miles of haul route reconstruction. maintenance and/or tructed reconstruction One hundred and twelve miles haul route maintenance. Improved conditions and reduced maintenance costs over time.

Trails The proposed trail maintenance and associated impacts would be the same as described for alternative B, the proposed action.

Access for Dispersed Recreation and Roads The watershed restoration activities (decommissioning, obliteration, and road maintenance) and associated impacts would be the same as described for alternative B, the proposed action. There would be some minor reductions in need for haul route maintenance and reconstruction and temporary road construction – at this time we estimate 14 fewer miles of haul road and one mile fewer mile of temporary road. This would slightly reduce the improved road conditions associated with haul route maintenance and reconstruction and slightly reduce the potential for illegal off-highway vehicle use of temporary routes, as compared with alternative B, the proposed action.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 171 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Cumulative effects The cumulative impacts of alternative C are expected to be essentially the same as described in alternative B, the proposed action, with the exception of 14 fewer miles of haul route maintenance and reconstruction, resulting in slightly fewer miles of improved road conditions.

Alternative D – No herbicide alternative

Direct and Indirect Effects

Recreation Opportunities The effects to recreation settings and experiences would be the same as described for alternative B, the proposed action. Since no herbicides would be used as release treatments following planting in the reforestation units, this would relieve public concerns regarding potential public health impacts associated with herbicides. Since herbicides would not be used, there may be slightly more machine pulling and piling, mastication, or hand grubbing within the reforestation units that may impact recreation experiences in the short-term, during project implementation.

Trails The proposed trail maintenance and associated impacts would be the same as described for alternative B, the proposed action.

Access for Dispersed Recreation/Roads The watershed restoration activities (decommissioning, obliteration, and road maintenance), haul route maintenance and reconstruction, and temporary road construction, and the associated impacts would be the same as described for alternative B, the proposed action.

Table 60. Resource indicators and measures for alternative D direct and indirect effects Resource Alternative C Resource Indicator Measure Element Direct and indirect Effects Short-term, temporary loss of recreation opportunities and potential displacement of Loss of recreation visitors during project implementation. opportunities or Recreation Duration and timing Slightly more use of mechanized equipment for displacement of Opportunities of project activities project implementation would increase potential visitors due to impacts to the recreation experience within the project activities project area during implementation. Design features in place to minimize impacts. Change in trail conditions due to Seventeen miles of trail maintained, improved trail Trails Miles of trail brush and hazard conditions. tree removal

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 172 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Resource Alternative C Resource Indicator Measure Element Direct and indirect Effects Twenty two miles of system road decommissioning (currently designated for public motor vehicle use). Eighteen miles of system road decommissioning (not currently designated for public motor vehicle Change in access use). for dispersed Access for Miles of road Fourteen miles of non-system route obliteration. recreation due to Dispersed decommissioning or road 0.15 miles system trail decommissioning. Recreation obliteration decommissioning or Potential impacts to visitors who enjoy using obliteration specific roads proposed for decommissioning or obliteration. No overall loss of access for recreation due to the adequate network of national forest system roads designated for use and analyzed during the 2015 travel analysis process. Fifty five miles of system road improvements for water quality. Twenty nine miles system trail improvements for Change in road Miles of road water quality conditions due to Roads maintained/reconstr Thirty six miles of haul route reconstruction. maintenance and/or ucted reconstruction One hundred and twenty four miles haul route maintenance. Improved conditions and reduced maintenance costs over time.

Cumulative effects The Cumulative impacts of alternative D are expected to be essentially the same as described in alternative B, the proposed action, with the exception of herbicide use.

Conclusion Overall, the proposed action and action alternatives would provide improved trail conditions for both motorized and non-motorized use. The project is consistent with the Forest Plan standards and guidelines and helps move the project area toward the desired conditions described in the Forest Plan.

Under all action alternatives, there would be twenty-two miles of system roads currently open to public use that would be decommissioned, resulting in potential impacts to visitors who enjoy using these specific roads. No overall loss of access for recreation would result because there is an adequate network of national forest system roads designated for use and analyzed during the 2015 travel analysis. In addition, under all action alternatives there would be a short term loss of recreational opportunities during project implementation, with slightly more disturbance from mechanized equipment under alternatives B and D. There would be long term benefits to recreation with forest restoration activities providing for a more resilient forest and reduced risk of severe wildfire. Socioeconomics Social or economic issues are not driving the purpose and need. However, the 2013 Moonlight Fire Area Strategy states “[m]anagement treatments are designed to maintain or enhance recreation values”, “[p]rovides for maximum production of sawtimber and other wood products on an even-flow, long-term

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 173 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

sustained yield basis[…]” and “[f]uel treatments will reduce wildland fire spread and intensity sufficiently for suppression forces to succeed in protecting human life and property”. Each of these management directions impact the quality of life and welfare of the surrounding communities and therefore are of relevance to the socioeconomic resource area. There were no issues directly associated with affects to socioeconomics. However, reduced recreation access associated with road obliteration and closures and herbicide application have the potential to impact quality of life for Plumas National Forest users and have been addressed in this report.

Table 61 lists the resource indicators and measures which were used for assessing effects to social and economic conditions.

Table 61. Resource indicators and measures for assessing effects to social and economic conditions Resource Element Resource Indicator Measure Economic impact Economic activity Employment and labor income Disproportionate and adverse effects to Environmental justice Qualitative evaluation low-income and/or minority populations Qualitative evaluation. See also Quality of life Herbicide Application Herbicide Risk Assessment. Qualitative evaluation. See Quality of life Road Closures also, recreation, transportation, and vegetation specialist report.

The spatial boundaries for analysis include five counties (Butte, Lassen, Nevada, Plumas and Sierra) due to the economic linkages between these counties and the project area. This economic area of influence for Plumas National Forest, referred to as the “study area”, was defined by the USDA Forest Service Ecosystem Management Coordination using a detailed protocol. This yields a study area that delineates where the greatest interactions are between Forest Service resource management and the local economy. For example, the firms and employees that would support Moonlight Fire Area Restoration activities are located in these counties (both primary and supplier firms) and a large share of forest visitors originate in these counties. Therefore, these counties are also in the socioeconomic study area.

The temporal boundary for the socioeconomic analysis extends 10 years. The timeframe to implement this project is expected to take 5-10 years. The proposed action would continue to impact communities and many of the measurable or identifiable social and economic consequences of the action alternatives are expected to occur during this period. Unmeasurable impacts could continue into the future.

Economic activity in local counties of the Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project is estimated with input-output analysis using the IMPLAN (Impact analysis for Planning) modeling system (MIG 2014). The modeling system allows the user to build regional economic models of one or more counties for a particular year and estimates the economic consequences of activities, projects, and policies on a region. The Socioeconomic Report contains additional detail and assumptions about the modeling methodology.

Environmental justice is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. This report uses the share of low-income and minority populations in the project area to identify potential environmental justice populations. The proposed activities are then evaluated for their potential to disproportionately and adversely affect low-income and minority populations.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 174 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Affected Environment Table 62 displays the existing condition of each indicators, which are described further below. The following section analyzes current conditions and trends related to the social and economic environment of the study area, including demographic characteristics and local economic conditions.

Table 62. Resource indicators and measures for the existing condition Resource Resource Indicator Measure Existing Condition Element Economic Employment and Economic Contributions by Plumas National Economic activity impact labor income Forest (IMPLAN 2014) Disproportionate and Identification of low- High/low poverty unemployment, and income Environmental adverse effects to income and minority relative to California and the U.S. Presence of justice low-income and/or populations in the minority populations susceptible to management minority populations study area decisions. The values, beliefs and attitudes of stakeholders Qualitative towards the use of herbicide are expressed in evaluation. See also Quality of life Herbicide Application scoping comments. Several commenters prefer Herbicide Risk the use of herbicide to be restricted. See Quality Assessment. of Life section for details. The values, beliefs and attitudes of stakeholders Qualitative towards access, and the reduction of access to evaluation. See also, dispersed and motorized recreation was a Quality of life Road Closures recreation specialist concern related during public scoping. See report recreation report and Quality of Life section for details.

Demographics and Economic Characteristics The study area was home to 375,766 people in 2015. Butte and Nevada counties are the two largest counties and account for over 85 percent of the study area population. They are also the only two counties who experienced population growth from 2000 to 2015. Lassen, Plumas and Sierra counties lost 4, 9, and 15 percent of their population, respectively. The population is primarily non-Hispanic and White and less diverse than California as a whole. Lassen County is the most diverse county, it has the largest Hispanic and African American population in the study area. Butte, the most populous county, has the largest percentage of Asians and two or more races. As a percent of the total population, Butte’s two or more race population, and Lassen’s African American population are greater than California’s percentage (Table 63).

Table 64 provides information on economic well-being and security, data for California and the United States are also provided for context. These data are an important consideration for forest planners because low-income individuals may be less able to adapt to changes in employment and income opportunities on the Plumas National Forest.

The five study area counties experience varying degrees of economic insecurity, however, all counties have incomes at least $5,000 less than California’s median. Butte and Sierra counties have median incomes nearly $20,000 less than California. Nevada and Lassen counties have median incomes $5,000 and $10,000 less than California’s, however they are on par with the United States’ median.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 175 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Table 63. Population, race and ethnicity (2015) Total Pop. Total Pop. Percent of Total Population 2015 2000 2015 7 Ethnicity Race for Non-Hispanic Non- White African Two or Hispanic Asian Hispanic Alone American More Butte 203,171 222,564 15 85 74 1.4 4.3 4.5 Lassen 33,828 32,645 18 82 66 8.4 1.4 2.2 Nevada 92,033 98,570 9 91 86 0.5 1.4 2.2 Plumas 20,824 18,966 8 92 84 0.7 0.9 3.1 Sierra 3,555 3,021 9 91 88 0.1 0.0 1.7

Study Area 2.7 70,682 75,153 12 88 80 2.2 1.6 Average California 33,871,648 38,421,464 38 62 39 5.6 13.5 2.8 Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2000, 2016

With the exception of Nevada County, 2016 annual average unemployment rates in the study area exceed those of California and the United States. Nevada County has an unemployment rate lower than the United States, and is among the lowest in California. Plumas County has the highest unemployment in the study area. At 9.7 percent, unemployment is nearly double the national average. Accordingly, the counties with the lowest median incomes also experience greater unemployment.

Poverty is an indicator of economic well-being. Despite low median incomes, the study area county’s average poverty level is equal to the United States and California. Butte County is the exception, at 22 percent it has the highest percentage of people living in poverty.

Median age is also provided in table 64. Age is an important planning consideration because older residents may find it more difficult to adjust to social and economic change. Additionally, they may require easier access to National Forest recreation areas. The average median age for the study area is approximately 10 years older than California and the United States. This average is driven by Nevada, Plumas, and Sierra counties, who have median ages 49 years and older. Butte and Lassen County have median ages similar to California and the United States.

Table 64. Economic characteristics by county Median Household Annual Unemployment Percent of People Median Age Location Income 2015 Rate 2016 Living in Poverty 2015 2015 Butte County $43,444 6.6 22 36.8 Lassen County $51,555 6.7 16 37.0 Nevada County $56,521 4.8 13 49.0 Plumas County $47,333 9.7 14 51.3 Sierra County $42,833 7.8 15 54.5 Study Area Avg. $48,337 7.1 16 46.7 California $61,818 5.4 16 35.8 United States $53,889 4.9 16 37.6 Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2016; Bureau of Labor and Statistics 2017

7 Race for non-Hispanic data will not sum to 100 percent because populations with low statistical significance were omitted.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 176 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Environmental Justice As noted above, residents of the study area experience varying degrees of economic insecurity. Given the low median incomes and high unemployment rates occurring in the study area, the potential for management actions to disproportionately and adversely affect low-income individuals exists.

As discussed above, the study area is predominantly non-Hispanic and white and Plumas County is the least diverse county in the study area. As such, the potential for management actions to disproportionately and adversely affect minority individuals is low.

Economic Contributions The Plumas National Forest directly and indirectly supported approximately 1,630 jobs and $67.3 million in labor income annually in 2014 (USDA Forest Service 2016). These jobs were primarily the result of forest products and Forest Service resource management programs occurring on the Forest. Forest products programs would include activities like timber extraction and forest management programs would include Forest spending on variety of activities including: restoration, fuels treatment, salaries, and infrastructure construction. These programs support direct and indirect employment and income generation primarily in government, manufacturing, agriculture, hospitality, and retail sectors. Direct economic impacts are generated by the activity itself, such as the employment in area sawmills. Indirect employment and labor occurs when a firm purchases supplies and services from other industries in order to produce its product.

The Environmental Impacts section for each alternative will assess the level of employment and income that will be supported by project activities. Note that these activities will not create new jobs in the local economy, rather, they will support employment in the sectors listed above.

Quality of Life Values are “relatively general, yet enduring, conceptions of what is good or bad, right or wrong, desirable or undesirable.”

Beliefs are “judgments about what is true or false – judgments about what attributes are linked to a given object. Beliefs can also link actions to effects.”

Attitudes are “tendencies to react favorably or unfavorably to a situation, individual, object, or concept. They arise in part from a person’s values and beliefs regarding the attitude object” (Allen et al. 2009).

Project activities may affect nearby residents and visitors to the Plumas National Forest. Public comments received during the scoping process provide insight to the values, beliefs, and attitudes of stakeholders in the study area. Two issues were identified by commenters, the application of herbicide and the reduction of dispersed motorized recreational opportunities due to road closures. These comments reflect the values and attitudes of stakeholders relative to their quality of life.

Commenters are concerned that using herbicides could affect soil microorganisms, water quality, and human health. Each alternative will address how herbicide application may affect stakeholder’s quality of life. Additionally, alternative D was developed to address restoration without the use of herbicide.

Commenters were also concerned that decommissioning system roads could reduce dispersed motorized recreational opportunities and other associated recreational opportunities (camping, hunting, etc). Reducing access to various recreational opportunities has the potential to reduce the quality of life of stakeholders. When developing the proposed action, the Forest conducted a travel analysis and considered the benefit of these roads for public recreation, limiting the effects to general dispersed opportunities.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 177 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Each alternative will discuss the how road closures may affect the quality of life of Plumas National Forest dispersed recreation users.

Alternative A – No action If the Moonlight Restoration project activities were not implemented, there would be no direct impact on socioeconomic resource indicators, see table 65. Several other restoration projects occurring in the area that are being planned and implemented separately may continue. These projects include road maintenance and decommissioning as well as herbicide application. A full list of other ongoing and proposed projects is available in appendix E of the environmental assessment. These other projects, as well as vegetation treatments and herbicide use occurring on adjacent private lands, may affect the quality of life socioeconomic resource indicators discussed in the Moonlight Restoration project.

Table 65. Resource indicators and measures for alternative A Resource Element Resource Indicator Measure Alternative A Foregoing restoration activities to improve timber stands and Economic Impact Economic Activity Employment and Labor Income health could have long term negative economic impacts to timber communities. Adverse effects to Environmental Low-income Qualitative evaluation No Effect Justice populations Qualitative Evaluation. See Quality of Life Herbicide Application also Herbicide Risk No Effect Assessment Qualitative Evaluation. See Quality of Life Road Closures No Effect also recreation report

There are no anticipated long-term impacts on socioeconomic indicators as a result of not implementing Moonlight Restoration Project activities. Because restoration activities could improve timber stands and health, foregoing restoration activities could reduce timber supplies in the long term. As a result, timber communities could view the no-action alternative as having negative economic impacts to their livelihoods.

Alternative B – Proposed action

Direct and Indirect Effects The proposed action aims to improve forest health, diversity and resilience, improve watersheds, and restore recreation opportunities. These outcomes would be accomplished through a variety of activities, including a reforestation and vegetation treatments, hazardous fuel reduction, habitat restoration, mechanical thinning, and precommercial thinning. For a full list of activities see the environmental assessment.

Economic Impacts Restoration activities that occur under alternative B would support 20 jobs and $1 million in labor income in the economy annually during project implementation. Approximately 75 percent of employment and 85 percent of labor income would occur directly in the sector for support of agriculture and forestry activities. Indirectly, these activities would support employment and income in various retail, trade, and hospitality sectors.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 178 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Road work activities that occur under alternative B would support 4 jobs and $180,000 in labor income in the economy annually during project implementation. Approximately 95 percent of employment and 65 percent of labor income would occur directly in the sector for maintenance and construction of roads. Indirectly, these activities would support employment in engineering and architectural services, wholesale trade, retail sales of materials, and to a lesser extent various retail and hospitality services like gasoline sales, automotive repair, restaurants and groceries.

It is anticipated that 14,282 hundred cubic feet of softwood sawtimber and 6,597 hundred cubic feet of biomass would be produced from project activities under alternative B. These activities would support 12 jobs and $569,000 in labor income annually. These estimates assume that timber volumes are harvested and sold equally over 10 years. However, these jobs would occur depending on the actual timeline for timber sales and processing which are difficult to predict.

Note that employment and income estimates provided above are not new jobs created in the local economy, rather, project activities would support employment and income in the sectors listed above.

Quality of Life Herbicide: The application of herbicide and its effects on human health has been assessed in the herbicide risk assessment. Herbicide application has been assessed as a low risk activity which has been mitigated by signage and postings, restricting access to affected areas, timing limits, public notification, and avoidance of peak recreation seasons. Transportation, handling, and mixing of herbicide would take place away from water bodies, and there are measures in place to protect native vegetation and wildlife. Additionally, herbicide contains colorant that makes identification of its use obvious to avoid accidental ingestion of plant life exposed. Despite being a low risk activity with appropriate mitigation, individuals who value a national forest free of chemicals they view as harmful to both the environment and human health would still experience a reduction in quality of life.

Road Closures: As per the recreation specialist report, there would be no overall loss of access to recreation sites under the proposed action. Despite closures, there is an adequate network of roads to meet the needs of dispersed recreation users. The quality of life of residents who prefer access to Plumas National Forest using specific routes would be minimally affected, however, they may view any restrictions as a negative impact to quality of life. There are also numerous reconstruction and maintenance activities occurring along several miles of road in the Moonlight Restoration project area (see the transportation specialist report for details). These improvements would improve quality of life for other users. The degree to which road improvements might offset quality of life impacts from road closures is unknown.

Environmental Justice Alternative B would not significantly impact members of an environmental justice community. A net increase in labor and income would be associated with the proposed action relative to the no-action alternative. Road closures would not have an impact on low-income recreation users who desire access to dispersed recreation activities on the Plumas National Forest. There is an adequate network National Forest system roads designated for use and analyzed by the Plumas National Forest in 2015 (see recreation specialist report).

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 179 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Table 66. Resource indicators and measures for alternative B direct and indirect effects Alternative B Resource Element Resource Indicator Measure Direct and indirect Effects 36 jobs annually over the life of Economic Impact Economic Activity Employment the project (10 years) $1.75 million annually over the Economic Impact Economic Activity Labor Income life of the Project (10 years) Adverse effects to No adverse effects. Net Environmental Low-income Qualitative evaluation increase in labor and income to Justice populations the surrounding communities Quality of life would be reduced for users who prefer herbicide Qualitative Evaluation. See use is restricted. The use of Quality of Life Herbicide Application also Herbicide Risk herbicide has been mitigated Assessment and is considered low risk with minimal short term impacts Minimal reduction in quality of life for users who prefer Qualitative Evaluation. See Quality of Life Road Closures specific roads, however, there also recreation is no reduction in access to dispersed recreation

Cumulative effects

Economic Impacts Ongoing and reasonably foreseeable restoration activities contribute to employment and labor income in the same sectors that the proposed action would affect. Based on the available information, the net effect of restoration activity spending on the Plumas National Forest is expected to be greater than the direct and indirect economic impacts described above.

Quality of Life Other ongoing and reasonably foreseeable restoration treatments in the project area also include herbicide application. Despite precautions and risk mitigation, additional use of herbicide in these areas may further reduce quality of life for individuals who prefer their use be restricted. This may lead individuals to reduce or eliminate visitation to the national forest or find additional places off-forest to recreate.

Additionally, there are other ongoing and reasonably foreseeable road decommissioning and improvement activities planned in the vicinity of the Moonlight Restoration project. If these areas further restrict users preferred routes to various recreation sites it may further reduce their quality of life.

The cumulative effects to quality of life from road closure and herbicide use cannot be precisely described. The extent to which road decommissioning versus construction and improvement would balance each other is unknown. However, road improvements may improve quality of life for some users in the long run.

Environmental Justice Ongoing and reasonably foreseeable actions within the project area are not anticipated to have a significant impact on an environmental justice community. Recreation activities would continue to be available in project area, including: camping, driving, hiking, horseback riding, mountain biking, off-

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 180 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment highway vehicle riding, boating, swimming, fishing, snowmobiling, cross country skiing, hunting, firewood cutting, Christmas tree harvesting, and rock hounding. Increased travel cost to low-income individuals for similar recreation activities are not anticipated.

Table 67. Resource indicators and measures for alternative B cumulative effects Resource Alternative B Resource Indicator Measure Element Cumulative Effects Economic Net increase in labor and income in the surrounding Economic Activity Employment Impact communities. Economic Net increase in labor and income in the surrounding Economic Activity Labor Income Impact communities Adverse effects to Environmental Low-income Qualitative evaluation No adverse effects. Justice populations Qualitative Evaluation. May further reduce quality of life of users who prefer Quality of Life Herbicide Application See also Herbicide pesticide use is restricted. Risk Assessment Net effect unknown. Road closures may further Qualitative Evaluation. reduce quality of life if preferred routes to recreation Quality of Life Road Closures See also Recreation sites are closed. Road improvements may improve report access for others.

Alternative C – California spotted owl interim recommendations Alternative C is intended to reduce risk to California spotted owl habitat in the short term. The same number of acres described in the proposed action would be treated for restoration, however, in lieu of mechanical treatments, an increased number of acres would be treated by hand. There are increased labor costs associated with hand thinning, which is why job and income estimates for restoration activities under alternative C are greater than the proposed action, albeit marginally. Additionally, 14 fewer miles of haul road and one mile of temporary road is expected to be eliminated. However, the cost reductions associated with these activities has a negligible effect on job and income estimates. Outcomes associated with timber sales are slightly lower than alternative B due to a smaller timber harvest.

Economic Impacts Restoration activities that occur under alternative C would support 21 jobs and $1.1 million in labor income in the economy annually during project implementation. Approximately 75 percent of employment and 85 percent of labor income would occur directly in the sector for support of agriculture and forestry activities. Indirectly, these activities would support employment and income in various retail, trade, and hospitality sectors.

Road work activities that occur under alternative C would support 4 jobs and $180,000 in labor income in the economy annually during project implementation. Approximately 95 percent of employment and 65 percent of labor income would occur directly in the sector for maintenance and construction of roads. Indirectly, these activities would support employment in engineering and architectural services, wholesale trade, retail sales of materials, and to a lesser extent, various retail and hospitality services like gasoline sales, automotive repair, restaurants, and groceries.

It is anticipated that 12,155 CCF (hundred cubic feet) of softwood sawtimber and 5,587 hundred cubic feet of biomass would be produced from project activities under alternative C. These activities would

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 181 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

support 10 jobs and $487,000 in labor income annually. These estimates assume that timber volume is harvested and sold equally over 10 years. However, these jobs would occur depending on the actual timeline for timber sales and processing which are difficult to predict.

Note that employment and income estimates provided above are not new jobs created in the local economy, rather, project activities would support employment and income in the sectors listed above.

Quality of Life Herbicide: Same as proposed action.

Road Closures: Same as proposed action.

Environmental Justice Alternative C would not significantly impact members of an environmental justice community. A net positive benefit in labor and income would be associated with the proposed action relative to the no- action alternative. Road closures would not have an impact on low-income recreation users who desire access to dispersed recreation activities on the Plumas National Forest. There is an adequate network National Forest System roads designated for use and analyzed by the Plumas National Forest in 2015 (see recreation specialist report).

Table 68. Resource indicators and measures for alternative C direct and indirect effects Alternative C Resource Element Resource Indicator Measure Direct and indirect Effects 35 jobs annually over the life of Economic Impact Economic Activity Employment the project (10 years) $1.77 million annually over the Economic impact Economic Activity Labor Income life of the Project (10 years) Adverse effects to No adverse effects. Net Environmental Low-income Qualitative evaluation increase in labor and income to Justice populations the surrounding communities. Quality of life would be reduced for users who prefer herbicide Qualitative Evaluation. See use is restricted. The use of Quality of Life Herbicide Application also Herbicide Risk herbicide has been mitigated Assessment and is considered low risk with minimal short term impacts Minimal reduction in quality of life for users who prefer Qualitative Evaluation. See Quality of Life Road Closures specific roads, however, there also recreation report is no reduction in access to dispersed recreation

Cumulative effects The cumulative impacts of alternative C are expected to be essentially the same as described in alternative B, proposed action.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 182 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Alternative D – No herbicide use

Direct and Indirect Effects Activities associated with alternative D are identical to the proposed action minus the use of herbicide. The same number of acres as described in the proposed action (alternative B) would be treated, however, the application of herbicide is omitted. Activities associated with road work and timber sales are identical to alternative B.

Economic Impacts Restoration activities that occur under alternative D would support 19 jobs and $980,000 million in labor income in the economy annually during project implementation. Approximately 75 percent of employment and 85 percent of labor income would occur directly in the sector for support of agriculture and forestry activities. Indirectly, these activities would support employment and income in various retail, trade, and hospitality sectors. Removing the use of herbicide lowers the cost of both labor and materials, which is why the job and income estimate for alternative D is less than alternative B, albeit marginally.

Road work activities that occur under alternative D would support 4 jobs and $180,000 in labor income in the economy annually during project implementation. Approximately 95 percent of employment and 65 percent of labor income would occur directly in the sector for maintenance and construction of roads. Indirectly, these activities would support employment in engineering and architectural services, wholesale trade, retail sales of materials, and to a lesser extent, various retail and hospitality services like gasoline sales, automotive repair, restaurants, and groceries.

Softwood sawtimber and biomass volumes are identical to alternative B. These activities would support 12 jobs and $569,000 in labor income annually. These estimates assume that timber volume is harvested and sold equally over 10 years. However, these jobs would occur depending on the actual timeline for timber sales and processing which are difficult to predict.

Note that employment and income estimates provided above are not new jobs created in the local economy, rather, project activities would support employment and income in the sectors listed above.

Quality of Life Road Work: Same as proposed action.

Herbicide: No herbicide would be used under alternative D, therefore, quality of life of users who prefer the use of herbicide be restricted would not be impacted.

Environmental Justice Alternative D would not significantly impact members of an environmental justice community. A net positive benefit in labor and income would be associated with the proposed action relative to the no- action alternative. Road closures would not have an impact on low-income recreation users who desire access to dispersed recreation activities on the Plumas National Forest. There is an adequate network National Forest System roads designated for use and analyzed by the Plumas National Forest in 2015 (see recreation specialist report).

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 183 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Table 69. Resource indicators and measures for alternative D direct and indirect effects Alternative 2 Resource Element Resource Indicator Measure Direct and indirect Effects 35 jobs annually over the life of Economic Impact Economic Activity Employment the project (10 years) $1.73 million annually over the Economic Impact Economic Activity Labor Income life of the Project (10 years) No adverse effects. Net increase Adverse effects to Low- Environmental Justice Qualitative evaluation in labor and income to the income populations surrounding communities. Qualitative Evaluation. See also No effect. The use of herbicide is Quality of Life Herbicide Application Herbicide Risk Assessment omitted. Minimal reduction in quality of life for users who prefer specific Qualitative Evaluation. See also Quality of Life Road Closures roads, however, there is no recreation report reduction in access to dispersed recreation

Cumulative effects The cumulative impacts of alternative D are expected to be essentially the same as described in alternative B, the proposed action. There are no direct impacts relative to the use of herbicide, therefore there are no cumulative effects associated with herbicide use under alternative D. However, other present and reasonably foreseeable projects in the area have planned herbicide use.

Summary and Conclusion Overall, project spending would support a maximum of 36 jobs and $1.75 million labor income under alternative B and 35 jobs and $1.77 million in labor income under alternative C. At a minimum, 35 jobs and $1.73 million in labor income would be supported under alternative D It is important to note, these jobs are not new jobs, rather existing jobs that would be supported through project activity spending.

There is no significant impact to members of an environmental justice community. Project spending would benefit residents in the local areas.

Under alternatives B and C, quality of life relative to herbicide application would be reduced for users who prefer herbicide use is restricted, regardless of risk mitigation. Under alternative D, where no herbicide is used, quality of life would not be impacted.

Under alternatives B, C, and D, quality of life relative to road closures may be marginally reduced for some users and increased for others. Users who prefer specific routes in the National Forest may experience a reduction in quality of life. However, road improvements in other areas may increase quality of life for other users. Cultural and Heritage Resources

Affected Environment As per the 2013 Region 5 Programmatic Agreement with State Historic Preservation Office, intensive inventory of the Moonlight Restoration project area of potential effect must be completed prior to project

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 184 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

implementation. While past surveys in the project area may provide some general information, these surveys do not meet current survey requirements. Therefore, during the summer of 2017 additional surveys were conducted in the area of potential effect. An additional 29 archaeological sites were located and added to the known 52 sites previously recorded. Twenty-seven isolated finds were also found and recorded during the course of the 2017 inventory. An isolated find is defined as an artifact or group of artifacts for which all information potential has been exhausted through recording and no further information can be gained. The majority of the site types are related to historic sites such as can scatters, ditch segments, prospect pit, bridge, and trench prospect. There is also a large Lucky S mining landscape. The only prehistoric sites are a prehistoric lithic quarry and arborglyphs.

Alternative A – No Action The no-action alternative increases the potential for catastrophic wildfire to adversely affect fire-sensitive cultural resources within the project area. Allowing growth of heavy underbrush will impact heritage resources by disturbing artifacts and features, increasing the potential for a hot, concentrated fire which could damage heritage resources, and creating a lack of accessibility and making future monitoring of these sites extremely difficult if not impossible.

