Decision Notice (DN) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)

Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact for the Frazier Mountain Project

USDA Forest Service Los Padres National Forest Mt. Pinos Ranger District Ventura and Kern Counties, California

Introduction The Mt. Pinos Ranger District of the Los Padres National Forest has completed a comprehensive analysis process and Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Frazier Mountain project in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant laws and regulations. The EA discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that would result from the alternatives. Additional documentation, including more detailed analyses of project-area resources, may be found in the project record located at the Mt. Pinos Ranger District Office in Frazier Park, California. The completed EA, appendices, and color maps are posted on the Los Padres Forest website for viewing and downloading at this link: (http://fs.usda.gov/goto/lpnf/projects).

The Frazier Mountain Project would reduce fire hazard risk, maintain health of mature conifer stands and existing conifer plantations, and protect existing facilities from wildfire; including high value recreation areas, campgrounds, trail heads, special-use dwellings and the Mount Pinos Ranger District building and warehouse complex. Thinning and fuels treatments would occur on approximately 2,386 acres of the 2,850-acre project area. The project is on the Mount Pinos Ranger District, Los Padres National Forest. The nearest community is Frazier Park, approximately 4-5 miles northeast. The project is located in Kern and Ventura Counties, California (San Bernardino Meridian). The legal location includes T8N, R19W, Sections 7 and 18; and T8N, R20W, Sections 4, 8, 9 through 16, 22, 23, 27, and 28.

This document is the Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the Frazier Mountain Project. The Decision Notice identifies the decision and the rationale for selecting or modifying an alternative from the EA. The FONSI shows that the decision does not cause significant impacts on the human environment and explains why an environmental impact statement is not necessary.

Decision Notice and Reasons for the Decision Based upon my review of all alternatives, I have decided to select and implement Alternative 3 for this project. This alternative includes:

Noncommercial mechanical thinning on approximately 1,281 acres (includes activity fuels treatments on same acres) to improve forest stand conditions and reduce fire hazard risk; Fuel reduction treatments on 282 acres (mastication, thin, hand pile, burn, – lower project area including Chuchupate Campground, trailheads, special use residences and FS facilities). Prescribed Fire Treatments on 822 acres (upper Frazier Mountain), also includes Frazier Mountain Fuelbreak Treatments; Constructing and decommissioning (after use) of 0.8 miles of temporary road to provide

1 Frazier Mt. Project

access for noncommercial thinning operations; Construction and rehabilitation of 10 landings for use during noncommercial thinning treatments Implementing project design features and monitoring measures that minimize effects of project activities on resources in the project area; A complete description of Alternative 3 activities and associated project design features and monitoring measures is located in Chapter 2 of the Frazier Mountain EA and is also attached to this decision as Attachment A.

I have selected Alternative 3 based on the following rationale:

Implementing the Objectives of the Mt. Pinos Communities Wildfire Protection Plan 2006 (CWPP) developed by the Mt. Pinos Communities Fire Safe Council. The Frazier Mountain area is mentioned in the CWPP and the Frazier Mountain Project does implement treatments to meet the objectives of the CWPP. The Mt. Pinos Communities Fire Safe Council is supportive of the Frazier Mountain Project. Alternative 3 reduces fuels risk similarly to Alternative 2 and meets both project objectives and the CWPP objectives for fire hazard risk reduction on the Frazier Mountain area.

Addressing the Purpose and Need for Action Alternative 3 addresses the purpose and need for action for fuels and fire hazard risk, and reduces fuels risk similarly to Alternative 2 while still meeting the project objectives. Alternative 3 would reduce flame lengths, fuel loads, and crown fire potential, and allow low to moderate surface fires to take place. Alternative 3 would reduce canopy cover and stand densities while restoring a diverse, uneven- age forest structure that is essential for understory diversity and wildlife habitat. Although Alternative 2 would be more effective in meeting the silvicultural Stand Density Index (SDI) goals for the most acres for the longest time period, it would require the harvest of larger diameter trees and would necessitate a commercial timber sale to implement. This was an issue with the public (see next section).

Addressing Public Issues Issues raised for the Frazier Mountain project were identified though public scoping and subsequent field trips, meetings and conference calls. Most issues were addressed through project design features and integration of specific Best Management Practices.

An issue brought up by several of the respondents was a concern over the harvest of larger diameter trees and the need for a commercial timber sale to implement Alternative 2 (Proposed Action). The respondents requested the Forest Service develop and study in detail an alternative that included a diameter limit (10 inches) for thinning activities. Alternative 3 was developed to address this issue and includes the 10-inch diameter cap for thinning and would not require a commercial timber sale to implement. Alternative 3 focuses on the removal of smaller diameter trees to accomplish project objectives. It would only allow for thinning of a very limited number of larger trees (> 10 inches diameter) for safety needs around landings or roads during thinning operations.

Alternative 3 adequately meets the objectives of the project, and complies with Los Padres National Forest Plan and other applicable Federal and State laws and policies.

2 Decision Notice (DN) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)

Other Alternatives Considered In addition to the selected alternative, I considered two (2) other alternatives. A detailed description of these alternatives can be found in section 2 of the EA, pp. 31-42. A comparison of the alternatives is presented in the EA in a tabular format in Table 11, pages 43-45.

No Action Alternative 1 Under the No Action Alternative, current management plans would continue to guide management of the project area. No thinning or fuels reduction treatments would occur. The No Action Alternative is provided to present the current conditions and for comparison of the action alternatives.

I did not select the No Action Alternative as it would not meet the project objectives.

Proposed Action Alternative 2 The Proposed Action-Alternative 2, would provide fire hazard reduction, reduce risk and maintain health of mature conifer stands and existing conifer plantations, and treat vegetation around existing facilities to reduce high risk wildfire, including high value recreation areas, campgrounds, trail heads, special-use dwellings and the Mount Pinos Ranger District building and warehouse complex. Commercial and noncommercial thinning and fuels treatments would occur on approximately 2,386 acres of the 2,850-acre project area. A detailed project proposed action description is in the Alternatives section II of the EA and maps for the proposed action are in the map appendix of the EA.

I did not select the Proposed Action Alternative 2 due to public concern about the thinning of large diameter trees and the subsequent need for a commercial timber sale and a commercial log haul down Frazier Mountain road to implement. A commercial timber haul would likely have limited the public’s access to the Frazier Mountain Road during the timber log haul for safety reasons. In addition, the fuels modeling results showed that much of the project fuels objectives would be met with noncommercial thinning with a diameter cap of 10 inches for thinning understory trees. For these reasons I decided to select Alternative 3 instead of the Proposed Action Alternative 2.