Alternatives B, C, and D

Direct and Indirect Effects Direct effects to cultural resources are those that physically alter, damage, or destroy all or part of a resource; alter characteristics of the surrounding environment that contribute to the resource’s significance; introduce visual or audible elements out of character with the property or that alters its setting; or resource neglect to the extent that it deteriorates or is destroyed. The proposed action does not have the potential to directly affect the cultural resources within the proposed project area. Under the proposed action new direct effects would not likely occur, because the known sites would be flagged and avoided and if there are unanticipated discoveries, all work in the area will stop.

Successful utilization of approved standard protection measures outlined within appendix E of the Programmatic Agreement, including a flag-and-avoid approach to site protection, will result in no significant impacts (no effect) to heritage resources. There may be some circumstances where additional measures approved under the Programmatic Agreement may be utilized, such as fall and leave, directional falling, and/or fall and fully suspend logs out of heritage sites, among others. These protection measures will be used on a case-by-case basis with the recommendation and written approval of either the heritage program manager or, by delegation, Mt. Hough Ranger District heritage resource personnel (district archaeologist) and are not to be undertaken without advance coordination prior to project implementation.

Alternative C would have fewer acres of mechanical thinning and more hand thinning than alternatives B and D, therefore it would have slightly less risk of effects to cultural resources.

Cumulative Effects Small scale cumulative impacts occasionally occur and will continue to occur due to firewood cutting and roadside maintenance. Between these activities only firewood cutting is not monitored for heritage resource protection although it is on such a small scale that the impacts to heritage resources are minimal. Routine roadside maintenance is a screened undertaking within appendix D of the Programmatic Agreement; having little or no potential to have an adverse effect on cultural resources. With adequate planning, future large-scale projects utilizing appropriate cultural resource protection measures within the Programmatic Agreement will have no cumulative effect on the current project area.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 185 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Past logging efforts conducted prior to the inception of the National Historic Preservation Act and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) have had impacts/effects on several of the heritage resource sites within the project area and area of potential effect. Improved project implementation strategies enacted after National Historic Preservation Act and NEPA have greatly reduced and in most cases eliminated impacts/effects to heritage resources. Successful utilization of standard protection measures outlined within appendix E of the Programmatic Agreement will result in no significant cumulative impacts to heritage resources within the project area.

Finding of No Significant Impact As the responsible official, I am responsible for evaluating the effects of the project relative to the definition of significance established by the CEQ Regulations (40 CFR 1508.13). I have reviewed and considered the EA and documentation included in the project record, and I have determined that neither the proposed action nor the action alternatives evaluated will have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. As a result, no environmental impact statement will be prepared. My rationale for this finding is as follows, organized by sub-section of the CEQ definition of significance cited above. Context For the proposed action and alternatives the context of the environmental effects is based on the environmental analysis in this EA. The Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project is a site-specific project that does not have international, national, regional, or statewide importance. The project is limited in scope and duration. The project encompasses approximately 12,700 acres of treatment units and associated activities on the Plumas National Forest. The geographic area in which effects will occur is generally within the treatment units, activity areas, and associated watersheds. The project was designed to minimize environmental effects with implementation mitigations, best management practices, action specific design criteria and standard management practices. Given the context and duration of activities, the analyses prepared in support of this EA indicate that the alternatives would not pose significant short- or long-term effects. Intensity Intensity is a measure of the severity, extent, or quantity of effects, and is based on information from the effects analysis of this EA and the references in the project record. The effects of this project have been appropriately and thoroughly considered with an analysis that is responsive to concerns and issues raised by the public. The agency has taken a hard look at the environmental effects using relevant scientific information and knowledge of site-specific conditions gained from field visits. My finding of no significant impact is based on the context of the project and intensity of effects using the ten factors identified in 40 CFR 1508.27(b).

Impacts that may be both beneficial and adverse. A significant effect may exist even if the Federal agency believes that on balance the effect will be beneficial. Our consideration of the intensity of the environmental effects of this project has not been biased by the beneficial effects of the action. In all analyses prepared in support of this document we considered both the beneficial and adverse effects of the proposed action and alternatives; however, the beneficial effects of forest restoration, reforestation, and watershed improvement activities were not used to offset or compensate for the potential adverse effects of the proposed treatments. We considered the impacts associated with the proposed action and alternatives separately from the beneficial effects, and the

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 186 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

beneficial and adverse impacts are not significant (See Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and Alternatives).

The degree to which the proposed action affects public health or safety. There will be no significant effects on public health and safety because project specific design features, mitigations and implementation of standard management requirements (appendix D). There are potential short-term effects to public health and safety related to increased log truck traffic on haul routes, and the use of herbicides. These would be short term and temporary impacts, and there are design features in place to minimize impacts.

During project implementation, traffic would increase from moving equipment in and out, hauling forest products, and personnel travel to and from the project area. Traffic management in accordance with standard contract provisions would mitigate risks to workers and provide for safe public travel. Radio communications, would provide for safe efficient traffic flow. Short-term temporary route closures to public travel would be expected to provide for worker and public safety during project implementation. Roadside hazard tree felling and removal, would provide for safe efficient Forest transportation system use. Following implementation, the combination of road maintenance, Forest transportation system improvements, including hazard tree removal, would provide long-term public and administrative access throughout the project area. In addition, roadwork applied during implementation would leave the road system in a more stable and functional condition, that would minimize adverse resource impacts. Prescribed burning would produce temporary smoke emissions that could affect human health. Prescribed burning is regulated by the Northern Sierra Air Quality Management District and the Forest is required to comply with district rules that would control burning to burn days with acceptable dispersion conditions and the amount of fuels burned per day.

The proposed action, alternative B, and alternative C include the use of herbicides for reforestation. Public comment indicated a concern that the use of herbicides may affect public health or safety. The Human Health Risk Assessment (summarized in the Environmental Impacts section above) describes the potential for adverse health effects in workers and members of the public from the use of the proposed herbicides. The risk assessment examines the potential heath effect on all groups of people who might be exposed to any of the herbicides proposed for use. The analysis of the potential human health effects of the use of pesticides was accomplished using the risk assessment methodology generally accepted by the scientific community (National Research Council 1983; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1986). In essence, this pesticide risk assessment consists of comparing doses that people may get from applying the pesticide (worker doses) or from being near and application site (public doses) with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established reference doses, a level of exposure that results in no adverse effect over a lifetime of chronic exposures. The site-specific risk assessment also examines the potential for these treatments to cause synergistic effects, cumulative effects, and effects on sensitive individuals, including women and children. For each type of dose assumed for workers and the public, a hazard quotient was computed by dividing the dose by the reference dose. In general, if the hazard quotient is less than or equal to 1, the risk of effects is considered negligible. The environmental assessment (chapter 3) summarizes the risk assessment, and the complete report is available in the project file.

For glyphosate, all worker occupational exposure scenarios result in a hazard quotient of less than 1. For the general public, none of the chronic scenarios for glyphosate were above the level of concern for any exposure scenario. None of the acute central exposure scenarios approached the level of concern for the typical application rates for glyphosate. Upper exposure scenarios that exceeded the level of concern included consumption of contaminated water by a child (hazard quotient = 6) and consumption of contaminated vegetation by an adult female (hazard quotient = 4). These scenarios are very conservative

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 187 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

and unlikely to occur (as described in more detail in the Pesticide Risk Assessment). However, they do indicate that measures to ensure that members of the general public do not consume contaminated water or vegetation are needed. Such measures are included as part of the proposed action. A contingency plan, the Herbicide Transportation, Handling, and Emergency Spill Response Plan, and a spill kit would also be on-site when pesticide treatments occur. The likelihood of vegetation being consumed after spraying in this project is highly unlikely due to design criteria and proposed treatment location. Project design features such as the addition of colorant to spray mixtures and signing of treatment areas should further minimize the risk of persons unknowingly eating contaminated vegetation. Additionally, to ensure members of the public do not enter treated areas during reentry intervals, applicators would remain in or near treated areas until the application solution is fully dry for all pesticides and adjuvants proposed for use in this project.

For triclopyr, all worker occupational exposure scenarios result in a hazard quotient of less than 1, except for at the upper exposure estimate for general occupational exposure (hazard quotient = 1.6). Under typical conditions of application and at the typical application rate, there is no indication that workers would be subject to hazardous levels of triclopyr at the central estimates of exposure. However, the upper exposure level exceeds the level of concern based on the chronic reference dose of 0.05 milligrams per kilogram per day. While systemic toxicity is a focus of the quantitative risk characterization for triclopyr, formulations of 44.1 percent triclopyr triethylamine salt, such as Garlon 3A™, are severe eye irritants. All formulations of triclopyr triethylamine salt require the use of protective eyewear. As with all pesticide applications, potential ocular and dermal effects can and should be minimized or avoided by prudent industrial hygiene practices during and after the application of triclopyr formulations. This includes the use of safe handling procedures, and proper personal protective equipment.

For the general public, for the accidental acute scenarios for triclopyr, none of the exposure estimates approached the level of concern for the typical application rate of triclopyr. For the non-accidental acute exposure scenarios, the central exposure estimate exceeds the level of concern for the consumption of contaminated vegetation by an adult female (hazard quotient = 3). The upper exposure levels for the consumption of contaminated vegetation and fruit also exceed the level of concern (hazard quotients equal to 4 and 27, respectively). There are two chronic exposure scenarios that exceed the level of concern for the upper exposure levels including the consumption of contaminated fruit and vegetation by an adult female. For the consumption of contaminated fruit the hazard quotient is 3. For the consumption of contaminated vegetation by an adult female the hazard quotient equals 6. However, the likelihood of fruit or vegetation being consumed after spraying in this project is unlikely in these scenarios due to design criteria and proposed treatment location. The upper bound hazard quotients are based on very conservative exposure assumptions including the upper bound estimates of food consumption and upper bound estimates of residue rates. The use of several worst-case or at least very conservative assumptions in multiplicative models leads to assessments in which risks may be unrealistically magnified.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 188 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

4, respectively). Relative to the risks associated with the consumption of contaminated fruit or vegetation, risks associated with other exposure scenarios are marginal. As noted in the above risk characterizations, the likelihood of fruit or vegetation being consumed unknowingly after spraying in this project is unlikely in these scenarios due to application of project design features.

The analysis indicates there will be no significant effects on public health and safety. While some of the scenarios indicate a hazard quotient of greater than 1, this simply indicates that some care and safety features are necessary to prevent such scenarios. In most cases, the scenarios are very unlikely and in all cases, these scenarios would be prevented through the use of best management practices and our project design features. All appropriate laws, policies, and regulations governing the use of herbicide, as required by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CA DPR), and the Forest Service Policy pertaining to herbicide use, will be followed, and all Forest Service personnel in charge of projects involving herbicide application will be qualified applicator certified by the California Department of Pesticide Regulation. All contract applicators will be appropriately licensed by the state, coordination with the appropriate county agricultural commissioner will occur, and all required licenses and permits will be obtained prior to any herbicide application. The public will be notified prior to implementation of herbicide treatments through posting of signs at treatment areas and access points, as specified in the project design features. Alternatives B and C adhere to all laws and regulations regarding herbicide use and includes stringent project design features, which will minimize potential hazards to workers and to public health and safety. There will be no adverse effect to water quality because project design features include treatment buffers on all wells, ponds, and springs used for domestic water supplies. Furthermore, within 100 feet of recreation sites (campgrounds, trails, trailheads, and dispersed camping areas), cautionary notice signs will be posted at the recreation site prior to herbicide treatments.

Unique characteristics of the geographic area such as the proximity to historical or cultural resources, parklands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas. In the EA we analyzed the potential for impacts to unique characteristics of the geographic area. There are no parklands, prime farmlands, or designated wild and scenic rivers within the project area. Wetlands will be protected by the treatment buffers (see Appendix D – Standard Management Requirements and Project-specific Design Features).

Ecologically critical areas include the Mud Lake Research Natural Area. No treatments or activities are proposed to occur within this area in any of the alternatives. Ecologically critical areas also include critical habitat and critical aquatic refuge for Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frogs. Design features, buffers, best management practices and mitigation measures minimize the effects to the Sierra Nevada yellow- legged frog and its critical habitat (see also intensity item 9 below).

In regards to historical and cultural resources, the analysis in the EA (Cultural Resources section) identified no significant effects to cultural resources because the project design features avoid impacts to these sites or characteristics (see also intensity item 8).

The degree to which the effects on the quality of the human environment are likely to be highly controversial. The effects on the quality of the human environment are not likely to be highly controversial. The term “controversial” in this context refers to cases where substantial scientific dispute exists as to the size, nature, or effects of a major Federal action on some human environmental factor, rather than to public opposition of a proposed action or alternative. There is no known credible scientific controversy over the impacts of the proposed action and alternatives. The proposed project follows the management direction

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 189 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

in the Plumas National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA Forest Service 1988), as amended by the 2004 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment FSEIS and ROD (USDA Forest Service 2004 a, b). Potential adverse effects are minimized through design and the incorporation of project design features, to the point where there are few effects to draw controversy.

Some public commenters are opposed in general to the use of herbicides and provided information that they feel supports their opinions. This is not by itself a “substantial scientific dispute” in this context. However, some have provided scientific information with their comments related to glyphosate and human health risks. However, these comments do not reference any information specific to the proposed use of the chemicals in the Moonlight Fire Restoration project that contradicts the findings in our analysis. The Decision Notice, Appendix A, Response to Comments includes responses to specific concerns or points of controversy related to herbicide use proposed in the project area.

We considered recent scientific reviews when making conclusions about the risk characteristics of the herbicides proposed for use in the project. The analysis of the potential human health effects of the use of pesticides used the risk assessment methodology generally accepted by the scientific community (National Research Council 1983; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1986). Effects conclusions presented in the Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact are based on the best available scientific information, including a project-specific risk assessment and other relevant literature reviews. Syracuse Environmental Research Associates is an independent laboratory that has performed risk assessments on a variety of chemicals under contract to the Forest Service. Forest Service risk assessments are reviewed for adequacy on a continuing basis. The Forest Service monitors the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) activities in registration or reregistration notifications to chemical manufacturers when additional studies may be required for continued registration. We particularly look for new EPA Health Advisory Notices for the pesticides used by the Forest Service. We also monitor the manufacturers to determine if new formulations of pesticides are entering the marketplace. Numerous other sources are monitored to determine if significant new information is available. If significant new information were identified, we would carefully evaluate the need to update the existing risk assessment.

Using the best available information, we analyzed the proposed action and we analyzed alternative D to compare the effects of an alternative that includes the use of herbicides and one that does not. The analysis shows there is little difference in magnitude of the effects to human health, soil and watershed health, and terrestrial and aquatic wildlife.

The degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks. We have considerable experience with actions like the one proposed. The analysis shows the effects are not highly uncertain, and do not involve unique or unknown risk. The proposed project follows the management direction in the Plumas National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA Forest Service 1988), as amended by the 2004 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment FSEIS and ROD (USDA Forest Service 2004 a, b).

Under the proposed action, herbicides will be applied in accordance with product label directions, California Department of Pesticide Regulation requirements, Forest Service best management practices for water quality (USDA Forest Service 2011); and Forest Service direction found in the Forest Service Manual (FSM 2080, 2150 and 2200) and Handbook (FSH 2109.14).

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 190 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Proposed activities are routine in nature, employ standard practices and protection measures, and their effects are well known as described in the Chapter 3 - Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and Alternatives section of the EA.

The degree to which the action may establish precedent for future actions with significant effects or represents a decision in principle about a future consideration. The action is not likely to establish a precedent for future actions with significant effects, because any future decisions would require site-specific analysis to consider all relevant scientific information available at that time. The proposed activities are in accordance with the best available science at this time regarding forest and watershed restoration activities.

Whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts. Significance exists if it is reasonable to anticipate a cumulatively significant impact on the environment. Significance cannot be avoided by terming an action temporary or by breaking it down into small component parts. The cumulative impacts are not significant. We completed cumulative effects analyses for each resource area and these analyses concluded that implementing the proposed action or alternatives would not result in significant adverse cumulative effects. All treatments are subject to project design features that reduce adverse effects and therefore minimal risk that the proposed action or alternatives would contribute to cumulative effects. A summary of actions considered in each cumulative effects analysis is contained in appendix E.

The degree to which the action may adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places or may cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural, or historical resources. There will be no effect to cultural resources from implementing this project, and the proposed action and alternative C do not adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Activities associated with the proposed action and alternative C will comply with the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended and it’s implementing regulations 36 CFR 800 and Forest Service Manual 2360. The action will not cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural or historical resources, because the treatment methods are either not ground disturbing, entail minimal disturbance, or are located in areas with previous Stipulation 7.4 of the Programmatic Agreement Among The USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region (Region 5), California State Historic Preservation Officer, Nevada State Historic Preservation Officer, And The Advisory Council On Historic Preservation Regarding The 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 Region (USDA Forest Service et al. 2013).

The degree to which the action may adversely affect an endangered or threatened species or its habitat that has been determined to be critical under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. One federally listed aquatic species was analyzed for this project, the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog. The biological assessments found that the project “May affect, likely to adversely affect the species and its critical habitat” (sub-unit 2A). This was based primarily on the possibility of short-term habitat change in select areas, and the potential for species disturbance from heavy equipment use. Numerous project design features are expected to substantially reduce potential impacts, especially the following: 100-foot heavy equipment water body exclusion zone, no application of herbicide within 107 feet of aquatic

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 191 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

habitat, and pre-implementation survey requirements that would increase protections if the species is found. Long-term benefit is expected, primarily due to road improvements and decommissioning.

The Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project was included among many other projects on all nine Sierra Nevada forests in a U.S. Forest Service Region-wide programmatic formal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (April 2017), addressing effects of Forest Service actions on three species of threatened and endangered amphibians. Through the programmatic consultation process, we requested concurrence from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on the biological assessment determinations. On June 15, 2017, in an appendix to the Programmatic Biological Opinion, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service found that the projects reviewed (including this project) were not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog. In addition, they determined that the actions reviewed were not likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat.

Whether the action threatens a violation of Federal, State, or local law or requirements imposed for the protection of the environment.

National Forest Management Act The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) reorganized, expanded and otherwise amended the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, which called for the management of renewable resources on national forest lands. The NFMA requires the Secretary of Agriculture to assess forest lands, develop a management plan for each unit of the National Forest System (NFS).

The Forest Service is complying with the provisions of this law by designing the project to meet the standards and guidelines of the Plumas National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA Forest Service 1988) and its amendments, including the 2004 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA) supplemental EIS and ROD (USDA Forest Service 2004 a,b).

Related to aquatic resources, this project is fully consistent with the standards and guidelines of the forest plan as amended, as well as the riparian conservation objectives listed in the Sierra Nevada Framework. The project is expected to maintain or improve aquatic habitat conditions and move aquatic resources toward desired condition.

Two critical aquatic refuges are present within the project area, Lone Rock and Boulder/Lowe. Less than 20 percent of the Lone Rock critical aquatic refuge, and less than 5 percent of the Boulder/Lowe critical aquatic refuge, is proposed for project treatment. All standards and guidelines and other management requirements for treatment within this land designation would be met.

Regional Forester Sensitive Species With the identified avoidance measure implemented, the proposed action may affect individuals of Pulsifer’s milkvetch, adobe parsley, and Susanville beardtongue, Foothill yellow-legged frog, western pond turtle, western bumble bee, bald eagle, California spotted owl, great gray owl, northern goshawk, American marten, fisher, pallid bat, Townsend’s big-eared bat, and fringed myotis; but is not likely to lead to a loss of viability or trend toward federal listing.

All other species on the USDA Forest Service Region 5 sensitive species were determined to be “no effect” from project activities because the species were not present within the project area, did not have habitat in the project area, and or would not be affected by the project.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 192 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Endangered Species Act See also intensity item #9. The Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 USC 1531 et seq.) requires that any action authorized by a federal agency not be likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a threatened or endangered species, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such species that is determined to be critical. Section 7 of the ESA, as amended, requires the responsible federal agency to consult with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service concerning threatened or endangered species under their jurisdiction. It is Forest Service policy to analyze impacts to threatened or endangered species to ensure management activities are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a threatened or endangered species, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of habitat of such species that is determined to be critical. This assessment is documented in a biological evaluation for terrestrial wildlife, the specialist report and biological evaluation for threatened, endangered, and sensitive plans, and a biological evaluation and assessment of aquatic wildlife. Findings of these reports are summarized and incorporated by reference in chapter 3.

Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is required where endangered, threatened, candidate species, or their critical habitat may be affected by a proposed federal action. Section 7 consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is required for the Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project. Based on the analysis conducted in the biological assessments and evaluations, it was determined that short term impacts from the proposed restoration activities may affect, and is likely to adversely affect Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frogs, their habitat, and proposed critical habitat, with multiple long-term benefits to the species and its habitat. Therefore consultation (written concurrence) under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended is required. The Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project was included among many other projects on all nine Sierra Nevada forests in a U.S. Forest Service Region-wide programmatic formal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (April 2017), addressing effects of Forest Service actions on three species of threatened and endangered amphibians. Through the programmatic consultation process, we requested concurrence from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on the biological assessment determinations. On June 15, 2017, in an appendix to the Programmatic Biological Opinion, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service found that the projects reviewed (including this project) were not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog. In addition, they determined that the actions reviewed were not likely to destroy or adversely modify critical habitat. No other federally-listed species would be affected by the Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act The Moonlight Fire Area Restoration project would have minimal impacts to individual migratory birds and would not adversely affect migratory landbird conservation. This finding is based on the results of analysis conducted in the biological assessment, biological evaluation, and management indicator species reports, and that adherence to Forest Plan as amended standards are incorporated into the project design which in turn will maintain habitat diversity. The project meets the intent of the Migratory Landbird Memorandum of Understanding.

Clean Water Act The project complies with the Section 208 of the Clean Water Act requires States to prepare nonpoint source pollution plans that are to be certified by the State and approved by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In response to this law, and in coordination with the State of California Water Quality Resources Control Board and EPA, the Forest Service, Region 5, has developed best management practices). The best management practices that are pertinent to the actions proposed here are included in this project, to protect beneficial uses of the water. Project design features offer another layer of protection and include yearly acreage caps for herbicide treatment, weather restrictions, and ground cover requirements.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 193 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

The State of California Water Resources Control Board Resolution #68-16 (California Water Resources Control Board 1968) directs that high quality water or water of higher quality than required by regulation be maintained at that higher quality. Similarly, anti-degradation EPA policy 40 C.F. R. Section 131.12 states that existing water quality, even when it exceeds required levels for stated beneficial uses will be maintained. Potential effects of the proposed action, either through surface runoff of sediment and chemicals or chemicals entering water bodies through groundwater sources do not constitute a significant degradation of quality or impair existing beneficial uses.

A water quality monitoring plan is included to ensure the effectiveness of best management practices and design features, and allow for adaptive management if any detrimental effects are detected.

Clean Air Act The project is presumed to conform to the Clean Air Act because fire managers are required to follow rules and controls of the state and Northern Sierra Air Quality Management District. Prescribed burning is regulated by the Northern Sierra Air Quality Management District in compliance with the state smoke management plan, Title 17. Fire managers are required to meet all air district standards and therefore the prescribed burning operations are presumed to conform to the Clean Air Act.

National Historic Preservation Act The proposed action and alternative C do not adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Activities associated with the proposed action and alternative C will comply with the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended and it’s implementing regulations 36 CFR 800 and Forest Service Manual 2360. The action will not cause loss or destruction of significant scientific, cultural or historical resources, because the treatment methods are either nonground disturbing, entail minimal disturbance, or are located in areas with previous disturbance.

Environmental Justice (Executive Order 12898 of February 11, 1994) The possibility for project activities to have disproportionate and adverse human health and environmental effects on low-income and minority populations was analyzed and no significant impact was found.

Municipal Watersheds (FSM 2540) No municipal watersheds occur within the project area.

Travel Management Rule (36 CFR Part 212, Subparts A, B, and C) Subpart A of these regulations establishes requirements for administration of the forest transportation system, including roads, trails, and airfields, and contains provisions for acquisition of rights-of-way. Subpart A also requires identification of the minimum road system needed for safe and efficient travel and for administration, utilization, and protection of National Forest System lands and use of a science-based roads analysis at the appropriate scale in determining the minimum road system. Subpart B describes the requirements for designating roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use and for identifying designated roads, trails, and areas on a motor vehicle use map. Subpart C provides for regulation of over-snow vehicles use on National Forest System roads and trails, and in areas on National Forest System lands.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 194 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Prohibitions (36 CFR Part 261, Subpart A). These regulations establish prohibitions on use of National Forest System lands, including prohibitions on possession and operation of motor vehicles on National Forest System roads and trails, and in areas on National Forest System lands.

Travel Analysis for the Plumas was done in 2016 (USDA Forest Service 2016). The Moonlight project IDT tiered to the TAP report to develop road management actions and analyze effects.

Sale and Disposal of National Forest System Timber (36 CFR Part 223) regulations govern road construction related to Forest Service timber sale appraisals and contracts. These regulations would be followed during implementation.

Forest Service Handbook Direction Direction on travel analysis, travel management, and designation of roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use resides in FSM 7700, FSM 7710, and FSH 7709.55. Direction on management and maintenance of National Forest System trails resides in FSM 2350 and FSH 2309.18, and direction on management and maintenance of roads resides in FSM 7730 and FSH 7709.59. Direction on law enforcement activities resides in FSM 5300 and FSH 5309.11. Handbook directions were followed during the NEPA planning process.

State and Local Law

California Forest Practice Rule The California Forest Practices Rules 2015 (State of California 2015) includes rules relevant to road construction, reconstruction and maintenance, temporary road construction, culvert installation, vegetation treatment, forest fuel removal, slash management and prescribed fire. California Forest Practices Rules 2015 would be met on proposed system road maintenance (improvements), temporary road use and closure and vegetation treatment activities. Proposed actions under all alternatives would meet California Forest Practices Rules.

Department of Pesticide Regulation The State of California regulates chemical use and application within the state through the Department of Pesticide Regulation. State regulatory authority is granted the Department of Pesticide Regulation under Title 3 of the California Code of Regulation (CCR). This regulation allows the Department of Pesticide Regulation to oversee all chemical application regulation under Chapter 1 of Title 3. Secondly, under Chapter 2, subchapter 1, section 6145, the Department of Pesticide Regulation is allowed to license the use of chemicals within the state.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 195 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

References General Clark, D.A., Anthony, R.G. and Andrews, L.S. 2013. Relationship between wildfire, salvage logging, an occupancy of nesting territories by northern spotted owls. The Journal of Wildlife Management, 77(4), pp.672-688.

Cluck, D. 2014. Post-fire bark beetle activity within the 2012 Chips Fire. USDA Forest Service, Forest Health Protection, FHP Report NE14-07

Coppoletta, M., Merriam, K. E. and Collins, B. M. 2016. Post-fire vegetation and fuel development influences fire severity patterns in reburns. Ecological Applications, 26: 686–699. doi:10.1890/15-0225

Dailey, S., J. Fites, A. Reiner and S. Mori. 2008. Fire behavior and effects in fuel treatments and protected habitat on the Moonlight Fire. Report prepared by the Fire Behavior Assessment Team: S. Dailey, J. Fites, A. Reiner, and S. Mori. USDA Forest Service. June 2008. Available on-line at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/hfqlg/monitoring/resource_reports/fire_and_smoke/dfpz_effectiveness/m oonlight_fire_effects_assessment.pdf

Grant, G.E., Lewis, S.L., Swanson, F.J., Cissel, J.H., and McDonnell, J.J. 2008. Effects of Forest Practices on Peak Flows and Consequent Channel Response: A State-of-Science Report for Western Oregon and Washington. Gen. Tech. Rep.PNW-GTR-760. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 84 p.

Jones, B.E., Rickman, T.H., Vazquez, A. Sado, Y. and Tate, K.W. 2005. Removal of encroaching conifers to regenerate degraded aspen stands in the Sierra Nevada. Restoration Ecology, 13: 373-379.

Lee, D.C. and Irwin, L.L. 2005. Assessing risks to spotted owls from forest thinning in fire-adapted forests of the western United States. Forest Ecology and Management, 211(1), pp.191-209.

North, M. 2012. Managing Sierra Nevada forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-237. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 184 p

Oliver, W. 1995. Is Self-Thinning in Ponderosa Pine Ruled by Dendroctonus Bark Beetles? In: L. G. Eskew, comp. Forest health through silviculture: proceedings of the 1995 National Silviculture Workshop, Mescalero, New Mexico, May 8-11, 1995. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-GTR-267. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station: 213-218

Roberts, S.L., van Wagtendonk, J.W., Miles, A.K. and Kelt, D.A. 2011. Effects of fire on spotted owl site occupancy in a late-successional forest. Biological Conservation, 144(1), pp.610-619.

Shepperd, W.D., Rogers, P.C., Burton, D., Bartos, D. 2006. Ecology, biodiversity, management, and restoration of aspen in the Sierra Nevada. General Technical Report. RMRS-GTR-178-Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station 122p.

State of California. 2015. California Forest Practice Rules 2015

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 196 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

USDA Forest Service. [No date]. Forest Service Manual and Handbooks. USDA Forest Service Headquarters, Washington DC. http://www.fs.fed.us/im/directives/.

USDA Forest Service.1988. Plumas National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. USDA Forest Service Plumas National Forest, Quincy, CA.

USDA Forest Service. 2004a. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment. USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region, Vallejo, CA

USDA Forest Service. 2004b. Record of Decision Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment. USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region, Vallejo, CA

USDA Forest Service. 2007. Moonlight Fire – Plumas National Forest Burned Area Emergency Response Assessment Team Hydrology Specialist Report. Prepared by: R. Faust , F. Levitan, and D. McComb. USDA Forest Service Plumas National Forest, Quincy, CA.

USDA Forest Service. 2008. Moonlight and Wheeler Fires Recovery and Restoration Project Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). Mt Hough Ranger District, Plumas National Forest, USDA Forest Service. September 2008.

USDA Forest Service. 2010. Plumas National Forest Public Motorized Travel Management Record of Decision. Plumas National Forest. Pacific Southwest Region R5-MB189.

USDA Forest Service. 2012. National Best Management Practices for Water Quality Management on National Forest System Lands, Volume 1: National Core BMP Technical Guide. USDA Forest Service Publication FS-990a. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington D.C.

USDA Forest Service. 2013. Moonlight Fire Restoration Strategy Forest Service, Plumas National Forest, Mt. Hough Ranger District. August 2013. 280 pages.

USDA Forest Service. 2015a. Draft Interim Recommendations for the Management of California Spotted Owl Habitat on National System Lands. USDA Forest Service Southwestern Region. Valejo, CA.

USDA Forest Service 2015b. Moonlight Fire GRAIP watershed roads assessment Light Creek and Indian Creek, Plumas National Forest, CA. Prepared by Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station 2015. 85pp.

USDA Forest Service 2016. Plumas National Forest. Travel Analysis Report. February 2016. https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fseprd527853.docx

USDA Forest Service, California State Historic Preservation Officer, Nevada State Historic Preservation Officer, And The Advisory Council On Historic Preservation. 2013. Agreement Among The USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region (Region 5), California State Historic Preservation Officer, Nevada State Historic Preservation Officer, And The Advisory Council On Historic Preservation Regarding The 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 Region.

Verner, Jared; McKelvey, Kevin S.; Noon, Barry R.; Gutierrez, R. J.; Gould, Gordon I. Jr.; Beck, Thomas W., Technical Coordinators. 1992. The California spotted owl: a technical assessment of its current status. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-133. Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; 285 p.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 197 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Vegetation and Silviculture Agee, J.K, Barho, B., Finney, M.A., Omi, P. N., Sapsis, D. B., Skinner, C. N., vanWagtendok, J. W., Weatherspoon, C. P. 2000. The use of shaded fuelbreaks in landscape fire management. Forest Ecology and Management 127: 55-66.

Agee, J. K., and C. N. Skinner. 2005. Basic principles of forest fuel reduction treatments. Forest Ecology and Management 211:83-96.

Cluck, D. and Woodruff. W. 2014. Report NE14-04. Insect and Disease Evaluation of the Lone Rock Forest Health and Recreation Area Improvement Project, State & Private Forestry, Forest Health Protection, Northeastern California Shared Service Area.

Cluck, D. and Woodruff. W. 2017. Report NE17-01. Insect and Disease Evaluation of stand conditions in proposed commercial and precommercial thinning units and California Spotted Owl habitat maintenance units with respect to forest insects and diseases in the Moonlight Restoration Project, State & Private Forestry, Forest Health Protection, Northeastern California Shared Service Area.

Coppoletta, M., Merriam, K., Collins, B., 2016. Post-fire vegetation and fuel development influences fire severity patterns in reburns. Ecological Applications, 26(3), p 686-699.

Jones, B.E., Rickman, T.H., Vazquez, A. Sado, Y. and Tate, K.W. 2005. Removal of encroaching conifers to regenerate degraded aspen stands in the Sierra Nevada. Restoration Ecology, 13: 373-379.

Long, J.N., 1985. A practical approach to density management. For. Chron. 61, pp. 23–27.

Long, J.N. and Shaw, J.D., 2005. A density management diagram for even-aged ponderosa pine stands. Western Journal of Applied Forestry 20(4):205-215.

Long, J.N. and Shaw, J. D., 2012. A density management diagram for even-aged Sierra Nevada mixed- conifer stands. Western Journal of Applied Forestry 24 (4) p 187-195.

McDonald, P.M and Fiddler, G.O., 1995. Development of a mixed shrub-ponderosa pine community in a natural and treated condition, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Research Paper PSW-RP-244-Web.

McDonald, P.M and Fiddler, G.O., 2010. Twenty-five years of managing vegetation in conifer plantations in northern and central California: results, application, principles and challenges. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest General Technical Report PSW-GTR-231, Redding, CA.

Moghaddas, J.J. 2006. A fuel treatment reduces potential fire severity and increases suppression efficiency in a Sierran Mixed Conifer forest. USDA Forest Service Proceedings, RMRS-P-41.

Nagel, T.A.; Taylor, A.H. 2005. Fire and persistence of montane chaparral in mixed conifer forest landscapes in the northern Sierra Nevada, Lake Tahoe Basin, California, USA 1. Sierra. 132(3): 442-457.

North, M., editor. 2012. Managing Sierra Nevada forests. General Technical Report, PSW-GTR-237. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, 177p.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 198 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

North, M., Stine, P.; O’Hara, K., Zielinski, W., Stephens, S., 2009. An ecosystem management strategy for Sierran mixed-conifer forests. General Technical Report, PSW-GTR-220 (Second printing, with addendum). Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 49 p.

Parker, A.J. 1994. Latitudinal gradients of coniferous tree species, vegetation, and climate in the Sierran- Cascade axis of northern California. Vegetation 115: 145-155.

Plamboeck, A., North, M. Dawson, T. 2008. Conifer Seedling Survival Under Closed-Canopy and Mazanita Patches in the Sierra Nevada. Madroño 07/2008; 55(3). Pp. 193-203 DOI: 10.3120/0024-9637-55.3.191.

Reineke, L.H. 1933. Perfecting a stand-density index for even-aged forests. Journal of Agricultural Research 46:627-638.

Royce, E.B., Barbor, M.G. 2001. Mediterranean climate effects: I. conifer water use across a Sierra Nevada ecotone. American Journal of Botany 88:911-918.

Shepperd, Wayne D.; Binkley, Dan; Bartos, Dale L.; Stohlgren, Thomas J.; Eskew, Lane G., comps. 2001. Sustaining aspen in western landscapes: Symposium proceedings; 13-15 June 2000; Grand Junction, CO. Proceedings RMRS-P-18. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 460 p.

Stephenson, N.L. 1998. Actual evapotranspiration and deficit: biologically meaningful correlates of vegetation distribution across spatial scales. Journal of Biogeography 25: 855-870.

Stephens, S.L and Fulé, P.Z., 2005. Western pine forests with continuing frequent fire regimes: possible reference sites for management. Journal of Western Forestry, Volume 103, Number 7.

USDA Forest Service. 2013. Moonlight Fire Restoration Strategy Forest Service, Plumas National Forest, Mt. Hough Ranger District. August 2013. 280 pages.

Welch, K. R., H. D. Safford, and T. P. Young. 2016. Predicting conifer establishment post wildfire in mixed conifer forests of the North American Mediterranean-climate zone. Ecosphere 7(12):e01609. 10.1002/ecs2.1609

Yoda, K; Kira, T; Ogawa. H; Hozumi, K. 1963. Intraspecific competition among higher plants. XI. Self- thinning in overcrowded pure stands under cultivated and natural conditions. Journal of the Institute of Polytechnics, Osaka City University, Series D. 14: 107-129.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 199 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Fire and Fuels Agee, J. K., and C. N. Skinner. 2005. Basic principles of forest fuel reduction treatments. Forest Ecology and Management 211:83-96.

Andrews and Rothermel 1982. Aids to determining fuel models for estimating fire behavior. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-122. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 22 p.

National Wildfire Coordinating Group. 2013. Wildland Fire Incident Management Field Guide. PMS 210. April 2013.

MFRS 2013. Moonlight Fire Restoration Strategy. USDA Forest Service, Plumas National Forest. Version 1.0. August 17, 2013.

Moghaddas, J.J. 2006. A fuel treatment reduces potential fire severity and increases suppression efficiency in a Sierran Mixed Conifer forest. USDA Forest Service Proceedings, RMRS-P-41.

Rothermel 1983. How to Predict the Spread and Intensity of Forest and Range Fires. United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service. Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. Ogden, UT 84401. General Technical Report INT-143.

Stephens, S.L and Fulé, P.Z., 2005. Western pine forests with continuing frequent fire regimes: possible reference sites for management. Journal of Western Forestry, Volume 103, Number 7.

USDA Forest Service. 2013. Moonlight Fire Restoration Strategy Forest Service, Plumas National Forest, Mt. Hough Ranger District. August 2013. 280 pages. Air Quality California Air Resources Board. 2014. California Regional Haze Plan 2014 Progress Report, California Air Resources Board. Adoption Date: May 22, 2014.

California’s Progress Toward Clean Air. 2015. California’s Progress Toward Clean Air. California Air Pollution Control Officer’s Association.

Kocher 2012. System Indicators, Forest Health and Carbon Storage. 2012. Sierra Plumas Conservancy.

Liu, X., et al. 2017. Airborne measurements of western U.S. wildfire emissions: Comparison with prescribed burning and air quality implications, J. Geophys. Res. Atmos., 122, 6108–6129.

National Atmospheric Deposition Program. 2017. National Atmospheric Deposition Program. Atmospheric Mercury Network website. http://nadp.sws.uiuc.edu/amn/

Sullivan, T. J., T. C. McDonnell, G. T. McPherson, S. D. Mackey, and D. Moore. 2011a. Evaluation of the sensitivity of inventory and monitoring national parks to nutrient enrichment effects from atmospheric nitrogen deposition: Klamath Network (KLMN). Natural Resource Report NPS/NRPC/ARD/NRR—2011/312. National Park Service, Denver, Colorado.

Sullivan, T. J., G. T. McPherson, T. C. McDonnell, S. D. Mackey, and D. Moore. 2011b. Evaluation of the sensitivity of inventory and monitoring national parks to acidification effects from atmospheric sulfur and nitrogen deposition: Klamath Network (KLMN). Natural Resource Report NPS/NRPC/ARD/NRR—2011/360. National Park Service, Denver, Colorado.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 200 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Sullivan, T. J., G. T. McPherson, T. C. McDonnell, S. D. Mackey, and D. Moore. 2011. Evaluation of the sensitivity of inventory and monitoring national parks to acidification effects from atmospheric sulfur and nitrogen deposition: Klamath Network (KLMN). Natural Resource Report NPS/NRPC/ARD/NRR—2011/360. National Park Service, Denver, Colorado.

Sierra Business Council. 2005. Plumas County 2005 Community-Wide Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory. Narrative Report. Produced by Sierra Business Council Supported by Pacific Gas and Electric Company In Collaboration with Plumas County and ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability USA. April 2012. Appendix E of the 2035 Plumas County General Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Report 2012.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2017a. Air Topics. USEPA website. https://www.epa.gov/environmental-topics/air-topics

Western Airborne Contaminants Assessment Project. 2008. Landers, D.H., S.L. Simonich, D.A. Jaffe, L.H. Geiser, D.H. Campbell, A.R. Schwindt, C.B. Schreck, M.L. Kent, W.D. Hafner, H.E. Taylor, K.J. Hageman, S. Usenko, L.K. Ackerman, J.E. Schrlau, N.L. Rose, T.F. Blett, and M.M. Erway. 2008. The Fate, Transport, and Ecological Impacts of Airborne Contaminants in Western National Parks (USA). EPA/600/R-07/138. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, NHEERL, Western Ecology Division, Corvallis, Oregon. Soils Adams, M.B. 1999. Acidic deposition and sustainable forest management in the central Appalachians, USA. Forest Ecology and Management 122: 17-28.

Archer, V. 2008. Clearwater Soil Monitoring: Soils Report. Orofino, ID.

Busse, M.D., P.H. Cochran, W.E. Hopkins, W.H. Johnson, G.M. Riegel, G.O. Fiddler, A. W. Ratcliff, and C.J. Shestak. 2009. Developing resilient ponderosa pine forests with mechanical thinning and prescribed fire in central Oregon’s pumice region. Can. J. For. Res. 39:1171-1185.

Cacek, C.C. 1989. The relationship of mass wasting to timber harvest activities in the Lightning Creek basin. Master Thesis, Eastern Washington University. pp. ii-iv.

Carr, T. 1989. An evaluation of forest soil tillage using the winged subsoiler on landings in the Prince George Forest District: A Pilot Study. Contract Report Silviculture Branch, Ministry of Forests, Victoria, B.C. 24p.

Certini, G. 2005. Effects of fire on properties of forest soils: a review. Oecologia 143:1-10.

Choromanska, U. and T.H. DeLuca. 2002. Microbial activity and nitrogen mineralization in forest mineral soils following heating: evaluation of post-fire effects. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 34: 263- 271.

Clayton, J.L.; Kellogg, G; Forester, N. 1987. Soil disturbance Tree-growth relations in central Idaho clearcuts. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-GTR-372. Ogden UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 6p.

Clayton, J.L. 1990. Soil disturbance resulting from skidding logs on granite soils in Central Idaho. USDA Forest Service Research Paper INT-436.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 201 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

DeBano, L.F. 1981. Water repellant soils: a state-of-the-art. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-46, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Exp. Stn., USDA Forest Service, Berkeley, CA. 21 pp. de Dios Benavides-Soloria, J., and L.H. MacDonald. 2005. Measurement and prediction of post-fire erosion at the hillslope scale, Colorado Front Range. Int. J. of Wildland Fire 14:457-474.

DeLuca, T. and G.H. Aplet. 2008. Charcoal and carbon storage in forest soils of the Rocky Mountain West. Fron. Ecol. Environ. 6: 18-24.

DiTomaso, J.M. 2000. Invasive weeds in rangelands: Species, impacts and management. Weed Science 28(2): 255-265.

Foltz, R.B, and E. Maillard. 2003. Infiltration rates on abandoned road-stream crossings. Paper Number 035009. ASAE Annual International Meeting. Las Vegas, Nevada. 11p.

Garrison, M. T. and J. A. Moore. 1998. Nutrient management: a summary and review. In: Intermountain Forest Tree Nutrition Garrison-Johnston, M. T., J. A. Moore and G. J. Niehoff. 2001. Cooperative Supplemental Report 98: 5.

Garrison-Johnston, M. 2003. Geologic controls on tree nutrition and forest health in the Inland Northwest. Presented at GSA Ann. Mtng, Seattle, WA. 9 pp.

Garrison-Johnston, M., T.M. Shaw, L.R. Johnson, and P.G. Mika. 2004. Intermountain Forest Tree Nutrition Cooperative, Presentation at the Potassium Meeting, IPNF, Coeur d’Alene, ID, April 23.

Graham, R.T., A.E. Harvey, M.F. Jurgenson, T.B. Jain, J.R. Tonn, and D.S. Page-Dumroese. 1994. Managing coarse woody debris in forests of the Rocky Mountains. Res. Pap. INT-RP-477. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 13p.

Gresswell, S., D. Heller, D. N. Swanston. 1979. Mass movement response to forest management in the central Oregon Coast Ranges. USDA For. Serv. Resour. Bull. PNW-84, 26 p.

Grier, C.C., K.M. Lee, N.M. Nadkarni, G.O. Klock, and P.J. Edgerton. 1989. Productivity of forest of the United States and its relation to soil and site factors and management practices: A review. PNW- GTR-222. United Stated Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, Oregon.

Gundale, M.J., S. Sutherland, and T.H. DeLuca.2008. Fire, native species, and soil resource interactions influence the spatio-temporal invasion pattern of Bromus tectorum. Ecography 31: 202-210.

Haney, R.L.; Senseman, S.A.; Hons, F.M. 2002. Effect of roundup ultra on microbial activity and biomass from selected soils. Journal of Environmental Quality 31: 730–735

Jones, J.A. and G.E. Grant. 1996. Peak flow responses to clearcutting and roads in small and large basins, western Cascades, Oregon. Water Resources Research 32(4): 959-974.

Jurgensen, M.F., A.E. Harvey, R.T. Graham, D.S. Page-Dumrose, J.R. Tonn, M.J. Larson, and T.B. Jain. 1997. Impacts of timber harvests on soil organic matter, nitrogen, productivity and health of inland northwest forests. Forest Science 43: 234-251.

Lloyd, R.A., K.A. Lohse, and T.P.A. Ferre. 2013. Influence of road reclamation techniques on forest ecosystem recovery. Frontiers in Ecology 11(2): 75-81.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 202 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Luce, C.H. 1997. Effectiveness of road ripping in restoring infiltration capacity of forest roads. Restoration Ecology 5 (3):265-270.

Mann, L.K., D.W. Johnson, D.C. West, D.W. Cole, J.W. Hornbeck, C.W. Martin, H. Riekerk, C.T. Smith, W.T. Swank, L.M. Tritton, and D.H. Van Lear. 1988. Effects of whole-tree and stem-only clearcutting on postharvest hydrologic losses, nutrient capital, and regrowth. Forest Science 34: 412-428.

Megahan, W.F. 1990. Erosion and site productivity in western-Montana forest ecosystems. In: Proceedings, Management and Productivity of Western-Montana Forest Soils. Gen. Tech. Rep. INT-280. USDA, Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. pp. 146-150.

Morford, S.L., B.Z. Houlton and R.A. Dahlgren. 2011. Increased forest ecosystem carbon and nitrogen storage from nitrogen rick bedrock. Nature 477: 78-84.

Neary, D.G., K.C. Ryan, and L.F. DeBano, eds. 2005 (revised 2008). Wildland fire in ecosystems: effects of fire on soils and water. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol.4. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 250 p.

Newland, J.A., and T.H. DeLuca. 2000. Influence of fire on native nitrogen-fixing plants and soil nitrogen status in ponderosa pine-Douglas fir forests in western Montana. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 30:274-282.

Niehoff, G. 2002. Soil NEPA analysis process and source of soil disturbance model coefficients.

Page-Dumroese D.S., Jurgenson M., & Terry, T. 2010. Maintaining Soil Productivity during Forest or Biomass-to-Energy Thinning Harvests in the Western United States. Western Journal of Applied Forestry 25: 5-10.

Reeves, D. D. Page-Dumroese and M. Coleman. 2011. Detrimental soil disturbance associated with timber harvest systems on National Forests in the Northern Region. Res. Pap. RMRS-RP-89 Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 12 p.

Syracuse Environmental Research Associates. 2011a. Glyphosate Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment – Final Report. March 25, 2011. SERA TR-052-22-03b. Manlius, New York. 336 pages.

Syracuse Environmental Research Associates. 2011b. Triclopyr Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment – Final Report. March 24, 2011. SERA TR-052-25-03a. Manlius, New York. 267 pages.

Sperber T.D., Wraith J.M., Olson B.E. 2003. Soil physical properties associated with the invasive spotted knapweed and native grasses are similar. Plant Soil 252:241-249.

Stark, 1979. Nutrient losses from timber harvesting in a larch/Douglas fir forest. USDA Forest Service Research Paper. INT-231.

Sullivan, T. E. 1998. Monitoring soil physical conditions on a national forest in Eastern Oregon: A Case Study. 9 p

Switalski, T.A., J.A. Bissonette, T.H. DeLuca, C.H. Luce, and M.A. Madej. 2004. Benefits and impacts of road removal. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2(1): 21-28.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 203 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Tepp, J.S. 2002. Assessing visual soil disturbance on eight commercially thinned sites in northeastern Washington. Res. Note. PNW-RN-535. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station, Portland, OR. 20p.

USDA Forest Service. 2012. Forest Service Manual 2500-2012-1. Supplement. Soil Management Handbook. Pacific Southwest Region, Vallejo, CA. 11p.

USDA Forest Service. 2013. Moonlight Fire Restoration Strategy Forest Service, Plumas National Forest, Mt. Hough Ranger District. August 2013. 280 pages.

USDA Forest Service. 2015. Moonlight Fire GRAIP Watershed Roads Assessment, Plumas National Forest. U.S. Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station, Boise, ID. 85 p.Wemple, B.C., F.J. Swanson, and J.A. Jones. 2001. Forest roads and geomorphic process interactions, Cascade Range, Oregon. Earth Surfaces Processes and Landforms 26: 191-204.

Von Merey, G., P.S. Manson, A. Mehrsheikh, P. Sutton, and S.L. Levine. 2016. Glyphosate and Aminomethylphosphonic acid chronic risk assessment for soil biota. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 35 (11): 2742-2752).

Wemple, B.C., F.J. Swanson, and J.A. Jones. 2001. Forest Roads and Geomorphic Process Interactions, Cascade Range, Oregon. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 26, 191-204. Hydrology and Watershed Bakke, David. 2001, A Review and Assessment of the Results of Water Monitoring for Herbicide Residues, For the Years 1991 to 1999,USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, . Albany, CA.

Burroughs, Edward R., Jr. and King, John G. 1989. Reduction of Soil Erosion on Forest Roads, USDA Intermountain Research Station, General Technical Report INT 264.

Cabrera, N, Cissel, R, Black, T, and Luce, C. 2015. Moonlight Fire GRAIP Watershed Roads Assessment, Lights Creek and Indian Creek. Plumas National Forest, California

California State Water Resources Control Board. 2016. Water Quality Monitoring, Impaired Water Bodies. Available via: http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/water_quality_assessment/#impaired

Garcia and Associates. 2009. 2009 Annual Noxious Weed Control Monitoring Report Addressing License Condition No. 27. Rock Creek – Cresta Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 1962. Prepared for PG&E. October 2009.

Garcia and Associates. 2010. 2010 Annual Noxious Weed Control Monitoring Report Addressing License Condition No. 27. Rock Creek – Cresta Hydroelectric Project FERC No. 1962. Prepared for PG&E. October 2010.

Ketcheson, G.L. and Megahan, W.F. 1996. Sediment production and downslope sediment transport from forest roads in granitic watersheds. Res. Pap. INT-RP-486. Ogden, UT: USDA-Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station. 11pp.

Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E). 2012. Annual Report on Noxious Weed Control and Monitoring - License Condition 27, Rock Creek – Cresta Project FERC No. 1962.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 204 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Syracuse Environmental Research Associates (SERA). 2011a. Glyphosate: Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment - FINAL REPORT.

Syracuse Environmental Research Associates (SERA). 2011b. Triclopyr: Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment - FINAL REPORT.

Schuette, J. 1998. Environmental Fate of Glyphosate. Environ Monit Pest Manag Dep Pestic Regul, Sacramento, CA 95814-5624

Sugden, Brian D. and Scott W. Woods. 2007. Sediment Production from Forest Roads in Western Montana. Journal of the American Water Resources Association. Vol. 43, No. 1 pp. 193-206.

Trombulak, S.C. and Frissell, C.A. 2000. Review of Ecological Effects of Roads on Terrestrial and Aquatic Communities. Conservation Biology. 14(1) pp.18-30.

USDA Forest Service.1988. Plumas National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. USDA Forest Service Plumas National Forest, Quincy, CA.

USDA Forest Service. 2011b. Watershed Condition Classification Technical Guide. Department of. Agriculture. Forest Service. FS-978. July 2011

USDA Forest Service. 2012. PNF Annual Report for the BMP Evaluation Program 2010-2012. Quincy, CA.

USDA Forest Service. 2013. Moonlight Fire Restoration Strategy Forest Service, Plumas National Forest, Mt. Hough Ranger District. August 2013. Wildlife Bias, M.A. and R.T. Gutierrez .1992. Habitat Associations of California Spotted Owl in the Central Sierra Nevada. Journal of Wildlife Management. Vol. 56. No 3. Pg 584-595.

Blakesley, J.A.; Noon, B.R.; Anderson, D.R. 2005. Site occupancy, apparent survival, and reproduction of California spotted owls in relation to forest stand characteristics. Journal of Wildlife Management. 69: 1554–1654.

Blakesley, J.A., M.E. Seamans, M.M. Conner, A.B. Franklin, G.C. White, R J. Gutiérrez, J. E. Hines, J.D. Nichols, T.E. Munton, D.W.H. Shaw, J.J. Keane, G.N. Steger, and T.L. McDonald. 2010. Population Dynamics of Spotted Owls in the Sierra Nevada, California. Wildlife Monographs 174:1-36.

Buchalski, M.R., J.B. Fontaine, P.A. Heady, J.P. Hayes and W.F. Frick. 2013. Bat response to differing fire severity in mixed-conifer forests, California. PLoS ONE 8(3): e57884. Doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0057884

Bond, M.L., D.E. Lee, R.B. Siegel, and J.P. Ward Jr. et al. 2009. Habitat Use and Selection by California Spotted Owls in a Postfire Landscape. Journal of Wildlife Management 73 (7): 1116-1124.

Cameron, S.A., J.D. Lozier, J.P. Strange, J.B. Koch, N. Cordes, L.F. Solter and T.L. Griswold. 2011. Patterns of widespread decline in North American bumble bees. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108:662-667. See http://www.pnas.org/content/108/2/662.full.pdf+html .

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 205 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Dailey, S., J. Fites, A. Reiner, and S. Mori. 2008. Fire behavior and effects in fuel treatments and protected habitat on the Moonlight fire. Fire Behavior Assessment Team. Available online www.fs.fed.us/adaptivemanagement/projects/FBAT/docs/MoonlightFinal_8_6_08.pdf;.

Freel, M. 1991. A Literature Review for Management of Fisher and Marten in California. Unpublished Document, United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region.

Hall, P. A. 1984. Characterization of nesting habitat of goshawks (Accipiter gentiles) in Northwestern California. M.S. Thesis. California State University, Humboldt. 70 pp.

Hayes, J.P. and S.C. Loeb. 2007. The influences of Forest Management on Bats in North America in Bats in Forests Conservation and Management. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland. 335 pp.

Henry, M., M. Beguin, F. Requier, O. Rollin, J. Odoux, P. Aupinel, J. Aptel, S. Tchamitchian and A. Decourtye. 2012. A Common Pesticide Decreases Foraging Success and Survival in Honey Bees. SciencExpress available at http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2012/03/28/science.1215039.full.pdf

Hopwood, J., M. Vaughan, M. Shepherd, D. Biddinger, E. Mader, S. Hoffman Black and C. Mazzacano. 2012. Are Neonicotinoids Killing Bees? A Review of Research into the Effects of Neonicotinoid Insecticides on Bees, with Recommendations for Action. Xerces Society, Portland, OR. Available at http://www.xerces.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Are-Neonicotinoids-Killing-Bees_Xerces- Society1.pdf .

Jones,G.M.,R.J. Gutierrez, D.J.Tempel, S.A.Whitmore, W.J.Berigan, and M.Z. Peery. 2016. Megafires: an emerging threat to old-forest species. Front Ecol. Environ.; 14 (6) 300-306.

Keane, J. J. 1997. Ecology of the northern goshawk in the Sierra Nevada, California. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation.

Keinath, D.A. 2004. Fringed myotis (Myotis thysanodes): a technical conservation assessment. [Online]. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/fringedmyotis.pdf

Koch, J., J. Strange and P. Williams. 2012. Bumble Bees of the Western United States. U.S. Forest Service and the Pollinator Partnership, Washington, D.C. 144 pp.

Lee, D.C. and L.L. Irwin. 2005. Assessing risks to spotted owls from forest thinning in fire-adapted forests of the western United States. Forest Ecology and Management 211: 191-209.

Moen, C.A. and R.J. Gutierrez. 1997. California Spotted Owl Habitat Selection in the Central Sierra Nevada. The Journal of Wildlife Management Vol.61. No. 4 pp. 1281-1287.

National Pesticide Information Center (NPIC). 2002. Triclopyr – General Fact Sheet. Oregon State University, 310 Weniger Hall, Corvallis, Oregon 97331

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 206 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Philpott, W. 1997. Summaries of the life histories of California bat species. Unpublished document. USDA Forest Service, Sierra National Forest, Pineridge Ranger Station.

Pierson, E.D.; Rainey, W.E. 1998. Distribution, status and management of Townsend's big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) in California. California Department of Fish and Fame, Wildlife Management Division. BMCP Technical Report Number 96-7.

Pierson, E.D.; Wackenhut, M.C.; Altenbach, J.S.; Bradley, P.; Call, P.; Genter, D.L.; Harris, C.E.; Keller, B.L.; Lengus, B.; Lewis, L.; Luce, B.; Navo, K.W.; Perkins, J.M.; Smith, S.; Welch, L. 1999. Species conservation assessment and strategy for Townsend's big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii townsendii and Corynorhinus townsendii pallescens). Boise, ID: Idaho Conservation Effort, Idaho Department of Fish and Game.

Richter, D. J. and R. Calls. 1996. Territory occupancy, nest site use, and reproductive success of goshawks on private timberlands: Progress Report. California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA.

Roberts, S.L., van Wagtendonk, J.W., Miles, A.K. and Kelt, D.A. 2011. Effects of fire on spotted owl site occupancy in a late-successional forest. Biological Conservation, 144(1), pp.610-619.

Ruggiero, L.F., E. Pearson, and S.E. Henry.1998. Characteristics of American Marten Den Sites in Wyoming. The Journal of Wildlife Management. Vol 62 No 2 pp 663-673.

Syracuse Environmental Research Associates (SERA). 2006. Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment for Borax Final Report. USDA Forest Service, Forest Health Protection, Rosslyn Plaza Building C, Room 7129C, 1601 North Kent Street, Arlington, VA. SERA TR 04-43-21/06- 30-02b.

Stephens, S.L., N. Burrows, A. Buyantuyev, R.W. Gray, R.E. Keane, R. Kubian, S. Liu, F. Seijo, L. Shu, K.G. Tolhurst, and J. W. Wagtendonk. 2014. Temperate and boreal forest mega-fires: characteristics and challenges. The Ecological Society of America. On-line: www.frontiersinecology.org.

Tempel, D.J. and R.J. Gutierrez, S.A. Whitmore, M. J Reetz, R.E. Stoelting, W.J. Berigan, M. E. Seamans, and M.Z. Peery. 2014. Effects of forest management on California Spotted Owls: implications for reducing wildfire risk in fire-prone forests. Ecological Applications 24(8) 2089- 2106.

Tempel, J.D.; Keane, J.J; Gutierrez, R.J.; Wolfe, J.D; Jones, G.M; Koltunov, A; Ramirez, C.M; Berigan, W.J.; Gallagher, C.V; Munton, T.E; Shaklee, P.A.; Whitmore, S.A; and Peery, M.Z. 2016. Meta- analysis of California Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis occidentalis) territory occupancy in the Sierra Nevada: Habitat associations and their implications for forest management. The Condor: Ornithological Applications 118:747-765.

Thorp, R. W., and M. D. Shepherd. 2005. Profile: Subgenus Bombus. In Shepherd, M. D., D. M. Vaughan, and S. H. Black (Eds). Red List of Pollinator Insects of North America. The Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation, Portland, OR.

Tommasi, D., A. Miro, H. A. Higo and M. L. Winston. 2004. Bee diversity and abundance in an urban setting. The Canadian Entomologist 136: 851–869.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 207 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

USDA Forest Service. 2001. Sierra Nevada forest plan amendment (SNFPA) final environmental impact statement (FEIS) and record of decision (ROD). USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Vallejo, CA.