Collaborative Public Involvement and Scoping This EA and the selected alternative are the result of long term public involvement and collaboration with the local Mt Pinos Fire Safe Council, and other interested citizens and groups. This collaborative effort was aimed at involving the interested public and local community to address local forest health and fire hazard concerns.

The Frazier Mountain project was developed to respond to the objectives of the Mt. Pinos Communities Wildfire Protection Plan 2006 (CWPP), developed by the Mt. Pinos Communities Fire Safe Council for land management agencies and private landowners to reduce fire hazards. The CWPP identifies and prioritizes areas for hazardous fuel reduction treatments, and recommends the types and methods of treatment that will protect the communities within the Mt. Pinos CWPP Study Area. The Mt. Pinos CWPP study area is located in Kern, Ventura, and Los Angeles Counties within the State of California. The Frazier Mountain project area is identified in the Mt. Pinos CWPP, which notes the Frazier Mountain Project would break up large areas of continuous fuels south of Frazier Park and southeast of Lake of the Woods, and could slow a fire moving from Frazier Park, under a north wind, from moving into Lockwood Valley.

The Frazier Mountain Project was listed in the Los Padres National Forest Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) beginning October 1, 2009 and included on every quarterly SOPA update since. The Frazier Mountain project proposal was provided to the public and other agencies for comment during

3 Frazier Mt. Project scoping with a scoping letter dated September 13, 2010. The scoping letter (including an attachment that provided a detailed description of the proposed action for the Frazier Mountain project) was mailed to approximately 65 individuals, groups, other agencies and Tribal Governments. The project proposal and maps have been posted on the Los Padres National Forest web site for public review since October 1, 2010. Eight (8) letters or emails were received from the public in response to the scoping efforts noted above. A scoping summary analysis to identify potential issues and potential alternatives was completed by the Interdisciplinary Team and reviewed by the responsible official.

A public field trip to the Frazier Mountain project area with LPF staff, interested individuals and groups occurred May 5, 2011, and included thirteen (13) participants (six LPF staff and seven private individuals / public group representatives). In addition, as part of the public involvement process, the Forest arranged several follow-up conference calls with involved members of the public, who had submitted written comments during scoping and requested more information and follow-up contact by the responsible official. The intent of those conference calls was to discuss those scoping comments and clarify issues or concerns with members of the involved public. Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) The following is a summary of the project analysis to determine significance, as defined by Forest Service Handbook 1909.15_05. “Significant” as used in NEPA requires consideration of both context and intensity of the expected project effects. The FONSI shows that the decision does not cause significant impacts on the human environment and explains why an environmental impact statement is not necessary. After considering the environmental effects described in the EA (EA, pp. 43-137), I determined these actions will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment, considering the context and intensity of impacts (40 CFR 1508.27); therefore, an environmental impact statement will not be prepared. I incorporate, by reference, the EA and project record, in making this determination. I base this finding on the following:

Context The project is on the Mount Pinos Ranger District, Los Padres National Forest. The nearest community is Frazier Park, approximately 4-5 miles northeast. The project is located in Kern and Ventura Counties, California (San Bernardino Meridian). The legal location includes T8N, R19W, Sections 7 and 18; and T8N, R20W, Sections 4, 8, 9 through 16, 22, 23, 27, and 28.

Thinning and fuels reduction treatments will occur on approximately 2,386 acres of the 2,850-acre project area. The project area is limited in size and similar to other projects completed on the Mount Pinos Ranger District and does not establish a precedent or require any forest plan amendments to implement.

Intensity I considered the following ten elements of impact intensity (40 CFR 1508.27b) in assessing the potential significance of project effects:

1) Impacts may be both beneficial and adverse. A significant effect may exist even if the Federal agency believes that on the balance the effects will be beneficial.

My finding of no significant environmental effects is not biased by the beneficial effects of the action. All practical means to avoid or minimize environmental harm have been adopted (EA, pp. 36-41, Table #9 Project Design Features). Biological Evaluations (BE), Biological Assessments

4 Decision Notice (DN) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)

(BA) and specialist reports prepared for this project are available in the project record, and, unless otherwise noted, are available upon request. Those documents provide the basis for the following determinations.

• Federally threatened and endangered species impacts are not likely to be adverse (EA, pp. 97-99, FWS concurrence letter dated May 10, 2012).

• Federally designated and proposed critical habitats for California condor are not affected or impacts are not likely to be adverse (EA, pp. 97-99, FWS concurrence letter dated May 10, 2012).

• Forest Service sensitive species and their habitats impacts will not cause a loss of viability to the local populations or cause a trend toward federal listings (EA, pp. 99-115, Wildlife; EA, pp. 123-126, Plants; and EA Table 32, p. 101).

• Forest Service management indicator species habitat impacts will not be noticeable at the Forest and Regional levels (EA, pp. 116-120, Wildlife; EA, pp. 127-129, Plants).

• Migratory bird incidental take is minimized or avoided through proposed actions and project design features (EA, pp. 120-122; Table #9 Project Design Features, pp. 36-41).

• Cultural site impacts are insignificant (Heritage Report, Project files).

• Noxious weed risk assessment is low overall (EA, pp. 130-131)

• Cumulative watershed and soil effects are minimal (EA, pp. 89-96)

2) The degree to which the proposed action affects public health or safety.

There will be no significant effects on public health and safety. Previous projects with treatment actions similar to the ones in Frazier Mountain Project have been implemented on the Forest and the Mount Pinos Ranger District with no significant public health or safety concerns. Project design features (EA Table #9, pp. 36-41) are included that would protect public health and safety during project implementation.

3) Unique characteristics of the geographic area such as proximity to historic or cultural resources, park lands, prime farmlands, wetlands, wild and scenic rivers, or ecologically critical areas.

There will be no significant effects on unique characteristics of the area. Federally designated critical habitats (EA, pp. 97-99), cultural sites (Heritage Specialist Report, project files), and recreation sites (EA, pp. 132-137), were analyzed with no significant effects to those unique areas. Within the project area there are no designated wilderness, wilderness study areas, national recreation areas, wild and scenic rivers, inventoried roadless areas, or lands that would be characterized as parklands, and therefore there would be no impact to these areas. Additionally, the project is not located in or adjacent to prime farmlands, does not contain rangeland, and would not convert forested lands to other uses; therefore there would be no negative impacts to these areas. There are some mapped wetlands in the project area; however, the actions would not impact any know wetlands and in addition this project incorporates Project Design Features and Best Management Practices to ensure protection of watershed resources (EA, Table #9, pp. 39-41; EA, Appendix K).