USDA Forest Service. 2004. Sierra Nevada forest plan amendment (SNFPA) final supplemental environmental impact statement (FSEIS) and record of decision (ROD). USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Vallejo, CA.

USDA Forest Service. 2005. Fringed myotis. In: Species Accounts – Animals. Available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/scfpr/projects/lmp/docs/species-animals.pdf.

USDA Forest Service. 2015. Draft Interim Recommendations for the Management of California Spotted Owl Habitat on National System Lands. USDA Forest Service Southwestern Region. Valejo, CA.

Verner, J., K. S. McKelvey, B. R. Noon, R. J. Gutiérrez, G. I. Gould, and T. W. Beck. 1992. The California spotted owl: a technical assessment of its current status. Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, US Department of Agriculture, Albany, CA.

Winter, J. 1986. Status, Distribution, and Ecology of the great gray owl (Strix nebulosa) in California. M.S. Thesis, San Francisco State University. San Francisco, CA. 121 p.

Zielinski, W.J. and T.E. Kucera. 1995. American marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine: survey methods for their detection. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, General Technical Report PSW-GTR-157. Aquatics Andrews, K. M., J. W. Gibbons, and D. M. Jochimsen. 2008. Ecological effects of roads on amphibians and reptiles: a literature review. Herpetological Conservation 3:121–143.

Bury, R. B. and D. J. Germano. 2008. Actinemys marmorata (Baird and Girard 1852) – western pond turtle, Pacific pond turtle. In: Rhodin, A. G. J., P. C. H. Pritchard, P. P. van Dijk, R. A. Saumure, K. A. Buhlmann, and J. B. Iverson (eds.). Conservation Biology of Freshwater Turtles and Tortoises: A Compilation Project of the IUCN-SSC Tortoise and Freshwater Turtle Specialist Group. Chelonian Research Monographs No. 5, pp. 001.1-001.9.

Buskirk, J. 2002. The western pond turtle, Emys marmorata. Radiata 11(3): 3-30.

Germano, D.J. and Rathbun, G.B. 2008. Growth, population structure, and reproduction of western pond turtles (Actinemys marmorata) on the central coast of California. Chelonian Conservation and Biology 7(2): 188-194.

Jennings, M.R. and M.P. Hayes. 1994. Amphibian and reptile species of special concern in California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division, Rancho Cordova, CA. Contract #8023 Final Report. 255pp.

Lugo, A. E. and H. Gucinski. 2000. Function, effects, and management of forest roads. Forest Ecology and Management 133:249–262.

McCaffery, M., T. A. Switalski, and L. Eby. 2007. Effects of road decommissioning on stream habitat characteristics in the South Fork Flathead River, Montana. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 136(3):553–561.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 208 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

MGW Biological and Klamath Wildlife Resources. 2006. Habitat use, home range, and movements of Mountain Yellow-legged Frogs (Rana muscosa) in Bean Creek on the Plumas National Forest, Final Report.

MGW Biological. 2015. Draft Moonlight Amphibian and Western Pond Turtle Survey, First Year Interim Report, December 2015. Unpublished Report. MGW Biological, McKinleyville, California.

Reese, D. A. and H. H. Welsh. 1997. Use of Terrestrial Habitat by Western Pond Turtles, Clemmys marmorata: implications for management. Proceedings of the Conservation, Restoration, and Management of Tortoises and Turtles. An International Conference: 352–357.

Reese and Welsh 1998. Comparative demography of western pond turtle (Clemmys marmorata) populations in two forks of the Trinity River of California in the context of dam-induced alterations. Journal of Herpetology 32:505-515.

Spellerberg, I. F. 1998. Ecological Effects of Roads and Traffic: A Literature Review. Global Ecology and Biogeography Letters 7(5):317–333.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014a. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Final Rule to List the Sierra Nevada Yellow- Legged Frog (Rana sierrae). Federal Register. Vol. 79 FR 24255: 24310. https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/04/29/2014-09488/endangered-and-threatened- wildlife-and-plants-endangered-species-status-for-sierra-nevada

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2014b. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Programmatic Biological Opinion on Nine Forest Programs on Nine Natinal Forests in the Sierra Nevada of California for the Endangered Sierra Nevada Yellow-legged Frog, Endangered Northern Distinct Population Segment of the Mountain Yellow-legged Frog, and Threatened Yosemite Toad. December 19, 2014.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2015. Federal endangered and threatened species that occur in or may be affected by projects in Plumas County, California. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Sacramento, California [Online] Available at: http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/ES_Species/Lists/es_species_lists_NF-action-page.cfm [Accessed 26 September 2016].

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2016. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Sierra Nevada Yellow-Legged Frog (Rana sierrae), the Northern DPS of the Mountain Yellow-Legged Frog, and the Yosemite Toad; Final Rule. Federal Register. Vol. 81 No. 166 (81 FR 59045 59119). https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-08-26/pdf/2016-20352.pdf

USDA Forest Service. 2014. Pesticide-Use Projects Guidance for No Effect Determinations. U.S. Forest Service Region 5. Vallejo, CA.

Yasuda, C. 2012. USDA Forest Service Sensitive Species account. Foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii). U.S. Forest Service Region 5. Vallejo, CA. Herbicide Risk Assessment Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). 2010. Toxicological Profile for Boron. Available at: http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/ToxProfiles/tp26.pdf .

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 209 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Borrecco, J., Neisess, J. 1991. Risk assessment for the impurities 2-butoxyethanol and 1,4-dioxane found in Garlon 4 and Roundup herbicide formulations. Pacific Southwest Region, Forest Pest Management. Report No. R91-2. 33 pages.

Ganapathy, C. 1997. Environmental Fate of Triclopyr. California Department of Pesticide Regulation. Environmental Monitoring & Pest Management Branch. Report dated Jan. 2, 1997. Available at: http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/pubs/fatememo/triclopyr.pdf.

Gosselin N.H., Brunet R.C., Carrier G., and A. Dosso. 2005. Worker Exposures to Triclopyr: Risk Assessment Through Measurements in Urine Samples. Ann Occup Hyg. 49(5):415-22.

Guyton, K.Z., et al. 2015. Carcinogenicity of tetrachlorvinphos, parathion, malathion, diazinon, and glyphosate. Lancet Oncology. Published online March 20, 2015. http://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lanonc/PIIS1470-2045%2815%2970134-8.pdf. Accessed online on 07/14/15.

Hayes WJ Jr. 1982. Pesticides studied in man. Baltimore/London: Williams & Wilkins, 672 pp.

Knuteson J. 1999. Review of Environmental Fate of 3,5,6-Trichloro-2-pyridinol. (TCP): Laboratory, Terrestrial and Aquatic Field Studies: Lab Project Number: GH-C 4875. Unpublished study prepared by Dow AgroSciences LLC. 75 p. MRID 44766301. DowAgro Document Code: 67447.

Mirvish SS. 1995. Role of N-nitroso compounds (NOC) and N-nitrosation in etiology of gastric, esophageal, nasopharyngeal and bladder cancer and contribution to cancer of known exposures to NOC. Cancer Lett. 93(1): 17-48.

Mizell M ; Lomax L. 1988. Garlon 3A (Triclopyr as Triethylamine Salt): Acute Oral Toxicity Study in Fischer 344 Rats: Lab Project Number: M-003724-009A. Unpublished study prepared by The Dow Chemical Co. 28 p. MRID 41443301.

National Research Council. 1983. Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process. The National Academies Press. Washington, DC.

Nisus (Nisus Corporation). 2009. DOT Cellu-Treat® Wood Preservative. Material Safety Data Sheet. Issued 8/2001, Updated 1/2009. Available at: http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5329557.pdf.

Schinasi, Leah and Maria E. Leon. 2014. Non-Hodgkin lymphoma and occupational exposure to agricultural pesticide chemical groups and active ingredients: a systematic review and meta- analysis. International Journal Environmental Research and Public Health. 2014 (11) 4449-4527.

Syracuse Environmental Research Associates Inc. (SERA). 1997a. Use and assessment of Marker Dyes used with Herbicides. December 21, 1997. Sera TR 96-21-07-03b. Fayetteville, New York. 47 pp.

Syracuse Environmental Research Associates. 1997b. Effects of Surfactants on the Toxicity of Glyphosate, with Specific Reference to Rodeo. SERA TR97-206-1b. 32 pages.

Syracuse Environmental Research Associates. 2010. Appendices to Glyphosate Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment – Final Report. November 29, 2010. SERA TR-052-22-03a-APP. 123 pages.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 210 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Syracuse Environmental Research Associates. 2011. Glyphosate Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment – Final Report. March 25, 2011. SERA TR-052-22-03b. Manlius, New York. 336 pages.

Syracuse Environmental Research Associates. 2016a. Triclopyr Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment – Corrected Final Report. July 9, 2016. SERA TR0-052-25-03c. Manilus, New York. 251 pages.

Syracuse Environmental Research Associates. 2016b. Sporax and Cellu-treat (Selected Borate Salts) Human Health and Ecological Risk Assessment – Final Report. October 17, 2016. SERA TR- 056-15-03c. Manilus, New York. 236 pages.

USDA Forest Service. 1989. Final Environmental Impact Statement - Vegetation Management for Reforestation. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. Vallejo, California.

USDA Forest Service. 2000. Consideration of Cancer Risk with Colorfast Purple Dye. Unpublished report written by David Bakke, Pacific Southwest Regional Pesticide-Use Specialist. 1 page.

USDA Forest Service. 2003. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment of Nonylphenol Polyethoxylate- based (NPE) Surfactants in Forest Service Herbicide Applications. Unpublished report written by David Bakke, Pacific Southwest Regional Pesticide-Use Specialist. 110 pages.

USDA Forest Service. 2002 and 2007 update. Analysis of issues surrounding the use of spray adjuvants with herbicides. Unpublished report written by David Bakke, Pacific Southwest Regional Pesticide-Use Specialist. 61 pages.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1986. Guidelines for the health risk assessment of chemical mixtures. Federal Register 51: 1850: 3414-34025. September 24, 1986.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2015. EDSP: Weight of Evidence Analysis of Potential Interaction with the Estrogen, Androgen or Thyroid Pathways. Office of Pesticide Programs, Office of Science Coordination And Policy, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP). 1993. Health Effects Division's Chapter of the Reregistration Eligibility Document (RED) for Glyphosate, Case #0178. Document dated Jan 15, 1993.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs. 1998. Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED): Triclopyr. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/status_page_t.htm.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs. Ecological Risk Assessor Orientation Package. Draft Version August 2001. Prepared by Brian Montague, Ecological Fate and Effects Division (EFED), U.S. EPA, Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Fate and Effects Division.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs. 2002a. Glyphosate: Pesticide Tolerances, 40 CFR Part 180. Federal Register. 67(188): 60934-60950.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs. 2002b. EPA: Federal Register: Triclopyr; Pesticide Tolerance. Federal Register. 67(181): 58712-58725.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 211 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Fate and Effects Division (EFED). 2015. Preliminary Environmental Fate and Ecological Risk Assessment for the Registration Review of Boric Acid and Sodium Borate Salts. Document dated November 25, 2015. EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0306-0021.

World Health Organization. 1988. IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risk to Humans: Alcohol Drinking. IARC Working Group on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans, Lyon, France. International Agency for Research on Cancer, World Health Organization, Geneva Switzerland. pp. 122-125. Transportation USDA Forest Service. 2012. National Best Management Practices for Water Quality Management on National Forest System Lands, Volume 1: National Core BMP Technical Guide. USDA Forest Service Publication FS-990a. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington D.C. April 2012. Available at: http://www.fs.fed.us/biology/resources/pubs/watershed/FS_National_Core_BMPs_April2012.pdf

USDA Forest Service. 2016. Plumas National Forest Travel Analysis Report. DRAFT February 2016. Recreation USDA Forest Service. 2013. Moonlight Fire Restoration Strategy Forest Service, Plumas National Forest, Mt. Hough Ranger District. August 2013. 280 pages.

USDA Forest Service 2016. Appendix B – Forest Road Assessment by Road Number. Plumas National Forest. Travel Analysis Report. February 2016. https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fseprd527853.docx

Vaux, H.J., Jr., P.D. Gardner, and T.J. Mills. 1984. Methods for assessing the impact of fire on forest recreation. USDA Forest Service. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-79. Socioeconomic Allen, Stewart D.; Wickwar, Denise A.; Clark, Fred P.; Dow, Robert R.; Potts, Robert; Snyder, Stephanie A. 2009. Values, beliefs, and attitudes technical guide for Forest Service land and resource management, planning, and decision-making. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-788. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 112 p.

Bureau of Labor and Statistics, U.S. Department of Labor, Local Area Unemployment Statistics. Accessed February 24, 2017 from .

Census Bureau, Department of Commerce. 2000. Census 2000 Systems Support Division. As reported in Headwaters Economics’ Economic Profile System . Accessed February 24, 2017.

Census Bureau, Department of Commerce. 2016. American Community Survey Office. As reported in Headwaters Economics’ Economic Profile System . Accessed February 24, 2017.

Minnesota IMPLAN Group (MIG). (2014). IMPLAN Professional Version 3.1

USDA Forest Service. 2016. Plumas NF Job and Income Contributions for 2014 At a Glance.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 212 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Appendix A – Maps

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 213 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Map 1. Proposed action overview map

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 214 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Map 2. Alternative B proposed action, view 1 Mt. Hough Ranger District - 215 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Map 3. Alternative B proposed action, view 2 Mt. Hough Ranger District - 216 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Map 4. Alternative B proposed action, view 3 Mt. Hough Ranger District - 217 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Map 5. Alternative B proposed action, view 4 Mt. Hough Ranger District - 218 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Map 6. Alternative B proposed action, view 5 Mt. Hough Ranger District - 219 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Map 7. Alternative B proposed action, view 6

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 220 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Map 8. Alternative B proposed action, view 7 Mt. Hough Ranger District - 221 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Map 9. Alternative B proposed action, view 8 Mt. Hough Ranger District - 222 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Map 10. Alternative B proposed action, view 9 Mt. Hough Ranger District - 223 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Map 11. Alternative B proposed action, view 10 Mt. Hough Ranger District - 224 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Map 12. Alternative B proposed action, view 11 Mt. Hough Ranger District - 225 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Map 13. Alternative B proposed action, view 12 Mt. Hough Ranger District - 226 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Map 14. Alternative C overview map

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 227 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Map 15. Non-motorized trails proposed for maintenance

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 228 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Appendix B – Vegetation Treatments

Table 70. Comparison of vegetation management activities by alternative Alternative B (Proposed Alternative C Proposed Activities Action) and Alternative D (approximate Action (approximate acres) acres) Reforestation and release 4062 4062 Grapple Pile, Pile Burn, Underburn, Reforestation, and release treatments (mastication, hand grubbing 4062 4062 for all alternatives; herbicide application for alternatives B and C). Precommercial thinning 768 768 Precommercial Mechanical Thin, Grapple Pile, Pile 768 768 Burn, Underburn Mechanical thinning 3765 3765 Hand Thin up to 6 inch, Pile Burn, Underburn 138 583 Hand Thin, Grapple Pile, Pile Burn, Underburn 130 47 Hand Thin, Pile Burn, Underburn 7 0 Mechanical Thin, Grapple Pile, Pile Burn, Underburn 3490 3135 Aspen restoration 1928 1928 Fence 8 8 Grapple Pile, Pile Burn, Underburn 140 131 Grapple Pile, Pile Burn, Underburn, Reforest 10 10 Hand fall large trees, Fence 21 21 Hand Thin up to 6 inch, Pile Burn, Underburn 75 306 Hand Thin, Grapple Pile, Pile Burn, Underburn 96 72 Mechanical Thin, Grapple Pile, Pile Burn, Underburn 1039 936 Mechanical Thin, Grapple Pile, Pile Burn, 6 6 Underburn, Fence Mechanical Thin, Grapple Pile, Pile Burn, Underburn, Manage and Monitor Livestock, Fence if 16 16 necessary Mechanical Thin, Hand Thin, Grapple Pile, Pile 508 414 Burn, Underburn Mechanical Thin, Hand Thin, Grapple Pile, Pile Burn, Underburn, Manage and Monitor Livestock, 9 9 Fence* Hazardous fuel reduction 230 230 Hand Thin, Grapple Pile, Pile Burn, Underburn 230 230 Wildlife habitat improvement 1950 1950 Hand Thin up to 6 inch, Pile Burn, Underburn 1404 1767 Hand Thin, Pile Burn, Underburn 546 183 Total Acreage 12,711 12,711

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 229 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Table 71. Summary of actions proposed in the Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project area – alternative B (proposed action) and alternative D Proposed Action/Treatment Types Unit Number Acres ECOM51 - Aspen restoration 1928 Fence 8 89 8 Grapple Pile, Pile Burn, Underburn 140 102 1 103 2 107 1 110 4 116 1 128 6 132 2 139 1 14 3 151 0.4 19 58 21 4 24 1 36 4 49 10 53 4 62 1 63 1 64 9 68 4 69 5 73 3 78 9 80 2 84 0.4 91 1 97 0.5 98 1 Grapple Pile, Pile Burn, Underburn, Reforest 10 128 10 Hand fall large trees, Fence 21 114 0.3

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 230 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Proposed Action/Treatment Types Unit Number Acres 134 0.5 136 0.3 21 1 62 0.4 63 5 66 12 84 2 Hand Thin up to 6 inch, Pile Burn, Underburn 75 78 49 89 26 Hand Thin, Grapple Pile, Pile Burn, Underburn 96 10 1 115 1 116 11 12 1 121 2 122 1 14 34 143 1 144 0.3 145 1 18 1 19 5 29 1 30 3 33 1 35 4 36 2 38 4 4 0.4 42 3 5 0.4 58 4 61 0.3 8 3 80 7 87 3

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 231 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Proposed Action/Treatment Types Unit Number Acres Mechanical Thin, Grapple Pile, Pile Burn, Underburn 1039 101 1 102 0.4 103 1 107 3 108 2 110 29 111 1 112 1 113 7 116 36 13 71 130 1 131 1 137 3 138 8 139 2 140 1 141 1 142 3 152 0.4 153 0.4 155 0.4 17 2 18 0.2 19 57 20 20 21 7 23 5 24 4 25 2 27 8 28 3 32 24 35 47 36 59 41 3

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 232 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Proposed Action/Treatment Types Unit Number Acres 42 83 45 16 49 72 5 2 50 1 51 21 52 80 58 73 6 1 60 23 62 18 7 2 70 6 71 12 78 105 87 18 89 81 92 0.4 93 5 94 1 95 2 96 1 98 2 99 1 Mechanical Thin, Grapple Pile, Pile Burn, Underburn, Fence 6 100 2 109 3 87 1 Mechanical Thin, Grapple Pile, Pile Burn, Underburn, Manage 16 and Monitor LIvestock, Fence if necessary 65 16 Mechanical Thin, Hand Thin, Grapple Pile, Pile Burn, 508 Underburn 101 1 107 88 116 15 21 108 32 15

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 233 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Proposed Action/Treatment Types Unit Number Acres 36 5 40 7 43 6 45 7 46 1 47 42 52 44 53 4 61 1 70 4 89 158 98 3 Mechanical Thin, Hand Thin, Grapple Pile, Pile Burn, 9 Underburn, Manage and Monitor LIvestock, Fence* 65 9 Fuels ADD1 - Hazardous fuels reduction 230 Hand Thin, Grapple Pile, Pile Burn, Underburn 230 500 90 501 27 502 36 503 52 504 6 505 19 VEGM51 - Reforestation 4062 Grapple Pile, Pile Burn, Underburn, Reforestation, Herbicide 4062 200 28 201 76 202 64 203 12 204 39 205 9 206 20 207 61 208 49 209 14 210 14 212 163

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 234 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Proposed Action/Treatment Types Unit Number Acres 213 80 214 15 215 86 216 68 217 180 218 125 219 94 220 76 221 48 222 111 223 50 224 69 225 272 226 44 227 25 228 32 229 306 230 25 231 28 232 125 233 27 234 30 235 454 236 19 237 42 238 25 239 35 240 7 241 29 242 73 243 27 244 60 245 73 246 55 247 23 248 92 249 189

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 235 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Proposed Action/Treatment Types Unit Number Acres 250 76 251 32 252 46 253 60 254 98 255 73 256 9

VEGM52 - Precommercial thinning 768 Precommercial Mechanical Thin, Grapple Pile, Pile Burn, 768 Underburn

300 34 301 21 302 6 303 45 304 19 305 17 306 60 307 119 309 8 310 8 311 12 312 1 313 17 314 27 315 4 316 1 317 12 318 35 319 126 320 29 321 114 322 33 323 20 768 VEGM54 - Commercial thinning 3765

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 236 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Proposed Action/Treatment Types Unit Number Acres Hand Thin up to 6 inch, Pile Burn, Underburn 138 422 103 424 35 Hand Thin, Grapple Pile, Pile Burn, Underburn 130 453 130 Hand Thin, Pile Burn, Underburn 7 422 7 Mechanical Thin, Grapple Pile, Pile Burn, Underburn 3490 3 121 400 56 401 43 402 76 403 114 404 151 405 99 406 102 407 43 408 53 409 81 410 144 411 110 412 137 413 60 414 56 415 21 416 73 417 24 418 42 419 64 420 400 421 42 427 49 428 39 429 25 430 11 431 30 432 22

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 237 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Proposed Action/Treatment Types Unit Number Acres 433 110 434 3 435 84 436 95 437 53 438 44 439 3 440 9 441 70 442 53 443 64 444 35 445 182 446 83 454 38 455 35 456 241 WILM54 - Spotted Owl protected activity center fuel reduction 1950 Hand Thin up to 6 inch, Pile Burn, Underburn 1142 425 115 426 78 453 262 457 254 458 38 459 128 460 235 463 101 464 168 466 25 Hand Thin, Pile Burn, Underburn 546 461 155 462 239 465 32 467 22 468 98 Grand Total 12703

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 238 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Table 72. Summary of actions proposed in the Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Area – spotted owl alternative (alternative C) Treatment Type Unit Number Acres ECOM51 - Aspen restoration 1928 Fence 8 89 8 Grapple Pile, Pile Burn, Underburn 131 102 1 103 2 107 1 110 4 116 1 128 6 132 1 139 1 14 3 151 0.4 19 52 21 4 24 1 36 4 49 10 53 4 62 1 63 1 64 9 68 4 69 5 73A 3 78 7 80 2 84 0 91 1 97 0.4 98 1 Grapple Pile, Pile Burn, Underburn, Reforest 10 128 10 Hand fall large trees, Fence 21 114 0.3

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 239 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Treatment Type Unit Number Acres 134 0.5 136 0.3 21 1 62 0.4 63 5 66 12 84 2 Hand Thin up to 6 inch, Pile Burn, Underburn 306 13 23 14 20 17 2 19 7 4 0.4 78 95 8 3 89 155 Hand Thin, Grapple Pile, Pile Burn, Underburn 72 10 1 115 1 116 11 12 1 121 2 122 1 14 14 143 1 144 0.3 145 1 18 1 19 5 29 1 30 3 33 1 35 4 36 2 38 4 42 3 5 0.4

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 240 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Treatment Type Unit Number Acres 58 4 61 0.3 80 7 87 3 Mechanical Thin, Grapple Pile, Pile Burn, Underburn 936 101 1 102 0.4 103 1 107 3 108 2 110 29 111 1 112 1 113 7 116 36 13 48 130 1 131 1 137 3 138 8 139 2 140 1 141 1 142 3 152 0.4 153 0.3 155 0.4 18 0.2 19 57 20 20 21 7 23 5 24 4 25 2 27 8 28 3 32 24

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 241 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Treatment Type Unit Number Acres 35 47 36 59 41 3 42 83 45 16 49 72 5 2 50 1 51 21 52 80 58 73 6 1 60 23 62 18 7 2 70 6 71 12 78 61 87 18 89 47 92 0.4 93 5 94 1 95 2 96 1 98 2 99 1 Mechanical Thin, Grapple Pile, Pile Burn, Underburn, Fence 6 100 2 109 3 87 1 Mechanical Thin, Grapple Pile, Pile Burn, Underburn, Manage 16 and Monitor Livestock, Fence if necessary 65 16 Mechanical Thin, Hand Thin, Grapple Pile, Pile Burn, Underburn 414 101 1 107 88

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 242 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Treatment Type Unit Number Acres 116 15 21 108 32 15 36 5 40 7 43 6 45 7 46 1 47 42 52 44 53 4 61 1 70 4 89 63 98 3 Mechanical Thin, Hand Thin, Grapple Pile, Pile Burn, Underburn, 9 Manage and Monitor Livestock, Fence* 65 9 Fuels ADD1 - Hazardous fuels reduction 230 Hand Thin, Grapple Pile, Pile Burn, Underburn 230 500 90 501 27 502 36 503 52 504 6 505 19 VEGM51 - Reforestation 4062 Grapple Pile, Pile Burn, Underburn, Reforestation, Herbicide 4062 200 28 201 76 202 64 203 12 204 39 205 9 206 20 207 61 208 49

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 243 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Treatment Type Unit Number Acres 209 14 210 14 212 163 213 80 214 15 215 86 216 68 217 180 218 125 219 94 220 76 221 48 222 111 223 50 224 69 225 272 226 44 227 25 228 32 229 306 230 25 231 28 232 125 233 27 234 30 235 454 236 19 237 42 238 25 239 35 240 7 241 29 242 73 243 27 244 60 245 73 246 55

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 244 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Treatment Type Unit Number Acres 247 23 248 92 249 189 250 76 251 32 252 46 253 60 254 98 255 73 256 9 VEGM52 - Precommercial thinning 768 Precommercial Mechanical Thin, Grapple Pile, Pile Burn, 768 Underburn 300 34 301 21 302 6 303 45 304 19 305 17 306 60 307 119 309 8 310 8 311 12 312 1 313 17 314 27 315 4 316 1 317 12 318 35 319 126 320 29 321 114 322 33 323 20

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 245 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Treatment Type Unit Number Acres VEGM54 - Commercial thinning 3765 Hand Thin up to 6 inch, Pile Burn, Underburn 583 400 56 420 67 421 26 422 110 424 35 445 107 446 15 453 82 456 85 Hand Thin, Grapple Pile, Pile Burn, Underburn 47 453 47 Mechanical Thin, Grapple Pile, Pile Burn, Underburn 3135 3 121 401 42 402 76 403 114 404 151 405 99 406 102 407 43 408 53 409 81 410 143 411 110 412 137 413 60 414 56 415 21 416 73 417 24 418 42 419 64 420 334 421 16 427 49

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 246 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Treatment Type Unit Number Acres 428 39 429 25 430 11 431 30 432 22 433 110 434 3 435 84 436 95 437 53 438 44 439 3 440 9 441 70 442 53 443 64 444 35 445 75 446 68 454 38 455 35 456 156 WILM54 - Spotted Owl protected activity center fuel reduction 1950 Hand Thin up to 6 inch, Pile Burn, Underburn 1767 425 115 426 78 453 262 457 254 458 38 459 128 460 235 461 75 462 141 463 101 464 168 465 32 466 25

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 247 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Treatment Type Unit Number Acres 467 22 468 92 Hand Thin, Pile Burn, Underburn 183 461 79 462 97 468 6 Grand Total 12703

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 248 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Appendix C – Transportation Activities Table 73 displays a summary of the transportation activities proposed in the Moonlight Fire Area. These are described in the alternatives section of this document. They are also described in more detail below.

Table 73. Summary of road actions proposed in the Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Approximate Miles Approximate Miles Actions Alternatives B and D Alternative C System road decommissioning (currently 23 23 designated for public motor vehicle use) System road decommissioning (not currently 18 18 designated for public motor vehicle use) System Trail Decommissioning 0.15 0.15 Non-system route obliteration 14 14 System road improvements for water quality 551 551 System trail improvements for water quality 291 291 Haul Route Reconstruction 341 341 Haul Route Maintenance 1221 1121 Temporary Roads2 7 6 1– Approximately 40 miles of road would receive both system road or trail improvements for water quality and would have improvements for use as a haul road. These roads are counted twice in the table above. Roads would be maintained or improved for water quality purposes prior to use for timber hauling. After timber hauling they would be returned to their improved condition. In addition, some roads proposed for decommissioning or obliteration would first be used as haul routes, and then decommissioned after hauling activities were completed. 2-Actual construction may be less. Not all temporary roads are mapped at this time. Roads would be obliterated after use.

System Road Decommission We have identified 40 miles of National Forest System roads in the project area that are unneeded for management and are impacting project area resources, specifically resulting in sediment delivery to streams. We propose to decommission these roads. System road decommissioning would achieve Travel Management (36 CFR Part 212, Subparts A, B, and C) directions for a minimum road system. Decommissioning would include, at a minimum, blocking the ends of the roads to traffic or removing roads from the corporate database after they have been naturally-reclaimed. Decommissioning may include subsoiling, outsloping, recontouring, and revegetating to restore infiltration and disperse surface runoff. All culverts and fill would be removed from stream crossings. Approximately, 22 miles of the roads proposed for decommissioning are currently open to all motor vehicle so decommissioning these roads would change the public transportation system. Decommissioning would close them to public use and remove them from the Motor Vehicle Use Map. Non-system Road Obliteration We would obliterate approximately 14 miles of existing non-system routes. Non-system routes are those that were previously constructed on the landscape, but are not currently part of the existing forest transportation system and are not needed for future management activities. Non-system road obliteration would include, at a minimum, blocking the ends of the roads to traffic, and may include sub-soiling, out- sloping, re-contouring, revegetating to restore infiltration and disperse surface runoff. All culverts fill

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 249 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

would be removed from stream crossings. Some of these routes may be used during the project activities and then obliterated following use. System road and trail improvements for water quality We would improve the road system to reduce impacts to watersheds and provide safe and efficient transportation, including maintenance and road reconstruction activities where needed to improve permanent access or recreational opportunities. A common treatment would be installing road dips to better disperse runoff from road surfaces and to frequently relieve roadway ditches so that the total length of ditches that flow to stream channels is substantially reduced, and to ensure that if a culvert is plugged the distance a stream may be diverted along the road would be minimized. We may need to place 2 to 3 inch diameter rock armor at the outlet of certain dips to dissipate erosive potential where erosion hazard is high. Additional improvements may include out-sloping road segments, constructing low water crossings (rocked stream fords for vehicles), and replacing culverts. National Forest System roads in Lights Creek watersheds are a priority for reconstruction or improvements where road-generated sediment impacts streams, and there is a potential for drainage structures to fail catastrophically. Haul Roads To provide for safe and efficient implementation, we would reconstruct or maintain roads that would be used for hauling forest products and equipment.