5 Frazier Mt. Project

4) 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, because there is no known scientific controversy over the impacts of the project. The Los Padres National Forest has considerable experience with the type of activities to be implemented and those actions are not highly controversial in the local area.

5) The degree to which the possible effects on the human environment are highly uncertain or involve unique or unknown risks.

The Los Padres National Forest has considerable experience with the types of activities to be implemented. The effects analysis (EA, pp. 43-137) shows the effects are not uncertain, and do not involve unique or unknown risks.

6) The degree to which the action may establish a 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 it conforms to all existing Forest Plan direction, and is applicable only to the project area. Previous projects with treatment actions similar to the ones in the Frazier Mountain Project have been implemented on the Los Padres National Forest and the Mount Pinos Ranger District.

7) Whether the action is related to other actions with individually insignificant but cumulatively significant impacts.

The cumulative impact analysis by resource areas do not disclose any significant cumulative impacts (EA, pp. 43-137)

8) The degree to which the action may adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed in the National Register of Historic Places or may cause loss or destruction of significant cultural or historical resources.

The action will have no adverse effects on any districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed in the National Register of Historic Places or cause loss or destruction of significant cultural or historical resources. Field surveys for cultural resources were completed (Heritage Specialist Report, project files) and cultural sites identified will be protected from project activities (EA, Table #9, p. 37, Heritage Project Design Features). Results of the surveys have been submitted to the State Historic Preservation Officer and a report with their findings of eligibility will be provided in the project record prior to implementation, as well as concurrence with the determination from California State Historical Preservation Office. In the event that any new sites are discovered during project implementation, the Forest Archaeologist will be notified and procedures in accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Regulation’s 36 CFR Part 800 will be implemented.

9) 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.

Project design features to avoid or minimize environmental harm to T&E species have been adopted (EA, pp. 38-39, Table #9 Project Design Features for wildlife). In addition, wildlife Biological Assessments (BA) and wildlife specialist reports were prepared for this project. A letter of concurrence was received from the US Fish and Wildlife Service (letter dated May 10, 2012)

6 Decision Notice (DN) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)

for California condor and noted concurrence with the determination in the BA that the project is not likely to adversely affect California condors. Those documents provide the basis for the following determinations.

• Federally threatened and endangered species impacts are not likely to be adverse (EA, pp. 97-99, FWS concurrence letter dated May 10, 2012)).

• Federally designated and proposed critical habitats for California condor are not affected and impacts are not likely to be adverse (EA, pp. 97-99; FWS concurrence letter dated May 10, 2012).

10) Whether the action threatens a violation of Federal, State, or local law or requirements imposed for the protection of the environment.

The action will not violate applicable laws and regulations for the protection of the environment. The action is consistent with the Healthy Forest Restoration Act, National Environmental Policy Act, National Forest Management Act, Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, National Historic Preservation Act, American Indian Treaty Rights, American Indian Religious Freedom Act, and Executive Order 11988.

Conclusion After considering the environmental effects described in the EA and specialist reports, I have determined that Alternative 3 will not have significant effects on the quality of the human environment considering the context and intensity of impacts (40 CFR 1508.27). Thus, an environmental impact statement will not be prepared.

Findings Required by Other Laws and Regulations This decision to implement Alternative 3 is consistent with the long term goals and objectives of the Forest Plan. The project conforms to the Forest Plan by incorporating appropriate standards, guidelines and desired conditions (EA, pp. 22-27). Best Available Science I am confident that the analysis of this project was conducted using the best available science. My conclusion is based on a review of the record that shows my staff conducted a thorough review of relevant scientific information, considered responsible opposing views, and acknowledged incomplete or unavailable information, scientific uncertainty, and risk (see specialist analysis sections in the EA, or the specialist reports in the project file for specific discussions of the science and methods used for analysis and for literature reviewed and referenced). Administrative Appeals and Federal Judicial Review Rights Hazardous fuel reduction projects authorized by HFRA are subject to a pre-decisional administrative review process (36 CFR 218 Subpart A) and is not subject to notice, comment, and appeal procedures under 36 CFR 215. Under the 36 CFR 218 objection process, individuals and organizations may file objections after an environmental analysis document is completed and before a decision document is signed. Only individuals or organizations that submitted specific written comments during the opportunity to comment could object (36 CFR 218.7).

7 Frazier Mt. Project

Objection Period and Objection Resolution Process The Mt Pinos Ranger District provided a 30-day objection period (Feb 3, 2012-March 5th 2012) for the Frazier Mt. Project. Four Objections were filed (two from individuals and two from organizations) during the formal Objection Period (36 CFR 218.10). The details of the objections and the list of objectors are in the project files. The objections were resolved during the objection resolution process and all objectors withdrew their objections before the end of the 30-day objection resolution period. The Objection Reviewing Officer (36 CFR 218.11) issued final review letters to objectors on April 3rd. 2012.

Specific agreements with the objectors for a resolution of their objections are included in this decision. These items are incorporated by reference into the final Alternative 3, including project design features and monitoring (See Attachment A). The specific Objection Resolution items (errata and agreements) are also noted separately for clarity (See Attachment B for EA errata and agreements/PDFs). An errata sheet will also be attached to the Environmental Assessment version dated Jan 19, 2012.

There are no further administrative reviews or appeals allowed for this decision. Only those individuals or groups that filed a formal objection during the formal objection period may file for a Federal judicial review of the Objection Reviewing Officers resolution process (36 CFR 218.14) and this decision. Implementation Date Implementation of this project may begin immediately after this decision is made.

Contact Information To request that a paper copy of the EA be mailed to you or if you would like additional information about this project, please contact Forester Gregory Thompson at 661-245-3731.

Signature and Date

Kenneth E. Heffner (for) May 29, 2012

PEGGY HERNANDEZ Date Forest Supervisor Los Padres National Forest

8 Decision Notice (DN) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)

Attachment A: Alternative 3 Management Activities and Treatments, Project Design Features and Monitoring Actions1. Alternative 3 – 10” Diameter Cap - No Commercial Harvest Noncommercial thinning and fuels treatments would occur on approximately 2,386 acres of the 2,850 acre project area. See Table 8 and Map A-3 for Alternative 3 treatments.

Frazier Mountain Timber Stand Treatments High risk timber stands exist on upper Frazier Mountain. These stands would be treated by noncommercial thinning the understory trees up to a 10” diameter. The removal of these trees will help reduce tree competition and crown densities, reduce under story green tree and brush competition, decrease ladder and surface fuel loads, and reduce existing brush cover. This understory thinning would remove smaller diameter trees (thin from below up to 10” diameter dbh) and would leave the larger diameter (>10” diameter) trees unless they pose a safety hazard to thinning operations or the public. Trees may be cut by machine where feasible, or by hand. Activity fuels from thinning would be treated and existing fuels would be reduced. Ladder fuels, tops and limbs and excess large fuels would be removed or burned on site. Machine piling and burning, mastication, chipping, hand piling and burning, loping-and-scattering, and prescribed burning would be used to treat activity fuels. Approximately 1,040 acres would be noncommercial thinned. Trees would be removed from most stands using ground-based tractor thinning; however, there are three stands (#97B, #104 and #106) from which trees would be thinned by hand crews using chainsaws and trees would be cut, piled and burned on site (47 acres).

See Table A-2 for a detailed list of proposed NCT units. Approximately 10 landings would be needed and approximately 0.8 miles of temporary roads would be needed to access units (no proposed temporary roads would be within any inventoried roadless area). All landings would be rehabilitated after treatments are completed. Temporary roads would be decommissioned and rehabilitated after treatments are completed. OHV use would be restricted from using these decommissioned temporary roads using barriers or signage and active enforcement. The smaller diameter trees may be brought out to the landings and then offered to the public for specialty use products such as poles or firewood.

Frazier Mountain Tree Plantation Treatments Existing tree plantations (lower to mid-Frazier Mountain) that were created after a wildfire in 1946 would be noncommercial thinned. These plantations are overly dense and are at risk of being lost from insects and wildfire. Approximately 241 acres of existing plantations would be treated and activity fuels would be treated by hand or machine pile and burning or jackpot burning.

Frazier Mountain Fuelbreak and Prescribed Fire Treatments The objectives of a fuelbreak are to serve as a point of control in the event of wildfire and to be used as an anchor point for prescribed underburning operations. An emergency fireline was constructed on Frazier Mountain during the Day Fire event in 2008. The existing fireline would be incorporated into an improved fuelbreak treatment approximately 7.5 miles long and up to 300 feet wide, treating approximately 220 acres. The Frazier Mountain fuelbreak would be treated using a combination of noncommercial thinning, mastication of shrubfields, pile burning, jackpot burning and prescribed fire.

1 The table #s and map figures #s are kept the same as in the complete EA document version dated 01.19.2012.

9 Frazier Mt. Project

Areas on the top of Frazier Mountain not treated by noncommercial thinning and fuelbreak treatments would be treated using prescribed fire to reduce surface fuels, ladder fuels and shrubfields. A total of approximately 823 acres would be treated along the top of Frazier Mountain using prescribed fire and the Frazier Mt fuelbreak treatments.

Chuchupate Campground, Special Use Residences and Mt Pinos District Ranger Office Fuel Reduction Treatments Fuel reduction treatments would be implemented around the Chuchupate Campground, three special use residences, lower trailhead access parking areas, and the Mt Pinos Ranger District office and warehouse complex. These treatments would include a combination of methods including mastication or burn (173 acres), handpile/burn (14 acres), and noncommercial thin/handpile/burn (95 acres). Approximately 282 acres total would be treated around these recreation areas, special use residences and Forest Service facilities. Table 8 below summarizes the Alternative 3 treatment activities.

Table 8. Summary of Alternative 3 - Activities by Treatment Type. Alternative 3 Treatment Activities Acres/Miles/ # Project Area acres (managed by USDA-FS) 2,850 Private Ownership acres (if intermingled) 0.0 Total Project Area acres 2,850 Forested Stand Treatments (on FS acres only) Commercial Thin (CT) (includes NCT and activity fuels 0.0 treatments on same acres.) NonCommercial Thin only (NCT) (includes activity fuels 1,281 treatments on same acres) *Total CT/NCT and NCT only acres 1,281 Commercial Harvest Landings / Transportation Activities Temporary road construction miles 0.8 Timber landings # (estimated) 10 Fuels Treatments (on FS acres only) Prescribed Fire Treatments (upper Frazier Mt), also 823 includes Frazier Mt Fuelbreak Treatments Fuel Reduction Treatments (mastication, thin, handpile, burn, – lower project area including Chuchupate 282 Campground, trailheads, special use residences and FS facilities) *Total Fuels Only acres 1,105 Total Project Treated Acres (Fuels-CT-NCT Treatments) 2,386

Treatment Definitions for Alternative 3 Activities Treatment definitions are the same as Alternative 2 – Proposed Action as applicable. However, for this alternative with an emphasis on NCT treatments, additional detail about the treatment methods include: hand or machine falling, machine forwarding to a landing for burning or fire wood sale, masticating the trees within the stand (but it is unknown at this time which type of masticator or processing head will be used) but the end product may be chunks of wood, chips or shredded material. Depending on the masticated material, some of this material may be piled and burned (either by machine or hand). Some of the masticated material will lend itself to being piled and other material will not. Mechanical equipment will be limited to 35% (as defined in the LRMP) with some pitches up to 50%. Anything above 35% will be hand felled, piled, and burned.

10 DN/FONSI-Appendix A: Alternative 3

Project Design Features Common to All Action Alternatives Project design features were developed to ease some of the potential impacts the various alternatives may cause. Table 9 below contains design criteria developed to reduce or eliminate impacts on some resource areas and are incorporated as an integrated part of the proposed action and alternatives.

Table 9. Project Design Criteria by Resource Area Design Criteria Description of Design Criteria