Road Maintenance Road Maintenance activities would include: blading; brush clearing; removing roadside hazard trees; repair or replacing road surfaces; cleaning, repairing, or installing culverts, ditches, cross drains and other drainage structures; armoring cross drains, drainage outlets and ditches; dust abatement; removal and installing closure barriers; and installing or repairing signs. Maintenance activities generally do not disturb ground outside the existing roadway (toe of fill to top of cut) other than removing material around culvert inlets and removing hazard trees.

Maintenance would comply with best management practices requirements.

Road Reconstruction Reconstruction work would be done to improve and restore National Forest System roads. Improvements would provide serviceability for hauling products and harvest equipment access, as well as proper hydrologic function and stream protection in accordance with applicable best management practices.

Road reconstruction could include clearing and grubbing shrubs and trees; replacing fill; reconditioning or improving road surface; blading; adding or installing surface material; ditch cleaning, reconstruction or construction; drainage dip or cross drain construction or reconstruction; installing or replacing culverts; adding culvert riprap fill (armoring catch basins and drainage outlets); installing low water crossings; installing other drainage or stabilization features; roadway realignment; widening to accommodate vehicles and harvest equipment; curve widening to accommodate truck off-tracking; adding or replacing signs.

Reconstruction also includes actions described under maintenance, including removal of roadside hazard trees.

Reconstruction would improve road conditions as needed for safe and efficient hauling forest products.

Reconstruction work could disturb areas outside the established roadway (toe of fill to top of cut);

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 250 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Temporary Roads In addition to the existing road system, about seven miles of temporary roads would be needed to access harvest areas.

Twelve foot wide temporary roads would be adequate for equipment needed to harvest timber proposed for removal. Temporary road construction on 20 percent side slopes or less would average about 1.8 acres clearing per mile. Temporary roads constructed on 30 percent side slope would have an average 2.5 cleared acres per mile. Roads constructed on 50 percent side slope would have about 3.5 cleared acres per mile. Total cleared area for proposed temporary road construction would be about 20 acres of the project area.

Temporary road construction would include clearing and grubbing, excavating, blading, installing drainage features, seeding and obliteration or decommissioning after operations are complete.

Temporary roads would be obliterated and disturbed areas restored by, scarifying to reduce soil compaction where needed, drainage features restored, recontoured where needed, disturbed areas planted to reestablish vegetation cover and woody debris placed on the road bed clearing to discourage off road vehicle use after operations are complete.

Some temporary road segments would have grades over 10 percent with pitches up to 18 percent, suitable for hauling on native surface roads under normal operation period conditions.

Temporary roads would not become part of the long-term road system.

Existing Motorized Trails Used for Harvest Operations Some roads constructed for past harvest operations have been converted to motorized trails. Existing motorized trail 11M36, (1.48 miles) and trail 10M44 (about 0.19 miles) would be reconstructed and used for hauling forest products. These two existing motorized trails are designated 4 wheel drive, greater than 50 inches wide, with no historic value in INFRA database. The trails would be converted back to motorized trails after harvest operations are complete.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 251 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Table 74. Proposed haul road maintenance and reconstruction for all alternatives Road or Current Designated Proposed Access System/non- Watershed Improvements Proposed Access Trail Use (2016 Motor Miles Alterative C (Spotted Owl system (All Action Alternatives) ( Alternative B and D) Number Vehicle Use Map) Alternative) 10M37 System Vehicles 50” or less 4.81 System Trail Improvements 10M41 System Vehicles 50” or less 3.4 System Trail Improvements 10M44 System Vehicles 50” or less 0.25 Haul Road Reconstruction Haul Road Reconstruction 10M47 System Vehicles 50” or less 1.48 System Trail Improvements 11M24 System Vehicles 50” or less 0.47 System Trail Improvements 11M25 System Vehicles 50” or less 0.48 System Trail Improvements 11M26 System Vehicles 50” or less 2.66 System Trail Improvements 11M27 System Vehicles 50” or less 1.54 System Trail Improvements 11M29 System Vehicles 50” or less 2.55 System Trail Improvements Haul Road Reconstruction Haul Road Reconstruction 11M29 System Vehicles 50” or less 0.25 System Trail Improvements 11M30 System Vehicles 50” or less 0.57 System Trail Improvements 11M31 System Vehicles 50” or less 1.04 System Trail Improvements Haul Road Reconstruction 11M32 System Vehicles 50” or less 1.32 System Trail Improvements 11M33 System Vehicles 50” or less 5.88 System Trail Improvements 11M34 System Vehicles 50” or less 0.8 System Trail Improvements 11M35 System Vehicles 50” or less 0.71 System Trail Improvements 11M36 System Vehicles 50” or less 0.84 Haul Road Maintenance Haul Road Maintenance 12M23 System Vehicles 50” or less 0.74 Haul Road Maintenance Haul Road Maintenance 12M29 System Vehicles 50” or less 0.15 System Trail Decommissioning 12M29 System Vehicles 50” or less 0.82 System Trail Improvements 26N45A System 0.8 System Road Decommissioning

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 252 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Road or Current Designated Proposed Access System/non- Watershed Improvements Proposed Access Trail Use (2016 Motor Miles Alterative C (Spotted Owl system (All Action Alternatives) ( Alternative B and D) Number Vehicle Use Map) Alternative) 26N45A1 System 0.23 System Road Decommissioning 26N54 System Open to All Vehicles 2.13 Haul Road Reconstruction Haul Road Reconstruction 26N54B System 1.11 System Road Decommissioning 26N54E System 0.36 System Road Decommissioning 26N54F System 0.35 System Road Decommissioning 27N07 System Open to All Vehicles 2.04 Haul Road Reconstruction Haul Road Reconstruction 27N07C System Open to All Vehicles 0.97 System Road Decommissioning 27N07C1 System 0.34 System Road Decommissioning 27N07C2 System 0.46 System Road Decommissioning 27N07D System Open to All Vehicles 0.13 System Road Decommissioning Haul Road Maintenance Haul Road Maintenance 27N07E System Open to All Vehicles 1.01 System Road Decommissioning 27N07F System Open to All Vehicles 0.15 System Road Decommissioning 27N08 System Open to All Vehicles 0.6 Haul Road Reconstruction 27N08 System Open to All Vehicles 0.92 Haul Road Reconstruction 27N08A System 0.14 Haul Road Maintenance 27N09 System Open to All Vehicles 0.03 System Road Improvements Haul Road Maintenance Haul Road Maintenance 27N09 System Open to All Vehicles 4.39 System Road Improvements 27N09 System Open to All Vehicles 9.43 Haul Road Maintenance 27N09A System Open to All Vehicles 0.35 System Road Decommissioning 27N09B System 0.61 System Road Decommissioning Haul Road Maintenance Haul Road Maintenance 27N09C System Open to All Vehicles 1.08 System Road Decommissioning Haul Road Reconstruction Haul Road Reconstruction 27N09D1 System 0.56 System Road Decommissioning 27N09E System Open to All Vehicles 1.33 System Road Decommissioning

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 253 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Road or Current Designated Proposed Access System/non- Watershed Improvements Proposed Access Trail Use (2016 Motor Miles Alterative C (Spotted Owl system (All Action Alternatives) ( Alternative B and D) Number Vehicle Use Map) Alternative) 27N09F System 0.38 System Road Decommissioning 27N09F1 System 0.32 System Road Decommissioning 27N09G System 0.28 System Road Decommissioning 27N10 System Open to All Vehicles 4.04 System Road Improvements Haul Road Maintenance Haul Road Maintenance 27N10 System Open to All Vehicles 10.38 Haul Road Maintenance Haul Road Maintenance 27N20Y System Open to All Vehicles 0.4 Haul Road Maintenance Haul Road Maintenance 27N22Y System Open to All Vehicles 0.11 Haul Road Maintenance Haul Road Maintenance 27N24Y System Open to All Vehicles 0.24 Haul Road Maintenance Haul Road Maintenance 27N25Y System Open to All Vehicles 0.41 Haul Road Maintenance Haul Road Maintenance 27N34 System Open to All Vehicles 0.58 Haul Road Maintenance Haul Road Maintenance 27N41 System Open to All Vehicles 5.27 Haul Road Maintenance Haul Road Maintenance 27N41A System Open to All Vehicles 0.5 Haul Road Maintenance Haul Road Maintenance 27N41B System Open to All Vehicles 1.07 Haul Road Maintenance Haul Road Maintenance 27N42B System 0.64 System Road Decommissioning 27N42B1 System 0.16 System Road Decommissioning 27N42C System Open to All Vehicles 0.68 System Road Decommissioning 27N42C1 System Open to All Vehicles 0.46 System Road Decommissioning 27N42D System 0.33 System Road Decommissioning 27N43 System Open to All Vehicles 2.6 Haul Road Maintenance Haul Road Maintenance 27N43B System Open to All Vehicles 0.92 Haul Road Reconstruction Haul Road Reconstruction 27N45 System Open to All Vehicles 1.16 Haul Road Maintenance Haul Road Maintenance 27N45 System Open to All Vehicles 0.84 Haul Road Maintenance 27N45A System Open to All Vehicles 1.73 System Road Decommissioning

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 254 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Road or Current Designated Proposed Access System/non- Watershed Improvements Proposed Access Trail Use (2016 Motor Miles Alterative C (Spotted Owl system (All Action Alternatives) ( Alternative B and D) Number Vehicle Use Map) Alternative) 27N47 System Open to All Vehicles 0.12 Haul Road Maintenance Haul Road Maintenance 27N51 System Open to All Vehicles 5.51 Haul Road Reconstruction Haul Road Reconstruction 27N53 System Open to All Vehicles 3.39 Haul Road Maintenance Haul Road Maintenance 27N53A System Open to All Vehicles 0.26 System Road Decommissioning 27N54 System Open to All Vehicles 0.68 System Road Decommissioning 27N54 System Open to All Vehicles 1.85 System Road Improvements 27N56 System Open to All Vehicles 0.79 Haul Road Maintenance Haul Road Maintenance 27N56A System 0.54 System Road Decommissioning 27N56D System Open to All Vehicles 1.16 Haul Road Maintenance Haul Road Maintenance 27N57 System Open to All Vehicles 5.66 System Road Improvements Haul Road Reconstruction Haul Road Reconstruction 27N57A System 0.59 Haul Road Maintenance Haul Road Maintenance 27N57B System Open to All Vehicles 0.51 System Road Decommissioning Haul Road Maintenance Haul Road Maintenance 27N57B System Open to All Vehicles 0.05 System Road Decommissioning Haul Road Maintenance Haul Road Maintenance 27N58 System Open to All Vehicles 2.33 Haul Road Maintenance Haul Road Maintenance 27N65 System 2.19 Haul Road Reconstruction Haul Road Reconstruction 27N72 System Open to All Vehicles 2.62 Haul Road Maintenance Haul Road Maintenance 27N72C System 0.47 System Road Decommissioning 27N77 System 1.22 System Road Decommissioning 27N82 System Open to All Vehicles 3.17 Haul Road Reconstruction Haul Road Reconstruction 28N00 System Open to All Vehicles 0.32 Haul Road Reconstruction Haul Road Reconstruction 28N00B System 0.47 System Road Decommissioning 28N00C System Open to All Vehicles 0.6 Haul Road Maintenance Haul Road Maintenance 28N02 System Open to All Vehicles 7.66 System Road Improvements

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 255 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Road or Current Designated Proposed Access System/non- Watershed Improvements Proposed Access Trail Use (2016 Motor Miles Alterative C (Spotted Owl system (All Action Alternatives) ( Alternative B and D) Number Vehicle Use Map) Alternative) 28N02 System Open to All Vehicles 6.82 Haul Road Maintenance Haul Road Maintenance 28N02D System Open to All Vehicles 0.84 Haul Road Maintenance Haul Road Maintenance 28N02N System 0.29 System Road Decommissioning Haul Road Maintenance Haul Road Maintenance 28N02P System 0.31 System Road Decommissioning Haul Road Maintenance Haul Road Maintenance 28N02P System 1.05 System Road Decommissioning 28N02S System 0.45 System Road Decommissioning 28N02T System 0.19 System Road Decommissioning 28N03 System Open to All Vehicles 0.8 Haul Road Maintenance Haul Road Maintenance 28N03 System Open to All Vehicles 16.37 Haul Road Maintenance Haul Road Maintenance 28N08 System Open to All Vehicles 3.93 System Road Improvements Haul Road Maintenance Haul Road Maintenance 28N08 System Open to All Vehicles 5.76 System Road Improvements 28N15 System Open to All Vehicles 0.66 Haul Road Maintenance Haul Road Maintenance 28N15 System Open to All Vehicles 0.88 Haul Road Maintenance Haul Road Maintenance 28N15B System Open to All Vehicles 0.1 System Road Decommissioning Haul Road Reconstruction 28N15B System Open to All Vehicles 1.37 System Road Decommissioning 28N15F System 0.11 System Road Decommissioning 28N17 System Open to All Vehicles 2.32 Haul Road Maintenance Haul Road Maintenance 28N17A System Open to All Vehicles 0.49 Haul Road Maintenance Haul Road Maintenance 28N19 System Open to All Vehicles 1.63 System Road Decommissioning 28N19 System Open to All Vehicles 1.95 Haul Road Reconstruction Haul Road Reconstruction 28N19A System Open to All Vehicles 0.87 System Road Decommissioning 28N19B System 0.53 System Road Decommissioning 28N19B System 0.53 System Road Decommissioning

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 256 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Road or Current Designated Proposed Access System/non- Watershed Improvements Proposed Access Trail Use (2016 Motor Miles Alterative C (Spotted Owl system (All Action Alternatives) ( Alternative B and D) Number Vehicle Use Map) Alternative) 28N19C System 0.41 System Road Decommissioning 28N25 System Open to All Vehicles 2.86 System Road Improvements Haul Road Reconstruction Haul Road Reconstruction 28N25 System Open to All Vehicles 1.56 Haul Road Reconstruction Haul Road Reconstruction 28N26X System 0.27 System Road Improvements Haul Road Maintenance 28N26X System 0.79 System Road Improvements 28N26X1 System 0.23 System Road Decommissioning Haul Road Maintenance 28N26X1 System 0.03 System Road Decommissioning 28N26X2 System 0.16 System Road Decommissioning 28N30 System Open to All Vehicles 6.45 System Road Improvements Haul Road Maintenance Haul Road Maintenance 28N30B System 0.62 System Road Decommissioning Haul Road Maintenance Haul Road Maintenance 28N30B System 1.24 System Road Decommissioning 28N30B1 System 0.18 System Road Improvements Haul Road Maintenance Haul Road Maintenance 28N30B1 System 0.58 System Road Improvements 28N30C System Open to All Vehicles 1.03 Haul Road Maintenance Haul Road Maintenance 28N30C1 System Open to All Vehicles 1 Haul Road Maintenance Haul Road Maintenance 28N30D System 0.26 System Road Decommissioning 28N30D System 0.19 System Road Decommissioning 28N31 System Open to All Vehicles 5.91 Haul Road Maintenance Haul Road Maintenance 28N35 System Open to All Vehicles 0.76 Haul Road Maintenance Haul Road Maintenance 28N35 System Open to All Vehicles 0.78 Haul Road Maintenance 28N36 System Open to All Vehicles 4.75 System Road Decommissioning 28N39 System 1.56 System Road Decommissioning 28N39B System 0.27 System Road Decommissioning

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 257 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Road or Current Designated Proposed Access System/non- Watershed Improvements Proposed Access Trail Use (2016 Motor Miles Alterative C (Spotted Owl system (All Action Alternatives) ( Alternative B and D) Number Vehicle Use Map) Alternative) 28N40 System Open to All Vehicles 2.68 System Road Decommissioning 28N48 System Open to All Vehicles 1.18 System Road Improvements 28N52 System Open to All Vehicles 0.72 Haul Road Reconstruction Haul Road Reconstruction 29N43 System Open to All Vehicles 0.69 Haul Road Maintenance Haul Road Maintenance 29N43 System Open to All Vehicles 10.43 Haul Road Maintenance Haul Road Maintenance 29N43F System Open to All Vehicles 2.73 System Road Decommissioning 29N46 System Open to All Vehicles 8.97 System Road Improvements Haul Road Maintenance Haul Road Maintenance PC213 County 12.68 U2484 Non-system 0.12 Non-System Road Obliteration U2485 Non-system 0.36 Non-System Road Obliteration U2489 Non-system 0.01 Non-System Road Obliteration U2490 Non-system 0.07 Non-System Road Obliteration U2491 Non-system 0.06 Non-System Road Obliteration U2494 Non-system 0.04 Non-System Road Obliteration U2495 Non-system 0.05 Non-System Road Obliteration U2496 Non-system 0.08 Non-System Road Obliteration U2497 Non-system 0.06 Non-System Road Obliteration U2498 Non-system 0.09 Non-System Road Obliteration U2499 Non-system 0.04 Non-System Road Obliteration Haul Road Maintenance Haul Road Maintenance U2499 Non-system 0.11 Non-System Road Obliteration Haul Road Maintenance Haul Road Maintenance U2499 Non-system 0.15 Non-System Road Obliteration U3013 Non-system 0.03 Non-System Road Obliteration Haul Road Maintenance Haul Road Maintenance U3014 Non-system 0.3 Non-System Road Obliteration

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 258 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Road or Current Designated Proposed Access System/non- Watershed Improvements Proposed Access Trail Use (2016 Motor Miles Alterative C (Spotted Owl system (All Action Alternatives) ( Alternative B and D) Number Vehicle Use Map) Alternative) U3015 Non-system 0.02 Non-System Road Obliteration U3016 Non-system 0.11 Non-System Road Obliteration U3017 Non-system 0.16 Non-System Road Obliteration U3018 Non-system 0.16 Non-System Road Obliteration U3019 Non-system 0.13 Non-System Road Obliteration U3020 Non-system 0.08 Non-System Road Obliteration U3021 Non-system 0.02 Non-System Road Obliteration U3022 Non-system 0.01 Non-System Road Obliteration U3023 Non-system 0.22 Non-System Road Obliteration U3024 Non-system 0.44 Non-System Road Obliteration U3025 Non-system 0.06 Non-System Road Obliteration U3026 Non-system 0.02 Non-System Road Obliteration U3027 Non-system 0.5 Non-System Road Obliteration U3028 Non-system 0.03 Non-System Road Obliteration U3029 Non-system 0.04 Non-System Road Obliteration U3030 Non-system 1.19 Non-System Road Obliteration U3031 Non-system 0.12 Non-System Road Obliteration U3032 Non-system 0.16 Non-System Road Obliteration U3033 Non-system 0.49 Non-System Road Obliteration U3034 Non-system 0.49 Non-System Road Obliteration U3035 Non-system 0.05 Non-System Road Obliteration U3036 Non-system 0.2 Non-System Road Obliteration U3037 Non-system 0.28 Non-System Road Obliteration

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 259 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Road or Current Designated Proposed Access System/non- Watershed Improvements Proposed Access Trail Use (2016 Motor Miles Alterative C (Spotted Owl system (All Action Alternatives) ( Alternative B and D) Number Vehicle Use Map) Alternative) U3038 Non-system 0.03 Non-System Road Obliteration U3039 Non-system 0.66 Non-System Road Obliteration U3040 Non-system 1.5 Non-System Road Obliteration U3041 Non-system 0.53 Non-System Road Obliteration U3042 Non-system 0.46 Non-System Road Obliteration U3043 Non-system 0.03 Non-System Road Obliteration U3044 Non-system 0.41 Non-System Road Obliteration U3045 Non-system 0.47 Non-System Road Obliteration U3046 Non-system 0.13 Non-System Road Obliteration U3047 Non-system 0.49 Non-System Road Obliteration U533 Non-system 0.07 Non-System Road Obliteration U533 Non-system 0.5 Non-System Road Obliteration U533 Non-system 0.54 Non-System Road Obliteration U533 Non-system 0.59 Non-System Road Obliteration U572 Non-system 0.14 Non-System Road Obliteration U608 Non-system 0.22 Non-System Road Obliteration U623 Non-system 0.36 Non-System Road Obliteration U623 Non-system 0.1 Non-System Road Obliteration

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 260 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Appendix D – Standard Management Requirements and Project-specific Design Features In order to protect project area resources and comply with federal, state, and local laws, the following standard management requirements apply to the proposed action and action alternatives. These Standard Management Requirements are utilized by the Mt. Hough Ranger District on all projects in order to reduce undesirable environmental effects of the activities and comply with the Plumas Land and Resources Management Plan, Forest Service policies, and other state, federal, and local laws. Air Quality Comply with air quality permits issued by the Northern Sierra Air Quality Management District for all prescribed burning. A prescribed burn plan, including a mandatory smoke management plan (SMP), would be required prior to any prescribed fire. The smoke management plan is reviewed and approved by the local Air Quality Management District office. Watershed and Soils Several soil and water quality protection measures are standard for timber harvest projects on National Forest System lands. Most of these measures, such as practices for stream course protection, harvest traffic patterns and skid trail layout, are described in the Timber Sale Administration Handbook for Region 5 (FSH 2409.15) and in standard clauses of timber sale contracts. Additional standard management practices for hydrology and soil resources include:

• Temporary roads: All temporary roads used in this project whether existing or new would be closed to traffic and adequate drainage installed after operations. Subsoiling is required (see subsoiling project design criteria, below). • Landings: Landings would be utilized to remove sawlog and biomass products. Landing would be designated at the time of harvest operations. To the extent practicable, past, existing landings would be utilized so long as they are located in places where no other resource concerns exists. New landings would be constructed to accommodate material where necessary. • Subsoiling (Landings temp roads, main skids): All landings, all temp roads, and main skids within 200 feet of landings would be subsoiled. If implemented, subsoiling would lift and fracture the soil in place leaving it loose and friable to a minimum depth of 18 inches. Treatment would be repeated if furrows are left deeper than 12 inches. Furrows would be oriented perpendicular to slopes greater than 10 percent. Recommendations from a 2006 review of subsoiling activities on Plumas and Tahoe National Forests would be followed (USDA Forest Service 2006). Subsoiling treatments could be suspended or eliminated if the subsurface rock size and distribution is such that effective operation is not possible, if slopes are over 25 percent, or if root damage or root disease, is a concern. The contract (sale) administrator shall consult with earth scientist and other appropriate resource specialists to eliminate or suspend subsoiling, in areas where subsoiling may not benefit the resource. • Prescribed fire control line construction: Fire control lines are a concern for hydrology and soil quality risks, whether put in by hand or using mechanical means. They need to be rehabilitated for drainage using best management practice (BMP) guidance below. Where containment lines meet roads or off highway vehicle (OHV) trails they shall be disguised by scattering brush and slash for the first 100 feet. In the first 100 feet from an existing road or trail, fire containment lines shall not be constructed until implementation is scheduled. If prescribed fire containment

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 261 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

lines are in riparian conservation areas (RCAs) they shall also be covered with slash to achieve 50 percent ground cover. Fireline construction should be in accordance with all equipment restrictions. Exception may be made upon consultation with an earth scientist. If old road templates are opened up they are to be physically closed with rock or earthen barriers. The objective is for them to not become non-system trails. • Slope restrictions: Ground-based equipment would be restricted to slopes less than 35 percent. Exceptions may be made for short pitches of 100 feet slope distance, up to 50 percent slope. When units have inaccessibly steep inclusions of steeper ground, sawlog and biomass products may be end-lined. Excessive soil displacement (i.e., ‘furrowing’) caused by endlining would be mitigated or repaired by the operator. Mastication and grapple piling units may include 40 percent slope. Exceptions may be made for short pitches of 100 feet slope distance, up to 50 percent slope. • Wet weather and winter harvest operations: Conduct ground based harvest operations when soil is dry; that is, in the spring when soil moisture in the upper 8 inches is not sufficient to allow a soil sample to be squeezed and hold its shape, or will crumble when the hand is tapped. In the summer and early fall after storm event(s) when soil moisture between 2-8 inches in depth is not sufficient to allow a soil sample to be squeezed and hold its shape, or will crumble when the hand is tapped. Winter harvest operations may occur only when the ground is frozen to a depth of 5 inches or over 8 inches of well packed snow. • Down woody material and ground cover retention: Maintain adequate cover of surface fuels, litter, duff, and large woody debris to maintain 50 percent ground cover. Maintain, where available, 10-15 tons of large down logs per acre (greater than 15 inches diameter), emphasize decay classes 1, 2, and 3. On site activity generated material (slash or chips) shall not exceed a depth greater than 6 inches in depth. • Equipment Use: Only grapple piling equipment with lift capabilities would be utilized for machine piling. Dozer piling would be avoided unless absolutely necessary, and would be allowed in landings. Avoid piling soil and duff to the extent possible.

Project Best Management Practices (BMPs) Protect water quality through the use of best management practices (BMPs) which are employed by the Forest Service and the State of California to prevent water quality degradation and to meet state water quality objectives relating to non-point sources of pollution. Best management practices utilized on Plumas National Forest System lands are procedures and techniques that are incorporated in project actions and have been determined by the State of California to be the most effective, practicable means of preventing or reducing the amount of pollution generated by nonpoint sources to a level compatible with water quality goals.

Best management practices applicable to Plumas National Forest projects such as the Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project are presented in a guide for all U.S. national forests, National Best Management Practices for Water Quality Management on National Forest System (USDA 2012). Additional best management practices are presented in a regional amendment (Pacific Southwest Region - Region 5) of the USDA-Forest Service Handbook, Section 2509.22, Chapter 10 (Water Quality Management Handbook) (USDA 2011). Per the Region 5 amendment to FSH 2509.22, activities would have best management practice implementation monitoring using a “checklist” approach. Best management practices implementation checklists would document whether and when the site-specific best management practices specified in NEPA analyses were implemented. These checklists would provide a systematic means for early detection of potential water-quality problems, and would be completed early

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 262 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment enough to allow corrective actions to be taken, if needed, prior to any significant rainfall or snowmelt throughout the duration of the project. Checklists would be completed several times during the life of most projects, including prior to ground-disturbing activities, prior to winter periods, and at the completion of the project.

The standard best management practices for protecting water quality are listed in table 75. The table lists the Region 5 best management practices that may apply to this project and also refers to the corresponding Forest Service National best management practices. In addition to the general best management practices, use project-specific design features that relate directly to these best management practices to minimize erosion and resultant sedimentation (these are outlined in the Project-specific Design Features section below).

Table 75. Standard best management practices (BMPs) for protecting water quality National Best R5 BMP Best Management Practice Description Management Number Practice Project contract includes provisions set 1.1 Timber Sale Planning Process Veg-1 forth in NEPA to protect water quality. Based on an evaluation of erosion hazard, Determining Surface Erosion erosion control measures may be used to 1.3 Hazard for Timber Harvest Unit Veg-2 reduce the potential risk of accelerated Design erosion to a low or moderate level. Sale area or contract map contains treatment unit boundaries, streamcourse Using Sale Area Maps and/or and wetland protection zones, roads where 1.4 Project Maps for Designating N/A haul is permitted/prohibited, and areas Water Quality Protection Needs where special operations are designated to protect water quality. Purchaser’s Plan of Operation and Operation Schedule are approved by Forest Limiting the Operating Period of 1.5 Service per clauses C6.3 and B6.31 N/A Timber Sale Activities Operating period limitations, such as when soils are wet, are defined per clause C6.313 As a preventive measure, roads, skid trails, Streamside Management Zone landings, and other timber-harvesting 1.8 Plan-3 Designation facilities will be kept at a prescribed distance from designated stream courses. Determining Tractor-loggable Project contract specifies areas upon with 1.9 Veg-4 Ground tractors can operate. Skid trail patterns serve to avoid build-up of destructive runoff and sedimentation to 1.10 Tractor Skidding Design stream management zones. Landings are of minimal size, are located well outside of Veg-6 1.12 Log Landing Location streamside management zones, minimize the number of skid trails required, and are of stable construction. Equipment has not operated when ground conditions are such that excessive damage Erosion Prevention and Control has resulted. Erosion control measures 1.13 Measures During Timber Sale Veg-2 have been in place prior to likely Operations precipitation events and prior to seasonal shutdown.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 263 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

National Best R5 BMP Best Management Practice Description Management Number Practice When required by the contract, the purchaser will give adequate treatment by spreading slash, mulch, or wood chips (or, by agreement, some other treatment) on portions of tractor roads, skid trails, Special Erosion-prevention landings, cable corridors or temporary road 1.14 N/A Measures on Disturbed Land fills. This provision is to be used only for sales which contain identified special soil stabilization problems which are not expected to be adequately treated by normal methods prescribed under other contract provisions. This best management practice is only for projects where it is expected that disturbed soils in certain areas will require vegetative Regeneration of Areas Disturbed 1.15 cover for stabilization and normal contract N/A by Harvest Activities methods will not mitigate sufficiently. These areas are shown on the project map and treatments are described in the contract. Erosion control work is completed on landings and skid trails to adequately drain 1.16 Log Landing Erosion Control and disperse water and minimize erosion and sedimentation. Landing treatments Veg-6 1.17 Erosion Control on Skid Trails facilitate revegetation, stabilize cut and fill slopes, and divert road drainage away from landings.

Meadow Protection during Timber Any damage to streamcourses or meadows 1.18 Harvesting has been repaired in a timely fashion. All AqEco-1 1.19 Streamcourse and Aquatic project-generated debris has been removed Protection from streamcourses. Erosion-control Structure Maintenance 1.20 Erosion control measures throughout the Acceptance of Timber Sale project area are acceptable and have been N/A 1.21 Erosion-control Measures Before maintained throughout the project term. Sale Closure Special slash treatment, without the use of mechanized equipment, is specified in Slash Treatment in Sensitive 1.22 project sensitive areas as necessary. These Veg-8 Areas areas are shown on the project map and treatments are described in the contract. If necessary, the project contract was Modification of the Timber Sale 1.25 modified during implementation to prevent N/A Contract damage to soil, water or watershed values. Temporary and long-term erosion-control measures are necessary to reduce erosion Road Construction and and maintain overall slope stability. These 2.3 Road-3 Reconstruction erosion-control measures may include vegetative and structural techniques to ensure the area’s long-term stability.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 264 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

National Best R5 BMP Best Management Practice Description Management Number Practice To ensure water-quality protection by Road Maintenance and providing adequate and appropriate 2.4 Road-4 Operations maintenance and by controlling road use and operations To supply water for road maintenance, dust Water Source Development and abatement, and other management 2.5 WatUses-3 Utilization activities, while protecting and maintaining water quality Stabilize, restore, and vegetate unneeded roads to a more natural state as necessary to protect and enhance National Forest System lands, resources, and water quality. The end result is that the decommissioned 2.7 Road Decommissioning Road-6 road will not represent a significant impact to water quality by reducing sedimentation from road surfaces and slopes, reducing risk of mass failures, and restoring natural surface and subsurface drainage patterns. Minimize water, aquatic, and riparian resource disturbances and related sediment 2.8 Stream Crossing production when constructing, Road-7 reconstructing, or maintaining temporary and permanent stream crossings. To prevent fuels, lubricants, cleaners, and other harmful materials from discharging Equipment Refueling and 2.11 into nearby surface waters or infiltrating Road-10 Servicing through soils to contaminate groundwater resources. To ensure that all required and relevant mitigation measures are documented and implemented, an environmental control plan Erosion Control Plans (roads and will be prepared to complement design 2.13 Road-3 other activities) (design addresses required mitigations specified in NEPA documents), site-specific prescriptions, and amended to include changes made in the field. Limit tractor operation to slopes where corrective measures such as water bars Slope Limitations Mechanical 5.2 can be effectively installed to limit excessive Veg-2 Equipment Operation surface disturbance and keep surface water from concentrating Protect water quality by minimizing soil Revegetation of Surface-disturbed 5.4 erosion through the stabilizing influence of Veg-3 Areas vegetation foliage and root network. To introduce water quality and hydrologic 5.7 Pesticide Use Planning Process considerations into the pesticide use Chem-1 planning process. Pesticide Application According to To avoid water contamination by complying 5.8 Label Directions and Applicable with all label instructions and restrictions for Chem-2 Legal Requirements use. Pesticide Spill Contingency To reduce contamination of water by 5.10 Chem-3 Planning accidental pesticide spills.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 265 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

National Best R5 BMP Best Management Practice Description Management Number Practice Cleaning and Disposal of To prevent water contamination resulting 5.11 Pesticide Containers and from cleaning or disposal of pesticide Chem-5 Equipment: containers. To minimize the risk of pesticide Streamside Wet Area Protection inadvertently entering waters, or 5.12 Veg-3 During Pesticide Spraying unintentionally altering the riparian area, streamside management zone, or wetland. Controlling Pesticide Drift During To minimize the risk of pesticide falling 5.13 N/A Spray Application directly into water, or non-target areas. To provide for water quality protection while Consideration of Water Quality in 6.2 achieving the management objectives Fire-2 Formulating Fire Prescriptions through the use of prescribed fire. To maintain soil productivity, minimize Protection of Water Quality from erosion, and minimize ash, sediment, 6.3 Fire-2 Prescribed Burning Effects nutrients, and debris from entering water bodies. To avoid adverse water quality impacts Plan-3, 7.3 Protection of Wetlands associated with destruction, disturbance, or AqEco-1, modification of wetlands. AqEco-3 Forest and Hazardous Substance To prevent contamination of water from AqEco-2, Fac- 7.4 Spill Prevention Control and accidental spills. 6 Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan A water quality monitoring plan will be part of an environmental document, a 7.6 Water Quality Monitoring management plan, or a special use permit, N/A or it will be developed in response to other needs. Evaluate cumulative off-site watershed effects (CWE) including all effects on beneficial uses that occur away from the sites of actual land use activities and which Cumulative Off-site Watershed 7.8 are transmitted through the drainage Rec-4 Effects system. Effects can be either beneficial or adverse and result from the synergistic or additive effects of multiple management activities within a watershed.

Riparian Conservation Area and Streamside Management Zone Apply the standards and guidelines identified in the 2004 Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (SNFPA) Record of Decision (ROD) relating to treatment of fuels and associated project activities within all riparian conservation areas (RCAs) and streamside management zones (SMZ), unless more restrictive measures apply for the protection of Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog.

Integral to the protection of streamside management zones and riparian conservation areas is the designation of prescribed widths for these zones, so that the location of special treatment design features associated with streamside management zones and riparian conservation areas is clear to all persons involved in carrying out a proposed project. Guidelines for widths of streamside management zones are presented in appendix M of the Plumas Forest Plan. These guidelines were superseded by the suggested

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 266 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

widths for riparian conservation areas presented in appendix A of the 2004 Record of Decision (ROD) for the regional amendment of forest plans within the Sierra Nevada (USDA 2004).

The riparian conservation area widths listed below would be the maximum buffer width identified for each aquatic feature type. Table 76 also displays an additional buffer (inner buffer or equipment exclusion zone) within the riparian conservation area guideline buffer.

Table 76. Design criteria for riparian conservation areas by stream type* Equipment Equipment Riparian Minimum distance exclusion zone for exclusion zone for Stream type Conservation Area to burn pile slopes less than 35 slopes greater widths percent than 35 percent *Perennial Stream 300 feet 100 feet 100 feet No equipment entry *Intermittent Stream 150 feet 100 feet 50 feet No equipment entry Ephemeral stream 150 feet 15 feet 25 feet No equipment entry *Special aquatic features (reservoirs, 300 feet 100 feet 100 feet No equipment entry wetlands, fens, and springs) Riparian features, dry meadows, 150 feet 15 feet 50 feet No equipment entry seasonal wetlands *Unless this is suitable habitat for Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog, in which case, conservation measures for Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog would apply, where more restrictive (see project-specific design features).

For example, there is a perennial stream within a treatment unit-a 300 foot buffer is applied. Within that 300 foot buffer, approximately 70 feet from the edge of the active channel, the slope is 22 percent; a 100 foot inner buffer is applied. From the edge of the active channel no equipment can enter the riparian conservation area for 100 feet. Equipment can enter the remaining 200 feet of the 300 foot total buffer. When the slope within the riparian conservation area guideline buffer is greater than 35 percent, no mechanical equipment is allowed to enter the riparian conservation area. For example, there is a perennial stream within a treatment unit- a 300 foot buffer is applied. Within that 300 foot buffer, approximately 100 feet from the edge of the active channel, the slope is 38 percent; no equipment is allowed within any portion of the 300 foot buffer that exceeds 35 percent slope.

Standard management practices for riparian conservation areas are applied within the riparian conservation area widths (as defined in table 76). In some cases, more restrictive buffers or measures or Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog habitat may apply (see project-specific design features). These measures include the following:

• Riparian Conservation Area Equipment Constraints: Establish equipment exclusion zones adjacent to stream channels according to table 76. Allow equipment to travel into outer riparian conservation area zone to harvest trees and bring them to skid trails. To minimize soil displacement, no equipment would be permitted to turn around while off a skid trail in a riparian conservation area. • Springs, seeps, fens, and meadows: Prohibit mechanical equipment use within 100 feet of edge of features. Hand thinning treatments within feature and within the equipment exclusion zone would be allowed. Piles would be constructed at least 25 feet from edge of feature. Tree boles would be

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 267 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

left in fens as benefit to structure and diversity. Prescribed burning would not be allowed within 25 feet of features. • Landings: There would be no construction of new landings or use of old landings within riparian conservation areas unless agreed to by earth scientist and sale administrator. • Temp roads/Skid Trails: Where temporary road or skid trail construction involves cut and fill, the feature would be subsoiled, then re-contoured to match the existing topography. In riparian conservation areas, slash would be scattered to provide ground cover of 50 percent or greater and would be less than 6 inches in depth. Slash would consist of organic material (logs, branches chips and duff). Slash would be scattered to resemble a natural appearance similar to the surrounding landscape. Rocks can be included as acceptable ground cover (included in the 50 percent cover). These areas would be sufficiently blocked at the entrances to preclude access by motorized wheeled vehicles. Where temporary roads cross stream channels, all fill would be removed from the channel and utilized for re-contouring or spread in a stable location outside the riparian conservation area. To the extent possible, existing skid trails would be utilized thus minimizing any new disturbance within the project area. • Stream Crossings: Crossings of perennial streams with skid trails or temp roads are generally prohibited. If skid trails or temporary road construction need crossings in perennial or intermittent streams consultation with earth scientist and biologist is required prior to approval. • Prescribed Fire: Broadcast (prescribed) burning would be allowed within riparian conservation areas, but there would be no ignitions in riparian vegetation. Fire may back through this zone.

Aspen and Cottonwood Treatments Per the Sierra Nevada Framework, restoration treatments may occur within the riparian conservation areas.8 Because aspen and cottonwood treatments aim to restore riparian vegetation, several exceptions to the above riparian conservation area and streamside management zone guidance are used to conduct these treatments, including the following. In some cases, more restrictive buffers or measures or Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog habitat may apply (see project-specific design features).

• Mechanical equipment use in riparian conservation areas: Equipment use within riparian conservation areas will be restricted within 15 feet on each side of the riparian conservation area feature (e.g. edge of the active channel, wet perimeter of the soil, etc.) or riparian vegetation, whichever is greater. Mechanical equipment will be allowed to work adjacent to this exclusion zone and reach in with an extendable boom.

• Skid trail location: skid trails will be perpendicular to the stream course within 50 feet of the stream and spacing of skids will generally be no closer than 120 feet.

• Streambank stability: No trees will be removed that are providing stability to the streambank.

• Harvesting periods: These units will be harvested in dry periods when the upper 8 inches of the soil is essentially dry. For this measure soil is defined as “dry” when no portion can be molded by hand compression and hold that shape when the hand is tapped. Additionally, these units can be

8 “At either the landscape or project-scale, determine if the age class, structural diversity, composition, and cover of riparian vegetation are within the range of natural variability for the vegetative community. If conditions are outside the range of natural variability, consider implementing mitigation and/or restoration actions that will result in an upward trend. Actions could include restoration of aspen or other riparian vegetation where conifer encroachment is identified as a problem.” (Sierra Nevada Framework, Standard and Guideline #105).

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 268 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

treated when the ground is frozen to a depth of 5 inches or snow depth is at least 18 inches or is snow is compacted by equipment to 8 inches. Transportation Standard management requirements for transportation include: • Stream crossings: Design all new stream crossings to accommodate a 100-year flood and provide fish passage as necessary. • Waterbars: Stabilize and strategically place water bars on temporary roads where drainage control issues are evident or expected. • Dust abatement: Abate dust from logging traffic with water selected from water drafting sites that have suitable stream flow and access. When water is scarce, use alternative sources such as chlorite, sulfonate or other dust abatement materials. • Drafting sites: New or existing water draft sites would be evaluated with the Mt. Hough Ranger District biologist prior to changes or use. Drafting sites shall be visually surveyed for amphibians and their eggs before drafting begins. Estimate maximum drawdown volumes prior to using the draft site. Maintain minimum pool levels during drafting using measurements such as staff gauges, stadia rods, tape measures, etc. Construct water-drafting sites so that oil, diesel fuel, or other spilled pollutants would not enter the stream. Back down ramps would be constructed and or maintained to ensure the streambank stability is maintained and sedimentation is minimized. Rocking, chipping, mulching, or other effective methods are highly recommended to achieve this objective. As necessary, earthen or log berm, straw waffle, certified weed free hay or rice straw bale berms, or other containment structures would be constructed at the bank full water line to protect the stream bank. Forest personnel and contractors shall use the Forest Service approved suction strainer (FSM 5161) or other foot vales with screens having openings less than 2mm in size at the end of drafting hoses. The suction strainer shall be inserted close to the substrate in the deepest water available; the suction strainer shall be placed on a shovel, over plastic sheeting, or in a canvas bucket to avoid uptake of substrate or aquatic biota. “Mucked out” debris, bedload sediment, etc. shall be transported to an appropriate disposal site (to be designated) if no apparent site is feasible. • Pre-existing skid trails and landings: would be used whenever available, feasible, and in a desirable location. In order to avoid loss of land base productivity, no more than 15 percent of timber stands would be dedicated to landings and permanent skid trails (USDA Forest Service 1988). In areas where pre-existing skid trails and landings are not present, construction of such facilities would occur as agreed upon by the Forest Service and purchaser. All landings and skid trails utilized would conform to the standards and guidelines set forth in the Timber Sale Administration Handbook (FSH 2409.15) and the Forest Plan. Visual Quality Management Standard management requirements for visual quality should be applied within the immediate foreground of visual corrido (300 feet from the viewer) (FHS2382.1). These include: • Landings and skid trail locations: To the extent feasible, locate landings and primary skid trails away from the immediate foreground of Sensitivity Level I and II travel corridors. Limit size of landings so that they are not visually evident from the sensitive travel routes following completion of treatment activities.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 269 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

• Stump heights: Minimize stump heights in both mechanical and hand thinning units adjacent to sensitive travel corridors, typically resulting in stumps 6 inches or less in height within 300 feet of the travel corridor.

• Tree marking: During tree marking, open and enhance views of residual old growth trees near the visual corridor where possible.

• Burn piles and underburning: Target consumption of burn piles to 90 percent or greater. Target underburn mortality levels of crop trees to 10 percent or less. Silviculture/Vegetation Management Vegetation management activities would be conducted consistent with the relevant standards and guidelines from the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment pages 49 through 66 (USDA Forest Service 2004b). All standards and guidelines would be followed, those that specifically relate to the vegetation resource for Moonlight proposed actions are shown in table 77. All applicable standards and guidelines would be followed as they apply to each resource area.

Table 77. Proposed action and applicable standard and guide numbers Proposed Action Standard and Guide Numbers Reforestation and release 3, 4, 5, 6, 11, 12, 20, 22, 23 Precommercial thinning 3, 4, 5, 6, 11, 12, 18, 20, 22, 23, 26 Mechanical thinning 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 26 Aspen restoration 6, 20, 22, 23, 105 Hazardous fuels reduction 4, 5, 6, 8, 11, 12, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23 Wildlife habitat improvement 11, 20, 22, 26, 27, 29, 74, 75, 76, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83

Additional, standard management requirements for silviculture and forest health include:

• Root disease prevention measures: Conifer stumps 14 inches and greater in stump diameter would be treated with a registered borate compound within four to 24 hours after the tree is felled, to prevent the introduction and spread of Heterobasidion root disease. Within recreation areas or other high value areas such as near structures or powerlines, apply borate compound within four hours to all pine and true fir cut stumps greater than 3 inches in diameter. Application of borax would follow all label directions, as well as all applicable federal, State and local laws.

• Residual species preference: Where present, retain all hardwood and riparian species. Retain the largest, most vigorous dominant and co-dominant trees to create a residual stand that would be comprised of larger fire-resilient trees. Species preference would be determined by dominant forest type. In general, prefer to retrain shade intolerant species including rust resistant sugar pine, black oak, ponderosa and Jeffery pine, and to an extent, Douglas-fir.

• Biomass treatment for fuels: If no viable biomass market exists, it is preferred that material be left within the stand in small machine piles (grapple piling treatment) or hand constructed piles. This design feature is intended to leave smaller amounts of fuels distributed across the landscape so that follow up disposal (burning) is easier.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 270 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

• Tree Mortality: No more than 10 to 20 percent variable amounts of mortality may occur in the residual crop trees following underburning within areas of mortality no greater than 2 acres. Minimize mortality in visual corridors. Botanical Resources Protect known threatened, endangered, sensitive, special interest, and watch list plant species according to Plumas National Forest current interim management prescriptions for specific species. If additional protected plant species are found during the life of the project, conduct an assessment and apply appropriate management prescriptions.

Noxious Weeds Standard management requirements for preventing and controlling the spread of noxious weeds include: • Prevent spread of invasive species with equipment: Use contract clauses to require that the activities of contractors are conducted to prevent and control the introduction, establishment, and spread of aquatic and terrestrial invasive species. For example, where determined to be appropriate, use agreement clauses to require contractors to meet Forest Service-approved vehicle and equipment cleaning requirements/standards prior to using the vehicle or equipment in the National Forest System. • Cleaning equipment: Require all off-road equipment and vehicles (Forest Service and contracted) used for project implementation to be free of weeds. Clean all equipment and vehicles of all mud, dirt, and plant parts. This will be done at a vehicle washing station or steam-cleaning facility before the equipment and vehicles enter the project area. • Staging areas: Do not stage equipment, materials, or crews in areas infested with invasive plant species where there is a risk of spread to areas of low infestation. • Known/existing infestations: Known infestations would be designated as control areas where equipment and soil disturbing project activities would be excluded. These areas would be designated on project maps and delineated in the field with day-glow orange noxious weed flagging. The currently known noxious weeds in the project area are: barbed goatgrass (Aegilops triuncialis), yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis), spotted knapweed (Centaurea stoebe), Canada thistle (Cirsium arvense), Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius), common St. Johnswort (Hypericum perforatum), Dyer’s woad (Isatis tinctoria), butter and eggs (Linaria vulgaris), and medusahead (Taeniatherum caput-medusae). Most weed species are limited in extent, except for Canada thistle, which has increased dramatically throughout the area after the Moonlight Fire. Known infestations would be prioritized for prevention and control measures based on species abundance (less common weeds would receive higher priority), risk of spread from activities, and other site-specific factors. If avoidance would unreasonably constrain our ability to implement the proposed restoration activities, equipment and vehicles would be cleaned prior to leaving the infested area. Additional weed control and monitoring mitigations would be developed to ensure project activities do not spread invasive plants. • Road construction, reconstruction, and maintenance: All earth-moving equipment, gravel, fill, or other materials need to be weed free. Onsite sand, gravel, rock, or organic matter would be used where possible. • Revegetation: If skid trails, landings, or stream crossings require soil stabilization, weed-free equipment, mulches, and seed sources would be used. On-site material would be chipped to use as mulch to the extent possible. If mulch is imported to the site use weed free rice straw (preferred) or certified weed free straw. Avoid seeding in areas where revegetation will occur naturally, unless

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 271 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

invasive plant species are a concern. Save topsoil from disturbance and put it back to use in onsite revegetation, unless contaminated with invasive plants. All activities that require seeding or planting would need to use locally collected native seed sources or those identified by the Botanist. A seed mix would be developed when specific site locations and conditions (dry, moist, wet, etc.) are determined. Cultural Resources This project would follow the guidelines outlined in the Region 5 Programmatic Agreement9. The following protection measures will be implemented, as appropriate, for all cultural resources located within the project area. The application of the following protection measures would result in the project having “no effect” on cultural resources and the Forest would have taken into account the effect of the project on cultural resource sites in compliance with the programmatic agreement and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.

• If any unrecorded cultural resources (artifacts, features or sites) are encountered as a result of project operations, all activities in the vicinity of such finds will immediately cease pending an examination by the forest or district archaeologist. • Adequate cultural resource surveys would be completed prior to the onset of project activities to ensure that any previously unrecorded cultural resources are not harmed. In areas where vegetation is too dense to perform cultural resource surveys prior to the onset of project activities, adequate surveys would be performed after fuels reduction project activities. • All proposed activities, facilities, improvements, and disturbances would avoid heritage resource sites. “Avoidance” means that no activities associated with the project that may affect heritage resource sites would occur within a site’s boundaries, including any defined buffer zones. Portions of the project may need to be modified, redesigned, or eliminated to properly avoid heritage resource sites. • If cultural resources (including areas of concern/significance for the local Native Americans) are discovered during project implementation where none are known, the Mt. Hough Ranger District heritage resources staff would be contacted immediately and the discovery would be dealt with as appropriate. • All heritage resource sites within the area of potential effect would be clearly delineated prior to implementing any associated activities that have the potential to affect heritage resource sites. Buffer zones may be established to ensure added protection where the forest or district archaeologist determines that they are necessary. The use of buffer zones in conjunction with other avoidance measures are particularly applicable where setting contributes to the property's eligibility under 36 CFR 60.4, or where it may be an important attribute of some types of heritage resource sites (e.g., historic buildings or structures; historic or heritage properties important to Native Americans). The size of buffer zones needs to be determined by the forest or district archaeologist on a case-by-case basis. • When any changes in proposed activities are necessary to avoid heritage resource sites (e.g., project modifications), these changes would be completed prior to initiating any activities.

9 Programmatic Agreement Among U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region (Region 5), California State Historic Preservation Officer, Nevada State Historic Preservation Officer, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Regarding the 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 Region, February 2013 (Region 5 PA)

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 272 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

• Monitoring during project implementation, in conjunction with other measures, may be used to enhance the effectiveness of protection measures. • If heritage resources are inadvertently discovered during project implementation, the Mt. Hough Ranger District archaeologist would be contacted immediately. The heritage resources would be recorded, clearly delineated, and protected. • Upon approval of the forest or district archaeologist, low intensity underburning may be allowed over selected prehistoric sites as long as fuel loads are relatively light. • The forest or district archaeologist may approve the use of mechanical equipment to remove brush or woody material from within specifically identified areas within site boundaries under prescribed measures designed to prevent or minimize effects. Vegetative or other protective padding may be used in conjunction with the forest or district archeologist authorization of certain equipment types within site boundaries. • Upon approval of the forest or district archaeologist, existing breaches within linear sites may be designated on the ground and reused for project activities. • Roads and trails that currently overlie historic linear sites may continue to be used as transportation routes without notification. However, if there are activities that will change the morphology of the existing road or trail (that is overlaying a historic linear site), these activities need to be reviewed by the forest or district archaeologist. • Roads proposed to be decommissioned that extend through archaeological sites will need to be blocked instead of sub-soiled. • Vegetation may be removed within sites using hand tools, so long as ground disturbance is minimized and features are avoided. The removed vegetation shall not be piled within site boundaries unless the location has been specifically approved by the forest or district archaeologist. Terrestrial and Aquatic Wildlife Standard management requirements are applied for protecting wildlife and wildlife habitat, including: • Wildlife Limited Operating Periods: To protect key wildlife species, unless determined to be unnecessary following pre-implementation surveys, limited operating periods (LOPs) listed in the 2004 SNFPA ROD (pages 54-62) and the Biological Evaluation/Biological Assessment would apply. • New wildlife findings: Where subsequent surveys identify occupied threatened, endangered, or sensitive species habitat, establish protected activity centers, den site buffers, or other protections as described in the SNFPA EIS. Include protections for any additional sensitive species identified in the BE/BA. In the event of a verified threatened, endangered or sensitive species occurrence after project award, the appropriate limited operating periods would apply. Other mitigations may take place as agreed upon by the sale administrator and district wildlife biologist. • Down wood: Within westside vegetation types, generally retain an average of 10-15 tons (over 15 inch diameter) of large down wood per acre over the treatment unit. Within eastside vegetation types, an average of 3 large down logs would generally be retained per acre. In areas considered deficient in large woody debris, wherever possible leave cull logs at the stump rather than being skidded to the landing. The sale administrator and the district wildlife biologist would agree upon the location and amount (Table 2, USDA Forest Service SNFPA 2004 ROD). • Snags: Snag retention levels would be determined on an individual, project basis; however, they would consider the guidelines set forth in the standards and guides (USDA Forest Service 2004a,

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 273 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

b). The guidelines state that projects would retain 4 of the largest snags per acre in westside mixed conifer and ponderosa pine types; 6 of the largest snags per acre in the red fir forest type; 3 of the largest snags per acre in the eastside and eastside pine types; and 4 of the largest snags in westside hardwood ecosystems. Wherever possible, use snags larger than 15 inches dbh and 20 feet in height to meet these guidelines (Table 2, USDA Forest Service SNFPA 2004 ROD). • Structure trees: Retain and protect high value wildlife habitat trees (trees with multiple tops, broken tops, rot, cavities, and other formations) that create structure for nests and dens. • Prescribed fireline construction (machine): In general, prescribed fireline construction utilizing a piece of equipment would be conducted in accordance with district resource specialists. There would be no mechanical fireline construction in hand thin protected activity center units unless approved by the wildlife biologist. • Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog: All applicable programmatic conservation measures from the Programmatic Biological Opinion (USDA Forest Service 2015, pgs. 15-17), and Program-Specific Conservation Measures (USDA Forest Service 2015, pgs. 17-29) will be applied to the proposed action and incorporated into the general best management practices and project design features. Three activities described in the programmatic biological opinion apply to the proposed project: (1) vegetation management, timber harvest, fuels management, and watershed restoration; (2) maintenance of roads and trails; and (3) biological resource management. In addition to general water quality best management practices (table 75) and project-specific design features in the following section, the proposed project would meet all relevant standards and guidelines, and best management practices, associated with the general and program-specific measures of the biological opinion (USDA Forest Service 2015 pp. 15-29, appendix A, appendix B, and Table 10). Herbicide Standard management requirements are applied when implementing herbicide application, including: • Herbicide application would be consistent with the Forest Service Pesticide Use Policy, would be in compliance with state and federal regulations, and would follow Region 5 Best Management Practices for Water Quality and Vegetation Manipulation and the Region 5 supplement No. 2100- 95-1 to 2150 on Pesticide-Use Management and Coordination. Appropriate monitoring protocols will be used to ensure herbicide was applied according to requirements according to label specifications. • The Herbicide Transportation, Handling, and Emergency Spill Response Plan and spill kit will be on-site when herbicide treatment methods occur. This plan will include reporting procedures, project safety planning, methods of clean-up of accidental spills, and information including a spill kit contents and location as noted in Forest Service Manual (FSM) 2150, Pesticide-Use Management and Coordination and Handbook (FSH) 2109.14, and Pesticide-Use Management and Coordination Handbook. • Apply herbicide at optimum times of year to achieve higher percent kill. • Containers and equipment will be disposed of in accordance with regulations to prevent water contamination. • Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog habitat protection: Within 500 feet of known occupied sites for foothill yellow-legged frog or Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog, herbicide application would be designed to avoid adverse effects to individuals and their habitats (USDA Forest Service 2004, USDA Forest Service 1998). If tadpoles or metamorphs of foothill yellow-legged frog or Sierra

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 274 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Nevada yellow-legged frog are present, herbicide treatment would be seasonally delayed until metamorphs disperse. • Western bumblebee protection: Avoid spraying any plant while it is in bloom or during the middle of the day when pollinators are the most active (USDA and USDI 2015). • Protection of botanical resources: No applications within 25 feet of sensitive or watch list plant species. This buffer may be reduced if the sensitive or watch list plants are covered/shielded during spraying. • Protection of human health: No herbicides would be applied on weekends or holidays to minimize impacts to recreation. To ensure members of the public do not enter treated areas during label reentry intervals, applicators would remain in or near treated areas until the application solution is fully dry. (This is the reentry interval for all herbicides and adjuvants proposed for use in this project.) Mining Standard management requirements are applied to avoid impacts to mining claims or activity, including: • Protect mining claim corner markers and discovery markers: Mining claims markers include a corner monument on each of the four corners and one at the discovery point. Any other signs should be approved by the Forest Service and may require a Plan of Operations. Monuments are usually a wooden 4X4 post or a PVC pipe, often with rocks piled up around the base. However, a wide variety of variations can be found. This does not apply to signs attached to trees. • Claim signs attached to trees (marked for removal) should be removed from the tree and turned in to the Minerals Staff: In most cases, attaching signs to trees is not allowed. However, many mining claims signs are attached to trees. If trees planned for removal have mining claim signs attached to them, the signs should be removed and turned in the Minerals staff, so the signs may be returned to the claimant. The location of the sign should be noted when turning it in to the Minerals staff. Recreation and Visitor Safety Standard management requirements are applied to protect recreational opportunities and ensure visitor safety, including: • Motorized trails will be protected from damage as much as possible and shall be restored back to its original condition if damaged by operations. These trails are to be closed to the public during active operations that utilize these trails. Trails will be signed during these closures. The Forest Service will be notified 21 days prior to entering the units that the trails are included in or adjacent to. Closure will be by mutual agreement as to timing, duration and type and location of safety signs. No decking of landing piles on trails. Trails are to remain open after they have been utilized for project purposes. • Implement measures for safety of forest visitors and provide public notifications, such as: treatment areas closures, locations of herbicide use and prescribed fire, locations of haul routes, and treatment implementation timeframes. Provide public notification as appropriate at recreation sites, trailheads, in local newspapers, and online. • Coordinate treatment timing limitations to minimize impacts to the recreating public, concession operators, and special use permit holders. This may include a limited operating period from Memorial Day to Labor Day within recreation sites, no project activities or hauling activities on weekends or holidays and during important hunting season timeframes, or other site specific

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 275 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

limitations determined necessary to minimize impacts to recreation activities within the project area. • Obliterate, obscure, or physically block hand or machine fire lines, skid trails, and temporary roads that are visible from, or intersect open roads to prevent unauthorized OHV use. Implementation NEPA and Implementation: Within the project contract area, allow minor adjustments in boundaries of units if compatible with Forest Plan direction, the desired conditions and anticipated environmental effects disclosed by the project’s NEPA document. Project-specific Design Features In addition to the above standard management practices, the following design features would be applied for this project. They are listed for each resource area with a reference number so that they can be referred to in the environmental analysis. Some design features apply to all activities that will occur, others apply only with certain activities or in certain locations, as indicated.