Silviculture SL-1 All project activity will use existing classified and unclassified roads. Removal of forest products would require travel by vehicles (such as tree skidding equipment) off of existing system roads to facilitate removal. These temporary roads will be closed and obliterated where necessary following product removal. Ground equipment (such as masticators, skidders, or feller-bunchers) will be restricted to slopes of less than 35%, except for occasional pitches up to 50%. SL-2 When chipping is employed, chip depth should be no more than 2 inches scattered across no more than 75% of the project area. SL-3 In all units, as soon as possible, and no longer than 24 hours after tree cutting, all activity-created fir and pine tree stumps greater or equal to 14-inches in diameter would be treated with a borax compound (Sporax) to inhibit the spread of annosus root disease. SL-5 In all treatments, all live and dead trees posing a safety hazard to management activities or to the public will be removed within the treated areas. SL-5 General species preference for thinning trees will be: California black oak, Jeffrey pine or ponderosa pine, white fir, and live oak in descending order of preference to retain. This order of preference will be modified for individual stands to take into account management objectives such as species diversity, site and stand-specific factors, as well as other design criteria and therefore, the order of preference given in individual stand/unit prescriptions will supersede that given here. SL-6 All tree thinning will be “from below” to favor retaining larger trees over smaller trees but (1) thinning regimes will retain a proportion of the understory stocking to maintain stand vertical structural diversity, (2) large and old trees will be heavily thinned around, (3) thinning will consider species preference in tree selection, and (4) thinning will be “variable density” to increase horizontal structural diversity. Fire/Fuels/Air Quality FU-1 Slash from thinning less than 3” diameter will be reduced to less than 5 tons/acre following treatment. FU-2 CT or NCT units will be machine pile and/or hand pile and burn, depending on slope. The method of fuels piling will be determined primarily by slope. If it is over 35%, fuels will be hand piled. If less than 35% slope, then it could be machine piled. AQ-1 Prescribed burning (both pile burning and underburning) will be conducted with an approved burn plan. A copy of the smoke management plan will be sent to the appropriate County Air Pollution Control District (APCD) upon completion of the burn plan. AQ-2 Prior to burning the Forest Service Prescribed Fire Manager will ensure that required burn plan components, vicinity map, and project map are mailed with a completed copy of a CB-3 to California Air Resources Board (CARB) so that CARB is familiar with the burn area for 48/72 hour forecasts. AQ-3 The County APCD would review the burn prior to project implementation. AQ-4 Smoke should not be allowed to affect highway visibility on public highways. AQ-5 A Smoke Management Report will be completed daily by the Prescribed Fire Manager, Burn Boss, or Forest Fuels staff during the burn to evaluate fire behavior, smoke venting, wind speed, wind direction, any possible excess standards and actions taken to mitigate excess. Heritage HR-1 Post-implementation survey of areas with heavy brush cover will occur.

11 Frazier Mt. Project

Table 9. Project Design Criteria by Resource Area Design Criteria Description of Design Criteria

All known sites will be flagged prior to implementation, and the project manager will be notified of HR-2 their location for protection measures. Recreation Treatments implemented along the edge of East and West Frazier Mountain roads need to be held RE-1 to a minimum of disturbance by utilizing residual vegetation to discourage OHV trespass when consistent with purpose and need. Where available, downed logs will be used to fashion a barrier near the edge of the road to deter RE-2 motorized vehicle trespass activities and provide resource protection. Maintain the integrity of desired fencing and signing that currently exist along East and West Frazier RE-3 Mountain roads. No tree felling activities except for insect infested, diseased and hazard trees are proposed within RE-4 the Chuchupate Campground and Chuchupate Recreation Residence Tract perimeters; however some of the broadcast burning may overlap into the campground where feasible and practicable. Masticator will not treat brush within 150-200 feet from the edge of parking lot at the Frazier RE-5 Mountain/#118 Trailhead in order to prevent potential OHV trespass. RE-6 Utilize existing open areas that meet the criteria for landings when possible. RE-7 All temporary road segments are to be restored to their natural condition. Where there is a safety concern for recreationists, implement temporary closures in the project RE-8 area. Ensure that sufficient public and internal notice is provided prior to those closures. Throughout the duration of the project, communicate with the district recreation staff to coordinate RE-9 closures and/or consultation for privacy screening or potential OHV trespass during implementation. Visuals VQ-1 Minimize loss of vegetation screening along East, West and Frazier Mountain Roads. VQ-2 Equipment access away from view origins is preferred. If accessed directly from the view origins (highway or road) avoid linear features. VQ-3 Cut to 4” stumps within the immediate foreground. VQ-4 Feather/undulate treatment block edges and fuelbreak lines. VQ-5 Identify pockets or islands of vegetation to retain, where screening is important. VQ-6 Burn piles should be located away from the road and out of view when possible. VQ-7 Temporary drops of more than one Scenic Integrity Objective (SIO) level may be made during and immediately following project implementation providing they do not exceed three years in duration. Noxious Weeds NX-1 Implement Best Management Practices for weed management and control. In areas that will be subject to ground disturbing activities, treat cheatgrass seed heads to the NX-2 extent practicable with propane torches in the spring prior to treatment. Pre-treat staging areas to reduce abundance of weeds by hand pulling, grubbing, or torching where NX-3 weed species occur. NX-4 Implement aggressive weed control near transportation routes where groundcover is limited. NX-5 Assure that machines are clean and weed seed free prior to transportation into the project area NX-6 Report any newly discovered weed occurrences to the Los Padres National Forest Botanist. Botany/TES Plants BO-1 Sensitive plant surveys will occur prior to project activities. Wildlife

12 DN/FONSI-Appendix A: Alternative 3

Table 9. Project Design Criteria by Resource Area Design Criteria Description of Design Criteria

WL-1 LRMP- S11: When occupied or suitable habitat for a threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate or sensitive (TEPCS) species is present on an ongoing or proposed project site, consider species guidance documents (see Appendix H) to develop project-specific or activity-specific design criteria. This guidance is intended to provide a range of possible conservation measures that may be selectively applied during site-specific planning to avoid, minimize or mitigate negative long-term effects on threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate or sensitive species and habitat. Involve appropriate resource specialists in the identification of relevant design criteria. Include review of species guidance documents in fire suppression or other emergency actions when and to the extent practicable. LRMP- S12: When implementing new projects in areas that provide for threatened, endangered, proposed, and candidate species, use design criteria and conservation practices (see Appendix H) WL-2 so that discretionary uses and facilities promote the conservation and recovery of these species and their habitats. Accept short-term impacts where long-term effects would provide a net benefit for the species and its habitat where needed to achieve multiple-use objectives. WL-3 LRMP- S14: Where available and within the capability of the site retain a minimum of six downed logs per acre (minimum 12 inches diameter and 120 total linear feet) and 10 to 15 hard snags per five acres (minimum 16 inches diameter at breast height and 40 feet tall, or next largest available). Exception allowed in Wildland/Urban Interface Defense Zones, fuelbreaks, and where they pose a safety hazard. WL-4 LRMP - S15: Within riparian conservation areas retain snags and downed logs unless they are identified as a threat to life, property, or sustainability of the riparian conservation area. WL-5 LRMP - S17: In areas outside of Wildland/Urban Interface Defense Zones and fuelbreaks, retain soft snags and acorn storage trees unless they are a safety hazard, fire threat, or impediment operability. WL-6 LRMP - S18: Protect known active and inactive raptor nest areas. Extent of protection will be based on proposed management activities, human activities existing at the onset of nesting initiation, species, topography, vegetative cover, and other factors. When appropriate, a no-disturbance buffer around active nest sites will be required from nest-site selection to fledging. WL-7 LRMP- S19: Protect all spotted owl territories identified in the Statewide California Department of Fish and Game database (numbered owl sites) and new sites that meet the state criteria by maintaining or enhancing habitat conditions over the long-term to the greatest extent practicable while protecting life and property. Use management guidelines in the species conservation strategy (or subsequent species guidance document; see Appendix H) to further evaluate protection needs for projects, uses and activities. WL-8 LRMP- S20: Maintain a limited operating period (LOP) prohibiting activities within approximately .25 miles of a California spotted owl nest site, or activity center where nest site is unknown, during the breeding season (February 1 through August 15), unless surveys confirm that the owls are not nesting. Follow the USDA Forest Service (1993, 1994 or subsequent) protocol to determine whether owls are nesting. The LOP does not apply to existing road and trail use and maintenance, use of existing developed recreation sites, or existing special-uses, such as recreation residence tracts. When evaluating the need to implement a limited operating period, site- and project-specific factors need to be considered (use species management strategy or subsequent guidance; see Appendix H).

13 Frazier Mt. Project

Table 9. Project Design Criteria by Resource Area Design Criteria Description of Design Criteria

WL-8a Surveys to protocol to determine spotted owl occupancy will be done prior to implementation of the (Added from Objection project. If nesting owls or roosting owls are found, as determined by a Forest Service biologist, a Resolution Process- limited operating period (LOP) prohibiting activities within approximately ¼ mile of the nest site, or See Attachment B of activity center where nest site is unknown, will be implemented during the breeding season the DN/FONSI) (February 1 through August 15). Project activities within the nest stand (the best 60 acres of contiguous forested habitat around the nest tree) will be avoided year around.

In addition, a correction to the LOP for California spotted owl is noted as follows: February 1 to August 15 (this was changed in WL-8 above also.) WL-9 LRMP - S24: Mitigate impacts of on-going uses and management activities on threatened, endangered, proposed, and candidate species. WL-10 LRMP- S25: Conduct road and trail maintenance activities during the season of year that would have the least impact on threatened, endangered, and proposed wildlife species in occupied habitats, except as provided by site-specific consultation. WL-11 LRMP- S28: Avoid or minimize disturbance to breeding and roosting California condors by prohibiting or restricting management activities and human uses within 1.5 miles of active California condor nest sites and within 0.5 miles of active roosts. Refer to California condor species account (or subsequent species guidance document; see Appendix H) for additional guidance. WL-11a For the California Condor, the Forest Service shall contact the USFWS prior to operations to ensure (Added from Objection that no birds are currently utilizing roosting trees within the project area, or within 0.5 miles of the Resolution Process- project area. If the USFWS identifies any roost trees or sites that they would like protected, See Attachment B of measures shall be incorporated into the Decision Notice to do so. If the USFWS identifies roosting the DN/FONSI)) sites within the project area or within 0.5 miles of the project area, Forest Plan Standard S28 shall be activated along with further consultation with the USFWS. Incorporate all required or recommended mitigation measures for California Condor listed in the USFWS concurrence letter or Biological Opinion WL-12 LRMP- S32: When surveys for species presence/absence are done for threatened, endangered, and proposed species, use established survey protocols, where such protocols exist. WL-13 Any trash associated with this project shall be removed and properly disposed of. The District wildlife biologist or designee will brief all personnel involved in Frazier Mountain project activities on the importance of not leaving hazardous materials exposed and daily removal of all garbage fragments to maintain condor health. Garbage removal will be stipulated in mechanical brush treatment contracts. WL-14 Goshawk surveys shall be conducted prior to operations consistent with the U.S. Forest Service’s (Replaced with Northern Goshawk Inventory and Monitoring Technical Guide language from (http://www.fs.fed.us/wildecology/GoshawkTechGuideJuly06.pdf). The Forest Service has recently Objection Resolution received information that a pair of goshawks has been observed nesting within the project area. The Process-See Forest Service has been unable to verify the exact location of this sighting, but surveys shall take Attachment B of the place prior to operations to confirm the presence of any goshawks in the project area, or within ¼ DN/FONSI)) mile of the project area. If surveys indicate that goshawks are nesting in or near the project area, then the following restrictions will occur (source: USFS Species Account): o When conducting vegetation management, maintain a minimum of 200 acres of suitable canopy cover around identified goshawk nest sites. o Maintain seasonal restrictions limiting activities within 1/4 mile of the nest site during the breeding season (approx. 2/15 ‐ 9/15) unless surveys confirm northern goshawks are not nesting.

WL-15 Piles burned should be ignited from one side only to allow for small mammals, rodents and reptiles to escape.

14 DN/FONSI-Appendix A: Alternative 3

Table 9. Project Design Criteria by Resource Area Design Criteria Description of Design Criteria

WL-16 Vegetation treatments, particularly broadcast burns, should be implemented as early in the fall and winter as moisture conditions warrant, to more closely mimic the natural burn ecology and to avoid burning any early nesting efforts of migratory landbirds. WL-17 Spotted towhee and the black‐chinned sparrow have habitat types that exist within the lower (Added from Objection portions of the project area. For these species, the plan shall incorporate a Limited Operating Period Resolution Process- between April 1 and August 31 for the area between the Chuchupate Campground and the See Attachment B of Chuchupate Ranger Station. This area receives less snow and a Limited Operating Period can be the DN/FONSI)) practically incorporated for this area. WL-18 To the extent practicable, the Forest Service shall also conduct point count surveys for migratory (Added from Objection birds within the project area so that it can more effectively identify which species are located in that Resolution Process- portion of the forest. This may be accomplished though Forest Service employees or volunteers. See Attachment B of the DN/FONSI)) WL-19 Any snag or other tree that may be felled for safety concerns will remain on site to provide downed (Added from Objection logs. The Forest Service will use tools such as the “Field Guide for Danger Tree Identification and Resolution Process- Response” to help in the evaluation of any potential hazard tree or what the EA referred to as a See Attachment B) safety hazard. A qualified person will be used in the determination of any potential hazard tree. If any of these trees >10” DBH are felled they will be retained as large woody debris (downed logs). Watershed / Soils WS-1 RCA’s will be 100 meters (328 feet) on perennial, or 30 meters (98 feet) on intermittent streams, measured as the slope distance from either bank of the channel. Other special aquatic features, such as wetlands, seeps and springs, also have 100 meter RCAs. No self-propelled ground skidding equipment is allowed within the RCA (exceptions would require input by an earth scientist and/or biologist as described in standard S47 and Appendix E of the Forest Plan). There is no fuels treatment within the stream inner gorge except where needed to remove hazard trees. Equipment crossing is permitted if necessary and evaluated by an earth scientist. Vegetation removal outside of any inner gorge feature but w ithin an RCA Additionally, roads already constructed and used for project access within the RCA may be used for project work. There will be no removal of riparian plant species. WS-2 Use of heavy equipment will be excluded from meadow areas. WS-3 Only designed temporary roads, classified roads, channel crossings, and their approaches would be allowed within RCAs. Temporary roads will be constructed outside of RCAs, unless limited by topography. Where channel/riparian crossings are necessary, the crossing sites will be determined in coordination with a wildlife biologist/botanist and hydrologist/soil scientist. Crossings must be engineered to limit damage to streambeds and riparian zones. WS-3(a) Landing locations should be located outside of RCAs, unless infeasible due to topography. Landings within an RCA may occur where there is existing disturbance, instead of constructing a new one, using special protective measures as specified by an earth scientist or biologist. WS-4 Skid roads and skid trails should not be constructed within the RCAs. However, in those situations where it is necessary and authorized, the contracting officer/forest officer will designate equipment- crossing locations for skidding operations on intermittent and ephemeral channels. All skidding trails within the RCA must be designated prior to implementation. WS-5 Construct erosion control measures on all cable corridors and skid trails. The measures can include waterbars, chipping, scattered slash, or other methods as approved by an earth scientist. WS-6 Burn piles should not be placed in an ephemeral channel, within stream inner gorges, or within 50 feet of streams within RCAs.