Vegetation

Table 78. Project-specific design features for vegetation management activities Activity/ Number Design Feature Action Eastside Pine: Thin trees to retain 30 percent of the existing basal area, generally comprised of the largest trees ((USDA Forest Service 2004b, pages 51). Veg- 1 Thinning Dry Mixed Conifer: In mechanical thinning treatments retain 40 percent of the existing basal area, generally comprised of the largest trees. (USDA Forest Service 2004b, pages 50). Retain all live conifers 30 inches diameter at breast height or larger; exceptions may Veg- 2 Thinning be allowed to meet needs for operability on a specific case basis (SNFPA ROD 2004, page 50). Preferably retain shade intolerant species where present, red fir over white fir, and vigorous disease- and insect-free individuals over declining individuals. Individuals Veg-3 Thinning showing signs of heavy root disease infection, dwarf mistletoe, or insect attack will usually be targeted for removal. Incorporate topography and aspect when determining leave trees. Generally, stands on ridge tops or higher in slope position would have fewer retained trees as Veg- 4 Thinning compared to stand in lower slope position and/or drainage bottoms. In addition, stands with a more southerly aspect would have lower residual basal area as compared to stands with a more northerly aspect. Increase horizontal and vertical heterogeneity by retaining patches of large trees among the thinning matrix, with occasional openings to allow for small gap regeneration and recruitment. Patches will have higher densities and canopy covers than surrounding areas, while openings will have lower densities and more open Veg- 5 Thinning canopies. Patches may range from a few to several larger individuals. Openings will resemble small scale disturbances such as individual large tree mortality and disease centers where a few individuals die, and where possible will be targeted in areas where shade intolerant species are present.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 276 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Activity/ Number Design Feature Action A heterogeneous landscape comprised of different seral stages and tree species in various ranges of density and canopy cover would be resilient to disturbance. Desired stand structure would vary according to topographic location, such as aspect, slope position, and site quality, creating high levels of horizontal and vertical Veg- 6 Thinning diversity at the stand and landscape-scale. North facing slopes, true fir and dry mixed conifer stands would contain more shade tolerant species and higher canopy cover. Desired forest attributes include uneven-aged, multi-storied stands dominated by legacy structures composed of large, fire-adapted trees. Post treatment stand densities would generally be low, characteristic of active-fire ecosystems, especially on south-facing slopes and near ridge tops. Pine type stands would be primarily shade intolerant species with open canopy. Desired forest attributes include uneven-aged, multi-storied stands dominated by legacy structures composed of large, fire-adapted trees. Pine type stands would have open pockets of sparse canopy cover that promote the establishment and growth of fire-adapted and Veg-7 Thinning shade-intolerant species including ponderosa and Jeffrey pine, sugar pine, and aspen which would contribute to landscape heterogeneity and native plant species diversity. Young pine regeneration in the understory is desirable to increase structural diversity and create uneven-aged conditions. Tree densities and canopy cover would generally have been lower than in Sierran mixed conifer forests due to the lower precipitation levels and poorer site productivity, but would still have varied according to aspect. Veg-8 Thinning In mechanical thinning treatments maintain canopy cover consistent with the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment standards and guidelines, as presented on pages 50 and 51 of the Record of Decision (USDA Forest Service 2004b). Veg-9 Thinning Stand densities would generally be low, characteristic of active-fire ecosystems, (eastside pine especially on south-facing slopes and near ridge tops. Pine type stands would be only) primarily shade intolerant species with open canopy. Desired forest attributes include uneven-aged, multi-storied stands dominated by legacy structures composed of large, fire-adapted trees. Pine type stands would have open pockets of sparse canopy cover that promote the establishment and growth of fire-adapted and shade-intolerant species including ponderosa and Jeffrey pine, sugar pine, and aspen which would contribute to landscape heterogeneity and native plant species diversity. Young pine regeneration in the understory is desirable to increase structural diversity and create uneven-aged conditions. Tree densities and canopy cover would generally have been lower than in Sierran mixed conifer forests due to the lower precipitation levels and poorer site productivity, but would still have varied according to aspect. Prescriptively remove conifers through a combination of mechanized equipment and Aspen chainsaw, up to 30.0 inches dbh (29.9 inches dbh or less). Conifers will be retained Veg-10 Restoration in areas that have experienced high and moderate severity fire effects on a prescriptive basis. Prescriptively remove conifers around aspen stands to allow for maximum sunlight. Treat up to 150 feet within the aspen stand on the south, east and west facing Aspen Veg-11 aspects and up to 75 feet on the north facing aspects. No canopy cover or spacing Restoration guidelines would restrict removal of conifers. Temporary fencing may be placed to protect new shoots from browsing if needed. Aspen Fire will be applied prescriptively, as required to treat ground fuels; if conditions do Veg-12 Restoration not allow for prescribed fire to be conducted safely, fuels may be piled for burning. Mechanical harvesting would be used to remove commercial sawlog and biomass Ground-based trees. Tops and limbs would be yarded to the landing and removed as a product, if Veg-13 harvesting and viable markets exist. If viable markets do not exist, biomass may be piled by yarding machine in a landing or within the stand and burned on site.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 277 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Fire and Fuels

Table 79. Project-specific design features for fire and fuels Activity/ Number Design Feature Action Maintain adequate cover of surface fuels, litter, duff, and large woody debris to Fuels-1 All maintain habitat values, reduce potential erosion and meet soil standards for woody debris and ground cover. Retain surface fuels (less than 12 inches diameter) at a level that would result in projected flame lengths of less than 4 feet under 90th percentile weather conditions. Fuels-2 All This generally corresponds to approximately 5 tons or less per acre in this size class of surface fuels per acre depending on the forest type. Retain large woody debris (greater than 12 inches diameter) in various decay classes Fuels-3 All to an approximate residual fuel loading of 10- to 15 tons per acre in this size class. Where needed, jackpot burn, or machine pile and burn extensive areas of deadfall, Fuels-4 All where feasible, in terms of equipment operability and reduced chance of excessive scorch-related mortality upon burning of these piles. Based on post treatment evaluations, underburn, jackpot burn, machine pile and Fuels-5 All burn, and/or hand thin, pile, and burn to treat natural and activity-generated fuels.

Water Quality, Riparian Habitats, and Sierra Nevada Yellow-Legged Frog Suitable Habitat In addition to the standard management practices and best management practices for watershed and soils protection, the following project design features would be applied to reduce effects to water quality, riparian habitats, and aquatic species. In particular, we are incorporating conservation measures from the programmatic biological opinion for the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog. Terms and conditions from other recent projects were also used to develop the following design features.

All applicable programmatic conservation measures (Programmatic Biological Opinion (USDA Forest Service 2015) pgs. 15-17, and program specific conservation measures (USDA Forest Service 2015) pgs. 17-29) will be applied to the proposed action and incorporated into the general best management practices and project design features. Three activities described in the programmatic biological opinion apply to the proposed project: (1) vegetation management, timber harvest, fuels management, and watershed restoration; (2) maintenance of roads and trails; and (3) biological resource management. These are incorporated by reference.

Design features may vary by suitable, occupied, critical habitats. Where there are not more restrictive measures of occupied and critical habitat, the measures for suitable habitat should be used.

• Suitable habitat on the Plumas National Forest occurs above 3,500 feet in elevation. In project practical terms, suitable habitat includes most water bodies: lakes, ponds, tarns, intermittent and perennial streams, rivers, plunge pools within intermittent creeks, seeps, springs, pools (such as a body of impounded water contained above a natural dam), and other forms of aquatic habitat. Adjacent terrestrial habitat generally extends 82 feet from the water, though larger areas are incorporated when water bodies are located within 984 feet (300 meters) of each other (such as a complex of lakes/ponds/springs). Ephemeral channels are not considered suitable habitat. The complete definition of suitable habitat for the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog is defined in the following Federal Register document : Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants;

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 278 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Designation of Critical Habitat for the Sierra Nevada Yellow-Legged Frog, the Northern DPS of the Mountain Yellow-Legged Frog, and the Yosemite Toad; Final Rule (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2016). • Occupied habitat includes portions of the following drainages: Antelope Lake, Lone Rock Creek, Indian Creek, and Boulder Creek. • Critical habitat includes areas designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2016); these areas are located in the vicinity Antelope Lake and tributaries to the north and west. Water bodies within critical habitat will be considered occupied due to the relatively high mobility of the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog. See table 80 for general design features related to protection of riparian habitats and Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog habitats. See table 81 for activity buffers for water bodies within suitable habitat, and within occupied or critical habitat.

Table 80. General design features to protect water quality, riparian habitats, and aquatic features Number Activity Design Feature Tightly woven fiber netting or similar material shall be not used for erosion control or other purposes within Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog suitable habitat to ensure Aqu-1 All that individuals do not get trapped, injured or killed. Plastic mono-filament netting or similar material will not be used at any of these projects because individuals of these listed species may become entangled or trapped in it. To protect water quality and meet Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment riparian Aqu-2 All management objectives, roadside ditches will be treated the same as the water body type they resemble. Chainsaw thinning would be restricted during the wet season, between November Chainsaw Aqu-3 1st to April 15th, or the first wetting rain (72 hours with no drying period), whichever thinning comes first. A district biologist may amend the dates based on local site conditions. To protect water quality and riparian habitat for aquatic organisms, within 50 feet of perennial or seasonal streams, if treatment reduces groundcover to less than 75 percent for a contiguous area of greater than 0.25 acre, then mulching and/or Aqu-4 Revegetation revegetation may be required to minimize erosion and reestablish native vegetation. Only native plant species will be used in revegetation. All mulch and seed material will be certified weed-free. Herbicide Aqu-5 Herbicide applications will treat the minimum area necessary to meet site objectives. Application To minimize the risk of pesticide drift onto water or non-target areas, in order to minimize impacts to water quality, special status plants and wildlife, non-target vegetation, and other biological resources (e.g. pollinators, aquatic organisms), implement the following spray application drift control measures: 1) Only ground based equipment will be used 2) All applications will cease when weather conditions exceed those on the label Herbicide Aqu-6 application 4) Applications will cease when wind speed exceeds 10 mph 5) Spray nozzles will produce a relatively large droplet size (500-800 microns) 6) Low nozzle pressures will be used 7) Spray nozzles will be kept within 24 inches of target vegetation during spraying 8) A pressure gauge or pressure regulator will be required on each backpack sprayer Herbicide Herbicide will not be applied during the wet season (November 1 - April 15) to Aqu-7 application minimize herbicide transport in the environment.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 279 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Number Activity Design Feature No herbicide will be applied if there is a more than 50 percent chance of more than Herbicide 0.1 inches of precipitation predicted within the next 48 hours. 0.1 inch is based on Aqu-8 application following "measureable" precipitation prediction data provided by National Weather Service. To minimize risk of surface and groundwater contamination in order to protect water quality and aquatic organisms, implement the following on soils above 3,500 feet in Herbicide elevation: application of Glyphosate and Triclopyr (including equipment rinsing) will Aqu-9 application not occur on deep, coarse textured, saturated soils. For elevations above 4,000 feet, district hydrologist or soil scientist will be consulted about the proper timing of herbicide application in the spring prior to treatments. To protect water quality and insure protection of beneficial uses, all wells, ponds, and springs used for domestic water supplies will be protected with a 200-foot buffer Herbicide Aqu-10 for herbicide treatment and mixing. At annual implementation review meeting, water application rights will be checked with the state and potential affected parties would be contacted. To protect water quality and insure protection of beneficial uses, perennial streams used for domestic water supply will be protected with a 200-foot buffer around the Herbicide Aqu-11 diversion intake. Directed spray can occur within this buffer if (a) use near a application domestic water source is directed on the product label; AND (b) water quality is monitored. When not within Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog suitable habitat, the following herbicide application buffers will apply for backpack sprayers: • Glyphosate: 25 feet for perennial streams or Special Aquatic Features with Herbicide live water; 10 feet for seasonal wetlands or intermittent/ephemeral streams Aqu-12 Application when dry. • Triclopyr: 100 feet for perennial streams or Special Aquatic Features with live water; 50 feet for seasonal wetlands or intermittent/ephemeral streams when dry.

Table 81. Activity buffers around water bodies1 within suitable habitat, and within occupied or critical habitat Activity Suitable, Unoccupied Habitat Occupied or Critical Habitat Within the un-surveyed areas of suitable habitat, Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog habitat occupancy will be assessed annually Prior to initiating tree thinning, prescribed by the Forest Service within proposed burns, herbicide applications, and other project treatments areas. Occupancy will be activities that could put at risk Sierra Nevada determined through surveys by the Forest yellow-legged frogs, surveys of each site will Service or qualified biologists. The qualified be conducted by a Forest Service biologist. If biologist will have documented training in the during the surveys, any life stages of the biology and field identification of frogs in All Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog are found, addition to demonstrable experience the project activities will stop, the Forest surveying for and positively identifying Sierra Service will create a 750 feet buffer upstream Nevada yellow legged frogs. The survey will and downstream from the frog detection point, cover all suitable habitat areas and should and 75 feet (action-type dependent) wide any life stages of the species be found (i.e. minimum on both sides of the stream would the site is occupied), work activities for that not be treated. area will occur during the limited operating period suggested by the Forest Service conservation measures.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 280 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Activity Suitable, Unoccupied Habitat Occupied or Critical Habitat Instream work (e.g., road crossings, culverts) will not be performed during winter months (November 1 - April 15). During the remainder of the year (April 16th through October 31st) activities within the stream would be restricted with a limited operating period. During this time, areas 100 feet upstream and downstream of the work will be reviewed by project manager immediately prior to implementation. If no water is present the limited operating period would be lifted. If surface water is present within 200 feet of the activity, stream surveys will be All conducted by a qualified biologist. If the surveys find no frogs, eggs or tadpoles, the limited operating period would be lifted for site specific projects. The window for lifting the limited operation period for site specific project work typically ranges from 1 to 4 days. After 4 days the limited operation periods will go into full effect again. In the event a Sierra Nevada yellow- legged frog is detected in the vicinity of in-stream work, the frog would be relocated to a safe place during waterhole development to prevent mortality after approval from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Within 500 feet of known occupied sites for the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog, precautions All - will be issued to and care will be taken by workers to avoid crushing or trampling amphibians. Within 100 feet of suitable habitat, and 750 Within 100 feet of suitable habitat, no project feet upstream and downstream, no project Limited activities between November 1st and April activities between November 1st and April operation 15th, or the first wetting rain (72 hours with 15th, or the first wetting rain (72 hours with no period for all no drying period), whichever comes first. A drying period), whichever comes first. A district activities district biologist may amend the dates based biologist may amend the dates based on local on local site conditions. site conditions. Heavy Equipment including Will not be utilized within 100 feet of streams, Will not be utilized within 100 feet of streams harvest and 750 feet upstream and downstream that that have suitable habitat for Sierra Nevada equipment, are occupied by Sierra Nevada yellow-legged yellow-legged frog, except for project road building frog. For road and stream crossing activities activities on existing roads and stream equipment, within this zone, prior approval from U.S. Fish crossings. mastication and Wildlife Service would be required. equipment, etc. Prescribed fire Piles to be burned will be built outside of the No prescribed fire or pile burning will be done and pile 100 foot Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog within 100 feet of occupied streams, and 750 burning riparian buffer to protect these animals. feet upstream and downstream. Within 100 feet of aquatic habitat, all conifers up to 12 inches dbh would be cut with In the event a Sierra Nevada yellow legged chainsaws. Conifers between 12 inches and frog is detected in the vicinity of chainsaw Thinning and 30 inches dbh may be felled or girdled, thinning units, the treatment would be delayed burning depending on site conditions. Trees felled for the season, or until the frog moved out of will have the boles retained on site and the the treatment unit. limbs and tops removed and piled for later burning.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 281 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Activity Suitable, Unoccupied Habitat Occupied or Critical Habitat Piles to be burned will be built outside of the 100 foot Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog riparian buffer to protect these animals. Pile burning will be in directional light, which Pile burning means that the fire must start at one point within the No pile burning will be done within 100 feet of only and let fire burn through to allow any riparian occupied streams, and 750 feet upstream and wildlife species within the pile to escape. conservation downstream. Piles for wildlife retention inside of the 100 area foot riparian buffer will be built with wildlife pile prescriptions and will not be burned to provide for Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog shelter habitat. To prevent loss or damage to suitable No activity within 75 feet of occupied aquatic Tree and habitat, all tree and brush removals within habitat and 750 feet upstream and brush removal the 100-foot buffer zone will be done by hand downstream. or with the use of chainsaws. In the event a Sierra Nevada yellow-legged Trees may be removed with mechanical frog is detected in the vicinity of aspen Aspen entry from 33 to 100 feet of the stream during treatment units, the upland and riparian management the summer season (April 16 - Oct 31) when treatment unit within 100 feet of the stream conifer frogs are restricted to within 33 feet of and 0.25 miles upstream and downstream of removal streams. No mechanical entry will take place the sighting would be dropped permanently within 33 feet of live streams. from treatment. Herbicide application would be restricted within 500 feet of occupied streams. Direct spray may be allowed between 107 feet and 500 feet Herbicide and other chemical treatments from occupied sites where site specific would not occur within 107 feet of the stream treatment is analyzed and determined to have Herbicide within (25 feet from upland habitat edge) no or negligible risk. application suitable Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog In the event a Sierra Nevada yellow-legged habitat. frog is detected in the vicinity of herbicide treatment units, the treatment would be delayed for the season, or until the frog moved out of the treatment unit. Herbicide mixing will not occur within 150 Herbicide No mixing will occur within 500 feet of sites feet of surface waters, except at existing mixing occupied by Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog. facilities Fueling of gas-powered No fueling of gas powered equipment will equipment Will not occur within 150 feet of surface occur within 500 feet of sites occupied by with gas tanks waters, except at existing facilities. Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog. larger than 5 gallons Fueling of gas-powered No fueling of gas powered equipment will Will not occur within 25 feet of surface equipment occur within 500 feet of sites occupied by waters, except at existing facilities. less than 5 Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog. gallons 1- Water bodies are lakes, ponds, tarns, streams, rivers, creeks, plunge pools within intermittent creeks, seeps, springs, pools (such as a body of impounded water contained above a natural dam), and other forms of aquatic habitat

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 282 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Botany

Table 82. Project-specific design features for sensitive and native plant communities Number Activity Design Feature Unit-specific plant protection plans will be prepared. These will identify sensitive Bot-1 All plant or invasive plant populations occur in treatment units and specific avoidance measures. Where feasible and appropriate, native plant species would be planted within the riparian conservation area to increase ground cover and improve native plant Bot-2 All diversity. These plantings would focus on areas where there is limited existing ground cover. In order to prevent adverse impacts to Pulsifer’s milkvetch occurrence 007C along Bot-3 Transportation the non-system road U3030, the occurrence will be flagged and the area avoided during obliteration activities. In order to prevent adverse impacts to adobe parsley at the northern end of trail Bot-4 Transportation #12M29, the occurrence will be flagged and avoided if ground disturbing activities are required at this end of the trail segment to be decommissioned. In order to prevent adverse impacts to Susanville beardtongue sub-occurrence Bot-5 Transportation 001G along road 28N08, the occurrence will be flagged and avoided if ground disturbing activities outside the existing road prism are required at this location.

Recreation

Table 83. Project-specific design features for recreation Number Activity Design Feature No project activities will be conducted within developed campgrounds from Rec-1 All Memorial Day to Labor Day. Operations will abide by the motor vehicle prohibitions in the Diamond Mountain Limited Vehicle Access Area (T 27/28 N, R11/12E), specific acreage and timing is Rec-2 All coordinated annually with the California Department of Fish and Game to provide for Roadless deer hunting opportunities. Restrict hauling to weekdays only within Antelope Lake Recreation Area, on National Forest System road 28N03 to National Forest System road 29N43 and Rec-3 Hauling Antelope Lake Dam. No hauling on holidays from Memorial Day thru Labor Day weekend. Sign all haul routes to alert drivers of hauling and logging activities around the Antelope Lake Recreation Area, particularly the intersection of campgrounds, the boat launch, and trailheads. A key location for a logging traffic alert sign is at the Rec-4 Hauling intersection of Plumas County roads 112 and 207 in Taylorsville near the rodeo grounds. Alternate routes may be required due to season events or road restrictions and/or closures. Vegetation For treatments within developed campgrounds, a recreation specialist will be Rec-5 management in consulted to identify trees to be maintained for screening, shading, campground campgrounds aesthetics, and to identify hazard trees for removal. Ensure that mechanical piles in developed campgrounds do not contain Pile burning in Rec-6 accumulated soil and are able to burn completely. Landing piles within the Antelope campgrounds Lake Recreation areas will be burned and removed promptly following treatment.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 283 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Number Activity Design Feature Where trail routes are within, or along the boundary of treatment units, ensure trail Vegetation route is clearly marked and maintained, remove hazard trees along the trail. If Rec-7 management treatment operations cross, or damage the trail tread, re-establish the trail to the near trails appropriate design standards when implementation is complete. Provide public notification of firewood gathering opportunities associated with the Rec-8 Firewood project. No herbicides will be applied on weekends or holidays to minimize impacts to recreation. To ensure members of the public do not enter treated areas during label Herbicide Rec-9 reentry intervals, applicators will remain in or near treated areas until the Application application solution is fully dry. (This is the reentry interval for all herbicides and adjuvants proposed for use in this project.) Protect special use improvements within the project area including two pasture/livestock areas, one waterline, and one resource monitoring site. The Rec-10 All Activities special use improvements will be flagged during project implementation and identified on contract maps as improvements.

Wildlife

Table 84. Project-specific design features for wildlife Number Activity Design Feature All food-related garbage will be placed in tightly sealed containers at the end of each workday to avoid attracting predators. Containers will be emptied and garbage removed from the project site at the end of each work week. If sealed containers are not Wild-1 All available, garbage will be removed from the project site upon completion of daily activities. Additionally, any garbage present in the right-of-way will be removed after annual treatment of the site is complete. All garbage removed from the project site will be disposed of at an appropriate off-site refuse location.

The limited operating periods in table 85 would be applied, based on the requirements listed in the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment.

Table 85. Limited operating periods for wildlife species of concern Limited Operating Species Location Reference Pages Period Within designated territories (1/2 mile November 1 - August 31 Bald Eagle around nest) 2 - 8* November 1 - March 1 Winter roosts 2 - 8* Modified by California Spotted Within 1/4 mile of nests or within March 1 - August 15 October 2006 RO Owl protected activity center boundary Letter Great Gray Owl Within 1/2 mile of nesting sites March 1 - August 31 2 - 8* Within 1/4 mile of nests or within February 15 - September Goshawk A - 60** protected activity center boundary 15 Marten 100 acre den site buffer May 1 - July 31 A - 62** Pacific Fisher 700 acre den site buffer March 1 - June 30 A - 61**

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 284 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Limited Operating Species Location Reference Pages Period Pallid Bat and W/in 1/4 mile of maternity and other Professional Townsend's Big- May 1 – August 15 roosts Judgment eared Bat Variable depending on activity (see Sierra Nevada project-specific design features November 1st to April 15th Biological Opinion Yellow-Legged Frog above) *Herger-Feinstein Quincy Library Group Forest Recovery Act – Final Environmental Impact Statement (HFQLGFRA-FEIS) (1999), Page 2-8, Table 2.3. **Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment – Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SNFPA FSEIS) – Record of Decision (ROD) (2004), page A-54, A-58, A-60, A-61 and A-62.

Cultural Resources

Table 86. Project-specific design features for cultural resources Number Activity/Action Design Feature The District Archaeologist would be consulted when arborglyph sites are Aspen identified within aspen stands. Sites would be flagged and avoided following CR-1 Restoration the Standard Protection Measures outlined in the Region 5 Programmatic Agreement (USDA 2013). Trees will be directionally felled away from sites.

Monitoring

Water Quality Water quality monitoring would be implemented in compliance with the Regional Water Quality Management Handbook. Best management practices implementation checklists will document whether, and when, the site-specific best management practices (BMPs) specified in NEPA analyses were implemented (BMP 16.31). The checklist will be the primary systematic means for early detection of potential water-quality problems, and will be completed early enough to allow corrective actions to be taken, if needed, prior to any significant rainfall or snowmelt throughout the duration of the project.

Soils The Forest Plan sets out objectives and protocol for monitoring of plan standards and guidelines, best management practice compliance and effectiveness, and soil productivity parameters. Monitoring is to be completed by Forest staff on a per annum basis, either project by project, or a sampling of projects. Sampling should include at least five units for effectiveness monitoring to confirm that soil cover and fine organic matter is not reduced below recommended levels. Road improvement and obliteration actions would be monitored after implementation and after the first winter to ensure that treatments remain effective. Specific methods would be defined by district watershed personnel.

Heritage Resources Monitoring during project implementation, in conjunction with other measures, may be used to enhance the effectiveness of protection measures.

Invasive Plant Species Monitoring during and after project implementation would be used to assess the effectiveness of the standard management requirements at preventing the introduction and spread of invasive plant species in

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 285 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

the project area. The measurement indicators described in this analysis—for example, the number of existing infestations and the number of acres treated—would be used in this assessment. Post-treatment monitoring would identify the need for follow-up treatment, assess the effectiveness of the different treatment methods, and/or identify the need for alternative methods of control. Monitoring would be conducted by district personnel during and following project implementation and is expected to greatly reduce the likelihood of uncontrollable spread of invasive plant species in the Moonlight Restoration project area. Any treatment of invasive species would be conducted consistent with the Moonlight Fire Area Invasive Plant Treatment Project, which is being planned as a separate project.

Wildlife Surveys for Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frogs would be conducted both before project implementation as well as after project implementation. Comparison of areas utilized before project activities, including basking site enhancement, would be compared to post-treatment.

California spotted owl and northern goshawk protected activity centers treated with fuels reduction would be monitored for at least 2 years after project treatment to determine site occupancy.

Recreation Monitor treatment areas to determine if illegal off-highway vehicle (OHV) use is taking place in areas where treatments have occurred. If monitoring reveals this is happening, steps should be taken to prohibit the use (i.e. signing, barrier installation, increased law enforcement).

Monitor National Forest System trail conditions following prescribed burning to determine if there is a need for increased trail maintenance for specific areas due to fallen trees or increased erosion.

Cultural Resources Fire crews may monitor sites to provide protection as needed.

• Fire lines or breaks may be constructed off sites to protect at risk historic properties. • Vegetation may be removed and fire lines or breaks may be constructed within sites using hand tools, so long as ground disturbance is minimized and features are avoided, as specified by the heritage program manager. • Fire shelter fabric or other protective materials or equipment (e.g., sprinkler systems) may be utilized to protect at risk historic properties. • Fire retardant foam and other wetting agents may be utilized to protect at risk historic properties and in the construction and use of fire lines. • Surface fuels (e.g., stumps or partially buried logs) on at risk historic properties may be covered with dirt, fire shelter fabric, foam or other wetting agents, or other protective materials to prevent fire from burning into subsurface components and to reduce the duration of heating underneath or near heavy fuels. • Trees which may impact at risk historic properties should they fall on site features and smolder can be directionally felled away from properties prior to ignition, or prevented from burning by wrapping in fire shelter fabric or treating with fire retardant or wetting agents. • Vegetation to be burned shall not be piled within the boundaries of historic properties unless the location (e.g., a previously disturbed area) has been specifically approved by the Forest's heritage program manager.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 286 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

• Mechanically treated (crushed/cut) brush or downed woody material may be removed from historic properties by hand, through the use of off-site equipment, or by rubber-tired equipment approved by the heritage program manager. Ground disturbance shall be minimized to the extent practicable during such removals. • Woody material may be chipped within the boundaries of historic properties so long as the staging of chipping equipment on-site does not affect historic properties. • The Forest's heritage program manager shall approve the use of tracked equipment to remove brush or woody material from within specifically identified areas of site boundaries under prescribed measures designed to prevent or minimize effects. Vegetative or other protective padding may be used in conjunction with the heritage program manager's authorization of certain equipment types within site boundaries. References Cited USDA Forest Service.1988. Plumas National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan. USDA Forest Service Plumas National Forest, Quincy, CA.

USDA Forest Service. 2004a. Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment. USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region, Vallejo, CA

USDA Forest Service. 2004b. Record of Decision Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment. USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region, Vallejo, CA

USDA Forest Service. 2006. Subsoiling Review. Letter from Plumas and Tahoe National Forest Supervisors, Quincy, CA.

USDA Forest Service 2011. Best Management Practices (BMP) Soil and Water Quality Management Handbook Amendment - 2509.22_10. FSH Amendment, Vallejo: USDA Forest Service, Vallejo, CA.

USDA Forest Service. 2014. Pacific Southwest Region Biological assessment for actions that affect the Sierra Nevada Yellow-legged frog, northern distinct population segment of the mountain yellow- legged frog, and Yosemite toad on National Forest Lands in the Sierra Nevada.

USDA and USDI 2015. Pollinator-Friendly Best Management Practices for Federal Lands. US Department of Agriculture and US Department of Interior Draft May 11, 2015 (In response toPresidential Memorandum of June 20, 2014). Available online: http://www.fs.fed.us/wildflowers/pollinators/BMPs/

USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Region (Region 5), California State Historic Preservation Officer, Nevada State Historic Preservation Officer, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. 2013. Programmatic Agreement Among U.S.D.A. Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region (Region 5), California State Historic Preservation Officer, Nevada State Historic Preservation Officer, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Regarding the 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 Region, February 2013 (Region 5 PA). Document on file, Plumas National Forest, Quincy, CA.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 287 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 288 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Appendix E – Past, Present, and Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions Cumulative impact is the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or non-federal) or person undertakes the action (40 CFR 1508.7). To result in cumulative effects, the effects of an activity must overlap in space and time with the effects of the alternative analyzed. Though most of the project impacts would be limited to within the project area, some effects may influence or be influenced by resources outside of the project area (example, hydrology). Therefore, the cumulative effects analysis may consider activities occurring within adjacent watersheds.

The purpose of this appendix is to describe the past, present and reasonably foreseeable actions that may contribute to cumulative effects to some or all resources. This is not a cumulative effects analysis. Cumulative effects analysis is presented for each resource in the Environmental Consequences section of the EA. Past, Present and Ongoing Actions Contributing to the Current Condition The cumulative effects analysis presented in the Environmental Consequences section includes consideration of past human actions; however, it does not fully quantify all effects of past human actions by adding up all prior actions on an action-by-action basis. By looking at a summary of past actions in the project area and at the current conditions of project area resources, we can capture residual effects of past human actions and natural events, regardless of which particular action or event contributed those effects. The Council on Environmental Quality issued an interpretive memorandum on June 24, 2005, regarding analysis of past actions, which states, “agencies can conduct an adequate cumulative effects analysis by focusing on the current aggregate effects of past actions without delving into the historical details of individual past actions.” The cumulative effects analysis in the EA is also consistent with Forest Service NEPA regulations (36 CFR 220.4(f)). In considering cumulative effects, interdisciplinary teams has considered how past, present, and ongoing actions described below continue to contribute effects to the existing condition.

The information on past, present, and ongoing actions contributing to the current condition was gathered from many sources. The 2013 Moonlight Fire Restoration Strategy (USDA Forest Service 2013) contains landscape level assessments which can be used to understand the past impacts and current condition for each resource area and provides background for consideration of past, preset, and ongoing activities in the cumulative effects analysis. Pre-fire conditions and actions are also detailed in the affected environment, cumulative effects analysis, and appendix B of the Diamond Project Environmental Impact Statement, which was published in 2006 (USDA Forest Service 2006; it should be noted that, this project was never implemented because the Moonlight Fire changed project area conditions and management needs). These documents are incorporated by reference and relevant information is briefly summarized below. In addition, Mt. Hough Ranger District staff provided input on known activities in the project area and on adjacent private land.

Historic, past and ongoing actions The landscape burned by the Moonlight Fire was historically a mosaic of yellow pine forest, Sierra mixed conifer stands, true fir forest, oak woodlands, shrublands, meadows, aspen stands, and riparian corridors. Prior to European American settlement of the area in the mid-1800s, vegetation patterns and successional

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 289 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

stages were created and maintained by historic disturbance processes, such as fire, insect and disease outbreaks, and drought. Prior to European settlement, these landscapes experienced frequent and predictable fire cycles that functioned as a fundamental ecosystem process. Pre-suppression era fires were not only primarily frequent, low to moderate-intensity fires, but were also quite large, frequently covering 10s to 100s of thousands of acres (Norman and Taylor 2003). Past fire cycles created complex mosaics of vegetation and successional stages. Over the last century, past management activities such as timber harvest, mining, grazing, recreation, and invasive species, altered the landscape in a variety of ways.

Historic and recent logging or vegetation management Over the past 100 years timber harvest activities on public and private lands focused on removal of dominant and codominant trees, retention of biomass and even-aged management. On the majority of private lands within the fire area, group selection, clearcut, commercial thing, and salvage harvests occurred and continue to occur. Since the mid-1990s, commercial thinning from below, with and without prescribed fire, has been the principal silvicultural treatment implemented on public lands in area. In the 15 years prior to the Moonlight Fire (1989 to 2005), approximately 30,000 acres for timber management activity occurred on federal lands in the areas surrounding the fire area and approximately 10,000 acres of timber management occurred on private lands. In addition, though smaller in influence, commercial and non-commercial firewood cutting also occurred throughout the area.

Harvest activities prior to about 2002, which did not employ the thin from below approach used today, resulted in: 1) the reduction of large dominant and codominant overstory trees; 2) the retention and ingrowth of smaller diameter trees; and 3) a shift in species composition from shade-intolerant pine dominated stands to shade-tolerant, white fir dominated stands. In addition, a near absence of landscape level, low-intensity surface fires contributed to increased stand densities in smaller diameter classes making these areas more susceptible density-dependent mortality, driven by drought and insect and disease infestations. The Moonlight landscape was affected by widespread drought in the late 1980s and early 1990s, which resulted in extensive tree mortality. Much of this material has become dead and down fuel further contributing to surface fuel loads and stand replacing fire risk in remaining mid to late seral forests. All of these factors largely decreased landscape level forest heterogeneity (McKelvey and Johnston 1992). In addition, past timber harvest resulted in reduced large conifers in riparian areas, reduced large woody debris in stream reaches and reduced snags (except in a few locations where wildfire occurred).

Past fire and prescribed burning Past fire suppression in the Moonlight landscape was applied with the greatest intentions, however; it also resulted in a number of unintended consequences including high fuel load accumulations and high tree stem densities particularly in small diameter shade tolerant trees (Beaty and Taylor 2001, Taylor and Skinner 2003, Beaty and Taylor 2007). In the most general terms, past management strategies have shifted systems from frequent low severity fire to infrequent high severity fire.

In the century prior to the Moonlight fire, little wildfire occurred in the project area, due to aggressive suppression measures. Approximately 7,000 acres of wildfire occurred between 1917 and 2001, and most of these fires were relatively small (average size of 428 acres). In addition, some limited prescribed burning of approximately 2,000 acres was conducted in recent decades. In total, this was much less fire on the landscape than would have been expected under the historic fire regime.

Invasive species In the decades preceding the Moonlight Fire, invasive plant species were increasing throughout the landscape. Many of the known sites were located along Forest roads or trails. Weed control efforts within

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 290 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

the analysis area have been conducted on an annual basis since 2002. Past treatments included manual treatments as well as approximately 2,100 acres treated with herbicide between 2000 and 2005. The total acreage treated each year was less than five percent of the total present due to a lack of funding and completed environmental analysis for herbicide treatment. Although treatments have been limited in scope, they have been successful in eradicating a few small populations and reducing the size or preventing the spread of several others. In contrast, some infestations continue to spread despite dedicated treatment efforts.

Recreation and Transportation Recreation use has been and continues to be very common in the Moonlight area; uses include camping, driving, hiking, horseback riding, mountain biking, off-highway vehicle riding, boating, swimming, fishing, snowmobiling, cross country skiing, hunting, firewood cutting, Christmas tree harvest, and rock hounding. Developed in the 1960s, the Antelope Lake Recreation Area encompasses 2,300 acres and has three developed campgrounds, one picnic area, one boat ramp area, and one information center. This recreation area receives approximately 30,000 visitor days per year.

There are approximately 18 miles of non-motorized trails in the recreation analysis area that have been used and are currently used by hikers, equestrians, and mountain bikers. These trails include Antelope- Taylor Lake Trail (10 miles), Cold Stream Trail (2 miles), Middle Creek Trail (5 miles) and Peters Creek Trail (1 mile).

There are nearly 200 miles of National Forest System Road within the Moonlight Fire area, 150 miles of which are open to vehicle travel. In addition, there are about 30 miles of motorized trails. There are also approximately 20 miles of private and county roads.

Maintenance of recreation sites, roads, and trails is ongoing throughout the area.

Past and current livestock grazing Livestock grazing has occurred on the Plumas National Forest since the mid-1800s. In the 1880s and early 1900s, an estimated 30,000 sheep grazed within the restoration area (S. Lusk personal communication). Grazing remained unregulated until the early 1900s, when regulations helped bring livestock numbers within reasonable bounds (Kosco and Bartolome 1981). Over the past decade, most allotments in the analysis area have contained fewer than 500 calf/cow pairs (table 87, figure 16)

Table 87. Range allotments within the analysis area Allotment Acres1 Permitted Numbers and Season Grazing Strategy Antelope 24,447 200 cattle pair; 6/15-9/15 Two pasture split herd Antelope Lake 4,401 150 cattle pair; 9/3-10/2 Deferred till after Labor Day Hungry Creek 17,007 Vacant Vacant Lights Creek 29,930 20 pair On, 16 pair Off; 6/1-9/1 Season long Lone Rock 24,633 116 On, 180 Off; 6/16-9/15 Season long Taylor Lake 26,922 Vacant Vacant 1-Acres are based on GIS information and may differ slightly from the permitted size

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 291 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Figure 16. Range allotments shown in purple outline. Past fires are shown in pink (2007 Moonlight Fire), purple (2007 Antelope Complex), yellow (2006 Boulder Complex), green (2001 Stream Fire), and orange (2006 Hungry Fire)

Historical and Recent Mining Starting in the 1850s, placer mining began in the Lights Creek area. Placer mining is the mining of stream bed deposits for minerals. As a result, negative impacts to hydrologic conditions began at this time. A major dredging operation was located downstream of the confluence of the West and East Forks of Lights Creek. Gold mining declined but then a copper mining boom commenced in the early 1900s. The Engles Mine near China Gulch became a major operation (USDA 2006). The mine operated until the 1930s. Today mine tailings are still largely not vegetated and are immediately adjacent to Lights Creek.

In recent decades, placer gold mining continues to be a potential impact to hydrologic conditions. Mining activities have disturbed riparian areas and stream channels in several creeks in the area (e.g., Cooks, Moonlight, Lights and Indian Creeks), creating over-steepened and unstable stream banks at a minimum.

There are currently 550 mining claims filed within the Moonlight Fire area. Most of these are owned by one claimant, who has not proposed any activities thus far. The Forest Service currently administers two active Plan of Operations and two Notices of Intent. Three additional Plans have recently been active. However, the current state ban on dredging has reduced the number of active operations considerably. The

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 292 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Lights Creek drainage presently has the most active operations, where placer mining continues on a small scale. It is likely that the Moonlight Fire area will continue to be popular for small scale miners. If conditions become favorable, some of the larger companies, which own a substantial number of claims, may propose copper or gold mining on a larger scale.

Effects of Moonlight Fire The Moonlight Fire burned approximately 65,000 acres of National Forest System and private lands; over half of these acres burned at high severity. By the time it was contained, the Moonlight Fire burned almost 38,000 acres at high severity, or 58 percent of the fire area (figure 17). Patches of high severity in the Moonlight Fire were uncharacteristically large compared to most historic fires, with many patches exceeding 2,500 acres (Collins and Stephens 2012). Approximately 16,034 acres (25 percent) experienced low severity fire or were left unburned. Though the Moonlight Fire was the largest and most severe, it should also be noted that Antelope, Boulder, Hungry and Stream fires also burned between 2001 and 2007 in areas immediately southeast of the project area with similar effects and within some of the same watersheds (figure 17).

The fires burned Sierra mixed conifer and true fir forest, hardwood stands, shrublands, meadows, and riparian areas. The result was an uncharacteristically rapid and large shift in forest vegetation types across the landscape. Conifer forests (yellow pine, Sierra mixed conifer, and true fir forests) dominated by long lived conifer tree species and characterized by frequent low severity fire regimes were converted to shrublands dominated by montane chaparral species (i.e. relatively short-lived Ceanothus and Arctostaphylos species) with infrequent high severity fire regimes.

The watersheds affected by the Moonlight Fire, which range in elevation from 3,520 feet in Indian Valley to 7,820 feet at Kettle Rock, are drained by two main perennial streams, Lights Creek and Indian Creek; both eventually flow into the East Branch of the North Fork of the Feather River, an important water source for California. Riparian areas and protected activity centers (PACs) for spotted owl had some of the greatest percentage of high severity fire effects of any area within the fire perimeter, probably as a result of the lack of fuel treatments in these areas (Dailey et al. 2008, North, Collins, and Stephens 2012).

Disturbance, whether it is natural (such as the Moonlight Fire) or associated with management activities, often creates ideal conditions for the introduction and establishment of invasive species. Post-fire monitoring has shown that existing invasive species infestations expanded in size after the Moonlight Fire and new areas became infested, likely due to fire suppression activities such as dozer line creation and movement of equipment.

Recreation use decreased after the Moonlight and Antelope fires by approximately 22 percent, and has not yet come back to pre-fire levels. This is likely because visual quality at Antelope Lake was significantly diminished after the Moonlight and Antelope fires. Visitors now see predominantly burned landscapes around the lake. The fire also affected visitor safety and experience on non-motorized trails throughout the project area. The Moonlight Fire resulted in many snags and overgrown brush which are major maintenance issues, making it impossible for the district to maintain these trail to standard.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 293 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Figure 17. Map of the 2007 Moonlight Fire showing burn severity and ownership

Similarly, the fires resulted in hazard trees which pose a risk to travelers on motorized routes as well. The fire and suppression activities also resulted in heavy use and washout of some roads, effectively closing some routes to travel.

The fires and suppression activities also likely impacted prehistoric and historic cultural resources throughout the project area. Some monitoring has occurred, but the extent of effects of severe fire and ground-disturbing suppression activities is not known.

Post-fire Actions A Burned Area Emergency Response (BAER) team was sent to the fire area to review immediate threats to property, infrastructure, water quality, soils, ecosystems, and cultural resources. The BAER team

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 294 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

identified an emergency to the soil resource due to the high fire severity and erosion rates (USDA Forest Service 2007). The primary risks identified were damaged roads, erosion potential, spread of invasive species, and risk of off-highway vehicle incursions. The BAER team recommended emergency treatments to: (1) stabilize hillslopes that were likely to experience accelerated erosion, (2) stabilize roads and trails, and (3) reduce risk of degradation to ecosystem function. BAER treatments were conducted in 2007 and 2008. Treatments included heli-mulching (2,500 acres) and mastication of dead material (1,100 acres) to provide immediate ground cover where high risk of hillslope erosion and impacts to downstream values. In addition, road treatments, such as installation of dips and culvert treatments, were completed 46 miles of road to stabilize roads, improve drainage, and prevent watershed impacts of road failure. Hazard trees were felled along roads and trails where work was conducted to ensure worker safety.

On some of the industrial private timber lands in the center of the Moonlight Fire area, post-fire salvage and reforestation occurred immediately following the fire. In 2007 and 2008 industrial land was clear cut using cable and ground based logging. Private operators then aerially applied pre-emergent herbicide across the area. Finally, the area was planted. The result of these treatments was a cheat grass invasion in the understory and an early seral forest dominated by artificially regenerated pine species with no species, age, or structural diversity. According to CalFire reporting, additional timber harvest has occurred on private lands that were not impacted by the fire (CalFire report with details is available in the project file).

In addition, on National Forest System Lands, several projects were conducted for reforestation, hazard tree removal, and salvage after the fire. These included:

• the Antelope Roadside Safety, Reforestation, and Hazard Tree Removal project, which planned for removal of hazard trees and planted trees along 28 miles of road; • the Antelope Lake Recreation Area salvage/hazard tree removal and reforestation treatments project; and • the Moonlight and Wheeler Fire recovery project which planned for 15,000 acres of salvage (ground-based, skyline, helicopter) and 17,000 acres of reforestation. As a result of these planning, projects, within the Moonlight Fire perimeter in 2007, approximately 28,000 acres of reforestation was implemented. In 2009, approximately 13,000 acres of salvage harvest was conducted.

In addition, the following projects have been planned and implemented since the Moonlight Fire:

• Keddie Ridge Hazardous Fuels Project (2011) – The purpose of this project is to modify fire behavior, improve forest and watershed health, protect and enhance habitat for Region 5 Forest Service sensitive plants and wildlife, and reduce the spread and introduction of noxious weeds in the Indian Valley area. Located just to the west and southwest of the project area. • The Boulder Creek Watershed Improvement Project stabilized 17 headcuts, removed conifers from a small aspen stand, and improved drainage on several roads in this sub-watershed (USDA 2012d). Much of this work was identified previously in the Diamond Project, but was planned and implemented separately after the Moonlight Fire. Reasonably Foreseeable Future Actions A catalog of certain actions occurring within the largest cumulative effects analysis areas is summarized in table 88 below. These actions may contribute effects to some or all affected resources analyzed.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 295 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Table 88. Reasonably foreseeable future actions Anticipated Project Location Implementation Proposed Activities Start1 Hazardous fuel reduction: hand thinning and Antelope Lake Fuels North of Antelope Lake 2016 piling, grapple piling, prescribed burning Reduction and/or pile burning. Locatable minerals exploration. Use of small Southwest of Antelope rubber tired tractor for road maintenance and Herby's Mining Plan of 2016 Operations Lake removing overburden and waste rock. Includes site reclamation. Near Lone Rock Creek, Mt. Hough Range Allotment Grazing Management and meadow Lights Creek, and 2017 restoration Project Antelope Lake Reduce fuels and improve forest health, Wildcat Fuels Reduction Approximately 3 miles includes decommissioning non-system and and Vegetation SE of Janesville; So. of 2017 system roads, use of herbicides on invasive Management Susanville, CA plants Approx. 2,000 acre project improving forest East of Antelope Lake Cradle Valley Project 2017 health, aspen and meadow stands and (T26N, R12E, Section 4) reducing fuels. Reforestation, forest health improvement, In the watersheds hazardous fuel reduction, wildlife habitat Moonlight Fire Restoration adjacent to the 2018 Project improvement, road decommissioning, and Moonlight Fire Area road reconstruction. In the watersheds Integrated pest management of invasive Moonlight Invasive Plant adjacent to the 2017 plants is proposed, with up to 250 acres/year Treatment Project Moonlight Fire Area of herbicide application. Surrounding the Mud 285 acres of fuels treatments including Mud Lake Baker Cypress Lake Research Natural 2015 grapple piling small snags and downed logs Area and pile burning. Replacement of stream crossing structures Hungry Creek and Aquatic Organism Passage 2017 with those that allow for aquatic organism Taylor Creek passage Three sites at East Construction of off-channel water sources Branch Lights Creek, Off-Channel Water Sources 2016 (ponds or storage tanks) to source water for Peter’s Creek and road work and fire suppression activities Hungry Creek Hungry Creek , Indian General maintenance and road improvement Road Maintenance and Creek, and Smith Creek 2016 including drainage features, culvert work, and Repair watersheds dips. Decommissioning of non-system roads. Private forest land Industrial forests located Herbicides are being used to control (SPI, Beaty and in the center of Ongoing competing brush in conifer plantations on Associates) Moonlight Fire area private lands within the Moonlight Fire area. 1 – The timeframe for implementation may vary depending on funding, capacity, and other factors. Some projects may be implemented over 10-20 years, others over just several years.

Climate Change Effects on Project Area Resources The Moonlight Fire Restoration Strategy (USDA Forest Service 2013) summarizes current and probable future trends in climate and climate-driven processes across the northeastern climate region, which encompasses the area affected by the Moonlight Fire. The information presented in the Strategy is summarized here and incorporated by reference.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 296 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Climate trends Across the region, there have been significant increases in temperature over the last century, with mean annual temperatures increasing by approximately 1.7 degrees Fahrenheit. However, temperature at the local scale has been more variable, most likely as a result of complex weather patterns driven by topography and geography. This variability is evident in the Moonlight Fire area, where changes in temperature since the 1930s have ranged from negative to positive. Areas where these trends have been negative could provide important future refugia for climate-sensitive species. Regional precipitation has been variable and there is no significant change in precipitation in the past century. Locally, there is a trend in decreasing precipitation in the eastern portion of the fire area, and increasing precipitation in the western portion of the fire area. Finally, and most notably, the fire area has had significant declines in snowfall over the past century. At the regional scale, spring snowpack has decreased by as much as 70 to 120 percent across most of the northern Sierra Nevada (Safford et al. 2012).

Observed Trends These climatic changes can be compare to observed trends in natural resources conditions on the landscape. The primary observable change has been shifting in timing and amount of spring snowmelt. This results in earlier and decreased runoff in streams. The increased temperatures and earlier spring melt has been linked to an observed increase in large and high severity fires across northern California over the last century, particularly in recent decades (Westerling et al. 2006, Miller et al. 2009).

Projected Future Trends Climate models predict that future climates will likely be characterized by shifting weather patterns, increasing mean temperatures, changing precipitation patterns, and increasing incidence of extreme climatic events (Hayhoe et al. 2004, Harris et al. 2006, Safford et al. 2012). A review of projected future trends in climate by Safford and others (2012) described that over the next century, average temperatures across the Sierra Nevada are predicted to increase by as much as 2-4°F in the winter and 4-8°F in the summer. Although future changes in precipitation are more difficult to predict, most models are in agreement that summers will be drier than they are currently, primarily as a result of declining snow pack, regardless of annual precipitation levels. Snowpack across the Sierra Nevada has also been projected to decrease by 20 to 90 percent. Increased temperatures and lower snowpack in the Moonlight Fire area could result in (1) substantial increases in flood risk due to higher peak runoff; (2) increased wildfire size and extent; (3) increased drought stress; (4) expansion of invasive species; (5) higher frequency of insect and disease outbreaks; and (6) range contraction of wildlife species. References Beaty, R.M.and A.H. Taylor. 2007. Fire disturbance and forest structure in old-growth mixed conifer forests in the northern Sierra Nevada, California. Journal of Vegetation Science. 18: 879-890.

Beaty, R.M. and A.H. Taylor. 2001. Spatial and temporal variation of fire regimes in a mixed conifer forest landscape, Southern Cascades, California, USA. Journal of Biogeography. 28(8): 955-966.

Collins, B.M. and S.L Stephens. 2012. Fire and fuels reduction. In: North, M. (Ed.), Managing Sierra Nevada forests. In: North, Malcolm, ed. 2012. Managing Sierra Nevada forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-237. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. pp. 1-12.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 297 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Harris, J.A., R.J. Hobbs, and J. Aronson. 2006. Ecological Restoration and Global Climate Change. Restoration Ecology: 14(2), pp. 170–176

Hayhoe, K., D. Cayan, C.B. Field, P. C. Frumhoff, E. P. Maurer, N. L. Miller, S. C. Moser, S. H. Schneider, K. N. Cahill, E. E. Cleland, L. Dale, R. Drapek, R. M. Hanemann, L. S. Kalstein, J. Leniahn, C. K. Lunch, R. P. Neilson, S. C. Sheridan, and J. H. Verville. 2004. Emissions pathways, climate change, and impacts on California. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 101: 12422–12427.

Kosco, B. H., and J. W. Bartolome. 1981. Forest grazing: past and future. Journal of Range Management 34:248-251.

McKelvey, K.S. and J.D. Johnston. 1992. Historical perspectives on forests of the Sierra Nevada and the Transverse Ranges of southern California: forests at the turn of the century. In: The California spotted owl: a technical assessment of its current status coordinated by J. Verner, K.S. McKelvey, B.R. Noon, R.J. Gutierrez, G.I. Gould Jr., and T.W. Beck. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. GTR-PSW-133. Albany, CA.

Miller, J. D., H. D. Safford, M. Crimmins, and A. E. Thode. 2009. Quantitative evidence for increasing forest fire severity in the Sierra Nevada and southern Cascade Mountains, California and Nevada, USA. Ecosystems 12: 16-32

Norman, S.P.; Taylor, A.H. 2003. Tropical and north Pacific teleconnections influence fire regimes in pine-dominated forests of north-eastern California, USA. Journal of Biogeography. 30(7): 1081- 1092.

North, M., B. Collins, S. Stephens. 2012. Using fire to increase the scale, benefits, and future maintenance of fuels treatments. Journal of Forestry 110 (7): 392-401.

Safford, H., North, M. and Meyer, M. 2012. Climate Change and the Relevance of Historical Forest Conditions In: North, M. ed. 2012. Managing Sierra Nevada forests. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR- 237. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station. 184 pp.

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.

USDA 2006 (minerals)

USDA Forest Service. 2013. Moonlight Fire Restoration Strategy. Mt. Hough Ranger District, Plumas National Forest, USDA Forest Service. August 2013.

USDA Forest Service. 2006. Diamond Vegetation Management Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), Mt Hough Ranger District, Plumas National Forest, USDA Forest Service. July 2006.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 298 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

USDA Forest Service. 2007. Moonlight Fire Burned Area Emergency Rehabilitation (BAER) report (FS- 2500-8). Mt Hough Ranger District, Plumas National Forest, USDA Forest Service. October 2007.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2013. Federal Register, Vol. 78, No. 80, April 25, 2013, Endangered status for the Sierra Nevada Yellow-Legged frog and the Northern Distinct Population segment of the Mountain Yellow-Legged Frog, and the Threatened status for the Yosemite Toad. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Serivce, Pacific Southwest Region, Sacramento, California.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2014a. Federal Register, Vol. 79. No. 82. April 29, 2014, Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Sierra Nevada Yellow-Legged Frog, the Northern Distinct Population Segment of the Mountain Yellow- Legged Frog, etc. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Sacramento, California.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2016a. Designation of Critical Habitat for the Sierra Nevada Yellow-Legged Frog, the Northern DPS of the Mountain Yellow-Legged Frog, and the Yosemite Toad; Final RuleU.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Pacific Southwest Region, Sacramento, California.

Vredenburg, Vance T., C.J. Briggs, R.A. Knapp, and L.J. Rachowicz .2005. Investigating the Population- Level Effects of Chytridiomycosis: An Emerging Infectious Disease of Amphibians. Ecology, 86(12), 2005, pp. 3149-3159.

Vredenburg, Vance.T., R. Bingham, R. Knapp, J.A.T. Morgan, C. Moritz, and D. Wake 2007. Concordant molecular and phenotypic data delineate new taxonomy and conservation priorities for the endangered mountain yellow-legged frog. Journal of Zoology. 271: 361–374.

Wengert, Greta M., Mourad W. Gabriel, Brian Shaw. 2006. Fall, Winter and Spring Habitat Use, Home Range, and Movements of Mountain Yellow-legged Frogs (Rana muscosa) in Bean Creek on the Plumas National Forest: Final Report

Westerling, A. L., H. G. Hidalgo, D. R. Cayan, and T. W. Swetnam. 2006. Warming and earlier spring increase western U. S. forest wildfire activity. Science 313(5789)940–943.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 299 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

Appendix F – Riparian Conservation Objectives Riparian conservation objective are presented and described in appendix A of the 2004 ROD for the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment (USDA Forest Service 2004). Integral to achievement of these objectives are the 32 prescribed standards and guidelines for riparian conservation areas listed in section D of the ROD appendix. An analysis of the riparian conservation objectives relative to the Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project is presented below.

Riparian Conservation Objective #1: Ensure that identified beneficial uses for the water body are adequately protected. Identify the specific beneficial uses for the project area, water quality goals from the Regional Basin Plan, and the manner in which the standards and guidelines will protect the beneficial uses. Beneficial uses of surface water bodies that may be affected by activities on the Forest are listed in Chapter 2 of the Central Valley Region’s Water Quality Control Plan (commonly referred to as the “Basin Plan”) for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River basins (State Water Resources Control Board 1998). The Moonlight Project area streams drain to the North Fork Feather River. Existing beneficial uses include municipal and domestic water supply, hydropower generation, recreation, freshwater habitat, habitat suitable for fish reproduction and early development, and wildlife habitat.

As stated throughout this analysis, protection measures including buffers around water, ground cover requirements, staggered herbicide treatments and best management practices will ensure that beneficial uses are adequately protected.

Riparian Conservation Objective #2: Maintain or restore: (1) the geomorphic and biological characteristics of special aquatic features, including lakes, meadows, bogs, fens, wetlands, vernal pools, springs; (2) streams, including in stream flows; and (3) hydrologic connectivity both within and between watersheds to provide for the habitat needs of aquatic-dependent species. Antelope Lake and several meadows, fens, and springs are present within the project area and are expected to benefit from the proposed actions. Road improvements are designed to restore hydrologic connectivity and limit road related sediment inputs. Project road decommissioning within riparian areas is expected to reduce negative effects to aquatic species and their habitat (e.g., direct disturbance, sedimentation), and increase the quantity of suitable near-water terrestrial habitat. The proposed thinning and site preparation would remove competing vegetation, enhancing planted and natural seedling survival, and shrub/tree growth. The gradual transition to a forested landscape would result in benefit multiple watershed processes including flow regulation, enhanced infiltration and a balanced sediment delivery.

Riparian Conservation Objective #3: Ensure a renewable supply of large down logs that: (1) can reach the stream channel and (2) provide suitable habitat within and adjacent to the riparian conservation area. Thinning of the riparian conservation areas would return Project units to a level of stocking and health that is more closely related to its historic condition. While volume of wood per acre may be near historic levels, it is in the boles of numerous small, less fire resistant trees. Removing the ladder fuels would encourage the stand to return to its natural state and greatly enhance it by reducing competition for nutrients, water, and sunlight.

Within treatment units, the objective is to reduce overstocked conditions. Thinning within riparian conservation areas may release the residual conifers and deciduous trees thus stimulating growth. Large woody debris and snag retention standards would be implemented. Prescribed fire would not be employed

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 300 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

within 100 feet of perennial streams and piles of smaller diameter material would be left on-site to provide wildlife habitat. Prescribed fire outside of the 100 foot buffer would occur during times of elevated moisture, resulting in less large woody debris consumption but also the potential for fire killed trees that could renew the snag and large woody debris cycle. Another objective is to reduce the potential for vegetation type conversion from forest to shrub dominated landscapes. Artificial regeneration (planting) is the only method of assuring forested stand in the future and establishment of a long-term seed source of desirable native conifers, ensuring a renewable supply of large down logs.

The majority of project aspen units are located partly or wholly within riparian conservation areas. Though the treatment prescription is designed to remove most conifers, the largest conifers would be retained. The retained large-diameter conifers would serve as a source of future large down logs capable of reaching the stream channel.

Riparian Conservation Objective #4: Ensure that management activities, including fuels reduction actions, within riparian conservation areas and critical aquatic refuges enhance or maintain physical and biological characteristics associated with aquatic- and riparian-dependent species. As described above, maintenance of physical and biological characteristics associated with aquatic- and riparian-dependent species would be assured for the project treatment areas through implementation of best management practices and project design features. Equipment exclusion zones and prescribed fire design criteria would maintain existing desirable characteristics while still allowing for minimally invasive fuel reduction activities to occur.

Riparian Conservation Objective #5: Preserve, restore, or enhance special aquatic features, such as meadows, lakes, ponds, bogs, fens, and wetlands, to provide the ecological conditions and processes needed to recover or enhance the viability of species that rely on these areas. As described above in the analysis for riparian conservation objective #2, several benefits to these special aquatic features are expected as a result of the proposed actions. Aspen restoration is another example of how the Moonlight Fire Area Restoration project would improve ecological conditions and processes so as to protect these unique riparian ecosystems from localized extinction.

Project implementation is expected to produce long-term benefits to special status aquatic species through an increased rate of post-fire vegetative recovery. Road decommissioning and maintenance within and near special aquatic features is expected to enhance the chance of recovery for riparian-dependent species, including the federally listed Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog.

Riparian Conservation Objective #6: Identify and implement restoration actions to maintain, restore or enhance water quality and maintain, restore, or enhance habitat for riparian and aquatic species. Proposed road and trail system improvements would reduce sedimentation problems and result in long- term enhancements to water quality. There would be 9.2 miles of unclassified road obliterated and 22.7, miles of system road and trail decommissioned within riparian conservation areas; 34 stream crossings would be removed from system roads, and 27 from non-system roads. These would restore soil productivity, hydrologic function, and improve in-stream and near-stream habitat for riparian species such as the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog.

The proposed restoration of riparian aspen stands would provide wildlife habitat, scenic, and hydrologic values.

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 301 – Plumas National Forest Moonlight Fire Area Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

References State Water Resources Control Board. 1998. Central Valley Region’s Water Quality Control for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins

USDA Forest Service. 2004. Record of Decision for the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment

Mt. Hough Ranger District - 302 – Plumas National Forest