15 Frazier Mt. Project

Table 9. Project Design Criteria by Resource Area Design Criteria Description of Design Criteria

WS-7 Where mechanical slash piling is used, the method of mechanical slash piling will maintain soil quality standards (such as grappling vs. brush raking). WS-8 If there is a 30% chance precipitation according to the National Weather Service, the day before use of heavy machinery in the project area, all skid trails in use will be water barred. WS-9 All necessary permits shall be obtained from the applicable State Water Quality Control Board prior to fuel treatment operations being implemented on lands located with the jurisdiction. WS-10 The Five-Step project screening process will be used to identify riparian conservation areas (S-47, LRMP Part 3, p. 11). WS-11 Refueling of equipment and storage of fuel and other hazardous materials will not occur within RCAs (perennial and seasonal streams, seeps, springs, and meadows). When landings are located within RCAs, refueling will occur outside the RCA in an approved refuel area. No storage of fuel quantities greater than 100 gallons in designated RCAs Storage of any quantity of fuel greater than 100 gallons will require a California Engineer Spill Plan. WS-12 Within RCAs, retain snags and downed logs to the extent possible. Exceptions would be made if snags and logs are identified as a threat to life, property, or sustainability of the RCA (S15, LRMP Part 3, p. 6). For the purposes of this project, in RCAs all snags and downed logs will remain in WUI Threat Zones. In WUI Defense Zones downed woody debris will be retained at 5 tons/acre or less within the first 100 feet from roads and private property boundaries and between 5-20 tons/acre in the remaining WUI Defense Zones, which overlaps with the RCA. Fuel removal in the first 100 feet of WUI Defense Zones where they overlap with RCAs will be coordinated with an earth scientist to maximize watershed function after fuels reduction activities. WS-13 Material must be fully-suspended when crossing a channel: a perennial, intermittent, or ephemeral stream with scour. WS-14 Directional felling away from channels will be required, unless infeasible due to tree characteristic (leaning, avoidance of other trees, etc.). If a tree is felled into a stream channel, it shall remain unless there is the potential to cause damming or downstream damage. If removed, require a full- suspension yarding system. WS-15 Where existing conditions permit, maintain or increase ground cover to 50-70% through chips or other slash. WS-16 Implement USDA Forest Service Region 5 Best Management Practices (BMPs) to protect water quality and soils. BMPs are described in: Water Quality Management for Forest System Lands in California, Best Management Practices. September 2000. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. WS-17 Limit use of mechanical activities (cutting with shears, mastication, skidding, or chipping) to slopes 35% or less, and on slopes between 35 - 50% for distances no longer than 50 feet.

Project Monitoring Activities Table 10 below notes the monitoring actions that would take place during treatments and post- treatments for resource monitoring information.

Table 10. Monitoring Activities Monitoring Item Description of Monitoring Silviculture Continued monitoring for any initial outbreak of Sudden Oak Death, Phytophthora ramorum. SL-m1 Identification of an outbreak may be controlled and spread limited. Responsibility: District Silviculturist, Sale Preparation Forester, or designee. Fire/Fuels

16 DN/FONSI-Appendix A: Alternative 3

Table 10. Monitoring Activities Monitoring Item Description of Monitoring Monitoring of non-commercial thinning, as well as fuels treatments such as handpiling and burning and prescribed burning as they are being accomplished to determine if objectives are being FU-m1 achieved and those thinning contract specifications are being followed. Responsibility: Fuels Specialist / Forester or designee. Recreation Monitoring should be conducted to determine if OHV trespass activities are occurring in areas where treatments have been performed. If monitoring reveals trespass is occurring in those RE-m1 areas, steps will be taken to discourage the use (i.e. signing and barrier installation). Responsibility: Recreation Specialist or designee. Heritage Resources HR-m1 All sites must be monitored post project implementation to determine the effectiveness of the integrated design protection measures. Responsibility: Forest Archeologist or designee. Botany MIS Monitor California Black Oak populations/stands after activities. BO-m1 Responsibility: Forest Botanist or designee. Noxious Weeds Monitor for noxious weed populations before, during, and after activities. NX-m1 Responsibility: Forest Botanist or designee. Watershed / Soils Implement Best Management Practice Monitoring as described in: Water Quality Management for Forest System Lands in California, Best Management Practices, September 2000. United States WS-m1 Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region. Responsibility: District Hydrologist or designee. Monitor to determine if 60% groundcover on slopes over 30% is maintained following mastication and burning treatment for first year. Consider rehabilitation where groundcover objectives are not WS-m2 met. Responsibility: District Soils Scientist or designee. Monitor to determine if 80% groundcover is maintained by end of 2nd growing season. Consider WS-m3 rehabilitation where groundcover objectives are not met. Responsibility: District Soils Scientist or designee.

17 Frazier Mt. Project

Map A-3. Frazier Mt Project Alternative 3

18 DN/FONSI-Appendix A: Alternative 3

Table A-2. Silvicultural Treatments Unit Table – Alternative 3 Silvicultural Treatments Unit Number Treatment Acres Unit Number Treatment Acres 2 NCT 64.4 73 NCT 33.2 3 NCT 181.5 75 NCT 7.4 4 NCT 43.9 80 NCT 79.1 17 NCT 2.7 83 NCT 32.0 19 NCT 8.9 84 NCT 10.3 22 NCT 15.7 85 NCT 17.9 24 NCT 5.3 89 NCT 8.9 29 NCT 12.5 90 NCT 23.7 34 NCT 7.2 92 NCT 60.5 35 NCT 21.3 97A NCT 38.6 37 NCT 16.5 97B (HPB*) NCT 33.6 38 NCT 15.6 98 NCT 17.7 42 NCT 7.4 99 NCT 52.8 43 NCT 13.4 104 (HPB) NCT 9.7 44 NCT 0.5 106 (HPB) NCT 2.8 45 NCT 12.9 116 NCT 168.8 46 NCT 2.3 117 NCT 2.9 47 NCT 1.6 130 NCT 18.2 49 NCT 5.5 134 NCT 6.3 50 NCT 1.0 138 NCT 36.9 52 NCT 1.2 241 NCT 113.1 55 NCT 3.6 242 NCT 42.0 61 NCT 1.9 243 NCT 15.3 72 NCT 3.0 Total NCT Acres 1281.5 Total Silvicultural Treatment Acres 1281.5 Fuels Treatments (additional acres only) Treatment Acres masticate or burn 172.8 handpile and burn 13.9 thin, handpile and burn 95.1 underburn 822.7 Total additional Fuels Acres 1104.5 TOTAL TREATMENT ACRES (Silvicultural and Fuels) 2386.0 * HPB= Handthin-handpile and pile burn. (These were cable units in Alt. 2- Proposed Action.)

19 Frazier Mt. Project

Attachment B: Objection Resolution Process: EA Errata and Agreements for Project Design Features. The following list includes the EA errata items and changes or additions to the Project Design Features (PDFs) agreed to by all parties during the Objection Resolution Process. In addition, a stand-alone errata sheet will be attached to the front of previously completed EA dated 01.19.2012.

EA Errata and Agreements for Project Design Features/ Monitoring Resolution 1. Goshawk surveys shall be conducted prior to operations consistent with the U.S. Forest This material Service’s Northern Goshawk Inventory and Monitoring Technical Guide replaced PDF WL-14 (http://www.fs.fed.us/wildecology/GoshawkTechGuideJuly06.pdf). The Forest Service has in Attachment A.

recently received information that a pair of goshawks has been observed nesting within the

project area. The Forest Service has been unable to verify the exact location of this sighting, but surveys shall take place prior to operations to confirm the presence of any goshawks in the project area, or within ¼ mile of the project area. If surveys indicate that goshawks are nesting in or near the project area, then the following restrictions will occur (source: USFS Species Account): o When conducting vegetation management, maintain a minimum of 200 acres of suitable canopy cover around identified goshawk nest sites. o Maintain seasonal restrictions limiting activities within 1/4 mile of the nest site during the breeding season (approx. 2/15 ‐ 9/15) unless surveys confirm northern goshawks are not nesting. Correct LOP is noted Design Criteria WL‐14 should be amended to incorporate all of the requirements listed above, in WL-14 in including the correct LOP of February 15 through September 15, the correct ¼ mile buffer, and Attachment A. the identification of the proper survey protocol. The Decision Notice will include all of these items as well. 2. Surveys to protocol to determine spotted owl occupancy will be done prior to implementation of This language added the project. If nesting owls or roosting owls are found, as determined by a Forest Service as WL-8a in biologist, a limited operating period (LOP) prohibiting activities within approximately ¼ mile of Attachment A

the nest site, or activity center where nest site is unknown, will be implemented during the

breeding season (February 1 through August 15). Project activities within the nest stand (the best 60 acres of contiguous forested habitat around the nest tree) will be avoided year around.

In addition, the Forest Service will include in the errata a correction to the LOP for California Correct LOP noted in spotted owls, as follows: February 1 to August 15. WL-8 and WL-8a in Attachment A. 3. For the California Condor, the Forest Service shall contact the USFWS prior to operations to This language added ensure that no birds are currently utilizing roosting trees within the project area, or within 0.5 as WL-11a in miles of the project area. If the USFWS identifies any roost trees or sites that they would like Attachment A

protected, measures shall be incorporated into the Decision Notice to do so. If the USFWS

identifies roosting sites within the project area or within 0.5 miles of the project area, Forest Plan Standard S28 shall be activated along with further consultation with the USFWS.

Incorporate all required or recommended mitigation measures for California Condor listed in the Any required or USFWS concurrence letter or Biological Opinion. Document discussions with USFWS recommended concerning the California condor prior to operations and include documentation in the project mitigations measures record would be included for operations and documentation will be in the project files.

20 DN/FONSI-Appendix A: Alternative 3

4. Spotted towhee and the black‐chinned sparrow have habitat types that exist within the lower This language added portions of the project area. For these species, the plan shall incorporate a Limited Operating as WL-17 in Period between April 1 and August 31 for the area between the Chuchupate Campground and Attachment A the Chuchupate Ranger Station. This area receives less snow and a Limited Operating Period can be practically incorporated into the EA for this area. The EA will be modified to indicate this change, and it will be incorporated into the Decision Notice.

5. To the extent practicable, the Forest Service shall also conduct point count surveys for This language added migratory birds within the project area so that it can more effectively identify which species are as WL-18 in located in that portion of the forest. This may be accomplished though Forest Service Attachment A employees or volunteers.

6. Any snag or other tree that may be felled for safety concerns will remain on site to provide This language added downed logs. The Forest Service will use tools such as the “Field Guide for Danger Tree as WL-19 in Identification and Response” to help in the evaluation of any potential hazard tree or what the Attachment A EA referred to as a safety hazard. A qualified person will be used in the determination of any potential hazard tree. If any of these trees >10” DBH are felled they will be retained as large woody debris (downed logs).

7. The Project Design Features noted in Chapter 2 of the EA (Table 9, page 37) will be carried Discretionary forward into the Decision Notice and implementation. The Forest Service will review the list of language was design criteria and make a determination on where to change discretionary language (will vs changed as considered would, shall vs should), ensuring that the appropriate balance is achieved between resource appropriate by the protection and maintaining management flexibility. Line Officer.

PDF Table 9 in the EA is included as in Attachment A 8. Provide copy of USFWS concurrent letter or Biological Opinion to Los Padres ForestWatch Provided to LPFW Organization.

9. Provide a copy of the completed errata to the Los Padres ForestWatch Organization Provided to LPFW

21